I was kind of avoiding writing about this week's clinic because it was kind of nuts, and I need to get my head around it. But a lot of the time I think my writing is kind of boring (no I am not fishing for compliments, I just wouldn't read my stuff if I wasn't me), so it's stupid to avoid writing when something actually interesting happens.
I don't know what it was about yesterday. A combination of things happened and it was just an atmosphere kind of thing as well. When I got home and told my partner about it, he wanted to check and see if it was a full moon (it wasn't). Ok, so now I've built this up, here comes the anticlimatic tale.
The protesters were late coming out. When they did finally show up, they had reinforcements (most likely from Saint John), some of whom we had never seen before. One of them, an elderly woman, came up to one of the escorts and said, in a nice-little-old-lady voice, "You know what I wish you people would do? I wish you would provide these women with all the options. They suffer, I know you see them suffering." Poor HB (the volunteer in question) could hardly keep in all the clever comebacks, but she did an admirable job.
And then there were three kind of weird patient incidents. The first (in ascending order of strangeness) was that while a patient was in the clinic, her father left and went next door to the "Women's Care Centre". Of course the protesters got super excited and all swarmed in to greet him. He returned some time later with a handful of pamphlets and sat back in the waiting room with the patient's mother. The patient herself had already gone in to have the procedure, so as volunteer AL pointed out, that had the potential to be an awkward ride home. At least he didn't get one of the little plastic fetuses they hand out next door; I don't feel that would have gone over too well in the waiting room.
The next was a patient who, about half an hour before she was supposed to show up, called to tell us that she had been in an accident. Her car had been clipped by a truck, slid across the highway and flipped. THAT IS A CRAZY ACCIDENT. She and her partner were quite literally lucky to be alive. However, she still wanted to come for her appointment. The police ended up driving her here, and they weren't quite sure where to go; she almost ended up at the Women's Care Centre too! Wouldn't that have been the cherry on top of her day?
Car Accident Patient was quite cheery when she arrived. When I gave her the forms to fill out, she apologized for not having a bathrobe and t-shirt, as they had been in the car which was now totalled. Obviously I let her know that there was no need to worry about it, but then the whole story came pouring out of her and even though she was still smiling, she was also shaking. She was totally in shock. Poor lady. I made her sit down and drink some water, and by the time she went in for her ultrasound she was feeling a lot better. I think her plan for afterwards was to take a cab back home (over an hour's drive away), so that pretty much sucks. What a trouper!
And the worst incident was a young woman whose mother had dragged her here. The patient clearly did not want to have an abortion; while in to have her ultrasound she freaked out about the finger prick test, and then told the nurse, her mother and anyone who would listen that it was a blessing to be pregnant, a beautiful gift from God. Incidents like this are never as amusing as you think they are going to be, at least not at the time. While back in the waiting room, she was talking to her parents, trying to get them to leave. Another patient came up to me in tears and told me that either Gift-from-God patient had to go, or she would. Apparently GfG was blabbing on in the middle of the waiting room about how she wasn't going to "kill [her] baby" and all that. In the end, we had to ask her to either leave or stop upsetting the other patients. She left.
Outside, GfG and her parents were approached by Pink Hat, in her rosary-counting, Jesus-totin' glory. GfG's mother was already SUPER PISSED, and ended up giving Pink Hat a nice little shove (she wasn't hurt). While I don't condone the violence, I feel that the protesters have to assume that their presence is going to provoke that kind of reaction sometimes. Anyway, they are a litigious bunch over there so they must be pretty mad that there's no way for them to find out the woman's name or where she is from.
So...it's been pretty nuts.
Here is an article I like, that expresses some things I wish I could put into words.
119 comments:
Wowzer. I am really sorry I had to leave. I hope there were enough of us there to keep things in check. 40 Days for Li(f)es begins, so that must be why they had reinforcements. Joy. A little bit of extra crazy on Tuesdays. See you all in a couple weeks! AB
Also, thanks for writing! I like to keep apprised of things that happen that I miss! AB
All I have to say is thank God that the 3rd baby was saved from having its arms and legs dismembered by the baby butchers.......hmmmmm and we're the crazy ones? Come on....get real.
I am glad that the girl who didn't want to have an abortion wasn't forced to. Unlike PLers who think it is fun to force a nine month form of rape on them and care NOTHING for the harm they inflict on women, ProChoicers don't think it is fun to force anything on anyone. And you call us the crazy ones? Come on....get real.
We don't FORCE people to not get abortions. We simply allow them, through peaceful protest, to make their own decisions. It's not as if we drag the women from the killing factory. Most of them, if not all, have been VERY lied to by people regarding their baby being a "clump of cells" which is "incapable of feeling". Science proves otherwise as a fetus of merely nine weeks pulls away from sources of pain. Check your scientific resources and you'll find, believe it or not, that abortion is certainly not the best choice. P.S. I DO NOT side with people who shoot people at abortion clinics so don't try pulling that card. Good day.
"The patient clearly did not want to have an abortion... told the nurse, her mother and anyone who would listen that it was a blessing to be pregnant, a beautiful gift from God. Incidents like this are never as amusing as you think they are going to be, at least not at the time."
What? Regardless of whether you're prolife or prochoice, I don't see how a mother trying to compel her daughter to have an abortion could seem humorous to ANYONE.
"Apparently GfG was blabbing on in the middle of the waiting room about how she wasn't going to "kill [her] baby" and all that. In the end, we had to ask her to either leave or stop upsetting the other patients. She left."
You're painting GfG as a disruptive influence rather than someone whose choice is not being respected. What's up with that?
"GfG's mother was already SUPER PISSED, and ended up giving Pink Hat a nice little shove (she wasn't hurt). While I don't condone the violence, I feel that the protesters have to assume that their presence is going to provoke that kind of reaction sometimes."
Why is it that you appear to be sympathizing with GfG's mother? You are prochoice because regarding abortion, you consider the right to choose to be paramount. Pink Hat is prolife because regarding abortion she considers the right to life to be paramount. So WTF does that make "GfG-mere"? Aside from being 'super-pissed', she's the only true anti-choicer in this story.
Anonymous,
What can 'science' possibly tell us about what is "the best choice" for an individual? Choice is entirely subjective. That means that what is right for one person in one set circumstances might not be right for another. Countless factors play into the decision of what to do with an unexpected pregnancy. A woman's morals, her socio-economic status, and her support-network are just a few of the elements that might influence her decision. The determination of one's 'best choice' is a completely individual, context-specific one. It is also one that no credible branch of science would ever objectively impose on all women.
...get real.
"What? Regardless of whether you're prolife or prochoice, I don't see how a mother trying to compel her daughter to have an abortion could seem humorous to ANYONE."
I think I could have phrased that better, you're right.
"You're painting GfG as a disruptive influence rather than someone whose choice is not being respected. What's up with that?"
What's up with that is that GfG was both a disruptive force AND someone whose choice was not being respected (at least, not by her mother). When someone is acting like that in the waiting room, we have to think of the other people who are there. Especially in this situation, when there was no reason for this young woman to stay since she had made up her mind and didn't require our services. If she wanted to speak with the counsellor, she could have, but either way we have to think of the comfort of the majority over one person.
"Why is it that you appear to be sympathizing with GfG's mother?"
Why is it that you appear to be painting this in black and white? It is all shades of grey to me. I sympathize with everyone in this story. I think the mother is in a very frustrating situation here. I don't agree with how she dealt with it and I don't think her actions (both forcing her daughter to come here and pushing Pink Hat) can be justified. However, I sympathize with her because first of all her daughter is being HARRASSED after a very trying experience, and secondly because I have little doubt that she (the mother) will be taking on a lot of the responsibility for caring for the baby. It is always going to be the daughter's choice, it being her body, but the mother is implicated in the result, and that must be frustrating.
And yes, the mother is anti-choice, but she is NOT the only one in this story. Pink Hat (and the other protesters) is anti-choice. She is opposed to the choice to have an abortion. That is the definition.
"And yes, the mother is anti-choice, but she is NOT the only one in this story. Pink Hat (and the other protesters) is anti-choice. She is opposed to the choice to have an abortion. That is the definition."
Sure, if you you're willing to use biased labels which the people you're labeling would reject. Presumably the protesters wouldn't acknowledge that someone who is supportive of abortion rights is 'prochoice'. One could easily justify using the term 'pro-abortion' with the reasoning that it follows the same logic as calling opponents of gun control, 'pro-gun'.
