Like most Americans (the sane ones, at least), I watched in horror as our elected officials almost brought our country to the economic brink a few weeks ago with their outright silliness over legislation to raise the debt ceiling. Despite the fact that every Congress has gone through this drill many times (including under Reagan and Bush), this time around the young Tea Partyers decided it was time to draw the line in the sand – the economy be damned.
They cried that they had been sent to the Congress to send the message that we needed to get control of the “reckless” spending that was running rampant in our federal agencies. So, screw your silly debt ceiling, they shouted! I don’t care, Mr. President, if you are cutting a few trillion dollars in spending. It’s not enough! And, while you’re at it, don’t even think about raising any taxes, even on the billionaires who could care less if they had another $1,000 or so taken out of their paycheck. There will be no compromise – and let the chips fall where they may!
What a friggin mess. It was a game of machismo and Obama, because he actually believes in governing this country, had to blink.
And so it is with the debate over abortion. As followers of this award-winning blog have seen in the past, the “debate,” and I use that term loosely, generally boils down to a cyberspace shouting match where no one gives any ground, where no one dares say “hey, you got a point there,” lest they be accused of treason. Yes, there are some who have a bottom line but at times do show that they are at least hearing the other side. But, for the most part, it is dueling academic reports and quotations.
So, for example, a pro-lifer will make their argument invoking Genesis (“and Adam begat Cain who then begat Tommy after he smote his bro Abel all the while declaring that there shall be no abortion”) or St. Luke the Meek (“ye shall never abort a possible Savior”). They will spend hours insisting that their book is the only one worth shit, that it is the all knowing edition that lays out everything that must be obeyed – even if you wear a turban. It is the WORD of the munificent and compassionate God, pure and simple and, if you stray from his oh-so-loving WORD, you will spend ETERNITY SURROUNDED BY FLAMES IN HELL. Sorry, but those are the rules.
Then there are the pro-choicers who quote their own Gods or, to be more exact, Goddesses. Steinem, Abzug, Friedan, Madonna. Theirs is the word, the woman’s body is sacrosanct, it’s our way or the highway. They believe that every anti-abortion person is a true nut ball or, worse, a terrorist. The crisis pregnancy centers are all run by freak-a-zoids who don’t give a crap about women and who, once they talk that woman into having the baby, will disappear forever. Adios, mama, you’re on your own! Meanwhile, the pro-choicers will insist that that damned thing floating around in there is a fetus. It ain’t a baby you idiot! It doesn’t matter that the mother calls it a baby when that eight week fetus is wanted. Nope, when we’re contemplating abortion, it’s a fetus, pure and simple.
The problem in this country is that we live in a bumper sticker world where no one dares to give ground any more. I am right and you are wrong. End of story. Indeed, when was the last time you ever heard anyone say “hey, you got a point there, I wanna think about that.” OMG! Hey, we got a wimp over here folks! A flip flopper! Off with her head!
So, much like we saw in Congress, the abortion debate has become one intractable mess.
Well, I’m sorry but no one has the monopoly on wisdom on this or any other issue. The truth is always somewhere in the middle. To be sure, I am totally pro-choice but, damn it, at 24 weeks it sure looks like a baby to me. And while I still support the right to abort it, it pains me to see it happen. On the other hand, to the pro-lifers out there, you are never gonna convince me that a 6 week fetus is a baby or a “person” as some of you would suggest. Get real.
I say we toss aside the bumper stickers for a bit.
Let’s start thinking and actually TALKING for a change.


August 11, 2011 at 6:28 am
Abortion is a moral choice
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-debra-haffner/abortion-moral-decision_b_917160.html
LikeLike
August 11, 2011 at 6:29 am
Abortion is a moral decision
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-debra-haffner/abortion-moral-decision_b_917160.html
LikeLike
August 11, 2011 at 9:56 am
Thanks Ruth. Of course, abortion is a moral decision that good women make every day for good reasons.
Abortion on demand without apology. Period.
LikeLike
August 11, 2011 at 10:01 am
I agree.
LikeLike
August 11, 2011 at 12:57 pm
You four deserve one another.
LikeLike
August 11, 2011 at 10:38 pm
So is choosing to have a baby rather than abort it a moral decision too?
LikeLike
August 12, 2011 at 11:19 am
I think either decision is based on one’s morality. When a woman has an unwanted pregnancy, no matter what she decides, it’s a tough decision…
LikeLike
August 11, 2011 at 6:32 am
Support Physicians for Reproductive Choice. Sign your name
http://www.prch.org/the-abortion-providers-declaration-rights
LikeLike
August 11, 2011 at 8:59 am
Thanks very much, Ruth, for chiming in! Direct and to the point! And, yes, everyone should support Physicians for Reproductive Health, a great organization…
LikeLike
August 11, 2011 at 9:10 am
We have a countering organization: Get Rid of the Killers. Anyone care to join?
LikeLike
August 11, 2011 at 9:32 am
Why do these AIs (Aged Illiterates) comment like this?
LikeLike
August 11, 2011 at 9:54 am
Are you referencing Dunkle as an Aged Illiterate?
LikeLike
August 11, 2011 at 11:15 am
He’s posting here just to keep his name in the spotlight. As a rule, I ignore him, period, but every now and then he comes up with a concept that is worth addressing. Age has a lot to do with the quality of most of his posts.
LikeLike
August 11, 2011 at 1:11 pm
I like this too! What’s happening to you killers’ helpers! Are my intelligence, insight, and “nailing abilities” rubbing off?
LikeLike
August 11, 2011 at 1:19 pm
You know I just wrote this, before my response to Chuck. And while that one popped up, this one disappeared. What’s happening? anyway, here goes again:
That’s good, S, “aged illiterates.” Sure it’s at my expense but I’ll forgive anybody anything if he says something clever. The effect is mitigated by Kate’s “duh” question, but it’s good anyway.
“S” no longer stands for “stupid”; now it stands for “smart.”
LikeLike
August 11, 2011 at 4:36 pm
For those who have argued against late term abortions, here’s a clip that might enlighten your thinking.
LikeLike
August 11, 2011 at 4:47 pm
If you’re capable, Ruth, tell me what it says. I rarely go places where people send me.
LikeLike
August 11, 2011 at 5:32 pm
Ruth, you could have gotten Deanna to adopt that woman’s baby!
Or maybe this is the real reason Deanna is starting home schooling a full month ahead of the traditional school year– an excellent way to dodge the ethical and moral dilemma of trying to “rescue” this “baby” without accepting responsibility for its welfare.
Though if I were in Deanna’s shoes, I would have set up a newborn rental service and charged wannabe parents $600 a week to see what it’s like to care for a newborn. Since this baby was never, ever going to be able to walk, talk or learn, I could have gotten a good six years of babyhood out of her before its compromised systems would have killed her. A cool $18,700! She wouldn’t have topped 25 lbs. at the end, so I wouldn’t have had to limit the rentals to successively larger and larger couples.
