By
Rachel Solomon
May 27, 2009
The national abortion debate got a little more local yesterday when the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) set up on campus.
The visual anti-abortion exhibit was displayed in Red Square, while abortion-rights protesters circled the project and chanted their opposition.
“I’d say about 80 percent of the people just walk right on by, steal a couple of glances,” said UW sophomore Marc Snyder, who organized GAP’s presence on campus. “It’s too hard to say if it’s just apathy or [if] it’s just too much to deal with all at once.”
GAP’s methodology involves the juxta-position of graphic images of abortion with images of violence and mass killing, paired with evocative text. Some of the photographs depict Holocaust victims, lynchings and child abuse.
Last week, senior Autumn Cutter coordinated a protest via Facebook. More than 20 people, including advocates from Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America and Radical Women, swarmed around the exhibit.
While Cutter agreed that the group held the right to freedom of expression, she found the comparison between abortion and genocide offensive.
“There [are] two things that I think are really horrible here,” Cutter said. “First is the implication that women are genocidal agents when they choose to have an abortion. The second is equating the suffering that so many people have gone through via genocide with the common procedure that many women undergo.”
In contrast, Darius Hardwick, northwest regional director for the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, which sponsors the exhibit, highlighted the parallels between the two acts.
“[Genocide] is a group of people, and it’s a lot of them dead,” Hardwick said. “The bigger connection is that there are millions of [babies] being killed. There are 1.29 million babies aborted in the U.S. every year, 50 million worldwide. That’s more babies being killed from abortion than Jews that died in the Holocaust.”
The tone of the protest shifted when one student egged the exhibit, and another scribbled on the signs advertising it in Red Square.
A free-speech board was erected next to the exhibit, offering students a chance to react to the images in another way.
Sophomore Tiffany Vu scrawled three messages on the board, among them “There’s always another way,” supplemented by a small doodle of a heart.
“As a Roman Catholic, I believe that abortion is a horrible, horrible thing, and it should never have to happen in the first place,” Vu said. “But, I don’t think all this shouting between the pro-choice and the pro-life sides is really solving the problem at all.”
Snyder stated that the goal of the exhibit was to sway observers’ opinions about abortion.
Holly Conger, a student at Olympic College in Poulsbo, Wash., and volunteer for the exhibit, explained how she persuaded a woman not to get an abortion.
“She was nine-weeks pregnant, and when she came over here, she was kind of on the fence about it,” Conger said. “When she walked away, she said she was going to keep the baby.”
Others, like senior Annamaria Clark, were unaffected by GAP.
“The pictures are very shocking. I wanted to come see what arguments were being made,” Clark said. “My official opinion would be pro-choice the first trimester. [That was] my same opinion coming into this.”
Personal views aside, Cutter and the other protesters contemplated GAP’s place on a college campus.
“You have every right to be against abortion — that is totally your decision.” Cutter said. “This is just really unnecessary and really inappropriate. There are other ways to protest abortion besides doing this.”
GAP will be in Red Square again today from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Reach reporter Rachel Solomon at news@dailyuw.com.
31 Comments
#1 snyds12
on May 27, 2009 at 7:05 a.m.(Seattle, WA | UW Community)
To get an idea of what the exhibit entails, visit: www.abortionno.org
#2 tashac
on May 27, 2009 at 9:32 p.m.(Seattle, WA | UW Community)
The GAP's display in red was incredibly offensive. Comparing people who have chosen to have an abortion to people like Pol Pot and Hitler . Not only does it trivialize the experiences of genocide victims, it criminalizes everyone who has had an abortion. That the GAP is drawing a likeness between what my family went through in Cambodia and the decisions of women who are doing what they think is best is unthinkable. The GAP pretends to know what is best for everyone, not caring to understand circumstances- rape, health, age, that may have led each individual to make the choice they did.
I understand that they're trying to make a point, but what the GAP did in Red Square made them look like sensationalist assholes.
#3 saraho
on May 27, 2009 at 10:09 p.m.(Seattle, WA | UW Community)
I was very upset to see that in Red Square today, a group of students protesting abortion were allowed to erect a ring of 4x5-foot signs with enormous photos of aborted fetuses in a part of Red Square that receives heavy student traffic from Odegaard Library and the bridge across 15th Avenue. The most offensive sign depicted the killing fields in Cambodia, and compared people who had abortions to Pol Pot.
