Pro-Life Whackos

[Guest starvenger]

>BTW what the fuck so these protesters do for a living? I'd guess nothing considering they're out at the clinic every day attackig people. I think they should get a job or take up knitting or something. They obviously have too much free time on their hands.

 

That's what I"ve always wondered. It's not like they're a union that's on strike or something. I suppose they're housewives/husbands that snapped from watching too much Oprah and Days of our Lives...

[Guest CoreyLazarus416]

Does anybody else find it also ironic that the majority of pro-lifers are MEN?

 

I did a rant on why I'm pro-choice and why I don't think abortions should be banned or restricted for certain purposes by legal matters, but it all ended up with me pretty much saying that guys have no fucking idea what a woman goes through during pregnancy.

 

That said, I'm pro-choice, but I'm also anti-abortion. I don't agree with abortions, but I do feel that they should be made available in case the mother cannot have the child due to living conditions (ex. she's homeless) or the mother is a rape victim.

[Guest Some Guy]

While most pro-lifers are men, I think most of the protesters are women. Either way abortion tends to be more of a religious issue than a gender one. But gender does have a lot to do with it.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

This really doesn't seem like that big an issue. I'm pro-life, and I think the people that murder doctors and blow up buildings are over the line, and that's how most pro-lifers feel.

[Guest Some Guy]

Verne I think everbody here realizes that. We were talking about the radical pro-lifers, just like when I at least talk about Islamic terrorists I'm refering to radicals, not all Muslims.

[Guest cdstunner66]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't planned parenthood also do pre natal care for people who can't afford it? There is a Planned Parenthood that I have to drive by to get to work each morning, invariably there are people outside protesting. A few weeks ago, I was waiting for the light in front of the place to change when one of these idiots noticed my car window was open, came up and started screaming about the evils of abortion. My response, "Asshole, do I look like I'm going to have one? Get the fuck away from me, I'm late for work." I consider myself pro choice, in that I will never have to go through the proceedure, so who am I to tell anyone that they can't if they want to?

[Guest HoffmanHBK]

Before I say this, I do *not* want it to come off as a flame. This is seriously how and what I believe, and it's gonna sound harsh, but that's because I've got a very strong belief in this situation.

 

Yes, of course, a lot of pro-lifers are crazy fucking reactionaries who want to see women back in the kitchen. These are not good people, for the most, despite what they will tell you. And yes, their means of protest are morally reproachable. But, not all pro-life people are like that. I realize the title of the thread is "pro-life whackos," referring to the more fervent conservatives, which isn't me. But I sense some generalizing going on, and I just wanted to clear that up.

 

That being said, you have to at least try to understand where we're coming from. In our eyes, the eyes of the pro-lifer, abortion clinics are taking life. Now, we could argue all day long on when life begins, and we'd get nowhere, I concede that. But this is our viewpoint, and with the notable exception of the crazies, you have to accept that. It's how we feel. And to top it off, we live in a government where the Supreme Court has made this taking of life legal. That's a big deal for us, when there are so many laws in place against the loss of life. So, a lot of pro-lifers don't have much patience for the other side. Does this make extremist tactics ok? Of course not. But maybe, this can be a little glimpse into the "why" of these actions, from a guy who considers himself both fairly moderate and fairly intelligent.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Well Hoffman, if that is the way you feel, then show your enthusiasm at the voting booth, not someone's car window. It is legal in this country and young women should not be harrassed, the process and procedure should be kept as safe and sterile as possible and we don't need people being terrified to go to planned parenthood, some of whom aren't even there to get abortions, just to get information or birth control. I think showing the grotesque pictures just works against the pro-lifers anyway, it just disgusts people and gets them pissed off, I don't know anyone that said, "gee what a gross picture, that's it, I am HAVING this baby now"

[Guest HoffmanHBK]

Well Hoffman, if that is the way you feel, then show your enthusiasm at the voting booth, not someone's car window.

I do. I don't know what you're getting at here -- would you like me to control the people who don't? Because that's a little bit beyond my limitations. All I'm simply saying is that there's a reason these people do what they do. To be certain, they're messed up in the head, but most of these people are doing what, in their fucked-up scheme of values, they feel is right. Me, I *do* vote for pro-life candidates, and I have been known to participate in a non-violent protest or rally every now and then. And while I can't speak on the effectiveness of the more graphic types of literature, I can say that it's our right as Americans to voice ourselves. No, women shouldn't be harrassed, but there's a lot of picketers and protesters who aren't violent and aren't abrasive, and get a bad rap for nothing they've actually done. The guys like me (I'll get off my soapbox in just a sec here). In any case, the only point I was trying to make was that there is another side, and you're side doesn't often like to see my side, and my side doesn't often like to see yours. That's the kind of ignorant behavior that gets to me, so I was trying to paint the pro-life side of things in a more intelligent light... if that missed the mark, I'm sorry. And yes, I do see situations where abortion might be a logical, reasonable, and even safe alternative. It's just that in my mind, that just doesn't make it okay.