Seriously, no so-called “pro-lifer” is going to address their responsibility for a case like this. The closer it gets, the less sacred human life becomes for them….
LikeLike
August 11, 2011 at 6:04 pm
Chuck is not capable, Ruth. It’s you or nobody.
LikeLike
August 11, 2011 at 7:17 pm
OK, jerks, keep talking. I’ll be gone again till Saturday. I will love reading your stupidities.
LikeLike
August 11, 2011 at 8:37 pm
It was my impression that Pat asked us to refrain from name-calling.
LikeLike
August 12, 2011 at 11:16 am
Yeah, c’mon Johnny Boy, no need to get that nasty!!
LikeLike
August 12, 2011 at 3:37 pm
Vituperation is the last refuge of him who lost the argument.
LikeLike
August 13, 2011 at 9:46 am
I’m back and I apologize. I should have said “brother and sister jerks” and I’m the biggest one of all. Everyone living unincarcerated through this extended and most horrible holocaust is a jerk.
I won’t apologize for “stupidities,” though. Every argument supporting the permission of the stronger to kill the weaker has to be stupid, and, in the long run, counter-productive.
LikeLike
August 12, 2011 at 12:10 am
This breaks my heart for the woman. How awful that she has such a choice. Doctor’s aren’t infallible though. They can only predict based on odds. Here is just one example of that:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/…/Kylie-Ingham-refuses-abort-baby-survives-odds...
When we didn’t have the “choice” about the babies we birthed, we could rise to the occasion by becoming better people by caring for them. I can remember each time I was pregnant years ago, wondering if the baby would be okay, praying that it would, for it’s sake, and praying that I would be a strong enough person to care for it if not. It never occurred to me to kill it, or even put it up for adoption. (Abortion was legal) But again, killing someone before birth based on the odds that they will have birth defects is no different than killing a baby as soon as it’s born and we realize it has birth defects. The only difference is a layer of skin and fluid. Even when tests confirm the birth defects, there is no way to know for sure how severe those defects will be, or to what degree they will be impaired. Children beat the odds all the time, as in the two cases in the link above. Stephen Hawking doesn’t seem to regret his birth at all, and has lived an obviously full life. His disease presented in adulthood, which I would think would be harder to deal with, having known a life without disability, than a child born with them, and knowing nothing else. I have had the privilege of knowing several severely handicapped children, and none of them were unhappy, but rather very happy, as were their families, who, to a person, felt they were better people, kinder, more compassionate, less self centered, etc, for having known their child. There may be severely handicapped people out there who wish they had never been born, but there are completely healthy people out there who wish the same. I just don’t think this is a choice that poor mom should have had to make.
LikeLike
August 12, 2011 at 12:25 am
God, give me a reply button when I need one…I actually had to copy and paste questions from earlier in the thread because I couldn’t find a reply button close enough, so I decided to start at the end, so to speak!
**Emily Says:
August 10, 2011 at 3:34 pm
The question remains unanswered.
No riot (as you predicted) was incited, incredibly.
Many women ARE NOT adopting the millions of embryos, get your facts straight. There are a few examples. That’s it, compared to the millions that are frozen.
There are far more embryos than people trying to adopt them. They will die of frozen damage soon, or of being thawed out.
What should be done with them?
If Pro Lifers rose to the occasion all the lives of these cells could be saved.
NunYa, would you adopt 5?
Or people could spend the time and money saving starving children.
**Emily, I did answer it. I started clearly that I didn’t know what to do about all the Embryo’s. No, I wouldn’t adopt 5. Would you? I don’t think there should be millions of Embryo’s out there with all the children awaiting adoption, but I suspect that as this procedure becomes more well known, many more will be adopted, because women won’t have years of waiting for an infant to become available. Pro lifers have nothing to do with researchers discovering new ways to help women get pregnant by freezing embryo’s, and I assume the embryos come from choicers, lifers, atheists, Buddhists, Christians, etc. So I don’t get why any of you think this is a valid point. It’s like blaming us for science discovering penicillin. Yes, pro lifers should spend their time and money saving starving children. Pro choicers are exempt because they don’t want starving children here in the first place. When you get your next Feed the Hungry flier, just trash it.
LikeLike
August 12, 2011 at 9:28 am
You don’t know what to do?
Have you thought about it?
Do you care about those embryos?
Do they not represent human life of equal value to a child starving in your home town?
LikeLike
August 14, 2011 at 10:13 pm
No.Yes. Yes. Yes.
LikeLike
August 12, 2011 at 9:46 am
Nunya,
Is an abortion OK for a Complete Anencephalic pregnancy?
LikeLike
August 14, 2011 at 8:24 am
No answer NunYa?
LikeLike
August 14, 2011 at 10:38 pm
No. I feel no different finding out an unborn baby has a devastating, terminal condition than I would finding out a newborn does. Why is there a difference? The child will die, its devastating, you don’t want it, your heart is wrenched in two. Read this account of one family’s experience with this very issue:
http://www.angelfire.com/mn/michaelashope/
LikeLike
February 9, 2014 at 5:29 am
Your answer lifts the inlcetiglnee of the debate.
LikeLike
August 12, 2011 at 10:26 am
NunYa, your post reminds me of the unintelligible rantings from our beloved J-dog this morning as she waddled around outside the clinic–disconnected, angry and incomprehensible
LikeLike
August 13, 2011 at 11:47 am
Strange that you would write this, Kate. The only one over there I know who fits this description is you yourself!
LikeLike
August 14, 2011 at 10:39 pm
Really Kate? Unintelligible and ranting? And you are a college professor?
LikeLike
August 12, 2011 at 3:27 pm
Sorry you’re getting pasted from all sides, NunYa, but Deanna’s gone, and you’re the only intelligent self-proclaimed “pro-lifer” responding in detail, so you’re It…
Re: frozen embryos: Deanna went into some detail about some so-called “pro-life” contingent that was adopting them, so you should be aware you don’t speak for them.
LikeLike
August 13, 2011 at 12:55 pm
Chuck, are you implying that I’m the intelligent prolifer who responds briefly?
LikeLike
August 14, 2011 at 10:41 pm
I’m not aware of that group, but I always speak for myself regardless of what anyone else says or believes. Thanks for calling me intelligent. I thought I was ranting and unintelligible.
LikeLike
August 12, 2011 at 11:23 am
Nunya, I’m intrigued when you say children always beat the odds. They dont always beat the odds, that’s the thing. The one thing that has always bothered me about the pro-life movement is that they make it appear as if every kid is a saint. I’m not a good one for researching things, but I’ll betcha anything that a wanted child winds up better than an unwanted one. But I’ll ask our resident researchers: Kate? Deanna?