This was an incredibly offensive and insensitive comparison. There are students on campus who are the children of Cambodian immigrants who fled Pol Pot, leaving behind countless friends and relatives who did not escape and were victims of genocide. There are also rape victims who have chosen to have an abortion. To compare the decision to have an abortion to the man who murdered a student's family is unthinkably offensive.
I know that free speech has a valuable place on a college campus, and debate and discussion are important for individual growth. However, I also believe that it should be an individual's choice whether they want to see graphic images of aborted fetuses, or comparisons between abortion and the Cambodian genocide.
I ask that in the future, all student groups should not be allowed to erect immobile standing displays with graphic imagery that are visible from across Red Square. They should be smaller and either hand-held or at a table, like the LaRouche tables, so that people passing by have the choice of whether they would like to engage in discussion.
#4 Fletcher A.
on May 27, 2009 at 11:53 p.m.(Columbus, GA)
Responding to Tashac, you are mistaken when you say that the GAP display compares aborting mothers to Pol Pot and Hitler. CBR makes no such comparison. Indeed, a woman in crisis pregnancy is often more victim than perpetrator — a victim of a culture and a set of circumstances that leaves her feeling as if she has no other choice. In many cases, she has been told nothing but lies about what that baby inside her is like and nothing at all about the serious physical and emotional risks she faces. Her plight is often made worse by irresponsible and coercive male behavior.
The most important comparison of abortion to other forms of historical genocide is personhood. In each case of genocide presented in the GAP display, personhood was redefined by those in power in terms that excluded the intended victim class. In its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, the US Supreme Court denied rights of personhood to the preborn child by applying a developmental criterion (i.e., trimesters). The Court did the same thing to the Black slave in its 1857 Dred Scott decision, stating that he was a member of a “subordinate and inferior class of being.” The Nuremberg Laws of 1935 denied personhood to Jews.
As with abortion, the victims of genocide are described in dehumanizing terms. The Nazis called their victims “untermensch,” which means “subhuman.” We all know the language used to dehumanize Black men and women in America. With the preborn child, the wanted child is called a “baby.” The unwanted child, on the other hand, is never called a baby; he is instead called products of conception, blob of tissue, parasite, etc.
There are many other comparisons, which you can see at www.blackgenocide.org/abortion.html.
In Cambodia, unwanted people were simply killed. That is also true with abortion. In many states, killing a preborn child that is “wanted” (by the mother) can be prosecuted as a murder. On the other hand, an “unwanted” preborn child can legally be killed up until the moment of birth.
The argument that “GAP (sic) pretends to know what is best for everyone, not caring to understand . . .” is similar to an argument used to justify the continuation of slavery in the Old South. You can almost hear the slaveholder arguing that the abolitionist shouldn’t pretend to know what was best for him, and how could the northerner know anything about the challenges of running a cotton plantation. It wasn’t a good argument then and it isn’t today.
You may call us names all you like, but name-calling and ad hominem attacks are no substitutes for reasoned arguments.
#5 Fletcher A.
on May 28, 2009 at 12:12 a.m.(Columbus, GA)
Responding to Saraho, you say it was offensive to compare abortion to Cambodia, but you never say why the comparison is incorrect. In Cambodia, certain people were killed simply because they were unwanted by the Pol Pot regime. That is exactly what is happening with abortion. Preborn children are being killed simply because they are unwanted. Wanted children, on the other hand, are treated as persons. As evidence of this, consider the case of Scott Peterson. He was convicted of two homicides, one for killing his wife and the other for killing his preborn child. The only difference between Scott Peterson’s preborn victim and one of George Tiller’s late-term abortion victims is the arbitrary criterion of “wantedness.” Scott Peterson’s preborn victim was wanted; George Tiller’s preborn victims are not.
CBR hasn’t forced anybody to look at graphic images of aborted children. Anyone who doesn’t want to look may simply avert his gaze and move on. Of course, what you are really saying is that you (or some like-minded version of yourself) should be given the power to limit or even veto any public display that you find offensive. Would you give that same veto power to me? I thought not. Thank God for people like George Mason, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and others who made Freedom of Speech the first enumerated Right in our Constitution. Thank God also for hundreds of thousands of American soldiers who have died to preserve that freedom.