 

Sorry, again, if I rubbed anyone the wrong way.

[Guest the 1inch punch]

Isnt there people on the FBI'S most wanted list for Killing Abortion doctors

[Guest DrEvil]

And can anyone explain to me the reasoning behind the line of thought, "I am so morally outraged by murder that I will KILL to stop it"?

We all have rules that we allow ourselves to break - don't do that, but I can because I know that I have a good and legitimate reason for doing it. For normal people, that means something simple like don't leave the milk out of the fridge, but I can do it because I know that I'm going to be using it in the next two minutes.

 

This is the logic that applies to fanatics, don't kill, but I can because I have a true and just goal and I need to kill to achieve it.

[Guest Retro Rob]

And while I can't speak on the effectiveness of the more graphic types of literature, I can say that it's our right as Americans to voice ourselves.

Isn't it also my right as an American to not have pictures of aborted pregnancies shoved in my face everytime I walk by a Pro-Life rally? Isn't it also my right as an American to not be afraid to enter a building where abortions are preformed? Obviously I won't be receiving an abortion, but that doesn't mean that my life would be saved if a bomb goes off in the building. In 10th grade I went on a feild trip to Planned Parenthood and it was horrible having to see that a medical clinic needs bulletproof windows and special security systems because there are enough "Pro-Life Whackos" out there who wouldn't think twice about killing everybody who works for or goes to an abortion clinic. Isn't it every American's right to feel safe when they go to work and to feel safe when they visit a doctor?

[Guest DrTom]

"And while I can't speak on the effectiveness of the more graphic types of literature, I can say that it's our right as Americans to voice ourselves."

 

It certainly is. Nowhere, though, does it say you have the right to "voice yourselves" in front of a crowded clinic, with signs, graphic pictures, and shouted condemnations, all directed at girls and women who are already confused enough. I'm all for people expressing themselves, but there is such a thing as a time and a place.

 

There's also such a thing as common courtesy, which isn't shown very well by a bunch of busybodied loudmouths harassing women outside of a clinic.

[Guest HoffmanHBK]

"Nowhere, though, does it say you have the right to "voice yourselves" in front of a crowded clinic, with signs, graphic pictures, and shouted condemnations, all directed at girls and women who are already confused enough."

 

Actually, I'm pretty sure it does, as outside of certain types of speech such as libel/slander, fighting words, and the like (which admittedly, I'm sure go on to a fairly large degree), this is all within these people's First Amendment rights. And once again, let me say that I believe the people who attack women physically or bomb these places should be thrown in jail as much as anyone, because they're breaking the law and taking the lives, or at least the well-being, of others. I'm not so wrapped up in my views that I can't see the crime. But the majority of protesters are well within their legal rights, and thus have the same rights in this country as a woman going in for an abortion. To allow a practice that many feel is morally wrong, and then to prevent those who feel it is wrong from expressing their views, is an injustice itself. And as far as I personally am concerned, if a woman is ready to make this sort of a decision, she ought to be ready to deal with the consequences, and in a country so divided and so passionate on this issue, one of those consequences is going to be getting approached by protesters. ONCE AGAIN, I am not excusing the behavior of terrorists and violent fundamentalists, because that isn't legal, nor is it moral, and no one should have to live in fear or deal with those horrifying situations. But as long as all parties are within their legal rights, they are all entitled to act as they will.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Wrong. Attempting to coerce behaviour through threatening speech and action isn't protected by any Amendment. It's called assault, and it happens to be a felony crime.

 

Videotaping and photographing women who enter clinics and then putting up their images on a website with the word KILLER above them isn't protected speech either. It's a death threat issued by a coward and a demagogue, a panderer to hate and a pathetic excuse for a human being.

 

she ought to be ready to deal with the consequences, and... one of those consequences is going to be getting approached by protesters.

And getting shot at, catching anthrax, being "collateral damage" in a firebombing, being screamed at by fat old white pricks in flannel and denim and baseball caps who apparently have the time to concern themselves with other people's lives at 2 in the afternoon on a fucking weekday, or having her face put up on the aforementioned websites by the aforementioned fat old white pricks - these are all natural consequences you should be prepared to deal with when you're undergoing invasive surgery that just happens to be perfectly legal. Gee, now I'm fully convinced.