I disapprove of name calling. f one side is prochoice (because they self-identify as such), then the other is prolife (not antichoice).
I've never met an antiabortion activist motivated by an aversion to personal freedom. I've never met an abortion rights advocate motivated by an affinity for abortions. I expect that such creatures only exist in our imagination.
I don't understand (from what you recounted of events) how GfG was harassed by the protesters (given that she and they sound like they saw eye to eye). GfG's mom may have been harassed, but (even if her motives are easy to understand) she was obviously out of line.
"It is all shades of grey to me. I sympathize with everyone in this story."
You sympathize with the Earpiece Charlie and the Mad Chatter and the rest of the Bible patrol? Good for you. I may have misjudged you. I had the impression that you didn't feel any sympathy for Pink Hat.
Edward -
the 'science' bit presumably was about "incapable of feeling", not "the best choice".
Ununnilium - I don't particularly care what you call the two sides and why; I am tired of that particular debate and regardless, I've made my choice. Pro-abortion and anti-abortion only refer to objection or support for one of the options. Pro-choice people support women having a choice. Anti-choice people do not want women to have a choice. Those are the descriptors I use, for that reason.
I don't personally care if you disapprove. I find you saying so a little condescending.
"I don't understand (from what you recounted of events) how GfG was harassed by the protesters (given that she and they sound like they saw eye to eye)."
Believe it or not, you can be harrassed by someone you agree with ideologically. I have had people tell me that they oppose abortion but still think the protesters are awful. Pink Hat was harrassing people simply by her presence, and she was harrassing GfG specifically by approaching her (and her parents) when they clearly did not want or need to be approached.
"You sympathize with the Earpiece Charlie and the Mad Chatter and the rest of the Bible patrol? [...] I had the impression that you didn't feel any sympathy for Pink Hat."
That's what happens when you try to guess what other people feel. I do sympathize with the protesters, for totally different reasons that I'm not getting into here.
Your "good for you" nonsense is patronizing and unnecessary.
For what it's worth I actually do find sidewalk demonstrating pretty distasteful. It doesn't stop me from sympathizing with the protesters (even if their proselytizing offends me).
I guess I make allowances for them because I think that even if they're going about it the wrong way and even if they're spouting superstitious nonsense, they're still fighting against injustice.
I expect that your willingness to cut GfG's mom a break comes from a similar place.
I totally get how your observation that the GfG incident wasn't as funny as one would expect was probably just a poor choice of words and not callous or profoundly offensive. It probably only seems like you're condescendingly finding amusement in someone else's concept of what is sacred.
Such misunderstandings are bound to happen now and again. Like when the author of 'Prosaic Pro-Aborts' wrote that dumping animal blood all over the furniture in the waiting room of an abortion clinic "isn't as much fun as it sounds."
I am being condescending to you, but I feel that it's abundantly deserved.
If you feel I deserve condescension, why bother even participating here? Clearly I am beneath you.
We don't FORCE people to not get abortions. We simply allow them, through peaceful protest, to make their own decisions. It's not as if we drag the women from the killing factory.
I don't think there's anyone out there who doesn't realize: "hey, if I don't take the time to make an appointment, walk into this building past screaming angry people, pay some amount of money, and have an abortion, I could have a baby in nine months!" If they're at the clinic, they know they're either pregnant or might be pregnant. They know pregnancy, sans abortion=baby. It's really patronizing and disingenuous for you to pretend that yelling at women from a sidewalk is "telling them their options" when in my experience it's often "telling them lies about infertility and cancer."
I DO NOT side with people who shoot people at abortion clinics so don't try pulling that card. Good day.
The fact that you feel the need to say this in the first place proves the instability of your position. In my memory, I have never backed up or justified one of my political beliefs with "BUT I DON'T SUPPORT MURDER!" If you're out there, screaming at women, spreading lies, you are supporting the murder of doctors.
Now that I know you feel free to criticize others for the same sort of rhetoric that you employ-
you're right this blog is a waste of my time.
Have fun preaching to the choir.
That was maybe the shortest time any troll has lasted here before storming off. Sorry friend, try harder next time.
I know you think you're a strong, sorry very strong/courageous woman, as your name suggests, but your argument is extremely flawed. How the hell can you assume that by peacefully protesting what I beleive to be murder that I, in any way, condone the shooting of doctors. Sorry my friend but LOGIC FAIL! Second point: while it may be a lower percentage than you would care to realize there IS indeed the chance that a woman can be rendered infertile from having this procedure. It is not, and will NEVER be 100% safe and I don't care what argument you attempt to serve me on this because, quite frankly, it would be a heaping pile of bullshit.
Anonymous - there is also a chance that you will bleed to death from having your tonsils removed. There is a chance that taking ibuprofen will permanently damage your liver. There is a chance that a stay in hospital will result in your contracting a flesh-eating bacteria. Every medical procedure has risk, and many of these risks are *extremely* unlikely. The protesters would like clinic patients to think otherwise. Why do you assume that women have not done their research, weighed their options, and made the choice that's right for them? I've read protester's comments that suggest we escorts gleefully drag unwilling women into the clinic and force abortions on them. That's an interesting take on the fact that we trust women to make their own choices, and we help them past an angry, judgmental, and rarely "peaceful" mob.
Anonymous - a few years ago in the area where I used to live, a girl died from complications from anesthesia during a simple tooth extraction at a dentist's office. I never saw anyone come down and protest that clinic or the procedure. Can you explain why to me?
Also, its common knowledge you are far, far more likely to die or suffer complications (including the inability to have more children) from giving birth. Why is this never brought up as a warning to women?
"I've read protester's comments that suggest we escorts gleefully drag unwilling women into the clinic and force abortions on them". HB before writing a sentence you may want to carefully dissect it so it makes sense. Clearly if a woman is walking into the clinic she has ALREADY proven her willingness for the procedure and, if I may be so bold, I would like to ask where you read that we believe escorts force abortions on women. Hmmmm falsification perhaps? Steph if you are a half-witted person you would be able to figure out the answer to your own question through simple logic......ummmmmm.....there a HUMAN BEING involved???!!!! Not the same as a f$#%^& tooth extraction!!!! Perhaps that's why there are people, including myself, who are willing to peacefully (and I mean peacefully...sorry HB) protest!!
Also Steph if you're going to make a claim about the link between childbirth and future infertility you should include a peer-reviewed journal so your argument appears somewhat credible.
Anonymous, your accusation that I falsify evidence is ridiculous. I have read comments on this blog, on other blogs, and in letters to the editor whose authors claim that escorts force unwilling women to have abortions without giving them all their options. These comments often reference how happy we are to escort these women into, as one local writer put it, our "temple of death."
I actually support your right to peaceful protest, even though I obviously disagree with your beliefs. However, every week I see women being physically intimidated and verbally assaulted in front of the clinic. This is not peaceful.
"whose authors claim that escorts force unwilling women to have abortions without giving them all their options. These comments often reference how happy we are to escort these women into, as one local writer put it, our "temple of death." Once again HB you have written "unwilling" when referring to the patient. If they were UNWILLING they WOULD NOT be there. With all due respect if you were not satisfied with your services you would not be an escort either so I have successfully debunked the second part of your sentence for you. With regards to the "temple of death": this establishment is set up specifically for killing something. This "clump of cells" has a beating heart. Whether you refer to it as a fetus or any other organism you, by removing it willfully from the body, are killing it. Why do you then become so offended by this association? What else are you doing to the organisms you refer to as a "choice-bound clump of cells"? If I swat a bug on a wall would you call it a choice or the killing of an organism? That's right I knew you would choose the latter....
"Once again HB you have written "unwilling" when referring to the patient. If they were UNWILLING they WOULD NOT be there."
That's exactly why it's so ridiculous that they say it. I think you're misunderstanding what HB is saying. We do not force people to have abortions. Some of the protesters think we do, and they think they have SEEN escorts dragging unwilling women into the clinic. I have definitely read that and heard them say it, too.
HB is just pointing out the ridiculous stuff the protesters think about us.
Also, Anonymous, why do you keep referring to a "clump of cells"? Did someone pro-choice argue that a fetus is nothing but a "clump of cells"? Did I miss that? Regardless, I assure you that HB and I and everyone who works and volunteers at the clinic is aware of what takes place in an abortion procedure.
Let's suggest for a moment that situations, by and large, are neutral. It's the perception of the event which gives it its relevance. Your perception, given you're pro-choice, is that the woman has the right to choose regardless of whether or not a human being is killed in the process. My take, being pro-life, is that it is inherently wrong to murder a human being in the quest to preserve women's rights. I have read your blogs about "pink hat" and others who "carry around crucifixies and plastic fetuses". What you are insinuating is that we are crazy for our beliefs. Why then are we not allowed to use our "rights" when assuming that you are crazy for aiding and abetting women in the quest for murder? Just because we don't agree with your perception does not make us crazy or wrong. What makes your perception of events correct? It's like defining normalcy; an impossible feat. P.S. I have personally observed pro-choicers getting physical with anti-choice....it goes both ways.
Only honest answers here....How many of you, but once, thought that what you're doing just might be morally wrong?
Yup, this blog is my perception of events. I'm not sure what your point is in pointing that out. Did you hear somewhere that it was a newspaper? Of course it's my perception, of course it's subjective; all personal writing is.
"Just because we don't agree with your perception does not make us crazy or wrong."
I don't remember ever saying that it did. Perhaps you inferred that from my writing, but it's not what I believe.
"I have personally observed pro-choicers getting physical with anti-choice....it goes both ways."
I don't remember ever saying that it didn't.
Please point out to me where I said that all pro-choice people are never physically aggressive, or where I said that I think the protesters are crazy because of the beliefs they hold.
What exactly are you arguing in this comment?
I can gladly answer that for myself. I personally have struggled a lot with the morality of abortion. I'm not actually sure if I ever believed it was morally wrong, or what I do for a living (that's just me, the escorts are volunteers) is morally wrong. But the issue itself has definitely given me pause. Being "pro-choice" did not come easily to me. I struggled.
However, I am unapologetically pro-choice now and I believe every woman deserves the right to make choices about her reproductive life, no exceptions.
The Holy Ghost perched herself on top of a snowbank and called out to patients like some kind of bizarre prophet. All our usual favourites were out, including Crazy Legs, Pink Hat (except now it's a red hat), and that angry-looking young man with the sign that has fake flowers glued to it in the shape of a cross (I forget; did we ever come up with a name for that guy?)" quote Pedgehog.
40 Days for Li(f)es begins, so that must be why they had reinforcements. Joy. A little bit of extra crazy on Tuesdays" quote Not Guilty.
It seems words like "bizarre" and "crazy" are used to describe our perception. My point in this argument is that it is unfair to post adjectives and adverbs such as these when disagreeing with someone's belief system. Personally mocking someone because they do not agree with your take on things is socially unacceptable.
Thank you for your honesty. I find it endearing that at least one member on your side of the fence "struggles" with their conscience. If I may be so bold to ask what made you sway to the "unapologetic" side of things? There are many levels of pro-choice. That seems quite extreme and I'd be interested to know what brought you there.
"It seems words like "bizarre" and "crazy" are used to describe our perception."
And I would argue that although you may have interpreted it that way, I was actually using those words to describe behaviour. I write what I observe and then I interpret it. I really have no idea if any of the protesters are "crazy" and I wouldn't presume to make those assumptions.
I don't think that being pro-life is inherently crazy (although I do apologize if I come across like I do. That's not my intent.) I sympathize with the pro-life position. It's not the protesters' beliefs I take issue with: it's their behaviour.
"If I may be so bold to ask what made you sway to the "unapologetic" side of things?"
That is too much to get into in the comments section. If you are actually interested and you remind me, I'll do a blog post about it.
How the hell can you assume that by peacefully protesting what I beleive to be murder that I, in any way, condone the shooting of doctors.
Well, considering that the majority of the shouting I've heard from protesters at 'my' clinic centers around the idea that the doctors are "baby-killers" and that the clinic is a "temple of doom" where "babies" are "torn limb from limb," and considering that this is being yelled out by and around people who could take this as an incitement to violence (as has happened in the past), why do you think I believe that? The murderers of abortion doctors weren't inspired to go out and shoot someone by playing too much Grand Theft Auto and just happen to pick a doctor, they were inspired by the rhetoric of the anti-choice movement.
Why is it in society someone always looks to outside sources for the reason behind a problem. Tiger Woods sleeps with 15 women and he has a sex addiction, Marilyn Manson has a song about suicide and kids kill themselves, pro-life people maintain that a "fetus" is a human being and a gun-toting individual shoots a doctor. My point is everyone is accountable for their own individual actions. Quit blaming the masses. Should the whole of Afghanistan be bombed/annihilated for the actions of Osama Bin Laden? Not quite.
If you're out there, screaming at women, spreading lies, you are supporting the murder of doctors."
Wow! I think you need to admit defeat on this one....each action is completely mutually exclusive. Even if I shouted until I lost my voice (which I don't) I still would never shoot a doctor. Sorry but no go with that one.
Pro-liars do support terrorism in the name of their beliefs. They're just not willing to openly admit it, because then they'd have to admit to their true misogynistic attitudes toward all women (especially those who will not permit a man to hold control over them).
I have heard no less from one such who flat out told me when I expressed rage over the assassination of Dr. Tiller that "he was just as guilty as the guy who shot him."
Pro-liars are just too cowardly to do the dirty work themselves, so they watch while the extremists (encouraged by the god-warrior insanity and the hateful lies against women, and the entitlement attitude of the patriarchy that was built by and for white Christian conservative males only) on their side do, and put on their phony masks of "awww, we're so sorry this tragedy happened" while secretly gloating on the inside that women's rights have yet again been chipped away at, and more women will have to bear a burden that the pro-liars are in no way willing to help care for even though they're responsible for it being there. (Pro-liars are known for voting against family-supportive programs and women's healthcare too; so much for caring about children/families)
(And to clarify: the extremists like the terrorist who murdered Dr. Tiller aren't in the least bit brave either. They're just bullies who are so self-deluded they'll do anything for their sick moment of 'glory'.)
Pro-liars support, however indirectly, this terrorism when they refuse to stop spouting lies about contraception, abortion, and when they refuse to allow others to make their own decisions about their own lives so the liars have to waste your time and theirs by harassing women because liars don't like their decision. How dare these liars think they should have the right to control a total stranger? How dare pro-liars think they know exactly what's going on in that stranger's life that they can tell her what she can and can't do?
Anti-choice IS anti-awesome!
Wow! Your self-righteousness is palpable! How dare you tell me that I "secretly" support the killing of ANY human being. You completely mock your own ideals when you try to tell me what I believe and how to believe it! I also love the vocabulary formed by nearly ALL pro-choice brethren I have spoken to. Words like "pro-liar", "pro-birther", and "fetus fetishist". Really, you guys have to all get together and come up with newer and more original names...they become tiresome at best and nauseating at worst.
Not to get too personal here but I can, with near certainty, predict you are 1. a mesomorph-endomorph female 2. a fierce lesbian full of human rights bravado 3.one who has had at least 1-2 abortions. Tell me how accurate I am....I'm sure I've hit at least one description....and, no, I am not the racist, sexist, or anti-gay/woman you would only love to classify me as. Kindly realize that by making generalized statements you not only appear extremely un-educated but, in addition, miserably misguided.
What is a "mesomorph-endomorph female"? I've never heard that term before.
Dear Anonymous,
"1. a mesomorph-endomorph female"
What does that even mean? Are you a sports psychologist? Do you like pseudo-science? Would you like to discuss the four humours with me? That'd be pretty awesome - I think that you might have a bit too much yellow bile. I'd recommend a cool bath.
"2. a fierce lesbian full of human rights bravado
3. one who has had at least 1-2 abortions."
I'm glad that we've found some common ground. I commend you for having a fluid conception of sexuality. Do you feel the same way about gender? Maybe we could start a Judith Butler discussion group?
Love,
Anonymous
I'm sorry...I realize my medical terminology may be a bit musunderstood by some. Mesomorph is a person of medium weight whereas an endomorph is categorically overweight/obese. Ectomorph would desribe those of thin build. Thus hyphenating the two terms together would invariably mean medium-overweight physique. As for the bile comment: my hepatocytes are in great working order thank you and, I'm quite sure, if I did have a problem with excess of yellow bile a cool bath woul be useless. Perhaps we could do Ann Coulter? I admire her tenacity in the face of criticism and, furthermore, I think it would be quite comical.
Ok, so now I'm confused as to what Proud Pro-Choicer's physique, gender identity and sexuality have to do with anything. Also, why is it ok to say "not to get too personal but..." and then ask a question that is not only extremely personal, but also invasive and irrelevant? How does it change the validity of the points they are making?
I do have to say, just because it ticks me off, pro-life commenters are consistently the ones who bring up people's appearances on here and often try to tie that in. For example, I myself am fat, but that does not make my opinion on abortion wrong (or right!). I'm not saying you said that, but you are bringing up appearances and it is utterly irrelevant. Why are you all so fixated on this?
This is from what I recall from my psychology classes from college years back. Somatotypes are body types that were described by an American psychologist in the 1940's if I remember correctly. It's a theory that links body types to temperament, and is a bit more complex than (whichever) anonymous explained. By the way, why so many anonymous posters? Have the courage of your convictions to at least post a name of some kind. Body types are not just about weight but about build and muscle, and the ability to lose and gain muscle and fat. An endomorph isn't necessarily fat; fat and muscle amount are not fixed and can be modified.
Anyway, this theory is considered outdated by many scientists today, and what it has to do in a discussion about abortion baffles me.
Ah....I'm glad you brought this up
Pedgehog. I was hoping the "Proud Pro-Choicer" would astutely respond to this. I was practicing a little reverse psychology. You see our friend "PP-C" generalized us "pro-liars" (as she called us) as being secretly behind, and condoning of, the murder of abortion doctors. She used stereotypical jargon to attempt to describe MY thoughts and beliefs. This is her personal observation of us (Pro-Life) as a whole. In my experience, having been to many a rally, most of the women I see who are fervent about abortion rights are 1.female (usually middle-heavyweight) 2.lesbian and/or radical feminists 3.have undergone the procedure. I was hoping that "Proud Pro-Choicer" would pick up on this so that I could relay to her that generalizations are mere assumptions and have no basis in reality. I am sorry to have offended you Pedgehog...it was intended purely for argument.
If you read properly Kristen assuming, of course, that you can. You wouuld understand that I merely used some fancy vocabulary to describe a certain body type. That's all..end of story. There was no intention of interrelating 1940's scientific data with the abortion debate. The Darwin theory is also outdated but still applicable so I don't get your point regarding outdated material. As far as I'm concerned anything written yesterday is outdated as time tends to propel forward. P.S. you win the Nobel Peace Prize for figuring out that endomorphs can modify their body types...wow revolutionary...deit and exercise anyone? Anyway who cares? P.P.S. Even if I did post my name, which might or might not be fake, how would that add to the credibility of my argument? You could be Kristen Smith,Kristen Davis, hell, even Kristen Stewart and it doesn't make a damn bit of difference regarding your argument.
Do you talk to these people at rallies? How else would you know their gender identity, sexuality, and medical history?
Also, I still don't get the point of your "reverse psychology". If you object to being stereotyped, just say so. There's no point in coming back with something more offensive.
It's not like it's hidden in any way, shape, or form. With women wearing t-shirts claiming "I had an abortion" whilst kissing their female companions it's a pretty fair assumption. Again, even though I have observed these, I don't prtend to believe that every woman who is pro-choice is a radical lesbian feminist who has multiple abortions on the weekends. I wanted to get my point across as feverishly as "Proud Pro-Choice" did. You have to admit she was a little rabid...I'm still wiping the foam off my face.
I've been to my fair share of pro-choice rallies and I don't see a lot of same-sex making out (or any making out). Which isn't to say it doesn't happen, but I doubt it's the majority. I've also never seen anyone wearing one of those shirts; again, I'm sure they do (I hope people do!) but the majority? What kinds of rallies are you going to? ....or are you exaggerating?
Also, FYI, just because someone looks like a woman to you doesn't mean that is their gender identity, and just because a woman is kissing another woman doesn't mean she identifies as gay.
Well I live in Toronto and, believe me, it happens quite often. I also get that one can kiss a girl...and like it (sorry Katy Perry) and not consider herself lesbian. I just find it hard to understand why women, at an historically public venue, would want to outwardly appear homosexual if they, in fact, were not. Anyway the whole point of my blog was to demonstrate that stereotypes are unjust and misleading.
Bisexuals exist.
Also, ok stereotypes suck. You could just say that, instead of taking us all down a confusing and potentially offensive path of "reverse psychology".
Why not just speak plainly then? If you want to say "fat" say fat, if you want to say "medium" build, say medium build. Why resort to "fancy medical terminology."
Oh, I get it. You need to prove how obtuse everyone but yourself is. Seems to me that if the people you are trying to get a point across to don't get your point because you insist on using "fancy medical terminology" then you may be more interested in trying to make yourself look smart and in being condescending than actually having a real conversation. Give yourself a pat on the back.
You know, I was going to post my full name here but I think you can just e-mail me and we can make plans for lunch instead, if you promise not to use fancy medical words that us dumb people can't understand.
You may decide to respond to this post or not, but I will not be posting anything further as I don't feel like wasting any more time on you and I have said all I really feel like saying to you. Have a nice day.
I forgot. My e-mail address is krissbunny@gmail.com
Reverse psychology may not have been the proper terminology. Back in grade 7 (further back than I would care to admit) my teacher did a lesson on racism. She divided half the class into "white" and "black" populace. For an entire week the children labeled black were able to get longer recess breaks, lunch breaks, and other sources of blatant favoritism. As guessed the "white" kids, myself included, were pissed because the "black" kids were getting the best treatment for no good reason. When pressed the teacher told us that we were undeserving and weren't as good as the "black" kids (BTW this same exercise was done on Oprah). This exercise made every child in the class realize how shitty it was to make generalizations and stereotypes about people. In my blog I was merely attempting to emulate this. I don't call it a hurtful exercise...I call it an educational one.
Ok, but your delivery sucked because no one knew what you were talking about. So it might have just been easier to say "please stop using stereotypes/broad generalizations. I find them hurtful and untrue". Or something like that. That's all.
Well, if I may be so bold, I think your friend's delivery sucked as she was insinuating or, rather, boldly stating that I support killing people. Let's play fair here. If your going to point out my errors you should also point out hers. Kristen quit being so juvenile. I can't help how I describe things but I appreciate you calling me intelligent. Thanks ever so much.
"Baby butchers"? Gee, now that doesn't sound like someone who stands against violence perpetrated upon abortion providers. It's unfortunate, also, that you don't know that words have a lot of power. Or have you never heard of bullying? Seems to me that bullying (and the responses it engenders) has a lot to do with words and their power. So *now* do you realize, along with your failed reverse psychology bit drama, that every time you say something like this you ARE inHERently providing implicit support for the actions of the murderer of Dr. Tiller? If not, that's even sadder.
Oh, btw, having the 'courage of one's convictions' by putting one's name up is all fine and good as long as one is sure that it won't lead to death BY conviction.
"If you read properly Kristen assuming, of course, that you can. You wouuld understand that I merely used some fancy vocabulary to describe a certain body type."
That was not clear at all. What is clear is that a) you are trying to sound smart, b) you are not interested in debating ideas (which is in itself sort of a dead end on the internet), but fighting over inanities, and c) you are taking every opportunity to insult people, but then expecting them to hold themselves to a higher standard.
Making a spelling error while making fun of someone's literacy: awesome. (I'll ignore the grammatical errors - this is the internet after all).
Your 'reverse psychology' technique is ridiculous. (Reverse psychology is when you take an opposing position in order to get someone to back the position that you actually support. It works well with 5 year olds. I don't think there is a name for whatever you did). You can't intentionally make generalizations in order to show someone else that making generalizations is wrong (and it isn't inherently wrong mind you - the world is pretty complicated, some generalizations are necessary) and then say that your generalizations were correct (or at least based on evidence). That doesn't make sense. You can't say that a=b, b=wrong, therefore a=wrong and then say "oh wait, well b is based on what I saw at rallies in Toronto and is basically accurate." That undermines your point and allows the person you are arguing with to say that their generalization is also based on experience. So I don't think that you are the amazing argument panther that you make yourself out to be.
Anyway, this is pointless: you're not debating, you're just being argumentative and puerile. The blog post was about a woman who did not want an abortion and did not get an abortion, and several women who wanted abortions and got abortions. If you feel that there is something wrong with that, please explain why in clear, straightforward language. Something along the lines of "I believe that abortion is a sin/murder and that none of those women should have been legally permitted to have abortions," "that woman should not have succumbed to her anger despite the situation," or whatever. If you can manage to avoid name calling and generalizations, the people that you are entering into a debate with will probably do the same.
"Well, if I may be so bold, I think your friend's delivery sucked as she was insinuating or, rather, boldly stating that I support killing people."
I don't know Kristen.
"Let's play fair here. If your going to point out my errors you should also point out hers."
No. Here's another one of yours though: it's 'you're', not 'your'.
"Kristen quit being so juvenile. I can't help how I describe things but I appreciate you calling me intelligent. Thanks ever so much."
Why should I bother pointing out Kristen's 'errors' when you already are, and being an asshole about it in the bargain?
Also, what AL said.
Anonymous,
Please stop hurting the English language and stop hurting logic. Your statements are ludicrous.
I'm particularly fond of "I can't help how I describe things..."
Yes. Yes, you can help how you describe things. That's the beautiful thing about free will. You can describe whatever you want in the manner of your choosing. Moreover, your chosen medium, the English Language, is rich in both subtlety and nuance. You chose to describe body type in an intentionally alienating manner in the hope of sounding articulate. Nonetheless, you made this choice.
I'm additionally fond of "If you read properly Kristen assuming, of course, that you can. You would understand that I merely used some fancy vocabulary to describe a certain body type."
That's some pretty big talk from a troll that can't punctuate.
Finally, I am baffled by your attempted lesson in stereotyping. The point that you were trying to prove was barely comprehensible, and you sought to prove it in a manner that, while offensive, was as far from instructive as one could imagine.
Hello, someone please tell me when I insinuated and/or boldly stated that any one calling themselves anonymous here supported killing? Or perhaps there was a misunderstanding, as "anonymous" seems to excel at obfuscation.
Sadly, freewomansholyinheritance, you are all too correct about being able to safely use one's name nowadays. I guess I just get so tired of people who will only post under " anonymous." But you have a very good point, and I wanted to acknowledge that. I live in a city where an abortion provider was murdered in his home by a coward hiding in the bushes. So I wasn't trying to be flip, I just do get frustrated sometimes that the actions of anonymous cowards such as James Kopp hold free speech hostage.
AL and Edward, each of you said what I was trying to say only you both did a much better job of it.
And no, I do not know The Pedgehog, but I do enjoy reading her blog and I admire her patience.
Ya know what guys....you all need to take the BIG ferry to fuck off island! Sorry you all deserved that....Just because YOU didn't know what an endomorph was and then trample me because of a typng error (which was impossibly clear). Come on who the fuck spells would as woould?! You guys just look for things to pounce on people about because they DISAGREE with you. How ridiculously petty! The only difference between a "troll" and a "freelance author" here is a union of agreement on this issue. Pathetic...really. I was simply trying to give a stereotyped view of what a pro-choicer is and you all, due to lack of comprehension, tear me a new asshole? Get a fuckin life and, more importantly, an education! Good day.
"You guys just look for things to pounce on people about because they DISAGREE with you."
...and you don't?
"Get a fuckin life and, more importantly, an education! Good day."
You took the words right out of my mouth.
Are the cabins better on the "BIG" ferry to fuck off island? I was in steerage on the smaller ferry once and it was pretty cramped.
Well at least now it's affirmed you've been to fuck off island more than once....I pretty much already knew that though.
So I wasn't trying to be flip, I just do get frustrated sometimes that the actions of anonymous cowards such as James Kopp hold free speech hostage."
First off, I completely understand, Pedge, if you refuse to post this because I am sure you do not mean to have this turned into a 'buddy thread'. Secondly, if this is posted, I wanted to thank Kristen for her acknowledgment, as I cannot do it anywhere else. Thirdly, I agree, it is frustrating, Kristen. I just wanted people to be aware that there are valid reasons to post under the term Anonymous. I should know, I have done it several times, myself....
And, in regards to the one who used to be the other anonymous. No one was 'pouncing' on you because they didn't know what the terms meant. I knew exACTly what those terms meant. I still think your delivery 'sucked'. For reasons that Al stated. So, sorry, neither Al nor any of the others need to take the "BIG ferry to fuck off island".
The nations and kingdoms will proclaim war against each other, and there will be famines and earthquakes in many parts of the world. But all this will be only the beginning of the horrors to come.’” Matthew 24:3-8 (NLT)
Ms. Cooke,
I plead with you and your followers to take heed to the warnings from Our Heavenly Father. Today marks the date of yet another natural disaster. Consider this a blessed warning of things to come if you and yours continue to disobey the Word of God. The choice you speak of...I will give you two: 1. repent of your ways and end your participation in the murder of innocent children 2. ignore this blessed warning and suffer at the Hand of God. This is a blessing as you cannot now say that you know nothing of God. I am sending you His message. Turn away from the sin you are participating in. The cries of thousands of innocent babies rests on your shoulders as well as those who CHOOSE to participtae in the devil's work. The Blessed Virgin has appeared to many weeping for the sins of the earth. Know that your participation in the greatest sin on earth puts your soul in great danger. This mortal time on earth is so short....heed the call to change. Messenger of God
I admit to being confused. Why would God punish Chileans with an earthquake for the "sin" of abortion when Chile has one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the world? Why would he take out his rage on the innocent people of Chile for the supposed transgressions of people in another country thousands of miles away? Maybe he is angry at the Chilean government for restricting abortion? Please explain.
Ideologies such as those espoused in the latest post are one of the reasons I can no longer participate in organized religion.
He is not punishing the Chilean people. He is warning the world of things to come. Earthquakes such as seen in Haiti will be viewed as a MINOR event once the final hour is at hand. Who are you to question the authority of God? It is like ants attempting to decipher the minds of humans? You have no authority. You are but a servant to a greater power. One you will have to answer to at the end of a short life. Repent now for the hour will come as a thief in the night. As described in the Bible major disasters will come as labor pains to a woman and the final apocalypse, much like childbirth, will not possibly be prevented. Dare not say, on judgement day, that you have not been warned of His wrath.
Mommy keep me safe,
Mommy keep me warm,
Handle me with all your love,
Mommy keep me from harm.
I’m only six weeks old today,
This birthday gift to me,
A pair of bright blue eyes,
That someday you will see.
I’ve barely got ears,
A little puppy nose,
and at the end of my feet,
Little things called toes.
Looking forward to my life,
toys, teddy bears, snails,
and long fairy tales.
Where are we going mommy,
in a bath, on a bus ride or,
perhaps far away.
Where are we going being pushed at
all force.
to be continued
How funny it feels passing through
doors, people dressed in green,
if they hurt you mommy just scream.
What’s happening mommy,
I’m starting to cry,
Mommy come quickly,
they’re making me die,
Killing me quickly,
Pulling me apart,
everything inside of me
even my heart,
Bye mommy, good-bye
But how I wanted to see
the grass, the trees,
hear a sweet song,
feel a sweet breeze.
Bye mommy
good-bye
I love you I really do
I just wish you could have loved me too.
God bless the innocent babies murdered each and every minute of every day.
Ugh, what a ridiculous post. Fetuses can't talk, abortion is a responsible choice, the description of fetal development is anatomically inaccurate, women who abort do not hate fetuses, they love the actual children they have, otherwise most of the women who aborted wouldn't be ones who already had children, or they want to prevent their suffering, unLIKE PLers.
Is your table innocent? No? Then neither are fetuses.
No babies involved. But, I should have known that you have absolutely NO knowledge of facts when you posted that drivel in the first place.
Abortion is NOT murder.
You also avoided the question. You said that that is why earthquakes happened, then, in your second post you deny that.
Oh why do you brim over with hate and anger? Why is this post so disturbing to you? Do you not see the disturbing natural disasters in the world occurring in greater numbers? Surely to deny this would be so ignorant. You have been given this chance, through this post, to repent of your ways before it is too late. God forgives ALL sin; there is no need for you to be walking around with hatred, guilt, and shame in your heart. I only hope and pray that one day you will be standing on the other side of the picket fence. Do you not see that our world is becoming more and more morally depraved? Come on; the truth stares you in the face.
What a delightfully ignorant little nursery rhyme. I'm thrilled that anti-choice rhetoric has finally made the jump to awkwardly punctuated poetry.
Despite what anonymous says, natural disasters are not "occurring in greater numbers". There is no evidence that earthquakes are becoming more frequent, it is simply that more earthquakes are being recorded as extensive world-wide monitoring networks continue to expand.
Check out the US Geological Survey's website for statistics on the frequency of earthquakes worldwide:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/eqstats.php
It's refreshing that Pedgehog's father is like her in the sense that he, like her, is not volatile in his responses. Others from this post could learn from this. Edward I didn't write the poem but I, like many others, consider it a pretty truthful illustration of what a baby must feel when even their own MOTHER abandons them. Earthquakes aside....how much more moral depravity will we, as a people, be able to tolerate? Worldwide child porn, child sex slaves, senseless shootings, gay marriage with ADOPTION of children, gay bishops, pedophiles, abortion in the billions. The list goes on and on and on. It's pretty obvious that we are, in fact, living in the end of times. Humanity cannot get further away from living the life Christ intended. We will pay for it dearly....this I can absolutely promise.
Anon, I have read this poem before. I am a person who tries to value reason and logic in arguments, but I am also certain that emotion and experience has its place. However, I am not swayed by this poem and I don't think I would be super impressed with someone who is. I could easily write a similar (although probably much better-written) poem myself from the point of view of a woman dying from a dangerous back-alley abortion. In fact, I find women's stories much more compelling than those of a z/e/f. Which is maybe why I'm pro-choice.
And on the subject of logic, you're losing me with your latest comment. Besides the fairy-tale rapture stuff that I do not believe, how does it even make sense to say that we are living in the end times? You know I could give you hundreds of examples of things that were a lot more awful and depraved going on a long, long time ago, right? Have you ever heard of the dark ages? Shit was nuts, back then. Even if you think abortion is wrong...it's been around for a lot longer than you think.
Also, I take issue with "gay couples adopting" as an example of moral depravity. A child having loving parents is somehow worse than growing up in an orphanage or foster care? What?
Anonymous,
I don't care who wrote that poem. My point is that it is trite garbage.
I'd like to know how you can "absolutely promise" that we are living in the end times? I'm pretty sure that religious zealots have been trotting that tired old prophesy out for centuries, but we're still here. All you are doing is repeating the same old scare tactics that are designed to keep people in line.
Finally, I usually try to restrict my comments to pointing out the grammatical disasters and logical ironies that you crazy antis post on this blog, but your hateful, bigoted barb about the horror of gay marriage with adoption deserves special mention. You should be ashamed. On the one hand, you decry the murder of innocent babies, while on the other, you want to deny perfectly loving, nurturing parents the ability to raise children. Give your head a shake.
Well Edward...I'm assuming you are the love interest of the "AC" is "AA" site so I will attempt to be less sassy here as she has had respect for my points in recent past. As usual you have only picked up on the quintessential element of every argument against us...that we are racist, sexist, anti-gay. Bzzzzzz...sorry....wrong. I'm none of those. Just making a logical assertion that a dick up an ass cannot, and will never, be able to produce a new form of life. If it doesn't combine to form new biology then, logically, it's not meant to be. In the Bible (which is my steadfast belief) homosexuality is morally wrong. While it is true that they may be loving parents to an orphaned child their lifestyle remains morally corrupt. This was my ONLY point on that subject. Furthermore I think you would be hard pressed to find horrendous grammatical errors on my end. BTW please allow me to ask what context you were meaning to use the word "barb" in?
Wow. To claim you are not "anti-gay" and then spew terrible hatred.... I'm so very tired of Christians who reject Christ's most important teachings: compassion, kindness, and respect.
Barb (n.) [bahrb]
1.
a point or pointed part projecting backward from a main point, as of a fishhook or arrowhead.
2.
an obviously or openly unpleasant or carping remark.
Which do you think?
How can you argue that homosexuality is morally wrong while claiming, in the same paragraph, that you are not anti-gay? You are the definition of anti-gay.
I'm also curious about your "if it doesn't combine to form new biology, then logically, it's not meant to be" argument. Where is the logic here? Am I missing something? By including the word 'logically', you imply that the argument is so unequivocal and straightforward that it does not merit elaboration. Respectfully, that is not the case. There are countless things in the world that are not a natural product of biology. Do you wear synthetic fabrics? Do you drive a car? Do you store your food in a refrigerator? Last time I checked, none of these are naturally occurring. Are they abominations against god? Should they be condemned?
Anon, I would prefer if you didn't speculate on who my "love interest" might be. Also, I think it's a little skewed that you would be deliberately "less sassy" to someone because of how you think they are related to me.
Also, thinking that gays being able to marry and adopt is a sign of the impending apocalypse is homophobic and bigoted. Full stop.
Well Anonymous who quoted me, I have always referred to Tuesdays at the clinic as my "weekly dose of crazy". The reason for that is that I've been splashed with Holy Water, and I get the wonderful opportunity to view some pretty crazy signs, which push Jesus on me and the women who come to the clinic. The anti-choicers at the clinic are a little crazy in my opinion. Thus my reference to "extra crazy". Aside for that perfectly legitimate argument, political correctness is for politicians. For the rest of us, there is section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I don't give a flying monkey if my adjectives are socially unacceptable. I think your belief that it is okay to force a woman through a pregnancy is flat out insane.
In response to another anonymous comment asking if we have thought about what we are doing might be morally wrong. I have thought about it. But for me, at the end of the day, I am not willing to tell an actual life (the woman) what she can do in relation to a potential life (the fetus). I don't like people telling me what I can and cannot do, thus I don't go about telling others what they can and cannot do. Ultimately, the decisions these women are making does not affect me, so it is none of mine, or your, business. You don't have to agree with them, or me, but you don't get to tell them what they can do.
Look Ed....quit playing dumb. The only biology found in a refrigerator is the mold found on last month's very outdated yogurt. IN THE CASE OF HOMOSEXUALITY a penis in an asshole equals no conception! It is quite obvious that our parts are uniquely created for this purpose and this purpose alone....to continue the human race! A dick up the ass, while it still fits, cannot achieve this. HB let's look at MY human rights and MY choice. I am allowed to disagree with homosexuality's moral stance so...get a life. Just because I don't agree with it DOES not make me a hate-spewer. Heh...anti-choice is anti-awesome right?
Anonymous, I don't recall suggesting that you shouldn't have freedom of speech, the right to hold your own opinions, or the right to make your own choices. I just noted that your rhetoric is homophobic and hateful, and your latest post re-confirms this point.
Well YOU are a FETAL-PHOBIC HATE-MONGER so how ya like them apples chickee? I love everyone as human beings...I just don't agree with their practices. Doesn't make me a hater...sorry you cannot convince me of this....NEXT!
It's fuckin hilarious how Carrie Prejean says she believes in marrige between a man and a woman and is ridiculously crucified for it. She, and I, can think and say and choose, for that matter, anything we like, without being stereotyped by you people as being bigoted hate-mongers. You guys REALLY need to grow up with that fuckin nonsense. WE HAVE RIGHTS TOO! If everyone else has rights (e.g. all races and sexual identities) then anti-choicers do too and you better believe it. Pretty soon I'm going to tick off the box that says "ANTI-CHOICE" on the application form and get that job sister because what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Don't think your anti-gay bigoted bullshit is swaying anyone into your neck of the woods. It's all propoganda....you know it and so do I. If Obama were to have said he was anti-choice he WOULD NOT BE PRESIDENT TODAY...I think we both know that.
Sorry, what rights do you think we're denying you?
You say bigoted things, you get called a bigot. That's how it works. If you are so worked up about being called homophobic, maybe you should stop going around saying gay marriage is a sign of the apocalypse. Just a thought.
I'm adding "Fetal-Phobic Hate-Monger" to my CV. It'll go right under "Guard at the Temple of Death!"
The right to state MY PERSONAL THOUGHTS AND CHOICES without being called a falsely accusatory name. I feel that marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman. I do not, in my daily life, outwardly persecute those who are homosexual; I simply do not agree with their moral conduct.
