top
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Related Categories: San Francisco | Womyn
Jan. 21: Confront the Right-Wing Invasion and Shut down the Walk for Life
by anonymous (reproductivea [at] riseup.net)
Thursday Dec 29th, 2005 3:43 PM
Defend Women's Reproductive Autonomy, Confront the Right-Wing Invasion, and Shut down the Walk for Life.
Meet at 11 am. SATURDAY, Jan. 21. Justin Herman Plaza at the Embarcadero, San Francisco. Look for the info table.

Spokescouncil to plan Civil Disobedience:
Sunday, Jan. 15. San Francisco. 3 pm. Location to be announced.
free23.jpg
Last January, the Walk for Life came to San Francisco to bring their
anti-Choice/anti-reproductive rights ("pro-life"), pro-capitalist, and homophobic message to our city. Their march was
disrupted and rerouted by civil disobedience. This year they're at it again, and intend to bring out thousands (vast majority of whom are bussed in from other cities and towns), which means that we need to show up in full force and bring out just as many, if not more, people. We are calling on the people and workers of San Francisco and the Bay Area to rise up and completely stop them in their tracks and shut down their march.

They are marching to take away our autonomy, which we must defend at all
costs and by any means necessary.
These are the people that support government intervention in every aspect
of our lives not only limited to reproductive rights, but to the
regulation of life itself. The Walk for Life seeks to be the softer side
of the anti-choice movement, but don't fool yourself into thinking that
these people are not the reactionary forces that we fight against.

For us pro-choice means a lot more than choosing to have children.
Reproductive rights is an important part of the larger issue of having the
power to decide how to live your life. We sell our bodies to capitalism
and submit to the State. Religion has often survived to mask this order of
things and to justify our sacrifices. Pro-life means being able to
determine the path of your life, free from outside coercive forces, such
as bosses, government, controlling and abusive men, racism, war, and religion. Work is not a choice, it's a threat: obey and labor or starve!

Walk for Life
is a national organization run by wealthy elites--the ruling class. Their agenda is not only to continue
the subjugation of women but to maintain the larger class system. Social
conservatism and authoritarian religions are ideology that the ruling
class uses to gain allegiance and support from members of the working classes, even
though it goes against their real-life interests. The true interests of society's
have-nots lies in resistance, and ultimately, social revolution to overthrow the rich and
powerful who control and exploit them.

The Walk for Life also shrouds itself in feminist rhetoric. Co-sponsors
Feminists for Life are supporting a reform (criminalizing abortion and women's
reproductive rights) that will do nothing but harm women. They are walking hand in hand
with the elites who enforce discriminate against women in the workplace and push socially
destructive and sexist body and sexual standards and rigid, oppressive gender roles (the
capitalist media and advertising industry being a major tool in this). While they claim
to support women's freedom, they seem to have no problem with the operation of
sweatshops throughout the Global South, populated with women working for slave wages.
Ironically enough, the pro-"life" movement as a whole supports the most brutal
degradation and destruction of life through war and capitalism.

We're not going to take it anymore. It is a special affront that this march, whose leaders consistently whip up heterosexist hatred and social oppression against queer and trans people, is set in San Francisco--a city known for it's history of radical queer resistance, such as the famous late 70's uprising known as the White Night Riots.

We are calling for a festive, racous and confrontational approach to this
right wing invasion. Bring yourselves and your ideas to the Spokescouncil on Sunday, Jan.
15, to finalize plans of resistance. Autonomous direct actions to shut down the march are
also encouraged.

And bring yourself, your friends, coworkers, families, and lovers out to stop the
right-wing invasion and celebrate your autonomy on January 21st.

Fight the Right--In the Streets!

To view the anti-choice march route, see: http://walkforlifewc.com/directionsmap.htm#map

Stay tuned...further schedule updates, including the location of the Spokescouncil will
be posted soon...also check up on the website or email the address.
yourbody.jpg

Comments  (Hide Comments)

by workers Vanguard
Thursday Dec 29th, 2005 5:34 PM
Abortion is a politically explosive issue because it raises the question of women's equality. This simple and safe medical procedure provides women with some control over whether or not to have children. For this reason, it is viewed as a threat to the institution of the family, a crucial prop for the system of capitalist exploitation.

The attacks on abortion rights are part of a campaign of social reaction aimed at regimenting and intimidating the entire population—not only women, but black people, immigrants, gays and the working class as a whole. While the bigots in the Justice Department confer "civil rights" to fetuses and call themselves "pro-life," they relish the legal lynching of black men—the racist death penalty. The ruling class takes little notice of the AIDS epidemic as it ravages black ghettos, preaches abstinence to teenagers deprived of condoms and sex education, and keeps the safe and effective RU 486 "abortion pill" (as well as "emergency contraception" and, increasingly, birth control) out of reach.

Abortion and contraception should be available on demand as part of free, universal, quality health care. In order to effectively fight to defend and extend abortion rights, activists must not look to Democratic politicians. The Democratic Party is the other party of American capitalism, which occasionally quibbles with, but more generally reinforces, the Republicans in carrying out capitalist rule. The role of both parties—as well as the courts—is to serve the interests of the wealthy, exploiting class. This will be achieved at the expense of those who are exploited and oppressed—working people, blacks, immigrants, women and gays. The reason there has been little to no protest against the increasing assaults on abortion rights is that throughout the 1990s, bourgeois feminist organizations demobilized protest, preaching reliance on the "pro-choice" Clinton administration, while looking to the courts and appealing to Congress.

What is needed is to fight to defend and extend women's rights, including the right to abortion, through the independent mass mobilization of the oppressed backed by the social power of labor. The struggle for women's liberation is integral to the fight for socialist revolution.

It is essential to forge a multiracial revolutionary workers party to lead the working class in a socialist revolution that sweeps away this system of capitalist exploitation and racial and sexual oppression. For free abortion on demand! Break with the Democrats—For a workers party that fights for socialist revolution!

from http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/archives/oldsite/2005/Abortion-844.htm
by deanosor
(deanosor [at] comcast.net) Friday Dec 30th, 2005 3:45 PM
The march that many of usa re protessting is on Saturday January 21.. Not Sunday.
Does anybody have ideas for what accessiblle place to hold the spokescouncil? If you do email me. Thanks
by walker
Friday Dec 30th, 2005 4:39 PM
I find the page about protesting the Walk for Life rather funny and completely incorrect. I happen to know the humble 2 women who started this walk last year. They are anything but "a national organization run by wealthy elites--the
ruling class." Most of us are lower-middle class women who live in the bay area. I think you are all so scared to know that the TRUTH is coming out about the affects of abortion and by those who live in your own neighborhood.
We are women that know first hand the harm that abortion has had on women and their unborn children. We speak the TRUTH to women about the long term affects of abortion on them and those around them. If you really cared about "life" and "women" you would be walking along with us and not trying to drown the message of LIFE.
We will pray for you as you lash out with vulgar remarks during our peaceful walk to promote life and health!!
by "Pro-life" and Pro war?
Friday Dec 30th, 2005 4:49 PM
Brainwashed by a fantasy. Fuck religion. Get a clue.
by anonymous
Friday Dec 30th, 2005 6:00 PM
The action is Saturday, Jan. 21.....Sunday was a typo.
The San Francisco Catholic Church is openly promoting this Nazi anti-women parade, with signs on the windows of their bookstores, etc. Last year, I saw the Marin Catholic Church had a contingent and I saw men in Teamsters union jackets. I strongly urge that all labor unions, all of which claim to be pro-choice, tell their members to not wear union regalia as to be anti-abortion is to be anti-labor by definition. The women's liberation movement and the labor movement are one. I strongly urge all pro-abortion labor union members TO BRING YOUR UNION BANNERS TO OUR PRO-ABORTION DEMONSTRATION.