 

But as long as all parties are within their legal rights, they are all entitled to act as they will.

You claim you're not excusing violence, but you are. You just don't have the guts to admit it. You're hiding behind the tired old bullshit about free expression. Guess what? In my opinion that right ends the moment it's used to scare the living shit out of some girl who's going through a hell of a traumatic day already. Do you see me firebombing the houses of "pro-life" protesters? No. But I'm beginning to think it wouldn't be a bad idea.

[Guest LooseCannon]

Seems like no one wants to pay close attention to what Hoff is saying. While in his latest post there was an unfortunately phrased line about women "dealing with the consequences." In his earlier posts, he said "No, women shouldn't be harrassed, but there's a lot of picketers and protesters who aren't violent and aren't abrasive, and get a bad rap for nothing they've actually done," making it clear that he wasn't defending "violent or abrasive" protesters. And yet the responses are all pointing out the consequences of violent and abrasive protests.

 

There's no one more pro-abortion on this board than me, but the fact is, abortion opponents have the right to try to persuade. Some of their actions push the boundaries of that right and some even exceed that right, but I haven't seen anyone here defend either of those actions. Just for the record, I find displaying images of aborted fetuses an acceptable form of expression, but people sitting there and shouting at some poor girl and calling her a murderer or posting her image on a website absolutely disgusts me, whether that's constitutionally protected or not.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Picketers and protesters are practicing intimidation. Even if they sincerely don't intend to harm or harass any of the women entering the clinic, when they're standing that close to people who do and have, it's hard not to paint them all with the same brush. If the "moderate" "pro-life" people were really as appalled by the murders and violence as they say they are, they'd take drastic steps to distance themselves from the criminal scum their movement harbours and stop saying "But" all the fucking time. There is no "but." You are terrorists or you harbour terrorists, which is the same thing, and I don't care about your reasons.

 

I have paid close attention to what HoffmanHBK has said, and it sickens me. He's an apologist for hate-filled criminals who deliberately and systematically prey on the weak and the vulnerable. "You have to at least try to understand where we're coming from?" No. No, I really don't. When you cross the line I stop caring where you're coming from. I want to know when you're going to a federal prison.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Isnt there people on the FBI'S most wanted list for Killing Abortion doctors

Eric Rudolph or Randolph. He also was responsible for the '96 Olympic Bombing.

[Guest converge241]

I liked reading hoffmans posts and felt the need to say when it comes down to it, im actually pro-life too. but i would only impose myself if it was my kid. (and on a message board i guess).

[Guest LooseCannon]

Picketers and protesters are practicing intimidation. Even if they sincerely don't intend to harm or harass any of the women entering the clinic, when they're standing that close to people who do and have, it's hard not to paint them all with the same brush. If the "moderate" "pro-life" people were really as appalled by the murders and violence as they say they are, they'd take drastic steps to distance themselves from the criminal scum their movement harbours and stop saying "But" all the fucking time. There is no "but." You are terrorists or you harbour terrorists, which is the same thing, and I don't care about your reasons.

 

I have paid close attention to what HoffmanHBK has said, and it sickens me. He's an apologist for hate-filled criminals who deliberately and systematically prey on the weak and the vulnerable. "You have to at least try to understand where we're coming from?" No. No, I really don't. When you cross the line I stop caring where you're coming from. I want to know when you're going to a federal prison.

Phew. I was half afraid you were gonna do some damage to my colon

 

Anyway, I know there's an intent/effects distinction to be made, but I just would prefer to judge on a case by case basis, and give Hoff the benefit of the doubt b/c he went out of his way to distance himself from some of the more extreme elements. Even though that's the oldest trick in the book -- Decry the extreme elements and adopt a conciliatory tone to soften the oppositions opinion.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Nah, I like you. <g> And I was never much for strap-ons.

 

Seriously though, yeah, that's what annoyed me, and that's what I read into the tone. Decry extremism, do nothing about it, and pack the screed with "buts." Sorry "pro-lifers," no buts accepted, not when I listen to the Palestinians, and not when I listen to you. Get AWAY from the bombers, the picketers, the screamers, the website death-threat trash. Don't ever say "but." Don't ever try to justify violence or the threat of violence - hell, don't you even dare to use shame or guilt as a weapon - as a legitimate means of advancing your "holy" cause. Until you demonstrate conclusively that you're as interested in bringing convicted murderers to justice as you are in shrieking condemnation at people you allege are murderers, I don't give a rat's ass about how balanced and sensitive your argument is. And that's kinda funny, because I'm probably the most sympathetic ear you're going to find in the gay female agnostic community. I happen to be fairly anti-abortion. I'm just more pro-choice.