A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. I am not intolerant and did not say I was...I just have a set of my own beliefs. If this is your definition then ALL OF YOU are bigots for having an intolerance to my point of view. If I am a bigot then, by your definition, YOU ALL FIT THIS CATEGORY. So I will call you bigoted fetal-phobes and that's that. I didn't say that gay marriage was a sign of the apocalypse. I simply said that the morality of today is outrightly against the laws of God and that we, as demostrated by the examples I gave, have never been as morally corrupt. Just a thought.
"The right to state MY PERSONAL THOUGHTS AND CHOICES without being called a falsely accusatory name."
That's not a right that you have. Nobody has that. You definitely have a right to say bigoted things, but I have a right to call you a bigot for them. That's freedom of speech. There's no right to freedom from disagreement.
"If this is your definition then ALL OF YOU are bigots for having an intolerance to my point of view."
You see how you can say that? I think you're wrong, but it doesn't mean you don't have the right to say it. So....that was Freedom of Speech 101. See you next class.
Saying that the earthquake is punishment for things such as gay marriage, but that you aren't anti-gay or a bigot, is like somebody saying the Holocaust was a good thing, but they aren't anti-Semitic. See how that doesn't really jive?
And since you bring up the over used argument that since gays can't conceive, it's wrong, how about we discuss a) birth control, including the 'rhythm method', b) sex when one party is infertile c) sex when a couple doesn't want children. Since conception is ideally avoided in all 3, now what? I see this going 2 ways a) you claim they are different because they "could" result in conception and thus excused, or b) they are all bad because the only purpose of sex is conception. Alright, ready, set, GO!
Look we can argue this till we turn blue in the face...it doesn't matter as we can agree to disagree. I don't hate anyone...let that be known for the record. I just don't agree with certain moral issues and I, like you, am allowed to have my own personal opinion. Everything is up for debate and I feel we're moving away from the real subject which is abortion. BTW I really don't need a class on freedom of speech...but thanks for the tutorial. Got any hooked on phonics while we're at it?
Actually, you DO seem to need a tutorial on freedom of speech; no one here was saying you didn't have a right to express your personal opinion. You seem to think that you have a right to express your opinion without being called a bigot; in fact, you said as much. And that is incorrect. We could definitely keep arguing if you want, but it won't change the fact that you were wrong.
Also, I think your views on homosexuality are definitely related to abortion. Is it fair to say that you believe sex should ONLY be for conception? If so, there's the obvious link between the two issues.
Yeah Pedge! "There's no right to freedom from disagreement" is the best thing that I've read all day. It wouldn't be freedom of expression without the corresponding freedom to disagree and to challenge. In this country, the Charter provides Canadians with a right to expression, but no obligation to listen, and most certainly no obligation to refrain from questioning another person's expressive content.
Seriously, Anonymous, if I were you, I wouldn't be so quick to pass up that tutorial. Pedge and HB seem to have things figured out.
Well of course they do Edward because you're on their side! I can pretty much guess, with exponential assurity, that if one of your fellow brethren said something incoherent you wouldn't pick on them as you have me. The reason you are so angry with me is because I do not AGREE with you. You, my dear friend, are a bigot. Good day.
P.S. If I am correct and Jesus is sending His wrath to mankind I am in no danger because of my beliefs. You, my dear friends, will be in GRAVE danger because of the depravity of your souls. By standing idly by and observing the deaths of hundreds of children you stand to be judged and, trust me, it won't be pretty. Translation by taking part in the devil's work you're pretty much fucked at the end of times whereas I stand to lose nothing. Get the point? You are all in DEEP shit and the effects of the Wrath are being seen all around us my friends. You need not look far. Basically every country is being tormented with natural disaster. Ours will definitely be in the very NEAR future. I promise that troubling times are ahead if we don't repair our morality. God don't like it people. Repent for the end is close at hand.
In this instance, I side with Pedge and HB not because of their politics, but because they have correctly interpreted the freedom of expression provision in the Charter. You have not.
That said, you are most likely correct that would be less inclined to pounce on a pro-choice person's incoherent post than on that of an anti-choice person. That, however, does not make me a bigot. Let's go to the dictionary.
Bigot (n.) a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others.
I am neither prejudiced in my views nor intolerant of others' opinions. In fact, while I heartily disagree with your stance on abortion (and on gay marriage), I am perfectly willing to accept that you have a right to hold those opinions and to express them as you see fit. What I am not willing to accept is your proposition that I have to refrain from challenging your opinions.
While it is your right to say whatever you wish (so long that it is not in violation of another's rights, or of the criminal prohibition against hate speech), it is my right to disagree with you and to call you out on the fallacies in your arguments. If all persons who expressed dissent or disapproval of another's opinions were condemned as bigots, we would have a pretty homogenous society, and certainly not a democratic one.
The fact that I choose to exercise my right to scrutinize anti-choice opinions to a higher degree that I do pro-choice ones does not make me a bigot. There is no obligation on my to comment on all incoherent statements. Rather, I choose to rail against only those comments that upset me. Your anti-choice stance, your opposition to gay marriage, and most recently, your wildly inaccurate interpretation of the Charter upset me, thus I responded. Deal with it.
You know, I'm okay with not being "saved" as you define it if it keeps me from having to spend eternity with people like anonymous. I was raised roman catholic, went to r.c. school until I was in college, went to church every week (sometimes twice a week) and even then I never heard such hate spewed. I also remember learning that God is not approving of self righteous, smug people who are convinced they know who is going to be saved and who isn't. And if you want to disagree with me on that, I will give you the names of the nuns who taught me that and you can argue it with them.
Your words show that you aren't here to help any of us to "come to God" or be saved. You are only here to tell us how horrible we are and that we are going to hell and you aren't, and disguising it under a thin veneer of actually caring about the state of our souls. Oh, and maybe to "save babies" as well, which hopefully you are doing by helping women who don't want abortions but are not financially able to have a baby, to find the resources to continue their pregnancy. I pray that you are at least doing that. Yeah, I have a relationship with God too, although it might not qualify to you since I am not threatening people regarding the state of their eternal souls, and because I don't share your beliefs on certain things. And there are a lot of Catholics who agree with me and share my views. Just go to the Catholics For Choice website and read up.
And if you aren't correct? If your narrow interpretation of morality isn't vindicated? If there isn't an afterlife? If the views you endorse turn out to be wrong? If you are actually punished for your scornful and judgmental attitudes towards others?
Where will you be then?
I appreciate that religion is an exercise in faith and that you genuinely believe that in the end, you're brand of "righteousness" will earn you a reward. But what if it doesn't?
EDWARD IF YOU WEREN'T INTOLERANT TO MY VIEWS YOU WOULD NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO BANTER BACK AND FORTH AND SPEW HATRED TOWARD ME ON EVERY SINGLE POST! Whew! You ever wanna shake sense into someone? Wake the hell up buddy! You are just as guilty of being a bigot as you say I am! You are prejudiced against my people and you are VERY intolerant of my views (as seen here when you pounce on people for stating their beliefs and DON'T ACT LIKE YOU DON'T!!!!) You are fetal-phobic and you are most definitely a bigot! Kristen if you believe in ripping a child to pieces you, my dear, are no Catholic...sorry nice try! Not to mention you've probably had at least one abortion which is the MOST DEPLORABLE sin known to mankind. The fact that you are unrepentant of this makes it even worse. Jsut for the record Kristen you JUDGE ME JUST AS MUCH AS I JUDGE YOU SO DON'T ACT LIKE A VICTIM OKAY? You people don't like it when the tables of vitriol are turned on you because you are guilty of MAJOR SIN. You don't like to be reminded of this so you jump on the bandwagon with all the other freaks who think they can do whatever the hell they want in life with NO consequences. Tell me something Edward when's the last time you did something without a consequence? Try never?! You think you can kill children and stand for this abomination without a consequence? Not so my friend. If I'm wrong on the afterlife no harm and no foul but if I'm right you stand a TERRIBLE outcome. Kristen I am spreading the message of God....REPENT NOW WHILE YOU STILL CAN!!!! I'm doing you a favor believe me on this.
" I am perfectly willing to accept that you have a right to hold those opinions and to express them as you see fit."
Hmmmm I smell bullshit!! Saying someone has a right to agree with union between male and female and then calling them a fuckin hate-spewing bigot is NOT ACCEPTING OF THE RIGHT TO HOLD AN OPINION! By calling me these UNJUST names you are in NO WAY DISPLAYING ANY ACCEPTANCE. The right thing to say would have been "I don't agree with your opinion and here is my view on things". Instead the claws are sharpened and you're on the attack.....as per usual.