#6 Cat D.
on May 28, 2009 at 12:16 a.m.(Seattle, WA)
My friend and I created this list of questions for anyone who is strictly prolife. I myself, am prolife personally, but am prochoice politically- meaning that I believe women should have the right to choose for themselves what they do with their own bodies. Anyway, I really want to know what someone's responses to these aforementioned questions are...out of respectful curiousity, please answer:
1) What happens to a fetus after it is aborted? Does it have a soul, and if so, where does this soul go?
2) Roughly 127,977 "babies" are killed each year due to vitro fertilization, wherein fertilized embryos which are not used, are thrown away, or locked up in an icechest- what is your stance on this practice?
3) What is your stance on a woman who's pregnancy shall harm her/kill her- should she get an abortion? And if not, does this goe against preserving the sanctity of human life?
4) For men who are pro-life: if your wife/girlfriend was raped by another man, would you keep the baby?
5) What is your response to the fact that the body spontaneously aborts more than 50% of fertilized eggs? Do these spontaneously aborted eggs have souls and are they "human life"?
6) Have you adopted a child? Would you ever adopt a child? And more importantly, would you adopt a child from a high-risk background (such as a child labeled as a "crack baby")? Would you or have you housed foster children?
7) Do you support paying taxes towards free healthcare for children? Such as the SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program)?
8) Do you support paying welfare? Or for that matter, do you support paying extra taxes towards our educational system?
These are just some questions I was curious about- I would like to see some answers from a staunch prolifer...
#7 Cat D.
on May 28, 2009 at 1:17 a.m.(Seattle, WA)
I expect I won't get any answers...everytime I ask these particular questions, it seems like all I hear is *crickets crickets crickets*
Why can't you answer these questions, yet protest on my campus?
#8 Corina J.
on May 28, 2009 at 6:15 p.m.(Bothell, WA)
Cat, thank you for asking questions. I have to think about some of these things more than I have time for now, but I can answer a few right away.
3) I am against an abortion if the mother's health is at risk. If a woman requires a surgery that might result in an abortion, then she has not actively sought an abortion. Of course I would hope that the doctors would do everything in their power to preserve the life of the child and the mother, I understand that the child might not survive the surgery, resulting in its death. I am pro-life from conception to natural death, meaning I value the life of the child as equally as I value the mother's.
6)I have not personally adopted children because of the same reasons I don't have children of my own right now, I'm not ready to be a parent. However, when I was in highschool, I helped my mom to raise 2 foster children. She has since adopted these children who have many physical and emotional problems due to not being with their biological mother. They are not "screwed up" and they don't wish they had never been born. In fact, my brother Nico can't even comprehend why someone would abort their child rather than showing it love by giving it a life and placing it in a loving home. We tell him all the time that his mother loved him and that's why she chose adoption. And yes, I plan to adopt and probably be a foster parent someday.
#9 Ed D.
on May 28, 2009 at 6:18 p.m.(Everett, WA)
I was there for a few hours on Monday and A girl came up to me and asked about the situation of rape (less than .x% of all abortions by the way) She stated that she would have to drop out of school to be pregnant and carry the baby. So I asked if she mean that education and getting her education faster was more important than a human life. She agreed with me that it is not and that it would be slightly a selfish thing to do just to continue her life as it was. We discussed how she would be utterly scarred for life from a rape but she claimed that having a child would scar her more. Others in the circle stated how they have friends who were raped and kept a child and how it turned out to be the most therapeutic and pain relieving experience they never expected. The girl admitted that her abortion would be killing a person and it was for her convenience then asked me if I would call her a murderer. Well intentionally killing a person for your own convenience is murder. So yes.
I don’t think every women has this mind set when they feel they need an abortion but it is interesting that over 1/3 of all abortions are caused by women between the ages of 20-24, and less than 1% of all abortions are in girls 15 and younger. It is interesting because most people’s pro-choice arguments were based around the rare case of a young girl who is raped or becomes pregnant. Yet it is mostly the women who are of age and bodily able to carry a child to birth.