LikeLike
August 12, 2011 at 12:17 pm
From a leading scholar on reproduction and psychology, Nancy Russo, “there is a substantial literature that documents the serious health, social, psychological, and economic consequences of unintended and unwanted childbearing. These consequences can include increased maternal and infant death and illness, unstable marriages, and the restriction of educational and occupational opportunities leading to poverty and limited roles for women. These adverse effects are not shared equally by all segments of society, and in the United States fall more heavily on those who are poor, young, or members of an ethnic minority group. Further, evidence suggests that even in advantageous social and economic circumstances, when a pregnancy is unwanted and the women requests an abortion, to deny it forces her to bear a child at risk for psychological problems that are long lasting. In this context, the watchword of the family planning movement – ‘Every Child a Wanted Child’ has particular meaning for health professionals.”
LikeLike
August 14, 2011 at 10:49 pm
Well I guess it would intrigue you if I said ALL children beat the odds. I said “children beat the odds all the time.” As for the rest of your thought, I wonder if any research has been done concerning women who didn’t abort, or for whom abortion wasn’t available to them, that went on to be glad they didn’t, and loved their children. Our time, efforts and money would be better spent reminding women of what causes pregnancy in the first place, and providing effective birth control. You know which kind, so don’t ask. I also wonder if growing up in a society where we think killing our most helpless fellow human beings, and women thinking of pregnancy as being a forced incubator contributes to the way many children turn out? Or do you believe the society we live in affects us not at all?
LikeLike
August 12, 2011 at 3:34 pm
NunYa, not all women are like, were like or could be like you: Andrea Yates killed all five of her babies when both her husband and her church failed to listen to both her and her psychologist. 600 women kill their newborns while in the grips of post-partum psychosis.
According to author Joel Norris (book “Serial Killers”) millions of men are potential serial killers; most of them don’t develop that way, but society should take steps to make sure none do. For self-proclaimed “pro-lifers”, this means caring for the children they insisted be born.
Since my parents successfully raised eleven (no suicides, no serial killers), I figure that every so-called “pro-lifer” can do the same on the same per capita family income (in today’s dollars) of $3,800. So, take your household income, divide it by $3800, and subtract from the answer the number of people in your family. The remainder is the number of babies you should adopt.
As a single parent, one year my per capita family income was $1700, so I know you can do what I did.
The famous Deanna never did the math.
LikeLike
August 14, 2011 at 11:06 pm
Postpartum psychosis has nothing to do with abortion, so I don’t see your point.
Are you suggesting that prolifers are having millions born by their very insistence?
I’ve already said I feel pro-lifers are no more or less responsible for the world’s unwanted children than pro-choicers are. Just because we “want” them born doesn’t mean we’re winning that battle, yet there continues to be children available for adoption. I’d say abortion isn’t fixing the problem either. It’s a cop out that you aren’t responsible because you are for abortion. I don’t mean to be offensive, but that’s the lamest argument I’ve ever heard.
LikeLike
August 15, 2011 at 2:50 pm
You don’t really know what happens to real children, do you? I suggest you spend a week with Levine/ Carey/ Crocker’s benchmark textbook, “Behavioral Pediatrics” to get a good sense of what’s happening merely on the emotional side.
LikeLike
August 15, 2011 at 5:43 pm
I don’t need a textbook, I’ve worked with these children first hand.
LikeLike
August 15, 2011 at 2:46 pm
NunYa, two-thirds of the time, the children DON’T “beat the odds.” Please, please, please, think about the Baby Store outcomes. They’re real,and all but two of them are preventable with proper nurture from the moment of conception. In the time it has taken me to write this, four children have been born who will not spend their childhood in the presence of their father. They came from the Baby Store.
LikeLike
August 12, 2011 at 9:44 am
Nice video Ruth, Tx!
LikeLike
August 12, 2011 at 10:33 am
This woman’s story should be shared by everyone for its honest perspective on the difficulties women face when they have a wanted pregnancy that goes wrong.
We should have compassion for her and not the usual judgmental hatred that prolifers dish out.
LikeLike
August 12, 2011 at 11:27 am
Do any pro-lifers have any compassion for a young, poor woman who is faced with an unwanted pregnancy and has decided to abort? Can you project to see what it would be like to be in her shoes? Do you know that it is a very difficult and sad decision that she is making? Or are you thinking: “too bad, kiddo, you gotta have the baby and make the best of it”…..
LikeLike
August 12, 2011 at 1:03 pm
When women choose abortion, they have thought about their decision for days, if not weeks. Yet, the protesters believe they can change a woman’s mind by yelling or offering trinkets. In this video, you can watch their response to a young woman who was totally freaked out by these strangers who were yelling and videotaping. They only made matters more difficult.
LikeLike
August 13, 2011 at 6:50 am
wow, that girl was crying going into kill her baby? shocker! really empowering, Kate! What did you do for her? push her inside so she wouldn’t listen to help being offered. Choice? ya right!!! Pro Lifers offer more choices than you do. Abortion is about one selfish choice only and that is to kill the baby and get rid of the problem, except you don’t see the fall out from your pushing her into that “clinic” you are not there for them when they cry themselves to sleep at night.
LikeLike
August 13, 2011 at 7:36 am
No one pushed her inside. In fact, she was quite certain of her decision. But what these protesters refuse to understand or are incapable of comprehending is that good women make decisions to abort every day and have No crying jags, no regrets, no post abortion stress syndrome (which is just a prolife lie). What these protesters refuse to understand or are incapable of comprehending is that strangers lurking with props and tormenting women with their macabre threats does nothing to help. It only makes matters more difficult. But you and your ilk wouldn’t understand, don’t even begin to grasp the depth and breadth of empowerment because your brainwashed by your own patriarchal ideology. You can’t help yourselves.
So instead, you judge, as you did above, women, calling them selfish, telling them God is offended by abortion and other stupidities.
Peaceful, prayerful presence outside the abortion clinic is what you folks advertise. But beware of their deceits.
LikeLike
August 13, 2011 at 7:39 am
Pat, read “Christine” post below and see one person’s response.
LikeLike
August 13, 2011 at 12:42 pm
Christine, in all my years in the movement I have never seen an escort “push” a woman into a clinic. They escort them and, at time when protestors were blocking the entrances, there may have been some physical contact with the woman by the escort. Do you seriously – I mean let’s have a civil conversation here – believe that the escorts are so desperate to get that woman in to get her that abortion? I mean, to be crass, the escorts are not making money doing that so why would an escort care if the woman got one or not? They are merely protecting the woman from the ugliness and, if the woman said she wanted to go talk to the protestors, which Kate and I have seen, that’s another one of her options….
