Anti-abortion activists to target Toronto high schools

50 posts / 0 new
Last post
Snuckles
Anti-abortion activists to target Toronto high schools
Francesca Allan

These kids don't really bother me like some other anti-choice zealots do.  They're stating their position respectfully and they're on public property.  I don't see a problem here.

quizzical

i do!!!!

cause really they're anti-human rights. no one has a right to compell me or any other woman to do anything in respect to our own body and life choices. 

no one can say they speak for god and are doing god's work on this earth. i mean how fucking ego-maniac and self-absorbed is belieiving shit like 'you know what god wants' and are doing "his" work on earth. clearly they don't understand a all knowing, seeing and doing god would take care of ALL things and doesn't need human help for squat.

Francesca Allan

I missed the speaking for god angle.  I agree that every woman has domain over her own body and I'm grateful that abortion is legal. However, at the same time, I do believe that late-term abortion is pretty grisly and I presume that's what the posters were intended to illustrate.  I didn't see them trying to compel women to do anything.  I thought they more saying "Here's what late-term abortion looks like. Don't do it."

kropotkin1951

Late abortions are a rarity however they are being used as a red herring by this anti women's choice group to further their agenda of denying women the right to have control over their own bodies. I find it disgusting. The idea that they will start targeting children in grades 7 & 8 borders on child abuse.

Quote:

Many anti-choice and misinformed individuals would have Canadians believe that a woman in Canada can access abortion services at any point during the nine months of pregnancy. This belief is hugely inaccurate and serves only to appeal to the emotional response of people in trying to prevent the acceptance of abortion as a critical reproductive health service. In Canada, a woman cannot have an elective abortion past 24 weeks gestation. There are simply no doctors and no facilities that will allow for an elective termination at that point. In fact, there are only a few doctors in the entire country who are willing to perform abortions past 20 weeks.

http://www.canadiansforchoice.ca/hottopic01.html

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Francesca Allen wrote:
These kids don't really bother me like some other anti-choice zealots do.  They're stating their position respectfully and they're on public property.

Their posters are so revolting that not even City TV would air them. That doesn't strike me as "respectful."

I've seen assholes like this on University Campuses across the country. These posters look like the same ones which are provided free of charge by the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform, a right-wing hate group funded from the United States which show disgusting images they claim to be late-term abortions (which aren't, of course) and then generalize them to all abortions -- the same kind of disgusting rhetoric women have spent decades fighting. They also draw comparisons to genocide (Jewish and Rwandan, among others), lynching in the American South, and Indian removals. It is the most disgusting kind of "activism" (hate speech, really -- can you imagine what a high school student who had an abortion would think looking at these posters?) which preys on purely emotional response from young people who may not have been armed with the appropriate information yet (because of the sorry state of sex ed and the non-state of women's studies in high school).

The whole disgusting project should be banned.

Bacchus

Counter it with facts dispensed neutrally to students in class, but not censor opinions of others just because we dont agree with them.  Thats how they censor us Cool

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

These aren't "opinions" or "facts." That would be fine. This is offensive hate speech. And no one is "censoring" them. We're telling them not to go on school property or accost high school kids coming out of class.

Bacchus

No you said 'The whole disgusting project should be banned.'

 

Thats what I was disagreeing with, not restrictions on how they can act towards others

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Yes, the whole disgusting project where they accost teenagers with revolting signs should be banned.

I just don't get this fetishization of "free speech" as if it is a thing that exists, or that we want it to exist. It's a gold brick, Bacchus.

Unionist

So Bacchus, you think the high moral ground difference between them and us is that we allow them their freedom and they don't allow us ours?

I beg to differ. Anyone who tried to enslave or subordinate women (i.e. more than they are now) should have every fucking "right" turned into a short-term privilege, to be renewed upon regular proof of good behaviour.

Did you know that discrimination on the basis of gender (and race and nationality and religious belief and disability etc.) are BANNED in Canada, in employment, housing, the provision of public services? Is that undemocratic?