Abort73.com
Oh and, how is 50,000,000 people of the same type killed just in the USA NOT Genocide?
#10 Marc S.
on May 28, 2009 at 7:03 p.m.(Seattle, WA | UW Community)
Here are your answers in case you missed them in the other thread.
Cat: This is a LOT to talk about. If you would like to talk in more detail about any of these things, please email me at s4ber@u.washington.edu. I’ll try to be concise. I am a “staunch prolifer”.
1) The body of the baby is “medical waste” and typically incinerated. If you believe people have souls, it does not make sense for them to acquire a soul at any point but conception. Since they have had no opportunity to sin, they would go to straight to heaven.
2) “Vitro Fertilization”: I believe that life begins at conception. Every time an egg is fertilized with a sperm it results in a perfectly unique genetic code that will become someone who can never be reproduced. Those 127,977 fertilized embryos, genetic combinations, are lost forever. Just because modern science is capable of something does NOT mean that it should be done. I believe any of these embryos that are thrown away qualify as having been “electively aborted”, and that is immoral.
3)There is a VERY big difference between the “health” and “life” of the mother. There are cases where the mother will die if the fetus is not removed. And because the baby will die if the mother dies, that cannot be allowed to happen, so removal is the morally correct decision. This procedure, however, must be done in manner to provide the fetus the best possible chance to survive it and survive out side of the womb. In most cases of this type of pregnancy, the fetus has no chance whatsoever. But remember that technology has advanced to the point where fetuses as young as 20 WEEKS gestation have survived.
4)I would be a hypocrite not to support seeing the baby to full term. Keeping the baby vs. placing for adoption would be a much harder/complex decision that would have to be agreed on by both parents. So for me, yes.
5)That is natural. That is NOT elective abortion. See number 1 concerning they’re souls. Yes, they are genetically human, yes, they are alive and growing. Yes, they are human life.
6)Have I adopted? No. Would I? Yes. Would I for a special needs child? Yes, if I could be reasonably certain that I would have the financial resources to care for them in the way that they require. Yes, I would raise foster children.
7) and 8) I believe that these can be very good and helpful things to the people that need them. Unfortunately, all three of the programs you mention are utterly fraught with corruption and mismanagement that has made them only minimally effective.
You say that you believe in a woman’s right to choose what to do with her “own body”. So do I. The problem is, the child in her womb is NOT her “own body”. The child in her womb is a new, different, genetically unique person. The mother sustains her child, but they are not two parts of one body. Example: If the child is male, does the mother temporarily have a penis? No. This is why “my body, my choice” is completely invalid.
#11 James A.
on May 28, 2009 at 7:18 p.m.(None, None)
Hey Cat, et al.
I'm a pretty staunch guy, and wanted to help answer your questions. As a bonus, I didn't even protest on your campus!
1) Never having spoken with a post-abortive fetus, I can't give you an inside scoop here. But I do think that insofar as a fetus has what it takes, as they say, to be human, it would thereby be granted the same things a person would, soul included. Batteries, not so much. Speaking as a Catholic, I would then think that if a baby died before being born, it would go to Heaven. (Happy to get more into that if need be, but I would imagine bringing unnecessary religion into a abortion discussion is like wearing a gasoline-soaked leisure suit to a cigar party.)
2) No bueno, dude. I think going against this makes sense as long as you understand that the Big Thing for most pro-lifers is that "Fetus/zygote/whatever = person", so we look at everything as though it were happening to some random dude, not some special kind of thing that might be a person, or not, or maybe it is a person, but dispensable. So, I more or less look at this as on par with "Roughly 127,977 middle-schoolers in Renton are killed each year, either thrown away or locked up in ice chests." Doesn't sound like something worthy of my support.
3) This is indeed a tricky situation, and I'm not exactly Lord of Explanations over here, but the key to understanding a healthy stance on this is the intention of the woman and her doctors. Kind of off of the top of my head, but if we switch the scenario a bit it can be revealing: A woman is pregnant, and the woman's immune system is attacking the baby, right before the due date. Is it proper or right to intentionally kill the woman to protect the baby? No. You want to try and save both. So, with your original scenario, you want to try and save both the baby and the mother. That should always be your intention. Now, doing procedures that might save the woman, but might endanger the baby as a consequence, are morally legitimate, because the direct intention isn't death, but the definite saving of one, and hopefully the other as well. Abortion ensures only one survivor.
4) Absolutely I would keep the baby. Again, if fetus = person, there is only one good answer to this. If somebody raped my wife, and then left a toddler with her, shooting the toddler ain't gonna help nobody. Adoption out of a rape situation might be better with some cases, because of the trauma, but in no rape case is abortion a good plan.
#12 James A.
on May 28, 2009 at 7:18 p.m.(None, None)
5) Same answer as with #1, I'd say, as far as humanity of the fertilized eggs. It's got it's own DNA and it's own (admittedly tiny and unrecognizable) body, it counts as a person, so it has a soul. However, a body rejecting or letting go of fertilized eggs isn't the same as abortion, because of the issue of intention, again. Does the mother *want* the babies to die, and act to make that more likely? Or is it an uncontrollable function of the body? Because the latter isn't something to blame people for, it's not a choice.
6) My parents have been trying to adopt for some time, and although I have no family of my own to speak of, I would gladly adopt or take in foster children. I honestly don't know any of the risks or problems in raising a crack baby, but I would like to think I would be able to help in a situation like that as well. I have nothing but respect for anybody with adopted or foster children. (Okay, maybe not anybody: Brangelina gives me the creeping willies for no reason whatsoever. Terrible, as I'm sure they're the nicest couple in Hollywood, but it's the truth. Honesty in all things.)
7) Hey, that sounds pretty good to me! (I'll admit, however, that I know nothing of taxes or how the health-care system works or what exactly government would be able to do that private non-profits and organizations can do, and so I might therefore be out of line.)
8) Eh, this, I regrettably would hedge more toward a "Not really" kind of vote, purely because I know so many people who are just lounging around on welfare, as stereotypical a complaint as that may be. I think it's just human nature to want to be able to get something for nothing, though. As for schools, it kills me to say this, but I wouldn't support that really either, because I think our schools kind of suck, so encouraging them won't lead to anything good. Hahaha!
I hope that helps in some way. If you have further questions, or whatever, I will be happy to continue being as unhelpful as I have been here.
#13 Nichole L.
on May 28, 2009 at 11:38 p.m.(Seattle, WA | UW Community)
Cat: My answers are also posted on the other thread. Just now realized this article had a thread too.
#14 Quo V.
on May 29, 2009 at 12:49 p.m.(Silverdale, WA)
"I expect I won't get any answers...everytime I ask these particular questions, it seems like all I hear is *crickets crickets crickets* Why can't you answer these questions, yet protest on my campus?" -Cat D.
Well, I guess you expected wrong, Cat. It seems your luck with getting pro-lifers to respond to all your questions has shot up 1000%.
So we can answer your list of questions *and* protest on your campus. Jacks-of-all-trades I suppose you could call us.
But you are right about one thing, Cat. All we're hearing are crickets chirping. You plan to respond to any of this? A good starting place would be Fletcher A.'s posts.
ttfn.
#15 Marc S.
on May 29, 2009 at 1:47 p.m.(Seattle, WA | UW Community)
Cat,
Quo pretty much covered it.
I was actually checking in to see if you had responded to my 3 questions I posted at the end of my answers to yours. Again, mine are posted on the other thread.
#16 Nichole L.
on May 29, 2009 at 1:50 p.m.(Seattle, WA | UW Community)
Last comment from me. :) Marc didn't log off my computer.
#17 Fletcher A.
on May 30, 2009 at 8:05 a.m.(Rutledge, TN)
Responding to Cat D. (part 1), I’d like to address the questions you raised in your e-mail. You said in your introduction that you are personally pro-life but politically pro-choice. I think such a position does not stand up to close scrutiny, and here’s why. Either the preborn child is fully a human being or he is not. If he is not a human being, then abortion should be a matter of personal choice and nobody should have anything to say about it. But if the preborn child is a human being, then killing him is homicide. Should homicide be a legal personal choice? Saying you are pro-life but that abortion should be a matter of choice reminds me of Stephen Douglas. When he debated Apraham Lincoln, he said he said he personally opposed slavery, but the states should have the right to choose whether to be slave states or free states. Now to your questions:
1. That depends. If you believe we are all products of naturalistic evolution, then there is no such thing as a soul, and the whole question is nonsense. But if you believe we have an eternal soul, then the answer depends on whether you believe in the God of the Bible or not. If you don’t, I can’t answer the question. But if you believe in the God of the Bible, I would point you to the person of Jesus, who gained his identity as the Son of God from the moment of conception (Luk 1:26-35; Mat 1:18-25).