LikeLike
August 13, 2011 at 3:41 pm
Pat, it’s difficult for these protesters to imagine that some clients are truly frightened by their mere presence and by their behaviors and messages. These women, as you know, react differently to strangers. And when those who lurk and lunge at women are frightening, some cry and some tell them to “get a job” or “go F**K off”…it varies.
In an ironic twist one day a couple of years ago, J-Dog was trying to “offer her special brand of help and when the woman told her off, J-dog turned to the escorts and said, “Nice clientele you have.” Demonizing the very “clientele” she was courting just seconds earlier. There’s real love and compassion, eh?
LikeLike
August 14, 2011 at 7:26 am
Pat, you asked “why would an escort care if the woman got one or not?” Every escort I’ve corresponded with, either face-to-face or in writing and every member of the Abortion Care Network I listened to, care primarily about the woman having access to compassionate, professional health care. Period.
The antis constant refrain is something like “We want your baby to live. They [the escorts and staff] want your baby to die.” If only life were so simple, so black and white. The escorts do not interfere in women’s decisions nor do they feel the need to invade women’s privacy. They don’t assume every woman who enters a clinic is pregnant and going in for an abortion. What they, the escorts, offer is compassion and respect toward women and their companions on their journey from their cars past the ugliness, as you say, to the clinic entrance. They leave healthcare to the professionals inside the clinic.
Saying that escorts want the baby to die tells you a lot about the antis. It illustrates their poisonous disdain for those they see as their enemies. Like much of what they yell about, this statement shows how they must create lies to position themselves, in oppostion to the escorts, as the prideful, morally chaste ones. They wouldn’t really know what they escorts “want” because they never have any dialogue with them.
LikeLike
August 15, 2011 at 4:25 am
“They wouldn’t really know what they escorts ‘want’ because they never have any dialogue with them.”
You followed me to Roizin’s house, but you didn’t talk with me.
You know I’m there and at Jen’s monthly, but you never come to talk.
You always see me on those few Saturdays you show up at the AWC, and the only talking you do is behind my back.
But forget that. Let’s do coffee. You name the time and place. Bring Sharon with you if she wants.
LikeLike
August 14, 2011 at 8:27 am
Kate is right.
The protestors have no idea how weird and creepy they look.
LikeLike
August 14, 2011 at 9:17 am
It is difficult to know oneself, Amanda. For example, do you know how childish and stupid you sound?
LikeLike
August 13, 2011 at 12:38 pm
And what is the purpopse of their taking the woman’s picture?? that is totally disgusting. Will one pro-lifer give me a valid reason for doing that??
LikeLike
August 13, 2011 at 12:58 pm
Looks to me as if someone is taking their picture, and looks to me as if they’re firing back! Tsup?
LikeLike
August 13, 2011 at 4:05 pm
There was a Saturday in the past summer where one of their ACLA (American Catholic Lawyers Association) lawyer’s had his son videotaping clients as they crossed the painted sidewalk. Nothing like getting your son to violate a woman’s privacy. Teach him early.
LikeLike
August 14, 2011 at 11:41 pm
I don’t do it Pat, but I feel I do have insight. I used to stand to the side holding posters stating that we would pay for medical care and find homes for the child if they don’t abort. We NEVER yelled, screamed, held the holocaust signs. I had a father bump into me with his car as he took his daughter into the clinic. As he waited inside to hear if I was going to press charges, (it was obvious that he did it deliberately and he didn’t deny it) I was outside stating that I would not press charges. I knew he was a desperate father. This was 18 years ago or so. But pro-lifers are getting desperate too. You have to understand, they do care about women, but they also realize how many babies have been aborted and are still being aborted. Kate goes on and on about how we don’t understand the women and how hard this decision is for them. She, and countless other pro-choicers, have no idea what it’s like to know that an unaware, unsuspecting child is on it’s way to being killed, and knowing there is very little you can do about it BUT scream. A newborn about to be thrown as a sacrifice into a volcano has no awareness either, yet were we transported back to that place and time, we would all do anything, including fight, curse, ridicule, take a picture, anything we think would work to stop that from happening. You all just don’t understand that it is THE SAME THING to us. The goal isn’t to hurt the mother, it’s to stop the death.
LikeLike
August 15, 2011 at 1:37 pm
Nunya, I appreciate that you do not yell and I support your right to be outside the clinic. I’m just trying to figure out the thought behind the cameras. It seems very voyeuristic to me, rather sleazy…
LikeLike
August 16, 2011 at 7:33 am
Let’s clarify who we were videotaping. Since I am in this video I would like to set the record straight. I am taking a pic of Kate taking a video of me.
LikeLike
August 16, 2011 at 10:44 pm
So Pat, Kate is taking pics/video too? Does that also bother you?
LikeLike
August 14, 2011 at 7:58 am
Do any pro-lifers have any compassion for a young, poor woman who is faced with an unwanted pregnancy and has decided to abort? No, my compassion is focused on the little girl she’s decided to have tortured to death
Can you project to see what it would be like to be in her shoes? That’s hard because they’re so different. Some are desperate, others all business, and thousands in between.
Do you know that it is a very difficult and sad decision that she is making? Sure, but I want it to be an impossible decision.
Or are you thinking: “too bad, kiddo, you gotta have the baby and make the best of it”…..Yup
LikeLike
August 14, 2011 at 11:10 pm
Well Pat, I said that it broke my heart, and to elaborate, I cried for her and her dead baby as I watched it. Then I posted a link to a story of a mother who didn’t abort. It’s not true that all, or even a majority, or even a tiny majority, of pro-lifers don’t care about women. We just care about babies too, born and unborn, aware and unaware.
LikeLike
August 12, 2011 at 1:24 pm
Guess, Rachel Maddow is right. Make the experience vile, invasive and humiliating. That’s what their God wants them to do, I guess.
LikeLike
August 13, 2011 at 1:00 pm
Aw, you said this, Kate. Rachel’s not that smart!
LikeLike
August 14, 2011 at 11:46 pm
I don’t think about what God wants, I think about babies being killed daily. If making killing your unborn child seem vile, invasive and humiliating (it is all those things) would work, I would do it. Not to hurt the mother, but because I’m pro-choice. When given only two options, I choose the child, you choose the mother. Plain and simple.
LikeLike
August 13, 2011 at 6:27 am
From Frances Kissling, Washington Post, August 12, 2011:
“The most urgent ethical questions we face are not about abortion. They are about our personal and social responsibility to bring children into the world that have a chance to lead a meaningful life, reasonably free of suffering. Not only should parents be fruitful; their children should have an opportunity for a rich and fertile life.”
Frances Kissling is a visiting scholar at the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania where she is writing a book on Ethics and Abortion. A Catholic feminist, she was the president of Catholics for Choice for 25 years
LikeLike
August 13, 2011 at 1:11 pm
So that’s where Frances Quisling plopped down. U Penn should be ashamed — president and only member.
LikeLike
August 14, 2011 at 11:54 pm
I wonder if a study has ever been done among the handicapped to see if any of them wish they had never been born, or to see how many of them feel they don’t live meaningful lives. What an insult that study, and you quoting it, is to the worlds handicapped. Don’t you all see that this is exactly where I said forgetting about the sanctity of life leads? Now the handicapped are all leading fruitless, meaningless lives? Not rich, not fertile? I double dog dare you to say that to Stephen Hawking. Good God y’all. I have never heard of Frances Kissling, but are you sure she isn’t a distant relative of Hitler? In fact, I would be very interested in learning how many Jews are pro-choice. They know first hand where this kind of thinking leads. Lord. I am appalled.
LikeLike
August 13, 2011 at 7:58 am
Interview after interview with counselors and scholars across the nation suggest that when a woman learns she is unexpectedly pregnant, she does NOT rush to an abortion clinic. Contrary to the rubbish that anti choicers promote, women are capable and moral decision makers who give significant thought over days and, sometimes, weeks, about the complexities of their lives and how they can or cannot carry their pregnancy to term. By the time they make a decision to even make an appointment at an abortion clinic, they have thought and thought about what to do. They have consulted with family, friends, their significant other (unless he’s abusive) and their clergy. So once they are in an office with a professional counselor (and not some scary streetside trolls costumed with banners and beads, pushing stacks of papers and shaming and judging women), they are given the time and compassion to quietly assess, once again, their options (which include parenting, adoption and abortion) and to make a determination that is best for the woman and her situation.
And post abortion follow ups with women, as well as research from leading scholars (with no religious agenda), reveal that relief is the primary emotion felt. I’m guessing that the antichoicers are cut from the same cloth as those who are generally against science. They refuse to acknowledge scientific and medical evidence and, instead, embrace their own propaganda that serves only the delusional worldview. They see strong, independent women as problematic and selfish because they take control of their own lives and refuse to submit to a misogynistic mindset.
LikeLike
August 13, 2011 at 12:06 pm
Kate, I’m hearing you referred to by all kinds of names. Please tell me what’s right and what’s wrong:
“Father Reynolds”; “Artie”; “bullywatch”; “Mother Petunia”; “Chuckles’ Goon”; “Christ’s Mom’s Maidservant,” or something; “Teach”; “Prof”; “Reverend”; “Hanna”; “The The Pervert Promoter”; “CMH”; “The Intimidator,” or is that “The Imitator.” But I’ll just keep calling you Kate unless you want me to switch.
Also, stop saying this: “carry their pregnancy to term.” Women do not carry pregnancies to term; they carry babies to term.
You’re really feeling your oats, these days, anitcha, now that you don’t have to be scared of d anymore. (I’m not sure you were scared after the first couple of weeks, but you should have been.)
LikeLike
August 13, 2011 at 12:45 pm
Kate is a priest?? When did the Pope allow that, John Boy?
But, c’mon, why would anyone be “scared” of Deanna??
Hey, John, answer me: why do those protestors need to take pictures of the women entering the clinic? Feels a little voyeuristic to me (did I spell that right?)
LikeLike
August 13, 2011 at 1:06 pm
I think that when she says she’s a Reverend, that means she’s a minister, not a priest. But I could be wrong. (The Pope of course never could allow that.)
And scared of d? Lots of you guys are scared of me, and she’s ten times smarter.
See above about those pictures.
LikeLike
August 14, 2011 at 11:25 am
Geez, folks, I was only kidding when I asked if Kate was a priest!!! Dont you get my wry Irish New York sense of humor yet????
LikeLike
August 15, 2011 at 4:29 am
Twice now you’ve got me.
LikeLike
August 13, 2011 at 4:09 pm
Pat, I do not have any credentials that warrant any Reverend title. In my attempt to support the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Rights, by signning my name as a supporter, my name was listed as a Rev somehow. As I said before on this blog, it was not my intention or my creation to be listed with that title as I have my own credentials. Further, organized religion would not be one of my credentials (especially after years of watching “religious” people terrorize women).
LikeLike
August 13, 2011 at 4:50 pm
OK, we’ll cross off that one. What about “CMH” and “NOAC”?
LikeLike
August 14, 2011 at 7:48 am
your name is listed as “Reverend” cause you put it there. somehow??? You know exactly what you are doing at all times Ms. Kate. We can see right through ya! you ain’t foolin no one.
LikeLike
August 14, 2011 at 8:29 am
Another Clueless Anonymous,
at least stick a fake name on your anonymous, so we can tell you trolls apart.
LikeLike
August 14, 2011 at 8:38 am
Zee, it wouldn’t matter if they used a fake name or not. Their poison is all the same.
LikeLike
August 14, 2011 at 8:42 am
Did you recently fly out of the cuckoo’s nest and then knock me down?
LikeLike
August 14, 2011 at 2:49 pm
If is wasn’t your intention to be listed with the title Reverend (which by the way for you would certainly be a FAR FETCH,) why on God’s great earth wouldn’t you have corrected them? it appears on this blog that you have absolutely no problem correcting anyone. Was it that you preferred to have that deception stick because it suited your needs at the time? Just like you have in the past with all your little schemes. Beware of Kate she’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing if ever there was one.
So why didn’t you correct them Rev. CMH? Also YOU DO KNOW that you will stand before the throne of God someday with absolutely NO CREDENTIALS at all. You see, Rev, God doesn’t care about all your little titles, just your heart. Soften it Kate – before it’s too late and you meet Him without having repented.
LikeLike
August 14, 2011 at 3:10 pm
Translation: I’m angry with Kate so I’m going to throw down so scary God stuff.
***Big talk for a COWARD who can’t use his or her own name***
Oh, and by the way, I’ve seen how religion has totally F**CKED all the anti abortion trolls outside the abortion clinics. What reasonable person would see their ugliness and anger as Christian? I certainly don’t. What I see are hostile, judgmental men and women who are so very antagonistic toward anyone affiliated with abortion clinics. And, after listening and watching their passionate battle against abortion, I’ve come to believe that many prolife advocates have crossed the line when they
• Use religion to harass and stigmatize women or
• Demonize medical professionals with pseudoscience
• Or when they flaunt grotesque images and use violent language
Unlike compassionate advocacy based on integrity, honesty, and human dignity, far too many of the prolife advocates’ efforts, particularly in Allentown PA, are far too often more like an attack against –innocent –non-combatants –called —-women. And when they are ignored by the women, they go after the volunteers like mad dogs. If anyone believes all their mumbo jumbo about standing before some God, they’d be wise to tell the trolls to shape up.
LikeLike
August 15, 2011 at 12:04 am
“women are capable and moral decision makers”…Really? Each and every one of them? There are no, not even a tiny minority, selfish, self centered women using abortion as birth control? Who are irresponsible sexually, even promiscuous? There are no innocent babies out there dying because of that, no not one? There are no young girls who are terrified, thinking their parents will kill them, and that’s why they choose the quick way out, regretting it for the rest of their lives, never having the opportunity to bear that child, look it in the eyes and be damned with what anyone else thinks, and love it all it’s life? There are no vindictive women out there aborting their babies because they are teaching a boyfriend or husband a lesson? Really? Not a single one? ALL women are capable and moral decision makers? Crap, if half the population is perfect, why is the world in the shape it’s in?
LikeLike
August 15, 2011 at 4:00 am
NY, you’ve covered it all here, and I’ll let the heroes see this too.
LikeLike
August 15, 2011 at 8:07 am
Kate, Kate, dear, dear, Kate. You’re SO ANGRY again. Always lashing out. Please Kate, I beg of you, soften that heart of yours. It’s turning you into a cold, bitter and extremely angry woman. You’re better than that!! Take a deep breath now. Try talking to God a bit instead of constantly lashing out at others who disagree with you on pro-death blogs.
LikeLike
August 16, 2011 at 10:53 pm
And Kate, you didn’t answer the question of why you didn’t correct the Reverend title in your diatribe against religion.
LikeLike
August 14, 2011 at 6:34 am
Pat,
I wonder if your readers would be interested in highlighting, discussing or debating the use of the Internal Revenue’s 5013c organizations, especially those that are organized around pregnancy-related, charitable organizations. There are restrictions that these organizations are bound by and violating these prohibitions may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.
LikeLike
August 14, 2011 at 7:40 am
I would, I hate subsidizing these “Faith Based” organizations with my Tax dollars.
LikeLike
August 14, 2011 at 7:49 am
Yeah, sign me up for that group (but don’t ask me why).
LikeLike
August 14, 2011 at 11:28 am
Hmmm, Kate, interesting idea. Thinking out loud, the IRS says c3s can do certain things but trying to find out if the cpcs are violating those rules might take a heck of a lot of research and leg work and I dont have that kind of time/resources. Or am I missing what you are asking, Father Kate? 🙂
LikeLike
August 14, 2011 at 7:42 am
Abortion should remain legal and safe.
Available on the choice of any woman.
LikeLike
August 14, 2011 at 7:53 am
got a question for you Pat…how about you put this one out there. If someone was to jump off a bridge, what would you do? Would you standby and watch them…maybe even walk them to the edge (you know..support and trust their decision) or would ya offer them alternatives that would save their life and their soul…hmmmm what would you do for them?
LikeLike
August 14, 2011 at 8:40 am
Don’t forget the option to push them like they did to me….
LikeLike
August 14, 2011 at 11:34 am
Care to elaborate, Humpty?
LikeLike
August 14, 2011 at 12:06 pm
Pat,
“Anonymous” failed to mention another option which would be to push the person off the bridge. The part of being pushed is a joke from the land of fairy tales including the one about Humpty Dumpty “failing” when, in fact, he was pushed.
LikeLike
February 9, 2014 at 5:18 am
We defeiitnly need more smart people like you around.
LikeLike
April 22, 2014 at 6:58 am
This is an article that makes you think “never thought of that!”
LikeLike
August 14, 2011 at 11:33 am
First of all “anonymous” why not get some guts and use your name? I always wonder why people have to hide? Second, I would try to catch their attention and talk them out of killing themselves. Oh, no! I fell into your clever trap!! Isn’t that what the “anonymous'” of the world do? They just want to give the woman the options to try to save THAT BABY!
The difference is that if the person told me to leave, I would leave. I would not go over and try to wrestle him to the ground. And I have always said that if a woman wants to talk to those wonderful “sidewalk counselors” who are ready to offer to pay for her child’s college education, I say go for it. IT’s the screaming, the yelling, the intrusion into that person’s life at that very sensitive moment that bothers me.
And, still I have not seen anyone tell me why they take the pictures of the women???
LikeLike
August 14, 2011 at 2:41 pm
So you’re real name is Pat Richards then??? really????
LikeLike
August 15, 2011 at 9:05 am
Oh snap! (Thanks, Rog.)
LikeLike
August 15, 2011 at 12:16 am
Pat, we’re all anonymous. My name isn’t really Nunya. And I don’t believe for a second you would walk away and leave that person to kill themselves. Not for a second, and if you did, you should be arrested. Obviously someone who is suicidal is in distress and needing intervention, not some clear thinking person making a “moral choice”. By the pro-choice worlds own admission these women are in distress too. That’s a bad time to be making a life or death decision. (And if taking the potential suicides picture and screaming at him that he’s about to do something that will affect his family forever, and showing him pictures of splattered brains on the pavement would stop him. I would do it. In a second.) Life is precious. Death is irrevocable. Birth gives you a second chance. Abortion is a done deal. If you still don’t want it, give it up. Practically everyone who wants to adopt wants an infant. That’s why they are so hard to get and why so many older children languish in the system. Don’t argue with me, I worked in the system with these children, I know. Also, I have no idea why they take the pictures, but I would guess to appeal to their sense of shame, hoping they will fear the pics will be posted somewhere and everyone will know, since most people don’t proudly advertise their abortions.
LikeLike
August 15, 2011 at 12:33 pm
“And, still I have not seen anyone tell me why they take the pictures of the women???”
Hey, common, Pat, I told you above! At the AWC I haven’t seen anyone taking pictures of the ladies carrying babies to their deaths.
However, it’s getting me thinking. Several years ago in Reading a big, scary-looking prolifer used to display his camera boldly in front of the mill door. He saved more lives than ten others. Cars would notice him, circle the block, and disappear. Angry boy friends threatened him with death. Unfortunately, a Planned Parenthood spy got rid of him.
Wish I had the guts to take my camera there, and to the AWC too, to carry on his valuable work.
LikeLike
August 14, 2011 at 8:31 am
I believe a woman has the right to decide to abort an extrauterine pregnancy.
LikeLike
August 15, 2011 at 3:53 am
If she’s extra-uterine, Z, she’s growing in a hostile environment that will eventually kill both her and her carrier, If that threat is removed, her carrier will survive. That’s not how we understand ‘”abortion.” For us “abortion” is a search and destroy mission.
LikeLike
August 14, 2011 at 9:13 am
From the Religious Coaliton for Reproductive Choice about CPCs comes this–a closer look at what women hear inside those institutions and from the majority of anti abortion activists–to deceive, manipulate, lie:
“To attempt to convince someone to decide one way or the other is legitimate—but to do so through manipulation and deception, by luring women through your doors under false pretenses, and then to provide them with false information or emotionally damaging images meant solely to emotionally coerce a decision, is unjust and wrong. Most importantly, it is a violation of the basic human dignity of individual decision- making, and respect for personal conscience”
LikeLike
August 14, 2011 at 9:29 am
They gotta close down those CPC Mills.
