Abortion
November 5, 2001 6:13 AM   Subscribe

Abortion Foes begin using new tactics. Non-violent, yet still aimed to cause fear one way or another...
posted by da5id (38 comments total)
 
Yeah, it's non-violent, unless you count the psychological violence they're suggesting, which could spread from abortion clinics and into the entire American workplace, via any nut with a grudge. We're not talking Thoreau-esque civil disobedience here, exactly.
posted by raysmj at 6:45 AM on November 5, 2001


Interesting that these anti-abortion people claim to have christianity on their side. The bible doesn't condemn abortion at all, in any way. In fact, both the old and new versions of the contract portray a god that condones and sometimes even commands the murder of children.

The lack of consensus on this issue (legality of abortion) is a good argument for stronger states' rights, and less federalism.
posted by yesster at 7:10 AM on November 5, 2001


Those bastards. I put nothing past them. Frankly, I think most abortion clinic workers wouldn't fall for this bullshit. But the anti-abortion activists who are sending "fake anthrax" letter should be drawn and quartered.
If men could get pregnant, abortion would be safe, 100% legal, easy to obtian, and fully covered by all medical plans including medi-care.
posted by aacheson at 7:10 AM on November 5, 2001


aacheson: My personal line for the past year or so has been, "If men could get pregnant, RU486 would be sold next to the beer coolers at the 7-11."
posted by tpoh.org at 7:16 AM on November 5, 2001


yesster: Giving the power to regulate abortion to the states (which has already occured to a certain degree) doesn't mean less federalism, but the implementing of a different interpretation of federalism. As if what you're talking about would satisfy the sort of folks who would infiltrate clinics and press charges of any sort, however trivial, against staff anyway.
posted by raysmj at 7:18 AM on November 5, 2001


tpoh.org: Exactly..and next to the condoms in aisle 2!
posted by aacheson at 7:19 AM on November 5, 2001


It seems these abortion discussions are usually single-sided, single-minded, and discussed by people who claim to be open-minded. Put yourself in their shoes, if you believed abortion to be murder, what would you do to stop it? Do you condone murder? Would you condone murder if other people thought it was okay?
posted by Uncle Joe's Brother at 7:21 AM on November 5, 2001


Here's the main site of the organization responsible for this.

Really, I don't see this as anything more than a slicked up version of what Neal Horsley's been doing. For example (Click the link to see the full page):

We noticed that you just started working at Aware Woman (abortion) Clinic in Melbourne. As a public service, we publish a free Web Page on the INTERNET for each killer who works at Aware Woman.

Please send us any data or maybe a favorite picture that you would like for us to put on your page. We want to make sure that we get everything exactly right since the INTERNET goes over the entire world. Again, I want to emphasize that there is no cost to you for this public service.

Sincerely,

*See what we mean? Those who slaughter God's children without affording them due process of law need to understand they are going to be held accountable. Everybody gets a payday someday.

Has your local baby butcher squad gotten such a letter?


I wonder if anti-abortion violence will be part of Bush's "War on Terrorism".

Nah, didn't think so.
posted by tpoh.org at 7:31 AM on November 5, 2001


Uncle Joe's Brother, if I thought it was murder, no, I wouldn't condone it. I hope I would realize that an unwanted child doesn't live a life, it just lives. I would try to realize that a woman shouldn't be forced to have a baby like punishment, especially when men get away with it scot-free. If I were an anti-choice man, I would commit to having a vasectomy or religiously use condoms every single time I have sex. However, this doesn't happen and women are stuck with the consequences.

Frankly, my husband doesn't believe in abortion (I think it's that catholic guilt simmering to the surface) but he's still pro-choice because of all of the above.

If you don't like abortion, simply don't have one. I know that's a pat answer, but it's really the way I feel.

Most importantly, BABIES SHOULDN'T BE PUNISHMENT FOR A MISTAKE!!! It's not fair to the mothers and fathers as especially to the children.

This is one thing I DON'T have an open mind about. And I'm not sorry about that.