[Guest HoffmanHBK]

I honestly have no idea what I personally have done to make my credibility so small that some of you, most specifically Marney, don't believe me when I say "people who bomb abortion clinics should be thrown in jail," but I apologize for however I may have wronged you. If it's because I happen to believe abortion is wrong, I'm sorry for that, then. In the future I'll try to keep that belief to myself. Frankly, I'm too tired of defending myself from people who lump me in with every crazed maniac and clinic bomber in America to keep this up any longer. Maybe it's "the oldest trick in the book," but it's not a trick here. I'm not excusing shit. The only thing I'm approving of is the people who stage non-violent protests, the people who stand on the street and hand out literature to those who take it, the people who vote for and write to their congressmen about the issue. The normal people. I'll say it one last time: there is NO FUCKING EXCUSE for violence against anyone, and that includes abortion clinics or those who would use them. In any case, I can see I'm not getting anywhere here, so I'll just drop the point. Thanks to everyone who, even if you didn't agree (and it isn't as though I expected to change anyone's mind), at least read what I had to say objectively.

[Guest HoffmanHBK]

...I know I said that I'd drop my case, but I just can't let this go. I have to make this one point:

 

"I want to know when you're going to a federal prison."

 

I have committed no crime. If you want to call me an apologist for radicals, that's your perrogative. It sounds to me like you haven't been reading my posts very well, nor do you care what they say, but that's fine. You can think of me however you like. But when you go so far as to incinuate that I'm a criminal, that's absolutely ridiculous. It's also an insult to a law-abiding citizen like myself. What it comes down to, at least in my eyes, is that no one can hold a viewpoint that you don't like, or they must be a criminal. Because that's all I've done -- argue a point that you don't agree with. And please, if I'm taking this out of context, let me know, because I keep rereading your words, and it looks to me like you want to see me rot in prison.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

I honestly have no idea what I personally have done to make my credibility so small that some of you, most specifically Marney, don't believe me when I say "people who bomb abortion clinics should be thrown in jail,"

I was very clear about that. You said "but." Don't ever say "but."

 

there is NO FUCKING EXCUSE for violence against anyone, and that includes abortion clinics or those who would use them

See, this time you didn't say "but." Thank you.

 

And please, if I'm taking this out of context, let me know, because I keep rereading your words, and it looks to me like you want to see me rot in prison.

Sort of. What I said was:

When you cross the line I stop caring where you're coming from. I want to know when you're going to a federal prison.

If you personally haven't crossed the line, I have no reason to want to see you in prison. My statement was a direct response to what you said here: "you have to at least try to understand where we're coming from," and your "we" did refer to the criminal scum in your movement as well as the moderates: "a lot of pro-lifers don't have much patience for the other side. Does this make extremist tactics ok? Of course not. But maybe, this can be a little glimpse into the "why" of these actions..."

 

So, unless you've started firebombing clinics recently, we don't have a problem.

[Guest HoffmanHBK]

We don't, and in fact I caught your little fat joke in the other thread, BUT (and there it is again) I don't feel like you're showing much discretion between myself and criminals. I appreciate you clearing it up. And for the record, my whole intent was to show that these people, in their immensly-warped value system, feel they're in the right. I myself feel they should be locked in jail. But I think, and hope, we're cool now.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Sure.

[Guest HoffmanHBK]

Cool.

[Guest HoffmanHBK]

YEEHAW, double posting!!

[Guest Samurai_Goat]

The scarey thing is, if the pro-life extreamist types get their wish, and eliminate all forms of abortions, then there will be a lot more pictures of mutilated baby's to show to all the school kids. I mean, what about those back ally abortions? I'll admit, I'm a bit weak in the whole pro-life pro-choice debate, and I admit I lean towards a limited pro-choice, but I'd rather have a woman choose to have an abortion in a hospital than have a desperate woman go get an abortion in, well, some back ally.

[Guest MrBiznatch]

I am sick and fucking tired of people stereotyping all Pro Lifers as psychotic freaks. I'm pro life and I'm totally against what the fanatics do in the name of Pro Life.

 

Not all of us are like that.

 

I know that this has been said on this thread so this message isn't for most of you it's for the people who are dumb enough to think we're all that way.