LikeLike
August 15, 2011 at 12:22 am
Amazing. Killing an unborn child: heroic and moral. Lying to prevent someone from killing an unborn child: unjust and wrong.
No, I’m not saying they lie. Some do, some don’t. Just like the Planned Parenthood Centers. It’s all well documented from BOTH sides.
Kate, what about “the basic human dignity of individual decision making, and respect for personal conscience” of pro-lifers? Or is there a double standard here too?
LikeLike
February 8, 2014 at 5:41 am
Ya learn sotheming new everyday. It’s true I guess!
LikeLike
August 14, 2011 at 9:30 am
Abortion is a good thing.
They should close down the CPC Mills and Catholic Mills.
LikeLike
August 14, 2011 at 11:37 am
Here’s where I struggle, however, with closing down ALL CPCS. Years ago, I befriended Guy Condon, the head of the CARENET cpc chains and I visited about ten of his facilities and I found them on the up and up and willing to offer some help. They had job assistance stuff, etc. Guy was a true kind man who only wanted to help. Then he was killed in a car accident. I’ve written about him before.
The point is we cannot generalize because, if the other side did that, which they do, they would say all clinics should be closed because of someone like that sleazeball in Pennsylvania….
LikeLike
August 15, 2011 at 12:26 am
True that Pat.
LikeLike
August 14, 2011 at 2:38 pm
“To attempt to convince someone to decide one way or the other is legitimate—but to do so through manipulation and deception, by luring women through your doors under false pretenses, and then to provide them with false information or emotionally damaging images meant solely to emotionally coerce a decision, is unjust and wrong. Most importantly, it is a violation of the basic human dignity of individual decision- making, and respect for personal conscience”
Smells of abortion mills when they deceive women by telling them that their child is a ‘product of conception, or pregnancy tissue, or just a clump of cells.’ Also when these same mills DON’T SHOW women their ultrasound unless the woman PLEADS to see it (and even then have a difficult time even getting a photo.) Oh, and then there’s that little old state mandated book that NEVER – I REPEAT NEVER offered to women (because as the director of the clinic has said in a radio interview – it’s biased and inaccurate) hmmmmm
Come on now Rev. CMH.
LikeLike
August 14, 2011 at 3:16 pm
Pat,
I’m going to sign off on your blog for now because it’s quite apparent that this anonymous person is once again “using” your blog for his or her own gratification to shout at me. It’s unfair to you and to the general tenor of the discussion you started. So, you and anon can have all the fun you want.
LikeLike
August 14, 2011 at 7:10 pm
I knew you’d run, Kate, but not this soon.
LikeLike
August 15, 2011 at 8:13 am
Pretty thin skinned. Guess that accounts for all the wrinkles.
LikeLike
August 15, 2011 at 12:34 pm
ooof
LikeLike
August 15, 2011 at 12:50 am
Wow Kate, one of the reasons I stopped lurking was the way you treated “the famous Deanna”. Don’t you think this is a huge case of “you can dish it out but you can’t take it?” You called a post I wrote rambling and unintelligible, yet you are running with your tail between your legs because you are called out? Not cool. I don’t prefer the tone of anonymous, but it’s no different than I’ve seen you have many times.
LikeLike
August 15, 2011 at 8:55 am
This so reminds me of the ‘big bully’ in the school yard who taunts and taunts the other children playing nicely and once they stand up to him or in this case her (and for themselves) the big bully runs away crying, “They’re being mean to me. Teacher!! Mommy!! Make them stop. All I did was call them names and try to paint them in the worst light possible using lies and distortion and THEY’RE being mean to little ol’ me.” How long has it been Kate? You didn’t think we’d start fighting back eventually?
LikeLike
August 15, 2011 at 1:42 pm
Kate: we need your reasoned pro-choice arguments! Hope you will come back soon!!
LikeLike
August 15, 2011 at 3:43 am
But we gotta remember,NY, that Kate teaches at Muhlenberg College. Maybe one of her bosses over there got wind of the stuff she was posting here, and pfffft.
LikeLike
August 15, 2011 at 4:43 am
Oops, I commented before I’d read through all the eighteen entries, and their responses, on this page, and now I know why Kate’s left. She just couldn’t handle the triple whammy. D almost chased her; then she recovered and started shouting back. But then along come NY and Anonymous, and she does run.
Now, guys, let’s work on Chuckles and Rog. Then this great blog will become prolife (the AIs will switch sides as AIs always do).
LikeLike
August 15, 2011 at 5:39 am
Perhaps it’s time for another video since there seems to be a bit of crankiness going on here.
LikeLike
August 15, 2011 at 6:06 pm
“Crankiness”! Ruth I love it! LOL. We needed a laugh. Now let me watch the video and get all bothered again…
LikeLike
August 15, 2011 at 6:56 am
Cynthia Baez wrote a piece about propaganda on Fox News, on the Truthout web site, that is here repurposed to illustrate the antichoicers propaganda
1. Panic Mongering. This goes one step beyond simple fear mongering. With panic mongering, there is never a break from the fear. The idea is to terrify and terrorize the women and their companions at every opportunity. during every waking moment. From a lifetime of regrets to post abortion stress syndrome to increasing the chance of breast cancer to God’s condemnation itself, the belief with the antichoicers seems to be that if your fight-or-flight reflexes aren’t activated, you aren’t alive. This of course raises the question: why terrorize your own targets? Because it is the fastest way to bypasses the rational brain. In other words, when people are afraid, they don’t think rationally. And when they can’t think rationally, they’ll believe anything.
2. Character Assassination/Ad Hominem. Antichoicers do not like to waste time debating the idea. Instead, they prefer a quicker route to dispensing with their opponents: go after the person’s credibility, motives, intelligence, character, or, if necessary, sanity. No category of character assassination is off the table and no offense is beneath them. Antichoicers and like-minded figures also use ad hominem attacks not just against individuals, but entire categories of people in an effort to discredit the ideas of every person who is seen to fall into that category, e.g. “liberals,” “hippies,” “progressives” etc. This form of argument – if it can be called that – leaves no room for genuine debate over ideas, so by definition, it is undemocratic. Not to mention just plain crass.
3. Projection/Flipping. This one is frustrating for the person who is trying to actually follow the argument. It involves taking whatever underhanded tactic you’re using and then accusing your opponent of doing it to you first. We see this frequently in the birth control discussion, where prochoicers are accused of giving birth control so it will fail with young girls who forget to take their pills, get pregnant and need an abortion to get rid of their problem, or in the post abortion stress syndrome debate, where those who argue for preexisting causes of post abortion depression are accused of not having science or facts on their side.
4. Rewriting History. This is another way of saying that propagandists make the facts fit their worldview. The partial birth abortion debacle was a classic example of this on a massive scale, but it happens daily and over smaller issues as well. A recent case in point is the story about Juan Diego and the visitation of Guadalupe where the Catholic Church has bent over backward to validate. Why lie about the historical facts, even when they can be demonstrated to be false? Well, because dogmatic minds actually find it easier to reject reality than to update their viewpoints. They will literally rewrite history if it serves their interests. And they’ll often speak with such authority that the casual viewer will be tempted to question what they knew as fact.
5. Scapegoating/Othering. This works best when people feel insecure or scared. It’s technically a form of both fear mongering and diversion, but it is so pervasive that it deserves its own category. The simple idea is that if you can find a group to blame for social or economic problems, such as doctors and staff at abortion clinics, you can then go on to a) justify violence/dehumanization of them, and b) subvert responsibility for any harm that may befall them as a result.
6. Conflating Violence With Power and Opposition to Violence With Weakness. This is what is called a “meta-frame” (a deeply held belief) that is manifested in the ways antichoicers talk about their activism. For example, terms like “show of strength” are often used to describe acts of repression, such as those by protesters against abortion clinics and their clients. There are several concerning consequences of this form of conflation. First, it has the potential to make people feel falsely emboldened by shows of force – it can turn wars into sporting events. Secondly, especially in the context of American politics, displays of violence – whether manifested in war or debates about the Second Amendment – are seen as noble and (in an especially surreal irony) moral. Violence becomes synonymous with power, patriotism and piety.
7. Bullying. This is a favorite technique of antichoicers. That it continues to be employed demonstrates that it seems to have some efficacy. Bullying and yelling work best on people who come to the conversation with a lack of confidence. The bully exploits this lack of confidence by berating the person into submission or compliance. Often, less self-possessed people will feel shame and anxiety when being berated and the quickest way to end the immediate discomfort is to cede authority to the bully. The bully is then able to interpret that as a “win” like most antichoicers do when they proclaim a save.
8. Confusion. As with the preceding technique, this one works best on a person that is less confident and self-possessed. The idea is to deliberately confuse the argument, but insist that the logic is airtight and imply that anyone who disagrees is either too dumb or too fanatical to follow along. Less independent minds will interpret the confusion technique as a form of sophisticated thinking, thereby giving the user’s claims veracity in the viewer’s mind.
9. Populism. The speakers identify themselves as one of “the people” and the target of their ire as an enemy of the people. The opponent is always “baby killer” or a “greedy doctor” or an “elitist” or some other category that is not the people. The idea is to make the opponent harder to relate to and harder to empathize with. It often goes hand in hand with scapegoating. A common logical fallacy with populism bias when used by the antichoicers is that accused “elitists” are almost always liberals – a category of political actors who, by definition, advocate for non-elite groups.
10. Invoking the Christian God. This is similar to othering and populism. With morality politics, the idea is to declare yourself and your allies as patriots, Christians and “real Americans” (those are inseparable categories in this line of thinking) and anyone who challenges them as not. Basically, God loves antichoicers and Republicans and America. And hates taxes and anyone who doesn’t love those other three things. Because the speaker has been benedicted by God to speak on behalf of all Americans, any challenge is perceived as immoral. It’s a cheap and easy technique used by all totalitarian entities from states to cults.
11. Saturation. There are three components to effective saturation: being repetitive, being ubiquitous and being consistent. The message must be repeated cover and over, it must be everywhere and it must be shared across commentators: e.g. “God is offended by abortion.” Veracity and hard data have no relationship to the efficacy of saturation. There is a psychological effect of being exposed to the same message over and over, regardless of whether it’s true or if it even makes sense, e.g., “There is a direct connection between abortion and breast cancer.” If something is said enough times, by enough people, many will come to accept it as truth.
12. Disparaging Education. There is an emerging and disturbing lack of reverence for education and intellectualism in many mainstream antichoice discourses. In fact, in some circles, higher education is often disparaged as elitist. Having a university credential is perceived by these folks as not a sign of credibility, but of a lack of it. In fact, among some antichoicers, evidence of intellectual prowess is treated snidely and as anti-American. The disdain for education and other evidence of being trained in critical thinking are direct threats to a hive-mind mentality, which is why they are so viscerally demeaned.
13. Guilt by Association. This is a favorite of the antichoicers who have used it in an attempt to decimate the careers and lives of many good people. Here’s how it works: if your cousin’s college roommate’s uncle’s ex-wife helped a friend get an illegal abortion in 1969 with Kennedy’s niece’s ex-boyfriend’s sister, then you, by extension are a murderer set on destroying America. Period.
14. Diversion. This is where, when on the ropes, the antichoicer suddenly takes the debate in a weird but predictable direction to avoid accountability. This is the point in the discussion where most antichoicers start comparing the opponent to a convicted abortion doctor, in a desperate attempt to win through guilt by association. Or they’ll talk about wanting to focus on “moving forward,” as though by analyzing the current state of things or God forbid, how we got to this state of things, you have no regard for the future. Any attempt to bring the discussion back to the issue at hand will likely be called deflection, an ironic use of the technique of projection/flipping.
In considering these tactics and their possible effects on American public discourse, it is important to note that historically, those who’ve genuinely accessed truth have never berated those who did not. You don’t get honored by history when you beat up your opponent: look at Martin Luther King Jr., Robert Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln. These men did not find the need to engage in othering, ad homeinum attacks, guilt by association or bullying. This is because when a person has accessed a truth, they are not threatened by the opposing views of others. This reality reveals the righteous indignation of people like the antichoicers as a symptom of untruth. These individuals are hostile and angry precisely because they don’t feel confident in their own veracity. And in general, the more someone is losing their temper in a debate and the more intolerant they are of listening to others, the more you can be certain they do not know what they’re talking about.
One final observation. Antichoicers often defend their arguments by pointing to the fact that a lot of people share the same perceptions. This is a reasonable point. But, the fact that a lot of people believe something is not necessarily a sign that it’s true; it’s just a sign that it’s been effectively marketed.
LikeLike
August 15, 2011 at 8:22 am
holy smoke
LikeLike
August 15, 2011 at 1:45 pm
My reaction too, John! This is an amazing post. Now I gotta go back and read it again so I’m sure I understand it! Welcome Ruth!
LikeLike
August 15, 2011 at 3:32 pm
Holy smoke again! This time I read it almost all the way through. Ruth would never have posted it if Kate were still around because it describes what Kate and her type of killers’ helpers do and not what we pro-lifers, do. Ruth, if you’ll allow me to edit it — change things like “someone is losing their temper” and remove incomprehensible things like the third sentence in 14 — I’d like to put it in my newsletter. You’d still have the final say on what goes in, of course,
LikeLike