"Oh, and maybe to "save babies" as well, which hopefully you are doing by helping women who don't want abortions but are not financially able to have a baby, to find the resources to continue their pregnancy. I pray that you are at least doing that. Yeah, I have a relationship with God too, although it might not qualify to you since I am not threatening people regarding the state of their eternal souls, and because I don't share your beliefs on certain things"
Kristen do you REALLY think I would be on this fuckin webiste if my MAIN goal wasn't saving babies? Give your head a shake!!! Would I put up with the attack of nine members if I didn't feel obligated to save the lives of children? BTW I do not threaten...if you read the Bible as you are such a great Cathaolic you would find a little book called REVELATION which points to what happens to those who are murderers, sorcerers, and those of sexual immorality (do you fit into any of these you think?) I have not written prophesy I merely speak Its truths. Don't slay the messenger.
Point of order: writing in all caps is internet the equivalent of shouting. I'm not saying don't do it (hell, I do it), but please: use it sparingly.
Anon, please stop shouting at everyone. Most people will not even read posts that are written in all caps, so you are not getting your point across. Thank you.
For the record, not that it is anyone's business, but since you are assuming things and stereotyping, I have not had an abortion, nor have I ever had children. So nice try assuming I am trying to rationalize something I have supposedly done. Nor do I, nor have I ever, worked in a clinic that performs abortions. I'm not even in human medicine; I work in veterinary medicine. And since this will probably be your next assumption, I might as well state now that I am not homosexual, although I do support people who are, and know practicing catholics who are as well, and who struggle with it tremendously because they feel so alienated from their faith.
Also, I never said I was still catholic, only that I was raised catholic.
Further, you never answered my question. Are you actually helping woman who do not want to have abortions _not_ have abortions, by say, donating money or volunteering real time to the cause, by perhaps, helping out at a crisis pregnancy center that so many religious groups have set up? Arguing with people online is not helping woman at all. And "putting up" with being "attacked" by nine strangers online? Please. That statement smacks of melodrama. Abortion and religion are emotionally charged subjects and people are bound to get passionate about their beliefs. That's okay, but you too are faulting people for exactly what you are doing.
Again, the God I was raised to believe in was not a horrible vindictive God such as you keep proselytizing about. Keep telling me my faith is wrong; I don't care. If my faith is somehow wrong, then the faith of all of those who taught me is wrong as well. I know what's in my heart and so does God. And I know what I was taught in 12 years of roman catholic schooling. And for some reason, the nuns didn't dwell any on Revelations (yes, I know all about what is written in Revelations.) I don't claim to be any great catholic, never did. I support abortion being legal, available and safe because I know people whose health would not support a pregnancy, and because I personally know someone who was raped and got pregnant, and what she went through.
I am not jumping on any bandwagon here just because I agree with some of the posters. I have my own mind, thank you, and can think for myself.
I have read what you have to say, and I do not agree with it, and am stating my own opinions and experiences with religion and God. And that's all.
This discussion is going nowhere and I have listened to what you have to say and stated my opinions, and I think it's time for me to move on.
Anon,
Once again you have completely missed the point. I don't accept your opinions regarding abortion and gay marriage (and probably countless other things.) What I do accept is your right to hold your opinions, no matter how harmful and backwards I consider them to be. This does not make me a bigot, it makes me a member of a polity, trying to engage in a civil debate. You'll notice that unlike you, my pious Christian friend, I do not swear, nor do I WRITE IN ALL CAPS.
Since you appear unwilling to participate in civil debate and incapable of coherent argument, I think I will leave it at that.
Wow Kristen you dare call me a melodramatic when you guys can't even handle all-caps? I didn't know there was a decibel level attached....suck it up. Preachers rarely whisper to get their point across and, while I'm not a preacher, sometimes you have to shout to get people's attention. If you read my paragraph Kristen then it's proof that it worked. BTW Edward thanks for pointing out my piety. I am fully aware that I have a dutiful spirit for God and, again, thanks for the flattery. However during your mockery you failed to emphasize the fact that I'm Catholic NOT Christian. Kristen God is not a "horrible vindictive God" he is a just God in that one cannot and will not get away with destroying his most precious creation. The Bible describes all these things and yet you all turn away from it and say it isn't so. Well here's an excerpt for you to ponder from the book of Matthew:
42"Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.
Anon, You _still_ never answered my question. Also, I never said you were Catholic. I'm not surprised you are christian though. I am wondering if you agree then with Pat Robertson's statement regarding the Haitian earthquake. You also don't act very christian with all your swearing but I am not surprised by that. You will notice that I, as well as many others here, have not stooped to your level with bad language.
You can judge me all you want and preach to me all you want, but many of your words do not seem to me that you really care about if I am "saved" or not.
As for your all caps post, well it would have been rude of me to not read your reply to me, now wouldn't it have been?
Have a great day. I'm sure you will, knowing you are saving so many babies and that you are right with your god. I don't get it- you started out sounding so concerned about us, and now your true colors are showing. Again, not surprising.
And this time I really am not going to continue with this conversation:) :)
Note to anon, check internet etiquette before posting next time. It's that 'responsibility' that you like to proselytize about so much, y'know. It starts with YOU.
All caps should be an easily recognized tool of distraction, anyways. Hell, I recognized that when I first started posting and I saw it for the first time.
I miss that half-black, Jewish, lesbian, non-religious, evangelical Christian lady who had an abortion but now hates them troll.
She was much more entertaining.
Fact: More heterosexual people have anal sex than homosexual.
You said some phenomenally stupid shit anon but
"...what happens to those who are murderers, sorcerers, and those of sexual immorality..."
takes the fucking cake. Are you honestly worried about Harry Potter? I don't think I've ever met any adult who was stupid enough to believe in magic.
Hey freewhlyinhrt (I won't even bother spelling the whole ridiculous name!) Are you the bonafide internet police? Hmm that's what I thought....so butt out. Magos "sorcerers" refers to psychics and those on earth who pretend to have powers which are not of this world...it's not a literal Harry Potter term. Who would be such a moron to interpret it literally though? Do you know of anyone who actually would?
So the parts about natural disasters, that's literal, but not the sorcerers because that would be stupid
To answer your question, ever single creationist is stupid enough to take it literally.
Did I say I was the internet police? No. Nor did I imPLY that. To be the internet police one would have to ask that you stop doing something. Did I do that? Uh, NO. I was simply explaining some basic facts and noting the lack of consistency in your own stance. Really, learn context, next time.
So, you're saying you don't like my name. After all, my nickname is a play on my actual name. Something you are certainly not afraid of telling us in any way, shape or form, now, are you? (/end sarcasm)
Ftr, I have posted my name on here prior to this and even given a partial address. Also, there are those little things known as abbreviations and copy/paste....
Ah freewoman'sholyinheritance..get the plank outta your ass. Your picture says a THOUSAND words. It screams miserable, self-righteous, and guilty. Your like a feminist wind up doll....the one whose jaw flaps and flaps and flaps....shut up already! Magos your feedback doesn't deserve a response. You just don't get it chick.
Why do anti-choicers always think feminists are miserable? We're not the ones who only screw when we want babies.
You mean you actually screw.....guys? Like with REAL penises and not the plastic kind?
Har har. Your comment, aside from being just generally too personal and invasive for the internet, is heteronormative, cissexist and pretty offensive. Just so you know.
Yikes...sorry my brother's friend write this.....my apologies...I was just reading your blog.
...So says the person who doesn't have a link to a url up OR a picture....
Anyways, you guys try so hard to get people to believe that you're all about saving the lives of the unborn, but then you go and say something as judgmental as that, that the belief that this is only about guilting, shaming and punishing women, for you, just gets that much more firmly set in reasonable persons' minds.
Only an anti-choicer would hoist themselves by their own petard.
NONE of the PCers, here, have ever made the first move in judging someone by their looks OR behaviour. But, getting too virulent, you, as a PLer, should exPECT that someone will respond in kind, but you obviously didn't and don't . IF you (PLers) didn't, I guess that's just your (PLers) first introduction to the real world.
"You just don't get it chick."
Not a chick, just someone that thinks your theology is stupid.
Post a Comment