And finally, no, maybe I wouldn't condone it, but I certainly wouldn't resort to intimidation, terrorism, lies, and bible-pounding haranguing like they do.
posted by aacheson at 7:31 AM on November 5, 2001


If men bled, would tampons be free? So asks Jello
posted by adampsyche at 7:41 AM on November 5, 2001


They'd sure be a lot cheaper and more comfortable! ;)
posted by aacheson at 7:42 AM on November 5, 2001


If you don't have the common sense to use a condom, you'll probably be a spectacular parent.

Note: If men could get pregnant, RU-486 might be sold at the 7-11, but not next to the beer. Beer would be illegal. I doubt that RU-486 would be that easily obtained however. If men could get pregnant, no one would elect them to public office.
posted by etc. at 7:43 AM on November 5, 2001


mumbles... "liberal media"... mumbles...
posted by gd779 at 7:53 AM on November 5, 2001


People who do this are incapable of arguing in favor of their opinions using civil means. The means they use are, ironically, immoral. Exposing what they do is the best method to deal with them.
posted by mmarcos at 7:59 AM on November 5, 2001


Here's a site describing more of their outrageous doings.
posted by mmarcos at 8:01 AM on November 5, 2001


> If men bled, would tampons be free? So asks Jello

No. But you would see a lot of commercials featuring carefree, smiling men wearing white shorts and running along beaches, swimming, and riding horses.
posted by pracowity at 8:06 AM on November 5, 2001


In a class called "Introduction to the Systems of Justice," a class I took in the late 1970's, the subject of abortion was mentioned (I don't recall how the discussion got to that point). All I did was say aloud the phrase I'd seen on a bumper sticker: "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrement." The students burst into applause, and from the sound of it, most were women. So the "If men could get pregnant" slogan has been around a while.
posted by datawrangler at 8:37 AM on November 5, 2001


If you don't like slavery, don't own slaves.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:45 AM on November 5, 2001


"If you don't like abortion, simply don't have one".Yes, thats the universal answer to not mumbling the party line:I could care less about the subject, but before you take it upon yourself to tell people to shut up, take your own advice...
posted by Mack Twain at 10:12 AM on November 5, 2001


Ohh Mack Twain. It's too easy..."If you don't like the discussion, don't participate."
posted by aacheson at 10:34 AM on November 5, 2001


aacheson: I asked if you believed it to be murder, then what would you do about it? What would you do / say / feel, etc. . . if you were in a democratic society where the mentally ill were killed before they hit the age of, say, five, because they won't have a good life?
posted by Uncle Joe's Brother at 10:38 AM on November 5, 2001


If you don't like slavery, don't own slaves.

What about those who like slavery? If you like slavery, own slaves?

How does this pertain to abortion?
posted by fuq at 10:40 AM on November 5, 2001


Uncle Joe's Brother, I would try to pass laws against it, protest against it, and use other legal means to get the laws changed. I wouldn't resort to intimidation, threats, and terrorist tactics.
The mentally ill tangent, I'm not even going to go into right now.
posted by aacheson at 10:44 AM on November 5, 2001


fuq: If you don't like slavery, don't own slaves. was a statement made to revoke an earlier comment If you don't like abortion, don't have one. It makes abortion seem like choosing an ice cream flavor, like "If you don't like chocolate ice cream, don't eat it." Abortion is about weather or not a baby is a person, because if unborn babies are people, then ending life would be wrong. If they are not people and they are just globules of cells, then blending them and poking them and things is perfectly okay. That is why the statement "If you don't like abortions, don't have one" doesn't apply and should be avoided, because it minimalizes the issue. Other statements like "anti-choice" or "pro-abortion" should be avoided because these, too, color the issue.

aacheson: The only reason I used the mentally ill as an example is because my nine year old is mentally ill. I would never kill him, and now that he is here, I can't imagine having ended his life at any point. Many people that I know changed their view of abortion after they had children, because the choice becomes more real. It truly is the choice between having that baby there with you, in your life (or another willing couple who want children) and not. There is no getting around that.
posted by Uncle Joe's Brother at 10:50 AM on November 5, 2001


UJB: It's not like I'm a cheerleader for abortion.."More abortions! woo-hoo!" But I believe it is an important choice that needs to be there. I wish every child were wanted, and every person could take care of the child they have, or every child that's "saved" and given up for adoption finds a happy home, but we're not in a dream world. It doesn't happen that way.