2. We are all human from the moment of conception. Science speaks with one voice on that matter. I believe no human being should be killed at any stage of life.
3. A baby cannot be sustained in the womb of a dead mother. So in no case does it make sense to allow the mother’s life to be endangered. Examples. With an ectopic pregnancy, the baby must be removed immediately. There is nothing medical science can do for that baby; he will die anyway. In the case of toxemia, in which the baby’s presence becomes more and more toxic to the mother, you must deliver the baby before he becomes a threat to the mother’s life, and then do what you can for the child. The difference between these circumstances and abortion is that you are working to preserve life, not destroy it.
#18 Fletcher A.
on May 30, 2009 at 8:07 a.m.(Rutledge, TN)
Responding to Cat D. (part 2 of 2)
4. If my wife were raped and became pregnant, we would likely place for adoption. We had a good friend who was raped, and she and her boyfriend (soon to be husband) decided to keep and raise the child.
5. People die of natural causes. People die falling down the steps. But that doesn’t give me the right to push somebody down the steps.
6. We have not adopted a child, but we would gladly do so if the alternative were a dead baby. In this country, there are waiting lists to adopt children, even children with mental and physical handicaps. (Even if I were a selfish person who would never life a finger to help anyone else, and even if adoptive parents were hard to find, how would that justify killing a human being?)
7. I willingly pay taxes to support children’s health in my state. But I don’t support one great big government-run health-care system. There is a reason that Canadians come to America to obtain health-care services. We can all see how well the government has managed banking industry and what they are now doing to the auto industry. (Even if I’m wrong in my position on how best to pay for children’s health care, how would that justify killing a human being?)
8. I believe that state and local governments can and do enact programs for the poor. Most of the taxes we already pay go for education and social services that help the poor. Every tax increase in my lifetime (50+ years) was justified because it was supposed to go for education, but once the revenue stream was established, the money was diverted to help whatever special-interest group could deliver the most votes. We pay plenty for education. What we need is accountability, so that we get more value for our money. (Even if I’m wrong about how best to help the poor, how would that justify killing a human being?)
I hope that helps.
Buy the way, if there is any question about what we are talking about, you can see it at www.abortionno.org.
#19 Nichole L.
on June 2, 2009 at 6:11 p.m.(Seattle, WA | UW Community)
Crickets.
#20 jorauk
on June 3, 2009 at 2:51 p.m.(Seattle, WA | UW Community)
It's cute how you guys think you're relevant.
#21 Nichole L.
on June 3, 2009 at 3:17 p.m.(None, None)
Jorauk,
Who are you talking to?
And what exactly is the killing of of approximately 1.37 million children/year in the US (42 million/year in the world)not relevant to?
#22 jorauk
on June 3, 2009 at 4:21 p.m.(Seattle, WA | UW Community)
Hahaha, you just keep on posting, I'm sure you'll change something.
#23 Fletcher A.
on June 3, 2009 at 5:25 p.m.(Rutledge, TN)
Ask the baby in the middle if we are relevant:
http://www.abortionno.org/GAP/signs/G...
She's about 10 years old now; her mother chose life after seeing the GAP display at the University of Tennessee in 1998. You could ask at least a thousand others who have been born over the past 18 years if we are relevant or not. Their mothers saw abortion pictures and changed their minds. We'll take their word for it.
#24 Denise B.
on June 3, 2009 at 6:38 p.m.(Seattle, WA | UW Community)
My mother chose to have me rather than have an abortion. She had previously had one at 14. Guess what, I'm still pro-choice.
#25 Kristin C.
on June 3, 2009 at 8:07 p.m.(Seattle, WA | UW Community)
I may have missed it, but no one ever brings up the fact that the world is overpopulated and running out of resources as it is. That sounds like a callous observation, and I don't mean it to be, but if 1.37 million babies were born every year we would shortly be in a great deal of trouble.
I realize that pro-lifers have their hearts in the right place but it is an idealism that fails to understand the true nature of what the world actually deals with. Do you understand that making abortion legal just means that women of poor means just go to back alleys to get illegal ones? Or that only the well-off, as it has always been, will be able to have them (in secret, of course, because money keeps people silent) while poor women are forced to have children that they can't support?
"If you can't trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child?" - as they say.
Again, I think your hearts are in the right place and I think that is admirable. But I truly believe that the abortion debate exposes a lot of issues of privilege and ignorance that should be addressed. It's like - be against abortion or be against contraception, but seriously? We're meant to take you seriously when you're against both?
#26 Marc S.
on June 4, 2009 at 2:56 p.m.(UW Campus)
Denise: We're all glad that your mother decided to keep you. Do you think that we are trying to condemn women like your mother who have had abortions? Please reference where you saw us say anything remotely similar to a condemnation of aborting mothers. You will not find it. Your mother is a victim of abortion as well.
#27 Marc S.
on June 4, 2009 at 3:04 p.m.(UW Campus)
Denise: Also, there are extensive networks for women to recieve support after an abortion, and NONE of them are interested in condemning your mother. Here is a list of them. Perhaps you might refer your mother to them someday.
After Abortion National Help line
866-482-LIFE
Rapha (refers to licensed counselors)
1-800-383-4673
American Victims of Abortion
202-626-8800 x132
www.abortionrecovery.org
www.lutheransforlife.org/After_an_Abo...
www.lastharvest.orgwww.RachelsVineyar...
www.SaveOne.org
www.VictimsofChoice.com
www.NOPARH.org
www.HopeAfterAbortion.com
www.HealingHearts.org
www.SafeHavenMinistries.com
#28 Marc S.
on June 4, 2009 at 3:12 p.m.(UW Campus)
Kristin:
Human overpopulation is a myth and a lie.
Women being forced into "back alleys" and "coat hanger" abortions is a myth and a lie.
So I won't bother with addressing these.
We do not deny that there are "a lot of issues of privilege and ignorance", as you say, but the idea that ANY of them would be a justification for abortion is unsustainable.
The unborn are human beings. Killing innocent human beings is wrong. Abortion kills innocent human beings. Abortion is wrong.
Besides the fact that overpopulation and back alleys are lies, EVEN IF THEY WERE TRUE, they are not justifications for killing babies.
#29 Nichole L.
on June 4, 2009 at 3:32 p.m.(Seattle, WA | UW Community)
Kristin: "I may have missed it, but no one ever brings up the fact that the world is overpopulated and running out of resources as it is."
What is your source for this? You can do a pretty simple break down of numbers on this one... go ahead and divide the amount of space of usable land we have by the number of people. I'm pretty sure we can all continue to live quite comfortably.
"Do you understand that making abortion legal just means that women of poor means just go to back alleys to get illegal ones?" Well I guess if some of the women are going to go into back alleys (still happening in OR and other places by the way...where abortion is legal), we should just keep on allowing the killing on innocent children. Perhaps since murder and rape are still taking place the laws aren't working. Should we get rid of the laws and create clinics where you can bring someone to kill them or rape them safely?
"'If you can't trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child?' - as they say." Who is they? The people trying to justify killing innocent children? If we applied to to newborn babies, would you still think it was a good statement? Would you trust "they"?
"Again, I think your hearts are in the right place and I think that is admirable. " Thank you.
"It's like - be against abortion or be against contraception, but seriously? We're meant to take you seriously when you're against both?"
1. What does contraception have to do with the justification of killing innocent babies?
2. There are an incredible amount of people who are pro-life and use contraception.
3. That argument really is horrible.
#30 Jason G.
on June 4, 2009 at 5:45 p.m.(Location Unknown | UW Community)
For a recent relevant discussion, see
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cos...
#31 Marc S.
on June 4, 2009 at 6:12 p.m.(UW Campus | UW Community)
Jason: I responded to your posting in the other thread.
Post a comment