It is clear that San Francisco, whose Democratic Party politicians claim to be "pro-choice" but never say what they should say, that they are pro-abortion, is deliberately, with malice aforethought being attacked by the capitalist ruling class and their backward peasant foot soldiers, recruited primarily by the Catholic Church in this area. Last year, the Marin Catholic High School had a contingent, and most of the Nazi hate, anti-science parade was populated by Catholic priests and their ignorant supporters, who pay for these parasites' existence. All religion is superstition, and all priests, rabbis, preachers, imams, etc. are by definition parasites, promoting superstition and anti-science ideas, as well as being anti-women, which is what the attack on abortion is all about. It is an effort by the ruling class to kick women out of the work place and force women to be again burdened with breeding future cannon fodder for their wars, and future breeders of cannon fodder. This is an old game; Hitler tried it and lost.

Clearly, these fascists must be stopped immediately. This tour of Fisherman's Wharf is insulting. I urge everyone who supports abortion to be there rain or shine. If you do not want to commit civil disobedience, just stay on the sidewalk and yell everything you can. There will be a lot of people there who will supply all the chants. Now is the time to put an end to the hate march of all these swine. Of course, they should never receive a permit since they are committed to the murder of women, and there is no free speech for admitted murderers as no one has a right to falsely yell fire in a crowded theater. Since they have been apparently granted a permit, we too have a permit, called the First Amendment, and we have the numbers.
by I have had an abortion
Sunday Jan 1st, 2006 9:40 PM
And I know first hand what it meant for me- the preservation of my life and the preservation of my liberty.
Abortion did not harm me and was not an act of malice towards a child
You and I disagree on abortion. Unlike you, I am probably not trying, through the use of legislation, to force you to agree with me. I am fighting for you. I belive that you are the sole person to make decisions you need to make. And when you make that decision, you do so with the legal and political and financial support you need. I am not your enemy. I am your ally.
by vomit!
Friday Jan 6th, 2006 7:22 PM
“Abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun."
- 1963 pamphlet by Planned Parenthood (today Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the United States.)

Join us again for the 2nd Annual Walk for Life West Coast on January 21, 2006 as we PEACEFULLY challenge the idea that abortion is a good choice for women and society.

CONFIRMED SPEAKERS

Serrin Foster – President of Feminists for Life of America

Alfredo Abarca – (speaking in Spanish)

Star Parker – President of C.U.R.E. (Coalition of Urban Renewal & Education)

Rev. (Dr.) Clenard Childress – L.E.A.R.N.

BUSES

All chartered buses must be registered with our bus coordinator, Rodney Roller at rwroller [at] comcast.net or (510) 918-5100.

Click here to see if there are any buses registered from your city. This list will be updated regularly from now until the day of the Walk so keep checking back!

There will be four charter buses available at the end of the Walk at the Marina Green to transport walkers back to Justin Herman Plaza. This is a service we are providing at no cost so please be patient if you have to wait to catch a bus. There are also taxi cabs and public transportation available from Marina Green.

NEW THIS YEAR Click here to visit our Resource Page

SIGNAGE

We respectively request that participants do not bring signs displaying graphic images of aborted children. (Please contact us with any comments or questions.)

Women Deserve Better than Abortion signs will be provided.

We encourage you (and your children) to make your own signs promoting the pro-life message.

Please bring a sign identifying your group.

WALK ROUTE

The Walk for Life walk will begin at Justin Herman Plaza and end at the Marina Greens and will follow the same route as last year. Please visit our website for exact details. The route is approximately 2.5 miles. Please remember to bring your own food and water.

MERCHANDISE

Please check out our new logos and products (at new reduced prices!) at http://www.cafepress.com/walkforlifewc. Order today to ensure you have receive them in time for the Walk.

PEACEFUL PROTEST

The Walk for Life West Coast is fully committed to the right of peaceful protest. The 2005 Walk for Life west coast saw many vociferous pro-abortion demonstrators. We expect a similar or increased counter demonstration for the 2006 Walk for Life. Please come prepared to be 100% peaceful. Our witness to peace in the face of such vile hostility is our greatest contribution to the pro-life movement. We understand the challenge of remaining peaceful when confronted with such hostility, so if you are unable to commit yourself to peaceful participation, please consider joining the thousands around the world who will be with us in prayer.

PRAYER SERVICES/ADORATION

Click here to find out how you can support us in prayer.

If you would like to be removed from this list, please send an email to info [at] walkforlifewc.com
by I love that the so-called "pro-life&quot
Saturday Jan 7th, 2006 8:20 AM
I love that the so-called "pro-life" nuts are many of the same people who support the war.
by Many in the pro-life movement
Saturday Jan 7th, 2006 10:29 AM
Are opposed to the war and to the death penalty- I am pro-choice/pro-reproductive rights, and it breaks my heart that they align me with the cowrdly bastards who dropped bombs on Iraqi's. However, this is what's happening, and I know for a fact that many of the folks who marched agoanst the war, anre marching agianst women. we need to be creative and clear headed about how to confront them with this issue, and not lump them in with the Operation Rescue types who come from a totally different place.
by RunningWolf
Sunday Jan 8th, 2006 5:21 PM
Regarding the Walk For Life, S.F. 2006:

I am seeking your support. I was a Woymn who was abused by the male physician dominated abortion-mill industry in the early 1970's and 1980's. I was not given any facts, birthcontrol, nor treated respectfully. Although I support Pro-Choice...I regret my own abortions now that I am 53 years old. Like many Woymn my legal abortions were horrible events. (100's of females testimonies are documentated at
http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org and priests for life websites.) It is no wonder upsupported woman have turned to religion seeking healing from this abuse. They, like me, don't know where else to turn. Where are the voices of Woymn in protest regarding an industry that 30 years ago "cattled" us through at the rate of one every six minutes.. with no follow up medical or emotional after care? I buried the pain in drugs and careless sexual activities as my heart grew harder in denial and my abortion experinces grew in number.
Please, don't scorn me sisters, when I walk with an "I regret my abortion" sign next week. I am still pro-choice. But, now that I am grandmother age I regret taking away my own daughter's Human Rights when I aborted her in 1983. Thank you for hearing my voice. I support your choice.
_LittleRunningWolf
by Little Runnning brainwashed
Sunday Jan 8th, 2006 7:08 PM
What a load of crap. "I support choice but I walk against it."
You are either a hypocrite or a liar. Which is it?
by TW
Sunday Jan 8th, 2006 10:08 PM
Isn't it a gut-buster? But hey, they're bible-whacks, so they're terminally mixed up insane hypocrites by definition. What more can you expect from people who cling desperately to a demented metaphysical model just because their parents force fed it to them when they were five? This takes either an unwillingness or an inability to emerge from intellectual infancy.

The runaway influence of these babbling idiots is yet another sign of American society succumbing to fascism. Fascist governments prefer fundamentalist boobs who never think and vice versa. This was a major feature of the classic fascist governments installed by the CIA in Greece (1948) and Brazil (1964). It was during the intervening years that Washington spymasters essentially overthrew civilian government here. They've remained in power ever since. This is what the modern GOP emerged from and what the Bush Dynasty in particular came out of.

What was Daddy Bush's job from 1973 to 1977? Where was he during Operation ZAPATA (Eisenhower's plan to topple Castro, culminating with Bay of Pigs)? What infamous ruling family have the Bushes been in bed with for four generations? How did this ruling family wheedle its way into controlling US foreign policy during the Eisenhower presidency? Start digging into these questions and I promise your blood will run cold. These people are stone-cold textbook fascists, in the Bushes' case unabashed admirers of / collaborators with the Nazis.

All that's really going on now is this spookocracy is bringing their methods home, having honed them in Third World hellholes for decades. Meanwhile, US "liberals" have taken five decades to wake up and get a clue. This is the full price of pooh-poohing "conspiracy theories." Muchas gracias to all you cocktail-party sophists out there. Conspiracies are absolutely real, even if they do kick your bassinet.
by Docile and unquestioning masses
Monday Jan 9th, 2006 6:50 AM
This is the way those in power prefer it. How else could a societal model (no matter what country) where an elite benefits at the expense of the masses work? Religion is key, it keeps people satisfied and "grateful" , even when they are not getting their fair share--plus the moral codes of the dominant religion are usually consistent with the 'laws', thus ensuring a military/police force to enforce the 'laws' needed to keep those who dare critically think/resist the unjust status quo. How can people not see this??
by Please read this
Monday Jan 9th, 2006 8:09 AM
I have had an abortion. I did not "do" anything to a sentient human being; what I had was an abortion, which is a termination of fetal tissue which exists biologically, not cognitively, not emotionally, not in any of the complex ways you or I exist. Should you care to read more perspectives like this go to "I'm not sorry" a website that has thousans of voices like mine...
http://www.imnotsorry.net/storyarchive.htm
Furthermore, your experiences at the clinics seem to call for reform, not closure. If communities supported their clincs with increased funding, and were able and willing to state the values and practices they wanted there clinics to reflect or if clinics were able to invest surplus resources into sensitivity training, if the atmospheres at clinics weren't reflective of the state of anxiety that threats of bombings tend to bring on...you might have had a different experience.
Also, if you are still feeling pain after all these year, you should call EXHALE. Google it. It's in Oakland. It's a non-biased counseling center that simply encourages you to hear and affirm your own voice and to begin to understand what happened to you.
You didnt commit murder. Anyone who tells you you did isn't helping you and they sure as hell ain't your advocate. You do deserve much much more than to have your abortion (and you) called murder.
Look after yourself.
by Wisdom
Monday Jan 9th, 2006 11:40 AM
All of this information is totally false. I have great hopes that those of you who read this web site actually do a little research on the beliefs of all the women and men who fight for the lives of the innocent. How could a human person be so upset by another human person trying to protect the innocent? This isn't about religion, it's about respecting human life! Why do we exist, what is the purpose of life, is it all about ones self? or being selfless?! Seek wisdom, seek truth!
by Another drone
Monday Jan 9th, 2006 11:48 AM
Clearly the above poster is in denial so thick that information re: the hypocrisy of "running wolf" flew past her head.
by that a construct
Monday Jan 9th, 2006 1:04 PM
I think the thing tha bugs me about "pro-life" rhetoric is this emphasis on innocent. It's really dumb. For one thing, absolute innocence is not and should not be a prerequisite to salvation. (That's central to Christ's teachings, by the way.) I don't need those i'm interested in saving to be innocent. It's sentinmental and...it explains the lack of interest in humanity once it's been saved in the womb. Non innocent, flawed people are much harder to save...because they ain't some tabula rasa to be projected on.
by LittleRunningWolf
Monday Jan 9th, 2006 5:35 PM
Thank you. The information that you have shared with me has helped. Reading the testimonies at the website that you recommended has also helped me very much. I really appreciate it and I wish I had known about it sooner.

The previous poster is right. I should not be a hypocrite. I should march alone...apart from both sides. I support choice but I deeply regret my own abortions. I made the wrong choice at the time when I was very young and was not given the information that's available today. Unless you feel the loss that I feel you can't understand. I will contact the Oakland group. Thank you.

_Little Running Wolf (12th generation Powhatan)
by I'm really really sorry
Monday Jan 9th, 2006 7:13 PM
Go to the march and bring your own sign and march alone. Do what you need to do. Ultimately we are all on our own journeys to understand why we did what we did. I think about my abortion often.
You should also read 'Undivided Rights" It's about women of colour and how they organzied for reprodutcive rights and how they had to fight to establish full reproductive rights, not just abortion. Birth control, timely information, support and counseling- a totally integrated package, so when a fertile woman stood at the crossroads she could see more than two options. The authors of this book write about the antive American movement pretty comprehensively.
Do you want me to mail it to you? Send me your address at bacorrinfo [at] riseup.net.
You can have mine. I'm with BACORR- we are doing a counter protest on the 21st, but I promise to just send you the book with no further comment.
by TW
Tuesday Jan 10th, 2006 12:35 AM
It always pains me to see Native Americans and Africans succumbing to the European death cult's kool-aid, and I encourage you to rediscover the perspective of your ancestors. Traditional Native American methods of inducing abortion are more sophisticated / less invasive than the medieval ordeals Americans must tolerate today. I know this because I've used them.

Your own ancestors were not afflicted by the European's hysterical terror of death, and so did not assign ridiculous overblown significance to it. Death was simply a fact on the ground to be considered rationally. Today, European neurotics spit back through history on this perspective, calling it "fatalism" and "primitive." In fact it's eminently rational.

Because they weren't terrorized by the very thought of death, they could appreciate that abortion and infanticide were often the more loving options, especially when their children obviously had no hope of escaping ruthless European predations. The Arawaks on Hispaniola, for example, extincted themselves in this way by about 1600. That scenario recurred throughout the Americas, just as it did virtually everywhere Europeans made first contact with "primitive" cultures. Given a choice between death and the lifelong despair of enslavement, humans who know the true meaning of "freedom" will choose the former. That's why there's so few left now.
by a TG person
Tuesday Jan 10th, 2006 4:41 PM
Please check out my video
by Dolores
Wednesday Jan 11th, 2006 1:15 PM
This is in response to LittleRunningWolf's concern that she is a hypocrite if she joins us on Jan 21st. We founded the event for women like you. I am the organizer, please join us. You are neither a hypocrite nor a murderer in our eyes, simply a woman in need of healing.

Your journey to reconciliation with your past choice is not about affirming the choice but about affirming that you are also beloved.

Again, I hope that you will join us this year.
by Please clarify
Wednesday Jan 11th, 2006 2:45 PM
"Your journey to reconciliation with your past choice is not about affirming the choice"
What do you mean?
by Elizabeth Creely
Wednesday Jan 11th, 2006 7:32 PM
I'm Elizabeth, an organizer with Bay Area Coalition for our Reproductive Rights. I'm the woman who offered up Little Running Wolf my copy of "Undivided Rights", which is a history of woman of colour organizing for reproductive rights in the US.
I saw your response to to Little Running Wolf, and thought, wow! Dolores and I are acting just like those women in "Citizen Ruth"!
Isn't it funny the way life imitates art?

Love,
Elizabeth
by Dolores
Wednesday Jan 11th, 2006 10:31 PM
Hello Elizabeth,

I have not seen Citizen Ruth. To me the struggle is not political - (actually it is political for all of us isn't it?) - I do what I do because of the look I see in my friend's eyes who have had abortions. I do it because I cannot see how our civilization can survive if we continue to leave our most vulnerable citizens unprotected. For me, it is the greatest tragedy of our time. Abortion is brutal - no question. We can call it all sorts of different things and cloak it in colorful innocuous language like reproductive rights, choice etc, but it still comes down to a really horrific solution to a tough situation. I think we can all agree that women deserve better than abortion. Don't you think?

Thank you for your kind words - I hope mine are not too harsh.

Peace,
Dolores
by JD
Wednesday Jan 11th, 2006 10:46 PM
"I think we can all agree that women deserve better than abortion. Don't you think?"

Well no. This is what I heard parroted repeatedly from the anti-choicers as I helped defend our local clinics this summer from men and women who don't believe in the autonomy of women to decide for themselves.

We deserve the right to decide about our own bodies outside of the quaint religious beliefs that some may wish to impose on the rest of us, whether Chrsitian, atheist. or other faith. Until you allow us that courtesy... sorry.
by Dolores
Wednesday Jan 11th, 2006 10:53 PM
Thank you for your question. Forgiveness of one's self (reconciliation) requires an understanding of what one has done. In the case of abortion, healing seems to occur most successfully when women (and men) face the reality of what they did and come to realize that it was not a good choice. Forgiveness does not mean that what happened was okay, forgiveness means that even though what happened was wrong, you are a beloved child of God (dare I say it) and forgiveness and reconciliation are yours for the asking.

When the abortion decision is affirmed, reconciliation is not relevant. Why do you need forgiveness if you did not do anything wrong? Most people are not haunted by decisions they feel good about. Therefore, therapy that affirms the abortion decision does not tend to help women who suffer from post-traumatic stress [from having had an abortion performed on them]. I'm not sure if that makes sense? Does it?

The Walk for Life is a response to the women (and yes men also) who have said that they regret their abortion decisions. We want those women to know that we know they are hurting. If a woman is not hurting from her abortion and is at peace with her decision, then our message is not relevant to her.

I hope that answers your question.

Peace,
Dolores
by Judy Tergis
(jtergis [at] speakeasy.net) Thursday Jan 12th, 2006 11:44 AM
When one makes a decision to end a pregnancy there is no need to impose moral or legal judgment. Feelings of guilt are a personal matter, not to be required or imposed from outside. As a Christian minister I have studied the teachings of Jesus and find no mention of abortion, though there were no doubt herbs used in those days to end unwanted pregnancies. Jesus taught to forgive, love and help, period. Yet, now we see some clergy and lay people actually judging, hating and condemning.
Jesus said to leave to Cesar what is Cesar's which is clear. Leave the laws and taxes to the state and concentrate on following the teaching of Jesus in your own life.
by What?
Thursday Jan 12th, 2006 2:11 PM
Are you inplying that Jesus would endorse abortion?

Jesus offered forgiveness but He first called people to repentence. He endured a brutal death to save us from our sins - not to affirm our sins. Abortion is a terrible thing! If the clergy don't speak up when innocent life is being destroyed, who will?

I welcome your comments.
by And even if he did
Thursday Jan 12th, 2006 3:19 PM
This is a pluralistic community with more than one tradition. I'm not christian. I don't take my lead from what jesus says.
by once more
Thursday Jan 12th, 2006 3:47 PM
innocent life, innocent life

the focus on "innocence" is how the anti-choice folks resolve their blatant conflict with most being *for* the death penalty, mankind making God-like determinations of guilt or innocence, life or death, as if we are infallible

not to mention their willful ignorance regarding the incredible irony in that Jesus himself received the death penalty. if you want to talk about what Jesus would think or do in today's world, what do you think he'd say of the death penalty? it'd probably be one of his top concerns seeing how it effected him so personally

I think they like to think of themselves as "innocent" as well (it's not just for fetuses), all the while they cheer on W's war, not saying peep about the tens of thousands of deaths of "innocent" civilians George is responsible for, all the while they run around condeming gay people talking about "abominations," again willfully ignorant of the hate and violence toward gay people such mean talk (and laws) encourages.

more or less, everyone is guilty except for fetuses and self-righteous so-called Christians
by (I've pointed this out before)
Thursday Jan 12th, 2006 4:19 PM
Many peopel who are marching in this march are anti-0war and anti-death penalty- this is not meant to excuse their call to illegalize abortion, it's to point out that we have rifts in our own community that need addressing.
I'm no less distressed by this and, in order to engage in principled dissent, need to acknowledge their contributions to the anti-war and anti-death penalty before proceeding to condemnation of an aspect of their activism that kills.
I don't doubt there will be some pro war pro death penalty folks in the march...
by community member
Thursday Jan 12th, 2006 4:31 PM
If you're anti-choice, you are not part or our community.
by some?
Thursday Jan 12th, 2006 4:45 PM
as if it were just a sprinkling, a dab, a little smooch

no, it's going to be the large majority of women haters/fetus lovers

I would venture a guess that over 90% of them are pro-war and pro-death penalty, both very patriarchal obsessions

if they're not pro-woman, how could it be any other way?
by Interested
Thursday Jan 12th, 2006 8:29 PM
This for anyone who is seriously interested in respectfully discussing the issue- I'm not interested in engaging in the back and forth bash...

People obviously differ in the standard of measurement they use to determine when human life begins. Some base it on their theological or religious beliefs and others use philosophic theories. Both of these are subjective and cannot be proven by facts. Biologic human life, on the other hand, is defined by examining the scientific facts of human development. Within the scientific community there is no real controversy about when human life begins. We know that life begins at the moment of fertilization.

The controversy exists about when that life should be protected. One question, then, is this: "At what point do you believe that the unborn human being should receive protection?"

I believe that life should be protected from the moment of fertilization. Most abortion rights advocates don't appear to use this biologically based standard. My other question is this: “What standard is being used by abortion rights advocates to determine when a preborn human being should be protected? Religious/theological? Philosophical?”

p.s.- If your reply includes a reference to the preborn human as not being a "person", I would just ask you to clarify what you mean by "person" since there are so many different definitions of this word.




by Judy Tergis
(jtergis [at] speakeasy.net) Thursday Jan 12th, 2006 10:43 PM
When I see people crusading to save the lives of Iraqis and feed our hungry children in this country I see people who are following the teaching of Jesus and the Ten Commandments.

It is only interpretation that causes clergy to tell their "flock" to fight against abortion. Interpretation is only that, not the word of God. And those who tell their followers who God hates are speaking blasphemy. Those who interpret the Bible in order to enflame their followers to hate others are leading them astray by creating false gods.

There is a cruel irony that is at work in the rhetoric of the religious right: The fetus is "innocent" so it must be protected, but after birth the suffering and death caused by poverty, misogyny and bigotry is punishment for original, venial or mortal sins. Birth brings sin, so the fetus is more inportant than people who are without umbilical cord who are no longer "innocent".

Like war, no one wants an abortion, but there are times when it is necessary, especially when wisdom is lacking and contraceptives are withheld. How many fetus' were killed when we bombed Iraq? Yet the religious right elected W to save fetus'. Only their fetus' or what?

Please tell me, those of you who actively fight against abortion, what you do to end aids, hunger, genocide and war? Why did you pick this to be your battle? Can you face the starving and dieing in Africa? Or is it more comfortable to stay close to home, with like-minded pro-lifers?

Our earth is being distroyed by climate change, polution, nuclear waste, and deforestation. But who cares when the end of times is coming? We who see God in every leaf and animal are dumb-struck by the hipocracy of the religious right who hate in the name of some "god" and see divine punishment in poverty, disaster and despair.
by believe this.
Thursday Jan 12th, 2006 10:58 PM
"I believe that life should be protected from the moment of fertilization.... My other question is this: “What standard is being used by abortion rights advocates to determine when a preborn human being should be protected? Religious/theological? Philosophical?” "

You believe. Then don't YOU get an abortion.
I don't believe. I very well might get an abortion if the circumstances (which are *nobody else's business* but my own) led me to feel that was the right conclusion for ME.

None of the anti-choice seem to be able to discuss the issue for any length without bringing religion into it. And who's religion? Why THEIRS of course.

Religion has no part in the dialogue unless you are of the same religion and you believe in proseletizing. You have NO RIGHT to impose your religion on others who have other beliefs or do not believe at all.

Religion is a Private matter, as is choice. So keep Jesus and Buddha and Muhammed and Krishna and your Aunt Betty and whoever else OUT OF IT. Oh, your Aunt Betty made a terrible "mistake" and had an abortion and wants to lead others to the safe path? Well that mistake (if it was one) was hers to make. It might not be a "mistake" for someone else.
by Non-Religious abortion opponent
Friday Jan 13th, 2006 7:47 AM
Rev, a few points.....

Much of the reason Sudan and Darfur are in the news today is because of years of campaigns by religious groups to make the plight known. Across the country, thousands of charities run by religious organizations help people across a broad variety of causes. And with many of the marchers being Catholic, you should assume that they would be more liberal on issues like the death penalty and war, being as the Roman Catholic church is in opposition to them as well as abortion.

As a non-religious person, I (and my atheist/nonreligious pro-life friends) see conservative pro-lifers as somewhat hypocritical for not taking more active political stances against issues like war and the death penalty. BUT....we tend to view people who are religious, yet still not voicing opposition to abortion as more hypocritical.

And while I'm not religious, I do know that in the New Testament, someone (Paul, I'm assuming) wrote against the practice of "witchcraft".....wrong translation. The Greek word was pharmakeia, which was often used to refer to the practice of inducing abortion through herbal means.

http://www.consistent-life.org is a website for those opposed to various forms of killing, including abortion......you might be surprised to see some of the individuals and organizations supporting it.
by discussion
Friday Jan 13th, 2006 8:29 AM
and so the questions raised about what standards of value are used to determne when the pre-born human being/fetus/blasocyst have value are legit.
It is also legit to point out exactly what Catholics have done, abroad, in as far as charity work is often associated with the Catholic church.
There is a flip side to this work, as well, which I'm sure the church supports wouldnt deny- they are there to spread christianity...it isnt entirely free of self interest.
Also, their applications of the inviobility of the law of life can be a disaster.
I remember seeing in a book on indigenous tribes (in the waiting room of an environmental group) a picture of a Nun, who, the text read, had "rescued " a baby which was born with severe deformites. They were so severe that caring for the child would have taken too many resources of time, labor, food, etc..from the tribe, and moreover the tribe understood that the child would probably die in any case. It had spina bifida, and something else.
The notion of life, the ways in which it could be considered and experienced, were invested more fundumentally with the Nun, who "refused" to let the tribe kill it, and kept it alive for an extra few months.
The picture of the baby left no doubt in my mind that it was..not enjoying itself and that it appeared to be suffering. It had not achived any sort of physical integration with its self, and certainly not with anything else. It looked tortured and half alive.
The Nun, however, sitting next to it, looked calm and peaceful and said she was doing God's work. She looked intoxicated, to me- I don't mean with drink or drug. I mean with the intoxication that comes from total immersion in ones ideology.
The child died painfully, drowing in it's own lung fluid, the text said. The nun was satisfied that she had done the right thing.
by quick reponse
Friday Jan 13th, 2006 9:25 AM
You said
"The controversy exists about when that life should be protected. One question, then, is this: "At what point do you believe that the unborn human being should receive protection?"
Are you assuming that abortion isnt a protective measure? For the record, as a woman who has had an abortion, one of the first emotions I had was of protectiveness.
by to Non-Religious abortion opponent
Friday Jan 13th, 2006 5:28 PM
How odd, for someone who's not religious, you seem unusually knowledgeble about the bible.

But I'm not really interested in your opinion of Catholics, or your stand on war or on the death penalty. Those are red herrings.

You don't respect my right to make choices for myself. Who can best make those choices? As the most knowledgeble person about these PRIVATE circumstances, I and whoever I CHOOSE to take into my confidence would be best. Not someone who knows nothing about me or my circumstances.

Was I raped? Did a family member molest me? Did the condom break? These are sensitive questions, and the answers are nobody's business but mine. How dare anyone assume (as I've heard so often from the anti-choicers) that women must want abortions because they're sexually active and can't be bothered about contraception one of the usual ways.

If you take away our right to privacy and self-determination, what will be next? What if you start deciding what books and movies I should be allowed to read, as some others would like to?

What is it about females that you find so untrustworthy, so childlike that they shouldn't be capable of considering their own best interest?
by Rev. Judy
(jtergis [at] speakeasy.net) Friday Jan 13th, 2006 6:21 PM
Thanks for the link. I am learning more about the mindset of those who would take away women's rights to choose. I appreciate your openness to this issue.

The irony I mentioned was missed by all who commented, perhaps my post was too long.

Where is the outrage and anger when people die from environmental pollution related illness, for example? A politician only has to ally him/herself with the pro-life agenda and automatically receive the backing of the Christian right, even if that politician is helping corporations polute and supporting endless wars that enrich arms makers. Isn't this putting fetus' above people? Think Tom DeLay.

by Pro Life?
Friday Jan 13th, 2006 9:16 PM
When poor people were getting abandoned by our wonderful government after Katrina. People left to die in nursing homes. People shot at for trying to escape via freeway overpass into the wrong part of town (for them that is).

Don't try to tell us how you are helping those poor people now. What did you ever do to bring them the equality that should be an entitlement to any US citizen? Don't tell me you're going to adopt their children and solve all their problems. Who would trust you with their children?
by Interested
Saturday Jan 14th, 2006 1:18 PM
It seems as if you misunderstood my comments. Most of your posting consisted of commenting about people pushing their religious beliefs on others. My whole point was that religion and philosophy DO NOT prove that human life begins at fertilization. Scientific biological fact is the only thing that DOES.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you appear to say that you don't "believe" this (i.e., that human life begins at fertilization) in spite of the scientific proof. There are inevitably some people in the world who also still "believe" that the world is flat. Obviously, this doesn't change the scientific fact that it isn't. I don't say this to be sarcastic. I'm just trying to make a point.

Are you suggesting that some laws should be based on scientific facts (when available) and some shouldn't? From your comments I'm left to conclude that you are saying that deciding whether an unborn human being lives or dies should be based on someone's personal belief (the same argument you use to criticize those whose beliefs, for whatever reason, happen to differ from your own).

Individuals should vote however they want, based on whatever they want (whether influenced by philosophical, scientific, religious, or secular leanings, or a combination thereof). However, when it comes to INTERPRETING and APPLYING laws, facts should trump feelings every time.

Respectfully...

by Rev. Judy
(jtergis [at] speakeasy.net) Saturday Jan 14th, 2006 1:35 PM
The FACT that fertilization begins the life of a new being is scientific fact. The moral ramifications of that are strictly subjective. I believe ALL life should be protected, every species of life SHOULD be protected. Yet here we are killing off species every day in honor of the mighty dollar.

It is easier to impose moral judgment on women than corporations and governments, but abortion ends fewer lives than war, polution and birth defects. So it seems like a cop-out to attack women when they are really the victims of a corrupt society that would let their child starve. Women cannot stand to watch their children starve and live in the degradation of poverty.
by about science
Saturday Jan 14th, 2006 6:52 PM
There's an intelligent design to abortion!
by Response to Rev. Judy
Saturday Jan 14th, 2006 10:14 PM
Hi Rev. Judy,

Not sure what you are talking about - the abortion rate worldwide is roughly 46 million annually. The number of abortions performed in America annually is about 1.3 million down from 1.5 million per year (See Alan Guttmacher Institute). Since 1973, 46 million unborn Americans have died from abortion. What war/famine/environmental disaster, etc. combined has ever claimed that many American lives?

I don't understand why you think that you cannot oppose both war and abortion. It seems like you are saying that you want all life to be protected but because people that oppose abortion don't necessarily oppose war (which is not really true by the way) then you can't oppose abortion. Do I understand your reasoning correctly?

Please comment - thanks
by To Interested
Sunday Jan 15th, 2006 12:00 AM
Are always open to interpretation, even on the simplest of concepts.

And how do you presume to interpret facts which by right of privacy, you are not privy to?

The question of when life begins, can be different in many cultures and between many individuals, but even so, you would preempt my interpretation of the facts:

a woman knows what is best for her in judging the circumstances of her life, and that a woman's life may be more important than the tissue she may bear within her (which is potential life under my scientific interpretation of the facts).

I know from past experience that there is really no point in arguing with the anti-choice on these issues. Reasonable people will have reasonable differences. The difference between the anti-choice and the pro-choice is that you do not respect our right of autonomy while we are perfectly happy to grant you yours, in respect of your personal freedom and knowledge of yourselves.

I know our side will be accused and videoed and bible-spouted at next Saturday by your cross bearing minions. I'm sure you'll feel as outraged at us as we are at you. But until you respect our voices and quit the two faced cajoling, you can forget about any kind of real dialogue.
by Not all law is based on scientific fact
Sunday Jan 15th, 2006 11:55 AM
American law uses common law, which we inhertited from Britain- the idea of practice /precedent is the basis of most of our laws...so to say that theres some error in not deciding all laws specifically on 'scientific fact' implies that all laws are based on scientific fact, which isnt true a'tall
Finally, as a woman who has had an abortion, I don't dispute that biological life begins at conception. But that biological life does not begin to encompass the stated of moral/spiritual being that humans can attain. Furthermore, life is not the value that I used to decide to choose to have the abortion. Life is not the end all be all. thats a christian perspective(as well as others).
by Give me a break
Sunday Jan 15th, 2006 2:05 PM
That's just rhetoric. If you accept personhood for fetuses, which I don't, you may be able to file their being under some larger Nationalist identity, but Nationalist identities are usually reserved for someone who interact with the idea of an identity meaningfully and fully. Unless you think that a fetus has the moral and intellectual discernment to vote? It doesn't.
by Interested
Monday Jan 16th, 2006 9:09 AM
"Unless you think that a fetus has the moral and intellectual discernment to vote? It doesn't."

Neither do my neices and nephews, and nearly every person with a developmental disability whom I've worked with for the past 15 years. I'm sure you're not suggesting that we use that standard to decide who gets to live or not.

add your comments
by but i am suggesting
Monday Jan 16th, 2006 9:57 AM
that hanging the monicker of 'dead american' around the neck of a fetus is rediculous. Missing from this analyis is is whether "life", in any of its forms or meanings, trumps everything else.
Use of the word, as it's used by anti-choice, anti-abortion foes, with all it's attendant meanings compacted into one simple state- just generic 'life', not broken down into its many combinations, is manipulative.
Terri Schiavo had some live, dynamic systems available to "her"- a her that was largely absent, due to the fact that her sense of self has vanished, along with the frontal lobe of her brain. Those systems- digestive, some peripheral nervous systems, possibly hormonal, as well, interacted with each other, in a limited, hugely compromised way but without any oversight from her. She was alive but not self-perceiving, which is what I mean when I use the term human life.
There has to be a sense of self that is conscious of of the many iterations of self that a self-beholding "I" is capable of meditating on and plotting for(or not)
I was pregnant and chose abortion, and while I think theoretical approaches matter, experience does as well, and the strongest feeling i had, in my short time of being pregnant was of an overarching sense of self that had the capacity for plotting those iterations of self for the fetus, which at that point was really my body. There was no "person" in my body except me. There was adjunct life, in my the same way my body takes on adjunct forms of life when it carries a flue virus, and there was me creating a fictitious persona, that had I carried the fetus to term, I would have presented to the newly born baby.
I know that you'll probably say ...youre comparing a baby to a flue virus, how callous, but the thing is, the actual process of pregancy de-mystifies many things about pregnancy. It's at once mundane and fantastical...but the mundanity is there for a reason. It exists(that hard voice of reason) not for us to look away from in distress, but for us to know in as many ways in possible, what we should and can do. I couldnt afford sentiment ( and I don't like it)
by UMMM...
Monday Jan 16th, 2006 8:57 PM

YO.ALL OF YOU PRO-LIFE POOPHOLES, GO AWAY!
YOUR BELIEFS ARE FOR YOU AND YOU ALONE! YOU ARE ENTITLED TO YOUR BELIEFS AS LONG AS THEY ARENT HARMING OR EFFECTING ANYONE ELSE WHO DOESNT AGREE WITH YOURS. WHAT IM SAYING IS THAT IM NOT GOING AROUND TRYING TO FORCE YALL TO PIERCE YOUR NIPPLES COUSE I CONSIDER IT A SIN, RIGHT? ITS YOUR FUCKING NIPPLE. GO HOME AND LEAVE OTHER PEOPLE ALONE. DONT HAVE AN ABORTION IF YOU DONT WANT ONE, JUST DONT FORCE YOUR BELIEFS ON OTHER PEOPLE. WE ARENT FORCING OUR BELIEFS ON YOU, RIGHT? 70% OF PRO-LIFE LEADERS ARE MEN. NOT ONE OF THEM WILL EVER BE PREGNANT. I CANT SPEAK FOR MY WOMYN FRIENDS BUT I CAN SAY THAT I SURE AS HELL WOULDNT WANT SOMEONE TELLING ME HOW I TAKE CARE OF MY BODY IS RONG. GO AWAY. ANYONE IMPOSING A BELIEF ON ANYONE ELSE IS JUST AS GOOD AS A NAZI. KEEP YOUR FUCKING HANDS TO YOUR SELF, ASSHOLES!
by Taig
Tuesday Jan 17th, 2006 8:17 AM
>>70% OF PRO-LIFE LEADERS ARE MEN. NOT ONE OF THEM WILL EVER BE PREGNANT<<

You misquoted the sign....it says "77%", not "70%".

But even though, both percentages are wrong. Unless they're talking about "pro-lifers" in Congress. If you've ever taken the time to dig a little, you'd see that most of those involved in pro-life activities nationwide are female.

>>ANYONE IMPOSING A BELIEF ON ANYONE ELSE IS JUST AS GOOD AS A NAZI.<<

That statement is just plain ignorant. Cultures do that all the time. Obviously, some people think murder, rape, child molestation, and war are OK. But that doesn't mean we don't try to stop them.
by Good point
Tuesday Jan 17th, 2006 10:50 AM
Many of the participants in this march are female, and the march's organizer, Dolores Meehan, is as well.
by Bad point
Tuesday Jan 17th, 2006 12:28 PM
It's about OUR human rights.

Our right to be free of your religion.
Our right to our sexuality without being called "sluts".
Our right to privacy.
Our right to self-determination.

We will continue to have abortions regardless.
What is in question is our right to have safe abortions.
by Taig
Tuesday Jan 17th, 2006 2:02 PM
>>We will continue to have abortions regardless.
What is in question is our right to have safe abortions.<<

You seem to underestimate women. If abortion is made illegal, sure, many will still have them. The majority will have them in doctors offices and hospitals, just as Mary Calderone (involved in Jane) said 90% of the illegal ones pre-Roe were.

Are you familiar with what happened in Poland? Because they actually saw fewer women seeking help for gynecological problems after banning abortion than before (which wouldn't be the case if mass numbers of unsafe, illegal abortions were being performed).
by the majority
Tuesday Jan 17th, 2006 2:36 PM
will have to resort to unsupervised ,possibly non sterile abortions. The JANE network was great and my hat's off to those woman, but guess what? I'd much rather have one in a sterile supervised office. I don't want to resort to illegal abortions done secretly and covertly.
I'm not a second class citizen who wants to sneak to get my health attended to, thank you very much.
I'm not sure what you mean by your second point.
by What I meant to say
Tuesday Jan 17th, 2006 2:57 PM
was that many don't have the money to have supervised, pain-managed abortions. Some might be able to, with supportive doctors, but still more women, who can't afford to pay their doctors the amount doctors have been known to ask for, will seek unsupervised abortions
One thing that comes through in reading accounts of women pre-Roe was that Doctors used the illegality of abortions to set enourmous fees- a typical ilegal abortion back then could cost thousands of dollars. Sure, there were progressive doctors, but there were many more who simply created a black market economy and profitted from the prohibition of abortion. Read "Voices from the Back Room" for first hand accounts.
by Romania!
Tuesday Jan 17th, 2006 3:07 PM
You need to include a source if you are going to cite something, especially from another country like Poland. Or else it's meaningless.

Want to know what a country looks like with extremely strict anti-choice laws? I am sure the catholic diocese in Oakland who ran these ads and many of the nuts who come here to scoff at pro-choicers would love to see abortion straight outlawed, although I am not sure if most would allow an abortion to save the life of the mother in their zeal for control over all women's sexuality. Want to see a country with little to no birth control information? Religious fundamentalists who are anti-choice are often anti-contraception as well, just like the catholic Pope and evangelical George Bush.

Well, how about Romania for an example? It wasn't pretty.

Read on...



Romania

Because of panic over low birth rates, the 1957 statute permitting elective abortions was reversed in 1966 under Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu. Legislation set a prison term of one to five years for illegal abortions, and abortions were permitted only if a woman had already borne five children. In 1986, the law was tightened further to ban abortions for any female under age 45, unless her life was in danger.

Among the new measures were monthly monitoring of pregnant women and investigation of all spontaneous abortions. All forms of artificial birth control were prohibited.

Romania demonstrates Dr. Wendell Watters’ contention that nation-states, whatever their ideology, are prepared to take away women's right to abortion when they wish to increase their population.81

The horror wrought by this repressive policy was revealed upon the overthrow of Ceausescu in late 1989. It was discovered that the rate of abortion was actually higher than in any Western European country in which abortion was legal.56 Over 10,000 women died from illegal abortions and about 200,000 children were placed in orphanages.82 The Ceausescu regime had also forcibly returned thousands of unwanted babies to their parents. The wilful neglect of children by the state led to a predictable rise in infant mortality during the Ceausescu era.

On December 26, 1989, one day after defeating Ceausescu, the National Salvation Front repealed the draconian 1966 and 1986 decrees restricting abortion and contraception.83

Maternal mortality in Romania has decreased 317% since the abortion law was liberalized.38 The abortion rate is still high, however, since fears about the “dangers” of contraception still abound in this country. “Abortion has been the only alternative in the last 23 years. It's very difficult to get women to understand that it is healthier and safer to use contraception," said Dr. Borica Koo, head of the Romanian Family Planning Association.84
by Childbirth by Choice
Tuesday Jan 17th, 2006 3:34 PM

Thanks for excerpting that. Everyone should check this site out: http://www.cbctrust.com/index.php
i guess there Canadian
I've seen the pictures that were taken inside the warehouses of unwanted children in Romania. It was beyond hellish.
by Rev. Judy
(jtergis [at] speakeasy.net) Tuesday Jan 17th, 2006 4:37 PM
Here are some figures and links for you.
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/waterpollution.htm
Estimates suggest that nearly 1.5 billion people lack safe drinking water and that at least 5 million deaths per year can be attributed to waterborne diseases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution
It is estimated that three million people indirectly die of air pollution each year worldwide. About 90% of these mortalities are largely attributable to indoor air pollution in developing nations. In the U.S. between 50,000 and 100,000 deaths per year are linked to air pollution, more people than die from car accidents.

It’s obvious we have too much unnecessary death. That is why I wonder at the people who vote for a politician just because they promise to stop abortion. I am afraid that this crusade against choice is causing people to become too narrow in their focus so that they overlook the suffering being caused by their “pro life” politicians who, after getting elected, turn around and take away our security by allowing polluters to destroy our environment and encouraging hatred and fear of other Americans.


by another for childbirth by choice
Tuesday Jan 17th, 2006 9:24 PM
You don't have too look very far for a lack of compassion for existing lives. Look at the planning for the poor people of New Orleans.

It was OK for them to live with the risk of a cat 5 hurricane. The powers that be had already destroyed the environmentally beneficial wetlands, and couldn't be bothered to provide the infrastructure to provide against a disaster THEY KNEW WOULD COME.

The feds actuallly wanted to lower the environmental clean up standards and rape the people even further. It wasn't enough that they had their families decimated, they were supposed to live with the pollution caused by the wrecked oil facilities off the coast.

In these times of cirisis, it was OK for black people attempting to escape to be shot at in order to prevent them from entering white communities that they might contaminate. Well it's not OK.

Rich people were put ahead in line for buses leaving the relative comfort of their hotels, while other poor black people having suffered for days in the Superdome lived in squalor.

This is one obvious instance where the so-called "Right to Life" has demonstrated NO COMPASSION for the living. Until you can demonstrate you can take care of the ones we have, instead of LEAVING THEM TO DIE, then you can forget about your fantasy about babies being farmed off to Christian love nests.

Clean up your mess. These people were Americans and they were just left to rot for days on end. You can't blame the locals, this was bigger than that. Take care of New Orleans (for starters), or you're just a bunch of hypocrites with your "right to life" blather.

I'm not going to wait for the likes of the "Pro-Life" to rescue us from the next natural disaster in SF. Meanwhile, keep your laws off our bodies. If we want your advice, we'll ask.


by BACORR
Tuesday Jan 17th, 2006 11:55 PM
by Suggestion
Wednesday Jan 18th, 2006 9:04 AM
I think people could learn a lot from Mother Teresa who so often saw the extraordinary suffering of orphans firsthand.
by keep religion out it
Wednesday Jan 18th, 2006 12:25 PM
We're talking about the compassion of the conservatives. once again you bring religious figures into it.
by Purrversatility
(purrversatility [at] gmail.com) Wednesday Jan 18th, 2006 1:34 PM
It's Saturday, the 21st, not Sunday. :)
by gloria
(gloryous1 [at] yahoo.com) Thursday Jan 19th, 2006 2:37 PM
What exactly is the 'truth' about the long-tem affects of abortion? I grew up in rough neighborhood with divorced parents resulting in my having two abortions before I was 18. Thank your god that option was available. I am now a successful attorney with no regrets. Had I not had a choice, I would never have graduated high school, would be saddled with kids, and in dead-end job. So, what is the truth? Do enlighten me.
by I'm like you
Thursday Jan 19th, 2006 4:05 PM
Thats my story. I had a right to life that, had I listened to the Catholic Church about what I should be doing, I never would have been able to make happen. My right to my life is just as important. Yet we are still called selfish for saying that
by Rev. Judy
(jtergis [at] speakeasy.net) Saturday Jan 21st, 2006 4:19 PM
I just came from the protest at the Embarcadero in San Francisco where tens of thousands of people walked for "life" while the several hundred of us pro choicers rallied. Where are the progressives? It is only the right wingers who are willing to show up most of the time. Their intention is to establish a theocracy here, a facist theocracy. And they have little opposition.

Progressives are too laid back, we want to "live and let live" but we will be sold down the river. They have managed to divide our country into us and them so that we are all fighting each other while they (the powers that be) take over everything.

by Greg Smith
(nasa35 [at] cpmcast.net) Wednesday Jan 25th, 2006 3:43 PM
The wackos are from the left. At least the religious people let you speak and don't disrupt your rights.

You are such bigots.
by you lie
Wednesday Jan 25th, 2006 4:16 PM
you just want to take away a woman's right to choose
Wuddafuckin idiot! Extreme-right religious nut-jobs and fascism are like toast and jam
by out of their minds
Wednesday Jan 25th, 2006 6:36 PM
by TW
Wednesday Jan 25th, 2006 7:00 PM
Wickedly to the point, man! A true must-see. Kudos.

Where did it come from?

by funny, though
Wednesday Jan 25th, 2006 9:14 PM
from the same station that brings you No Pants Island and Fart Date

she must have just gotten back from the hilarious mixing of a solstice-type family with a right-wing nut job

this clip was funny, for sure, but it's about all I can take of hysterical self-righteous christian ranting, and fox's stupid assed programming
by good question
Wednesday Jan 25th, 2006 9:22 PM
I dunno. Somebody sent it to me. Somebody else sent it to them.

Good one, though. This is what we're up against. And there's scores of millions of of them, too. Scary.
by A.J. Lucas
(ajrome08 [at] yahoo.com) Thursday Jan 26th, 2006 4:55 PM
I have a few questions that i would really like answered. I dont mean any disrespect to your views/opinions.

1) You refer to "pro-life" supporters as "anti-choice" supporters, and you would probably also refer to them as "anti-abortion." I don't really mind the latter because it is true, we are anti-abortion. but the former is kind of misleading. True, we are against giving people the choice of whether their child (or fetus) is born or killed (or prevented from living), but we are not opposed to any reasonable choice (I realize that in saying reasonable I am using it in my own interpretation of the word). For example, if a woman chooses to give up her child for adoption, we support that. So my question is this: How do you refer to us as "anti-abortion" but you dont refer to yourselves as "pro-abortion"?

2) Also, you said, "Feminists for Life are supporting a reform (criminalizing abortion and women's
reproductive rights) that will do nothing but harm women," which I (in all honesty) do not understand. I don't see how ending abortion would harm women, however, I do know that the side effects of abortion can be fatal, not just for the child or "fetus."

3) "We are calling for a festive, racous and confrontational approach to this
right wing invasion." This I don't think I understand at all, and I see no defense possible. Why would you encourage a "racous and confrontational approach" for any reason? For this argument, I would like to present you with the names of two famous people in American history: Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcom X. MLK supported peaceful protests (as do the walk for life members) while Malcom X supported reverse racism. Which was more effective? Do we have a holiday remembering Malcom X? Is Malcom X a revered historical figure? How many 10 year olds know who Malcom X is? How many of them know who MLK is?
by depends
Thursday Jan 26th, 2006 5:16 PM
it depends on your racial upbringing

is it suburban or rural conservative white?

or are you exposed to many cultures and ideas?

I know plenty of kids who know who malcolm x is. having a holiday is not the ultimate expression of historical significance. besides, MLK is not universally celebrated either. and almost all holidays celebrate white people: columbus who called native americans "indian" and was quite cruel, US slaveowners and on and on. MLK was perhaps the most "safe" minority to give a holiday to

maybe you forget, or never knew, but MLK was into civil disobedience. the counter-protesters of the anti-woman event only participated in mild civil disobedience compared to what MLK did and encouraged others to do. MLK was quite radical given the racism and politics of the time. it's not at all like he stood up, claimed dignity for minorities, and society neatly fell into line. it was a struggle, sometimes physical, and he paid with his life, as did X
by Valerie
Thursday Jan 26th, 2006 5:52 PM
I don't understand how the pro-choice force tries to get people to its side, yet verbally and physically attacks its "enemies" and shows prejudice for their religion and beliefs, and tries to take away their right to freedom of speech. I've been seeing these pro-life marchers do nothing but walk, not even getting in anyone's face or insulting anyone. I've seen their sites and they do not condemn anyone despite what everyone thinks and are actually peaceful and loving (and forgiving). (The radical anti-abortion side which is different from the pro-lifers, however, is violent and uncaring).

What I also don't get is how you're supposed to be for women, but a vast majority of these pro-lifers are women and yet you treat them like dirt. It really doesn't make much sense that you say they're against freedom and women yet the pro-choice side advocates violence and hatred even towards pro-life women. This lack of maturity and respect really makes me like the pro-choice side less and less, and makes me feel as if the pro-choice side is a danger to everyone who tries to speak their mind.

They are two wings of the same movement. One wants to use the armed might of the state to take away your rights. The other uses direct action. Either way, you lose.
by EHara
Saturday Feb 4th, 2006 2:08 PM
What exactly is the 'truth' about the long-tem affects of abortion? [b]You don't care for the truth anyway, do you. I imagine you have somehow managed to close off the gnawing of your conscience which told you that you killed your children. And since you aren't bothered anymore by it, you believe that all the women who aren't as hardened and callous as you are are just lying.[/b] I grew up in rough neighborhood with divorced parents resulting in my having two abortions before I was 18. Thank your god that option was available. I am now a successful attorney with no regrets. [b]You had a choice. No one put a gun to your head and told you to drop your britches. And now you thank God -- Who is the author of life and not death -- that you could kill your children so you could have a career. That's the epitomy of self-centeredness. Someone else dies so you can have a life instead of living with the choices that you made[/b] Had I not had a choice, I would never have graduated high school, would be saddled with kids, and in dead-end job. So, what is the truth? Do enlighten me. [b]Of course, you could be married, a mother, and have a wonderful married life, but that isn't in the book for you socialists, is it? Heaven forbid you do something as mundane as raise kids and love and care for someone else Sad. You've bought into all the lies, haven't you?[/b]
by to EHara
Thursday Mar 9th, 2006 11:07 PM
You don't have any knowledge of why a given woman has chosen an abortion, but you are happy to guess and deny her right to privacy and her right as a person to decide her destiny on this planet.

Because of people like you, there will be women and girls lying in pools of blood, dying of illegal abortion. NOT. Because we wilil stop you. A woman's right to live (and live free of your judgement and your invasion of privacy) supercede that of a fetus.
by QERQE
(QERQE91 [at] YAHOO.COM) Monday Feb 12th, 2007 4:14 PM
I THINK THIS IS OK BUT IT DOESN'T HELP ME WITH MY HOMEWORK SO I'M JUST SAYING OK!!! DON'T GET ME WRONG ABOUT THAT ITS JUST I'M KIND OF MAD!!!

WELL BYE-BYE QERQE!!