On the mental illness theme: I was born with a terminal disease that has made my life a living hell at times (and I have a very mild case...thus I'm still alive.) I can tell you, if I'm pregnant and find out my child has this disease, I am having an abortion asap. It's not because I only like "perfection," it's that I wouldn't want to inflict this disease on any child ever if I could stop it.

On a different note: I'm glad your child was born to such a loving family. He/she is truly blessed, and it sounds like you are too!
posted by aacheson at 11:02 AM on November 5, 2001


To everyone: from what I saw on the site, they are giving workers tip-offs that may suggest shady, ILLEGAL activities going on at that clinic.

The govt is already doing the same, exact thing. All these people are doing is focusing their attenion on one particular place of business.

I didn't spend that much time on the site, so my description above may be innacurate. If it is, point it out. If it's not, what the hell's wrong with what they are doing? Do you have problems because they want to stop illegal activities in clinics, but don't mention that this applies to all american workplaces?
posted by Witold at 11:18 AM on November 5, 2001


aacheson: On a side note, my wife and I are going to both have operations so that we don't ever have to go through the developmental problems with children again. I has been mentally and physically draining (the three year old may be okay, but he is showing some signs of a learning disability which may progress into what the older one has). The problem is that abortion is not looked at as a moral choice by the population, but as a means of birth control. Should it be allowed in certain circumstances? Sure, I am not a "black and white" kind of guy. Should it be used as a way out of unwanted pregancy for the sake of a mistake, I hope not. We all make mistakes, and fortunately, pregancy is at max a nine month consequence with about another year to get back into shape, the baby can be given up for adoption, no worries. If the mother-to-be is worried about having feelings for the baby (which she probably will), think about how she would feel if she ended the life (i.e. extreme PTSD, which is as common as during post-Vietnam with the vets returning from war). These discussions tend to lead toward moral apathy towards the baby, and puts "punishment" in terms of something terrible that no woman should go through. There are worse things. I recently went through a separation, and while we are reconciling, I think this is worse than when my wife was pregnant (she would probably agree). We made a mistake, and now not only are we suffering, but the children are, too. They didn't do anything wrong. So, I guess my point is that life is life, and abortions should not be used as a method of birth control.
posted by Uncle Joe's Brother at 11:20 AM on November 5, 2001


My solution: Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.

Thank you, Kang.
posted by CrayDrygu at 12:32 PM on November 5, 2001


UJB: Very few abortions are doing over and over again to the same women. They are expensive, draining, and not very pleasant. I don't think more than a handful of extremely strange and irresponsible women think of them as "birth control." Like, "you know, a condom is too bothersome, but hey..I can always get an abortion! That's MUCH easier!"

As for "pregancy is at max a nine month consequence with about another year to get back into shape, the baby can be given up for adoption, no worries." That is what happends in happy-we-are-living-in-a-dream-land. What if the baby is black? Or addicted to crack? Or developmentally disabled? Not a whole hellov a lot of people lining up to adopt them, sorry to say.

So, we are at an impasse. We aren't going to change each other's mind. And we've gotten way off the link that started this all. So let's agree to disagree and realize that we are NEVER going to change anyone's mind about this. It will always be a source of contention in the good old US of A. You're never gonna agree with me and I am damn sure I'm never ever in a million years going to be against abortion. So, thanks for the discussion and "Adios" from me.
posted by aacheson at 12:57 PM on November 5, 2001


aacheson: "That is what happends in happy-we-are-living-in-a-dream-land. What if the baby is black? Or addicted to crack? Or developmentally disabled? Not a whole hellov a lot of people lining up to adopt them, sorry to say."

So if the baby is not perfect, we should just kill it off. Decide for it that it would be better that it not exist?

Whatever the response, you're right about one thing. This issue is so polarizing and puts everyone in offensive/defensive mode that it's kinda pointless talking about it. There's absolutely no benefit to having this conversation, since most everyone who doesn't live in a cave already made up their mind.
posted by Witold at 1:34 PM on November 5, 2001


There's absolutely no benefit to having this conversation, since most everyone who doesn't live in a cave already made up their mind.

