Pro-Abort Protest

[catscradle]

It's 102 degrees and the abortion protesters are out in force. I was walking down the street from where I work and I ran into a mob of them. There was a big truck circling the block with large depictions of aborted fetuses and signs saying that homosexuality was a sin and Islam a lie. In the 4 years I've been here, I've never seen anything like it before. So natureally I talked to them and picked up their literature. Here's a transcript of the conversation:


Me: Hi. What's going on here?

Man1: We're having an anti-abortion demonstration.

Me: I see. It's pretty hot out here. Any special reason for having it today? I don't think I've ever seen you here before.

Man2: Yeah. You see that university (point to the Iliff School of Theology).

Me: Yeah.

Man2: It's pro-abort.

Me: I see. You mean pro-choice?

Man1: Well, no. Pro-abort.

Me: Do you think they want to abort them all?

Man2: It's getting there.

Me: Showing solidarity for Bush's supreme court nomination?

Man1: No. No, it's not about that. See this school (points to the University of Denver)? Clinton's minister is going to be here tonight. He's pro-abort.

Me: Oh, I see. You're killing two birds with one stone then. Protesting Clinton and Iliff.

Man1: Yeah. (hands me literature)

Me: Thank you. (abortion truck take another turn around the block) Are they performing abortions in there?

Man2: What?!

Me: In the truck. There's an aborted fetus on the back of it. I thought maybe Iliff was advertising or maybe sending out the troops now.

Man1: (laughs) Oh no. We're preaching the word. That's the life Iliff believes is okay to just throw away. We're demonstrating the atrocities of abortion. It's disturbing, I know. I wish we didn't have to do that.

Me: What does being homosexual have to do with abortion? Are lesbians getting pregnant to abort the babies?

Man2: I don't know what lesbians do. Both abortion and homosexuality are an abomination against God.

Man1: Are you Christian?

Me: Yeah. Catholic.

Man1: Okay. Catholic. Yeah. Alright. (nods a few times)

Me: Thank you for the information.

Man1: Yeah, okay.

Me: Drink pleanty of liquids, it's hot out here. All life is percious, even yours.

Man1: Yeah (laughs), okay.

Man2: Amen!

Man1: (shouts to me as I walk away) Keep spreading God's word!

Pro-choice, pro-life... Truly it's just too damn hot to protest anything. All in all, they were polite to me and they weren't the "God HATES (insert current vogue abomination)!" variety, so I'll give points for that. Though I had to laugh when the man was trying to decide if me being Catholic was okay with him or not. You could seem him mentally wrestling with the issue. In the end I guess he decided that Catholics came down on the right side of at least two of the issues, so it'd be okay. When I first started talking to them you could tell they were getting ready for a fight. I think it shocked them that I was polite and didn't start an argument. I skipped the part about being a pro-choice bi-sexual anachist. This was just a reconnaissance mission.

Comments

[wiebke.livejournal.com]

Me: Drink pleanty of liquids, it's hot out here. All life is percious, even yours.

*hands you a halo*

Well done.

[catscradle.livejournal.com]

Thanks. Though truly I was worried for them standing out there, especially because there were kids too. I was outside for all of 15 minutes and they were there for about 2 hours. It was a dangerous things to do. It's suppose to top out today at 103 =P

[http://users.livejournal.com/_darlingnicky_/]

I used to work as an escort for our local abortion clinic. I have been to SO many protests and two of the big "Rescues" they periodically stage. I've been in the trenches - on the front lines - of this issue for so long. But I think this is what they don't understand, and never will. It's not an issue of religion. It's an issue of liberty. And I know I preach to the converted, so I shall stop there. But I glow once more with pride at my ACLU card and feel 1 fraction of a percent less helpless.

[catscradle.livejournal.com]

You know, I honestly wouldn't care about their protests if it weren't for their inconsistances. I'm all for everyone having their opinion and protesting. We've both been protesters for causes we believe in that many others don't. That's all well and good. What I object to is the hypocracy. Where are the protests against the war? Why is that life worth less than an unborn child? I'd almost give them a reversal of Roe v Wade if they worked to end all war, end the death penalty, teach kids about contraceptives so they don't have to have abortions, give assistance to poor pregnant women that can't afford the baby they're carrying, actively preach agaisnt hate crimes....

It's hard to take people serious when they discriminate on which life is precious and which is okay to smite.

[beeblefish.livejournal.com]

But you forget, "Islam is a lie" so its okay to kill "them"... their probaly all gay homosexuals too, now to think of it ...

[catscradle.livejournal.com]

They need Islam though. Someone's got to be the catalyst for the apocalypse, after all!

[versailles-rose.livejournal.com]

When there were anti-choice - anti gay demonstrations near where I live, I went nose to nose with a protester. It ended up with me rendering the jerk speechless. I think I said something like 'gays don't cause abortions, men without condoms do.'

[catscradle.livejournal.com]

In the end there's really nothing we can say to convince them that they're making the situation worse. It's a blind religious conviction. It's frustrating that no amount of statistics proving that teaching kids about birth control correlates with FAR lower abortion rates registers with them. Reality isn't something these people check into often. =P

What if's

[mindslant.livejournal.com]

I think there would be a lot less protestors if they had to make their own buttons and had to be really specific. Example (pin this to your chest): "I'm Pro-Choice because I'm convinced of the natural potentiality clause when in concurence with long-term greatest good."

I also think that should be a necessity for voting.

Re: What if's

[beeblefish.livejournal.com]

Last protest I went too I was really annoyed at MY side. It was an anti protest, in that we were protesting the anti-gay-marriage protestors who were protesting outside a local politicians office. (It was odd, now that gay marrigae is legal in Canada (which is now completely solid, as it passed in the Senate yesterday!!), that the politicians were on our side for once.) So we were there with our signs and our chants .. but then there were a few you came with drums and started making tons of noise and drumming. Now, this is a great strategy for making a statement .. but this was an anti-protest, and when our MP came out ON OUR SIDE, to talk to the protestors, we wer drowning him out. I got yelled at by an older man who said he couldn't hear what the MP had to say .. and I had to agree with him. But some knob on my side yelled back (he thought ironically) "This isn't even our protest!!"

I have to credit my gf for pointing out that often protests are just "parties for anarchists", which is great in theory, but stupid when it's actually counterproductive.

Re: What if's

[mindslant.livejournal.com]

I really don't see the debate of gay marriages. Marriage is a social pinciple strictly out of the bounds of legislation. I admit ignorance as to Canadian Law, but the American Constitution absolutly condemns the state regulating the church.
Do I believe in homosexual marriages, on a religious platform no (it's just one of the rules. I don't think homosexuals are bad people, I personally don't think what they're doing is inherently wrong. But the deity made a rule about it so...)
Do I think there should be laws against it, also no. An american christian can not support legislation against gay marriage. An american can not support any legislation determining the status of couples as pertains to being married as marriage is incorporated deeply in social belief structures. You also can't legislate that no one can wear a star of david for the exact same reasons.

Theres no debate, it's written plainly.

Re: What if's

[beeblefish.livejournal.com]

Obviously, we have different opinions on he structure and nature of "the diety" so we could only argue this point so far before we would have to fairly radically part ways, but I feel I just have to point out a few things. One, I am well aware of the separation between church and state that is part of the american mythos .. but I must point out, just because you say something, or write it down on an important piece of paper (or parchment) doesnt mean it is necessarily the case. The impact of religious forms such on public life is such that some things become defacto within the bounds of state jurisdiction. Marrigage for example, is so implicated with other social issues (who gets certain kinds of benefits and who not, tax law, inheritance law, immigration policy, visitation rights went someone is ill ..) that it cannot NOT be part of the legal apparatus. Forgive me if I say that to say it isn't is an unquestioned aspect of heterosexual privilege at work. You might feel differently if you were denied the right to see your dying lover because the family didn't want you there or were kicked out of a shared house that wasn't in your name because of a bureaucratic logic that could force you out. Second, I believe your argument makes the assumption that marriage is one thing. It is in fact a multiplex of many different practices and beliefs arising out of many faiths and also out of out of places completely beyond faith. To impose one meaning of the word marriage on all other users is unjust. Your perspective seems to assume that one definition is the only true and correct one. Many within your faith have different interpretations of it. And, forgive me, the words you speak of that "write it out plainly" are ALSO interpretations, by men mostly, writing thousands of years ago.

As it is, in Canada, we have legal protection of both gay marriage and or religious leaders who don't want to perform it. The religious leaders who do want to can (including those from a whole panoply of Christian, Catholic and Jewish , Islamic, and variously Pagan faiths) and those who don't can't be forced to. But, to force one perspective-on-religion's view of marriage on every other person connected to the practice would be a much greater wrong than the uncomfortable sharing of a word with people who have different perspectives of faith, love and justice.

Re: What if's

[mindslant.livejournal.com]

We are saying more in common than not, I hope we can speak together
and not at each other. The plainly written words I meant were the constitution, not the bible.
I agree the government can decide on certain effects of marriage, but
to determine who is and isn't married, who can and can't be married,
and how many marriages may coincide is a social question out of the
realms legislation. I agree wholeheartedly with your second point of
the many interpretations of marriage, thus I believe it's definitions
should be left to the community. The role I see the gov't playing is
being told, not telling, who has been married. I myself have been
married and did so without consultation of the gov't. The can *eff*
themselves concerning my private life.
And I agree that just because it is written does not make it so ,
however not take a defeatist stance and cannabalize the legal process.
Shouldn't we be working towards a legal system in which because it is
written it is law?
As far as my faith, I'm devout...not traditional. Jesus made it very
easy for his children. Plant the seed, that's it. In my ministries,
I have never entered into religious discussion without explicitly
being asked to.

Re: What if's

[catscradle.livejournal.com]

It's always struck me as odd that certain rights and privilages were granted to married couples that were denied to single people by the government. And I agree that perhaps we should be working to strip the government of it's right to grant favors and sanction social/religious practices. That's why I've been more in favor of civil contracts rather than marriage. I should be able to, for instance, draft a contract that states this or that person should have power of attornery to make decisions for me in the case I am not able to do so. In the case of gay marriage, I believe all parties are hung up on the term "marriage" and therefore it would just be stricken from the vocabulary. The government should see all unions, regardless of the genders involved, as legally binding unions, dissolved only through mutual consent or hostile take over.

Re: What if's

[mindslant.livejournal.com]

How simply the true heart of the matter is shown.

Re: What if's

[mindslant.livejournal.com]

Parties for anarchist. Very interesting.

Re: What if's

[catscradle.livejournal.com]

Any true anarchist understands that to swing your partner is to usurp your partner.

Re: What if's

[mindslant.livejournal.com]

True anarchy is a beautiful delicate thing

Re: What if's

[beeblefish.livejournal.com]

I agree .. I actually asked a anti-gay marriage protestor (see below) about a sign they were holding containing a proverb .. it seemed discussionworthy .. but he didn't even know what it meant .. I think their pastor just went around handing out signs ...

Re: What if's

[catscradle.livejournal.com]

This sort of mentality requires that people don't think for themselves. I can totally understand the side that believes abortion is wrong. There are actually sane arguments for it. They don't use those arguments. They instead reguritate the same old line they heard in the Sunday morning sermon.

Re: What if's

[catscradle.livejournal.com]

So... "I am Pro-Tyranny-of-the-Majority wherein the rights of the individual are supplanted by the will of the populace to enforce pregnancy, kill the Mujahideens, exile all the homosexuals and confiscate the homes of all citizen that insist on owning those little yippie dogs that never stop under the premise of eminent domain."

Or maybe "I'm voting for Linden LaRue, because one insane and off-his-medication lunatic is like all the rest. I figure since he's been at it longer, he's got more experience than the others."

Re: What if's

[mindslant.livejournal.com]

That would be a heck of a badge. ;) With those badges one could be a protest all on there onesies.

As for the voting, go with someone you really believe in. Voting for the lesser of two evils makes one a sonderkommando of freedom.

Re: What if's

[catscradle.livejournal.com]

Voting for the lesser of two evils makes one a sonderkommando of freedom.

Cthulhu all the way, baby.

I've come to believe over the past few years that the lesser evil is, by default of it's own mediocrity, the greater evil.

[babaca.livejournal.com]

We got those folks at our University all the time as well. What usually amazes me (but doesn't shock me though) is how beaten down and meek the women protesters are. I know they put the graphic imagery of aborted fetuses up there to cause folks to get defensive but most students don't even bat an eye as they are babbling on their cell phones and walking to classes.

I enjoyed reading your conversation with them. You do get a gold star and a polished halo for it.

[catscradle.livejournal.com]

What usually amazes me (but doesn't shock me though) is how beaten down and meek the women protesters are.

Yeah, there were three women there that never said a word to me. They let the men to all the talking =P