 

Sineed

If these people show up outside my daughters' school, I'm going to be arrested because I'll be there with spraypaint, defacing those signs. They drive around Toronto with graphic and disgusting pictures all over the outside of their trucks. It's all shock value and no actual information.

Seriously, I suggest counter-protest. The organization behind this is called, the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform, an international anti-abortion group that started in (surprise) the United States. My few minutes of googling didn't uncover who is behind this, but it's an organized effort. I went to their website (not linking; it's vile), and it's a slick message: their "staff" are all smiling, comely young white people and they carefully avoid any whiff of religiousity. And they have all these big, high-resolution pictures, trucks, and teams of people. It's obviously very well-funded.

But how do we counter protest? I'm not in the least interested in these "free speech" arguments. I want to know how to stop this shit. I have two daughters in Toronto schools.

It's been a while; last time I marched in support of women's right to choose, Morgentaler was still embroiled in his legal battles. I'm rusty. I can't find my "CHOICE" buttons.

ygtbk

Catchfire wrote:
Yes, the whole disgusting project where they accost teenagers with revolting signs should be banned. I just don't get this fetishization of "free speech" as if it is a thing that exists, or that we want it to exist. It's a gold brick, Bacchus.

Catchfire, what precisely do you mean, with respect to free speech, by "fetishization"? You've used the word before in this context.

I understand the whole "should be banned" thing, since as a moderator that's what you do to people who disagree with babble policy, although I personally think the policy needs a kick in the butt. But what counts as "fetishization" vs. a human right?

Tehanu

Quote:
Catchfire, what precisely do you mean, with respect to free speech, by "fetishization"? You've used the word before in this context.

Can't speak for Catchfire, but for me the fetishization of free speech is when it is used as a license to permit terrible, sometimes appalling infringements on other people's well-being, rights, and freedoms. Such as the "Genocide Awareness Project" which is the comparison of abortion to the Holocaust, southern lynchings or the Rwandan massacres: incredibly and personally hurtful to women who've had abortions, Holocaust survivors and those who have lost family in the Holocaust, and those who've experienced extreme racism or genocide elsewhere. As well as all the rest of us who believe in women's bodily autonomy or who are appalled that some of the worst incidents in the last century are being used to suppress women's right to choose.

I don't think free speech is a blanket right. In order to live in a civil society, free speech needs to be limited. Where the limit is can be debated, but for me the line is crossed when one person's freedom of speech harms others. Which this particular propaganda does.

... Should they be banned entirely? Well, that's another can of worms. But the analogy I use is that I have a choice if I want to see a horror movie, because it's well-advertised what it is, and I can choose to avoid it (which I do). This type of graphic exploitation of the suffering of a whole range of people should also be subject to the same restrictions. Behind closed doors with warning signs.

Sineed

This free speech discussion is all very pretty, but what do we do here and now? 

These assholes could be outside my kids' school tomorrow.

Francesca Allan

If we're going to uphold the principle of free speech, unfortunately that's going to apply to those we disagree with too.  I would certainly support a counter-protest fighting back with facts but I'd never want them banned.  I thought the only speech that wasn't allowed in a civilized society was hate speech or special cases such as slander.  Anti-abortion rhetoric just doesn't seem to me to be either.

Francesca Allan

It's not just "pretty," Sineed -- it's a very fundamental principle and I'm terrified at the prospect of shutting it down.

 

kropotkin1951

How much physiological trauma is to much trauma to inflict on children? These people are targeting a specific non adult population in an attempt to shock them for a politcal purpose. It is the attempt to shock that is the problem.  Our laws say you can watch porn between consenting adults but it does not allow one to show it to children. Freedom of expression has its limits and this display of gore aimed at children crosses the line because it is almost certain to cause harm to some of the children especially as they lower the target age.

Francesca Allan

Yes, I'm more terrified of the criminalization of speech.

Tehanu

You could try for a court order, possibly, Sineed, based on the argument that children should not be exposed to this. The problem (and I am not a lawyer) is likely that this is outside of school property. I'd be printing out pro-choice posters and pasting them right on top as soon as their vileness showed up. I just google-imaged "pro-choice poster" and there are some great ones out there, like this one:

[img]http://www.aipolitics.me/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/ProChoice.jpg[/img]

Another option if they're holding the materials is to try and get flashmobs going to stand in a circle around them to block the view. Probably university women's centres could help with that. Except giving these morons more publicity could backfire -- it's when they don't get attention that they run out of steam.

Francesca Allan wrote:
It's not just "pretty," Sineed -- it's a very fundamental principle and I'm terrified at the prospect of shutting it down.

Really? More terrified than of the type of person who thinks this is a good thing to stick outside of children's schools?

Tehanu

Well, that doesn't keep me awake at night. Pondering what can and will happen to women's hard-fought liberties if the religious fundamentalists get their way, that does. Trying to figure out a way to deal with people who believe it's justifiable to use human suffering to take away human rights, that does too. Restricting those people from targeting children with their - yes, I'll use the word - cruel propaganda doesn't bug me at all.

I'll bet totally unscientifically that 99% of the cases in which people are complaining in Canada that their freedom of speech is being infringed is when they are trying to take away the rights of others or to spark hatred of others.

Unionist

Francesca Allan wrote:

Yes, I'm more terrified of the criminalization of speech.

Who's talking about "criminalization"? Just get them the fuck out of there.

I support Tehanu's method and spirit. Scum should be called out, vigorously and honestly, wherever they show their faces. They are cowards, and they will cede. It is only where they are backed by the power of the state, or some dirty little church, that they have any courage. In those cases, we should attack the institutions which give them a temporary lease on life.

You're terrified of criminalization of speech? My entire family was murdered because of their ethnicity, bolstered by a barrage of racist propaganda.

You want to defend anti-semitic speech as being the expression of some bastard's fundamental human rights? I will respectfully disagree with you. Or is it only speech that says that women must be the hogtied vessel of childbirth for the honour of some dirty church, or some dirty man who thinks "his" fetus is more important than the liberty of women? I will respectfully disagree with that also.

What terrifies me is the dehumanization of human beings. If speech has to take a second place to the struggle against that, so be it.

When these characters show up, they should be shown what freedom means.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Sineed wrote:
This free speech discussion is all very pretty, but what do we do here and now?

I'm inclined to agree with Sineed. Reconizing that "free speech" is relatively inherent to the discussion, I will nonetheless try to keep to the topic at hand. I'd be willing to discuss this elsewhere (although I feel like I've done so to death). I'd  encourage others to de-emphasize that part of this debate too, so that this thread doesn't get derailed.

Seriously, I suggest counter-protest. The organization behind this is called, the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform, an international anti-abortion group that started in (surprise) the United States. My few minutes of googling didn't uncover who is behind this, but it's an organized effort.

Yes, I thought so (see my post upthread). Every time I've seen this sponsored protest (and I honestly can't count the number of university and college campuses I've had the grave misfortune of seeing them on -- this past IWD, they held a two-day event at UBC) it's been met with a larger counter protest. But of course, they don't have the budget for the graphics, the sign size and quality -- and frequently they have actual billboards with wooden frames set up. But again, this entrenches the idea that there are two "sides" to this "debate." I think a better action is petitions and getting MPs involved. If they can keep striking teachers from picketing schools, they should be able to keep these assholes away from children.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Apparently, they've been targeting five schools a week since January.

But arguably more troubling than any one altercation are the implications of the movement’s refocusing on high schoolers. And the determined apparatus they have assembled for doing so.

It’s a systematic campaign – one for which the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform is happy to take credit. Its executive director, Stephanie Gray, says they have been visiting GTA schools five days a week since January. 

Subverting the anti-choicers’ traditionally grizzled image, Gray, 32, says she is the oldest among a staff of 16 that is distributed almost evenly between offices in Calgary and Toronto. At protests, they’re supplemented by a volunteer corps, who Gray estimates range from their late teens to late 20s. 

They avoid any mention of religion.

I am most caught off guard by how forthright Gray is. The things pro-choicers describe to me with horror, she details with chipper enthusiasm.

“Our team goes out five days a week during peak times of engagement, which near high schools would be basically over the lunch hour... and we stand on public sidewalks and ask [students] what they think about abortion and basically bring what’s in the darkness into the light.”

Why have they all of a sudden turned their attention to high schools? “It is a newer strategy of ours, and we’re big on constantly evaluating and improving upon what we do.”

 

Tehanu

From the article Catchfire linked to:

Quote:
Michael Erickson, a social sciences teacher at Harbord, weighs the protest’s impacts. “Obviously, I believe that people have a freedom of speech,” but “students don’t actually get to choose to go to school. So on the one hand there’s freedom of speech, but on the other hand there’s [the fact that] kids actually aren’t free to avoid those messages.”

Moreover, he says there are students in the school who have had abortions. “The last thing they need,” he says, “is to feel guilty about it.” It’s contrary to “the school as a safe space that’s focused on learning and equity."

Good point, Michael Erickson! The students can't avoid the message because they have to go to school. I'd think a human rights lawyer could potentially have some traction with that ... Clayton Ruby, maybe?

Now that's a fine, fine social sciences teacher. And yes, high school girls have had abortions and school should be a safe space. Those antichoicers using anti-bullying rhetoric is rich.

One of the most effective protests I've heard of was against a neo-Nazi who had been brought in to speak at a venue in Guelph. From what I remember, the venue didn't realize at the time who he was, and when they found out he threatened to sue if they cancelled. So they gave all the tickets away to anti-racist folks, who packed the audience. When dude started talking, everyone got up and turned their chairs around in total silence. Apparently he was helplessly infuriated. Standing in silent testimony can be extremely effective.

Unionist

Um, yeah, in my day, we made fascists feel very unwelcome. Like apologists for South Africa.

Check out [url=http://www.nfb.ca/film/discordia/]Discordia[/url], and see what you all think about tolerance and open debate and the "neutrality" of the state and its institutions. Here's a good [url=http://psreview.org/content/view/31/72]review[/url] if you want to read about it first.

 

 

ygtbk

Tehanu wrote:

Quote:
Catchfire, what precisely do you mean, with respect to free speech, by "fetishization"? You've used the word before in this context.

I don't think free speech is a blanket right. In order to live in a civil society, free speech needs to be limited. Where the limit is can be debated, but for me the line is crossed when one person's freedom of speech harms others. Which this particular propaganda does.

Tehanu, I am sure that you mean what you say. But who, precisely, has the licence to shut down free speech? I understand that you can assert where you think the line has been crossed, but what if others disagree?

Unionist

Catchfire wrote:
Reconizing that "free speech" is relatively inherent to the discussion, I will nonetheless try to keep to the topic at hand. I'd be willing to discuss this elsewhere (although I feel like I've done so to death). I'd  encourage others to de-emphasize that part of this debate too, so that this thread doesn't get derailed.

Not possible to separate these aspects in this case.

When powerful wealthy institutions run campaigns to inculcate the enslavement of women among our youth, something needs to be done. Framing the issue as "free speech" is just as disingenuous - nay, fraudulent - as the U.S. approach to political funding. We've circumscribed "free speech" when it comes to electoral advertising in Canada, because our society has largely recognized that it favours those with money and power. We can surely do the same with those who would enslave women. It's a matter of power.

 

Francesca Allan

ygtbk wrote:

I understand that you can assert where you think the line has been crossed, but what if others disagree?

Then apparently they're Nazis (basing this on Unionist's post #21 in response to mine).

This debate is going nowhere and I'm done.

You don't have to be a religious fundamentalist wacko to have concerns about abortion.  I'm pro-choice (in fact, I had an abortion myself as a scared teenager) but I still try to have an understanding where the other side is coming from. Some of the posters in this thread remind me of those who label anyone who questions mainstream psychiatry as a Scientologist. All this hostility and name calling does little to further a useful dialogue from both sides.

Don't you guys understand? They think abortion is murder; we don't.  

Unionist

Francesca Allan wrote:

Then apparently they're Nazis (basing this on Unionist's post #21 in response to mine).

If you believe in free speech, then try not to quote so "freely" from what I say, please. I made a number of points about the line between free speech and discrimination; about activities which our society already bans via human rights legislation; about the enslavement of women vs. other kinds of hateful behaviour. Feel free to engage my views, or not, but if you think I called someone "Nazis", have the courtesy of providing a direct quote and let people discern the truth.

Quote:
This debate is going nowhere and I'm done.

Which debate are you talking about? At first, I thought it was what you said in your first post:

Francesca Allan wrote:
These kids don't really bother me like some other anti-choice zealots do.  They're stating their position respectfully and they're on public property.  I don't see a problem here.

That was a debate about the proper limits to speech.

Now, however, it turns out that something else is being debated:

Quote:
You don't have to be a religious fundamentalist wacko to have concerns about abortion.

I fully agree. I know people who really truly don't have a very high opinion of women's equality, who are very uncomfortable with "abortion on demand", and who aren't religious at all. Likewise with same-sex marriage. Whom are you disagreeing with when you say "you don't have to be a religious wacko..."? If it could be shown that some of these Conservative MPs who are trying to re-open the abortion issue are agnostic, would that make them less dangerous, hateful, deserving to be suppressed?

So what this is really about is the freedom of choice. These shits who are standing in front of junior high schoolers are not there to express concerns about medical procedures. They are there to terrorize girls and boys alike, to emotionally blackmail them, and to help preserve a society where even the halting gains women have made in establishing their freedom and equality are rolled back. These people are not Nazis. They are misogynists and oppressors. They are the enemy.

 

quizzical

gee i think its you who doesn't understand charter rights francesca allen and others attempted infringement upon our rights. you have no right to be concerned about abortions. if you don't want one then don't have 1. i do suggest though you keep your mouth shut about other's rights to have control over their own body.

right now in our small town we have Drs calling women murders for asking for the morning after pill amongst other breaches in human rights and ethics. i've only been coming here to check and see if writer got my pm cause i don't know how to do a call to action about this gross situation here needing national action and then this ugly thread pops upand shows us just how ugly anti-human rights people are.

Francesca Allan

Okay, Unionist. I admit I was out of line. Sorry. Truly.

Francesca Allan

quizzical wrote:

gee i think its you who doesn't understand charter rights francesca allen and others attempted infringement upon our rights. you have no right to be concerned about abortions. if you don't want one then don't have 1. i do suggest though you keep your mouth shut about other's rights to have control over their own body.

I have no right to be concerned? Did I read you correctly? I said nothing, absolutely nothing, questioning the right to abortion. I stated clearly that I'm pro-choice. I even disclosed that I had had one myself. You're way out of line.

quizzical wrote:

right now in our small town we have Drs calling women murders for asking for the morning after pill

And I agree that's absolutely ridiculous.

quizzical wrote:

amongst other breaches in human rights and ethics. i've only been coming here to check and see if writer got my pm cause i don't know how to do a call to action about this gross situation here needing national action and then this ugly thread pops upand shows us just how ugly anti-human rights people are.

And now I'm "anti-human rights." Well, I guess that's better than being a Nazi.

ETA: Calling anti-choicers anti-human rights is as stupid as calling pro-choicers murderers.

kropotkin1951

The proper term for anti-choice advocates is misogynists. 

So Francesca do you see any limits on ones freedom of expression? Would you agree that if I wanted to advocate the return of the death penalty I would have the right to display gross pictures of women cut into pieces and pretend that they are pictures of the Picton victims.

As for quizzical's reference to anti-human rights people I presumed she meant the assholes displaying the pictures not you.

quizzical

you said "you don't have to be a religious wacko to have concerns about abortions "  and to me  your comment indicates you've got concerns and this was re-enforced in your very first post you said you don't have a problem with this action in front of high schools followed by crap about late term abortions.  this again indicates to me your not really in support of women's human rights to have control over their own body in all times and situations. and it is this aspect to me means your really not viewing choice as a human rights position.

eta hellooooo anti-choice people are anti-human rights. we have no abortion laws in Canada because self determination and our right not to be compelled to give ourselves into the service of another is recognized in our charter rights.

 

Francesca Allan

quizzical wrote:

this again indicates to me your not really in support of women's human rights to have control over their own body in all times and situations.

I guess you caught me because I don't support all abortions.  Aborting for sex-selection, for example.

quizzical wrote:

ets hellooooo anti-choice people are anti-human rights. we have no abortion laws in Canada because self determination and our right not to be compelled to give ourselves into the service of another is recognized in our charter rights.

But don't you understand? The anti-choicers thinks fetuses are people, that they're also entitled to their Charter rights.

Perhaps I did overreact to your post, though. Were you saying that I was anti-human rights? I read your post that way.

Francesca Allan

kropotkin1951 wrote:
 

So Francesca do you see any limits on ones freedom of expression?

Of course I do.

kropotkin1951 wrote:
 

Would you agree that if I wanted to advocate the return of the death penalty I would have the right to display gross pictures of women cut into pieces and pretend that they are pictures of the Picton victims.

Yes, I do, actually. And I also think that anybody else would have the right to call you full of shit.

kropotkin1951 wrote:
 

As for quizzical's reference to anti-human rights people I presumed she meant the assholes displaying the pictures not you.

I sure hope so.

quizzical

yep the assholes displaying the pics and others who think they should have a say in anyone else's choices like the whacked out religious white South African Drs here.

kropotkin1951

Francesca Allan wrote:

Yes, I do, actually. And I also think that anybody else would have the right to call you full of shit.

Thanks for the respectful debate.

Tongue out

quizzical

Francesca Allan wrote:
quizzical wrote:

this again indicates to me your not really in support of women's human rights to have control over their own body in all times and situations.

I guess you caught me because I don't support all abortions.  Aborting for sex-selection, for example.

it's none of your business period.

Quote:
quizzical wrote:

ets hellooooo anti-choice people are anti-human rights. we have no abortion laws in Canada because self determination and our right not to be compelled to give ourselves into the service of another is recognized in our charter rights.

But don't you understand? The anti-choicers thinks fetuses are people, that they're also entitled to their Charter rights.

sure i understand its you and them who don't. even if somehow fetus were considered people it wouldn't matter. our charter rights say we cannot be compelled to give our life in the service of another even if death is the result for the other.

Quote:
Perhaps I did overreact to your post, though. Were you saying that I was anti-human rights? I read your post that way.

no i didn't say you were anti-human rights. i just think you don't understand them in this aspect at least.

Francesca Allan

Quote:

Thanks for the respectful debate.

Tongue out

For Christ's sake, kropotkin, I wasn't saying you were full of shit. I was responding to your hypothetical query about propaganda to return the death penalty and I was saying it should be allowed just as long as speaking out against it was also allowed. Somebody who advocates for the return of the death penalty with sensationalist material would be full of shit.

Francesca Allan

quizzical wrote:

Francesca Allan wrote:

I guess you caught me because I don't support all abortions.  Aborting for sex-selection, for example.

it's none of your business period.

Okay, it's none of my business. Does that mean I'm not entitled to an opinion? Am I allowed to speak? Am I allowed to think?

quizzical wrote:

Quote:

But don't you understand? The anti-choicers thinks fetuses are people, that they're also entitled to their Charter rights.

sure i understand its you and them who don't. even if somehow fetus were considered people it wouldn't matter. our charter rights say we cannot be compelled to give our life in the service of another even if death is the result for the other.

Me and them? Me and them??? What the hell are you talking about? I'm not one of them. All I'm saying is that they have a right to their opinion. 

quizzical wrote:

no i didn't say you were anti-human rights. i just think you don't understand them in this aspect at least.

And that may well be true. I want to further my understanding and that's why I'm engaging in this dialogue. Of course, it also may be true that you don't understand them in this aspect.

We can disagree, work on it, and still get somewhere.

lagatta

No, we can't. People who are anti-choice are misogynists who want to control what women do with our own bodies, period. We have fought for decades for this right and there is no way I'll stand for anyone trying to whittle it away.

kropotkin1951

Francesca please be careful with your use of pronouns if you expect people to understand your posts.  For Satin's sake if you mean them then don't say you when responding to a direct quote of mine.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Hi all, I just want to point out that this is starting to look like a pile on. Francesca is entitled to her opinion without bearing that kind of response.

And Francesca, I just want to remind you that babble is an unequivocally pro-choice board. A woman's right to choose, to her own body, are not up for debate here. If you feel the need to do so, I suggest bowing out of this thread.

The way I see it, the topics oopen for discussion in this thread are:

1. Who these demonstrators are and what we can do about them; and

2. The so-called right to free speech or the illusion thereof.

Francesca Allan

Catchfire wrote:

And Francesca, I just want to remind you that babble is an unequivocally pro-choice board. A woman's right to choose, to her own body, are not up for debate here. If you feel the need to do so, I suggest bowing out of this thread.

But I wasn't debating a woman's right to choose. I was merely saying that the protesters had rights, too.

Sineed

Francesca wrote:
Don't you guys understand? They think abortion is murder; we don't.  

That's extremely fair-minded of you, but their behaviour suggests that they don't actually care about life, but about women's autonomy over their bodies. The evidence? For one, there's the anti-choice terrorists who blow up clinics and murder doctors. Sure, most anti-choicers don't condone or do these things, but if they really are "pro-life," then shouldn't the most extreme "pro-life" proponents spend their days throwing themselves in front of tanks, hacking the website of the NRA to replace it with pictures of children killed by guns, chaining themselves to the front of defense plants; whatever sort of behaviour that is the extreme end of being a peace and love (ie "pro-life") fundamentalist?

Also, studies have shown that abortion rates are lower in places where there is free and unfettered access to abortion. So people who don't like abortion should support its ready access.

http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/unsafe_abortion/induc...

Francesca Allan

lagatta wrote:

No, we can't. People who are anti-choice are misogynists who want to control what women do with our own bodies, period. We have fought for decades for this right and there is no way I'll stand for anyone trying to whittle it away.

Whoa, lagatta.

When I said:

Quote:

We can disagree, work on it, and still get somewhere.

I was clearly referring to disagreeing on the free speech conversation I had going with quizzical. I don't disagree with the right to an abortion. I said clearly I was pro-choice. You're jumping all over me when all I'm doing is trying to defend free speech. This is really unfair and I think I'll take kroptokin's (catchfire's?) advice and bow out of this thread as clearly my communication skills aren't up to it. 

Sineed

My mum just called, and she's a staunch pro-choice older lady and a retired nurse who remembers wards full of seriously sick and wounded women who had had illegal abortions. She made an interesting point: some of those disgusting pictures are of late-term abortions where the fetus had a severe defect that was not compatible with life, as is the reason for most late-term abortions.

So some of the gory fetus pics are of a nasty genetic defect (like where the brain is outside the skull) and not from the pregnancy termination.

Sineed

I'm fine with Francesca sticking around this thread. She's not said anything that smells like pro-life, and explained nicely upthread why she doesn't hasten to demonize people, even the nasty anti-choice extremists who are the subject of this thread.