I completely and radically disagree. The key is to find someone who wants to really think about why they believe what they believe, instead of just spouting the platitudes they've swallowed from whatever camp they happen to belong to. While it's unfortunate, generally speaking there are far more people out there interested in shouting about abortion than there are people interested in discussing abortion.

What makes MetaFilter so amazing is that, in my experience, there are many more articulate, open "discussers" than you'll find almost anywhere else. Amazing things can happen when two people like that get together. The key is to read MetaFilter with an open mind and treat your fellow MeFites with respect, taking it on faith that they're interested in discussion.

While the S/N level around here has indisputably changed over time, MetaFilter is still a large cut above everywhere else on the net.
posted by gd779 at 1:50 PM on November 5, 2001


I'd just like to jump in now and remind everyone that you can eat babies, which is a better alternative to abortions, because you get a meal out of it.
posted by fuq at 2:22 PM on November 5, 2001


reading the linked website makes me think of all the energy wasted in its creation and in the effort behind it. usually, when i find people who are antiabortion i want to ask them "and what do you do to prevent unwanted pregnancy?" (note: not abortion, because the answer to that will be something like "oh, legislation" or in some extreme cases "well, there's this thing called anthrax, and...") those who are pro-choice realise that making abortion illegal will not make it go away; it will drive the procedure underground, which can result in sterility or even death. if abortion is illegal, then what do you call that?

i don't think anyone on either side is for abortion. i am adamantly pro-choice, but i had a situation a few years ago in which i had to terminate a pregnancy. i can tell you first hand that abortion is not pleasant, but i don't regret my decision and i am thankful that i had the choice to end the pregnancy.

these adamant antichoicers should be investing their considerable energy in preventing abortion. this can be done by making the world a better place for children and single mothers, through an improved educational system and a greater support for single moms. you can also prevent abortion through sex ed (not abstinence-only sex ed, which has the adverse effect of making kids think that they can remain virgins whilst indulging in oral and anal sex, which has created a vd epidemic among kids) and making contraception more widely available. all of that would prevent abortions in a more widespread way than by using terrorist approaches to shut down clinics.
posted by pxe2000 at 6:44 PM on November 5, 2001


Whoa, is it really true that there's an oral and anal VD epidemic among teens (hey, at least they aren't getting pregnant :P)? Technical virginity......
posted by Charmian at 7:09 PM on November 5, 2001


yeah -- read that voice link. i've seen a few other statistics (from pretty respectable places, too) that point out how many under-18s have genital warts. my younger brother also claims this is true, though that is highly, er, unscientific.
posted by pxe2000 at 7:26 PM on November 5, 2001


Witold: Before writing lines about "killing off" babies again, you might want to check out the Texas law that was challenged in Roe v. Wade. It allowed self-abortions. I seldom hear this pointed out, but it's probably the main reason Texas lost, certainly a significant one.
posted by raysmj at 11:23 PM on November 5, 2001


Anecdotal reports suggest that adolescents are increasingly engaging in noncoital sexual behaviors--oral sex in particular--which avoid the risk of pregnancy but leave them vulnerable to sexually transmitted diseases.

In June, Surgeon General David Satcher released a report promoting an open discussion about sexuality with teens and calling on parents, schools and communities to provide youths with "thorough and medically accurate sex education" to prevent unintended pregnancies and STDs. ...The Bush administration has "distanced" itself from the report. White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer noted that the report was commissioned under President Clinton and that Bush's "overall approach on these matters focuses on abstinence, abstinence education."
posted by Carol Anne at 5:39 AM on November 6, 2001


and what neither fleischer nor president alfred e. neu- -- oh, i'm sorry, BUSH -- seem to realise is that by focusing exclusively on abstinence education (as opposed to making abstinence a preferable option but taking into account the fact that kids are going to fool around) is just going to make these problems worse.
posted by pxe2000 at 6:17 AM on November 6, 2001


« Older Spank The Monkey!   |   Blogdexter Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments