Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry


Seen on the 'net

"77% of anti choice leaders are men and 100% of them will never be pregnant"

That 77% anecdotally sounds about right. I've rarely had a confrontation from an anti-choice woman, but I've had lots from anti-choice men.


( 12 comments — Leave a comment )
Feb. 4th, 2007 09:34 am (UTC)
100% of aborted children are denied a choice in the matter
Dear Jen: If the figure you quote from the Internet is correct, and “77% of anti choice leaders are men," that statistic would be somewhat sobering to me. And, I would not have a good explanation for it; except for perhaps that percentage may simply be consistent with the ratio of men to women in ecclesiastical leadership, political office, corporate executive positions, etc.

But, whatever the case may be, please try to remember that the statistics game goes both ways. You see, 100% of aborted children are denied a choice in the matter. So, when certain folks speak of favoring choice in connection to abortion, what they really mean is that they favor allowing a privileged 50% of those who bodies are directly involved to have a choice as to whether or not the other 50% get to live. (If the occurrence of twins is taken into account, these percentages obviously get even worse.) And, quite frankly, Jen, these last statistics are more sobering to me than the ones you quote.

Which brings me to the issue of nomenclature: As a courtesy, I use the expression “Pro-Choice” to describe those who believe a woman should have the right to choose, under any circumstance, whether or not to terminate the life of her unborn child. Because of the contradiction referred to above, I could quibble with the appropriateness of such a title, but I do not out of a desire to be respectful. I call people by the names they choose for themselves.

I find it interesting to note, however, that an increasing number of those who are Pro-Choice refuse to show those of us who are Pro-Life the same courtesy. They now apparently prefer to call us “Anti-Choice” as was done in the material quoted above.

I suppose that we who are Pro-Life could take our cue from the obvious talking-point strategy of these certain individuals who happen to be Pro-Choice and begin referring to them as being Pro-Death, Anti-Life, Baby-Killers, etc., but I think that is wrong and counter productive.

I believe it is very important that each camp give the other the benefit of the doubt. There are sincere and decent people on both sides of this debate. Each group is apparently advocating for something that it considers to be the moral and ethical position. In my view, that would make them good people.

That does not mean that each side is necessarily right, or equally valid, it just means that there is a basis for reasoning with one another in a civil manner while attempting to share our respective points of view. If we conduct ourselves with true compassion toward one another, we just might get through to someone on the other side of the debate and find common ground. However difficult or idealistic that might sound, please consider how dreadful the results of the alternative approach can be.

Please hang in there with me, Jen. I really do want to work my way through this issue with an intelligent and articulate speaker for the other point of view. (You!) If we do this the right way, I believe that we would be providing a great service to our respective causes and to our country. At times, in our attempts to be frank, we may irritate some nerves, but I believe that we are both capable of correcting ourselves and keeping the conversation constructive. Further, because we are both fallible, I hope that other people will join in and share their wisdom with us. What do you say? Are you still on board?

Alienated Wannabe
Feb. 5th, 2007 04:27 am (UTC)
Re: 100% of aborted children are denied a choice in the matter
If those 100% WERE children, I might agree with you. There's the rub, you've yet to address. When does "ensoulment" happen?

As for the names, I've only used the term pro-life only in quotation marks or anti-choice, because the term pro-life is very misleading. Most pro-lifers are pro-death penalty, anti-birth control (which lessens the need for abortion), anti-HPV immunization, and pro-war.

Anti-choice is more accurate, since the most fundamental choice a woman has -- what happens to her body -- is taken away from her.

I guess I could also say pro-punishing women's sexuality, which would explaing the combination of anti-abortion, anti-birth control and anti-HPV immunization combination of stances.

If you used pro-death and anti-life would be inaccurate as I'm pro-non violence, I'm pro-life for all those already living, anti-death penalty and anti-war but I don't speak for all who are pro-choice, but ideologically speaking most of us that care about those who already exist tend to be consistent.

Baby killers is inaccurate because they aren't babies yet, and would only apply to pro-choicers who have actually had an abortion.

Feb. 7th, 2007 10:37 pm (UTC)
Re: 100% of aborted children are denied a choice in the matter
Mother Teresa was a rather vocal opponent of abortion, and she was even a woman!

"Please don't kill the child. I want the child. Please give me the child. I am willing to accept any child who would be aborted and to give that child to a married couple who will love the child and be loved by the child."

Speech of Mother Teresa of Calcutta to the National Prayer Breakfast,
Washington, DC,
February 3, 1994

Feb. 8th, 2007 08:51 pm (UTC)
Re: 100% of aborted children are denied a choice in the matter
From the Monty Python Guys "Monty Python and the Meaning of Life":

There are Jews in the world.
There are Buddhists.
There are Hindus and Mormons, and then
There are those that follow Mohammed, but
I've never been one of them.

I'm a Roman Catholic,
And have been since before I was born,
And the one thing they say about Catholics is:
They'll take you as soon as you're warm.

You don't have to be a six-footer.
You don't have to have a great brain.
You don't have to have any clothes on. You're
A Catholic the moment Dad came,


Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground.
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can't be found.

Every sperm is wanted.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.

Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,
Spill theirs just anywhere,
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,...
...God get quite irate.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed...
...In your neighbourhood!

Every sperm is useful.
Every sperm is fine.
God needs everybody's.
And mine!
And mine!

Let the Pagan spill theirs
O'er mountain, hill, and plain.
God shall strike them down for
Each sperm that's spilt in vain.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite iraaaaaate!
Feb. 8th, 2007 10:31 pm (UTC)
Re: 100% of aborted children are denied a choice in the matter
Great, very mature.

Feb. 8th, 2007 10:42 pm (UTC)
Re: 100% of aborted children are denied a choice in the matter
Mother Teresa is using her religious beliefs as the litmus to whether an embryo is a fully alive human being. Not exactly appropriate in

I will give Mother Teresa credit though -- she put her actions where her beliefs are, and would have been willing to make sure that the children she wanted to exist were taken care of post-uterus, unlike our legislature. The kind of laws they have been passing this session proves Bagely's cartoon true: for the Utah Legislature, life begins and conception and ends at birth.

If all pro-lifers walked their talk, there'd be a few less abortions happening. As we've already seen on many occasions, most pro-lifers aren't pro-life, just pro-punishing women's sexuality.
Feb. 9th, 2007 03:06 am (UTC)
Re: 100% of aborted children are denied a choice in the matter
You know, that logic can be turned around on you. If pro-choicers really walked the walk, they wouldn't want to force other people to take care of the born children of the world through legislative action and taxes.

Feb. 9th, 2007 04:28 am (UTC)
Re: 100% of aborted children are denied a choice in the matter
"You know, that logic can be turned around on you. If pro-choicers really walked the walk, they wouldn't want to force other people to take care of the born children of the world through legislative action and taxes."

Thanks for revealing your true beliefs/subsoncious motivations -- it's about punishment for the woman having sex and not life.

If you were pro-life, you would support the women who do choose to have children and were forced into poverty by their choice. Why punish children by denying them access to health care?

As a formerly single parent (I made the choice to have the child over the abortion and adoption choices) who made $6.50 an hour, each time my child became ill it was extremely stressful -- do I take her to the doctor, when even with insurance (many single moms don't have it) that $20 co-pay could mean a bounced check, which would the spiral my finances out of control, which could mean no money for groceries? What if I do take her to a doctor and take a chance that the check won't clear until after payday, and they there's nothing they can do (as in a virus)? If I don't take her will she get really ill and need more medical care which I can't afford? If I had chosen abortion I could have finished college and built a career that wouldn't have put me in the financial bind. Maybe I could have gotten married a few years later and been in a much better position to deal with a child.

So why do you want to punish the children? Why not give them health care and an education? Why not raise the minimum wage so more women can afford to take care of their kids.
Feb. 9th, 2007 09:27 pm (UTC)
Re: 100% of aborted children are denied a choice in the matter
What, exactly, do you know of my motivations, subconscious or otherwise?

I merely showed you that your all-or-nothing logic works both ways. To say that those in opposition to abortion should support state funded everything is logically the same as saying that those in favor of abortion, or "choice", should be in opposition of denying people the choice to care for children.

Feb. 9th, 2007 11:25 pm (UTC)
Re: 100% of aborted children are denied a choice in the matter

You have probably received the brunt of my frustration as you are the umpteenth person to use the same arguments against choice that I've heard ad nauseum, which I have had to argue as to why you have no right to dictate laws about by body. I'm getting very tired of the debate.

I'm getting very tired of being told that I shouldn't have sex unless I'm married and fully prepared to raise a child for 20 years in exchange for the 20 minutes or so of fun. I'm tired of being told that I'm selfish because I don't fit some outdated idealized version of womanhood circa 1950.

You picture a sweet little baby being murdered, I picture women's and children's lives destroyed, poverty and long-term suffering. Our life experiences have given us completely different ways to view the same thing.

(to be continued)
Feb. 9th, 2007 11:26 pm (UTC)
Re: 100% of aborted children are denied a choice in the matter
I'm not sure why you want to continue this debate -- you are so very sure that life begins at conception; I'm very sure that I won't cede my rights over my body and life to religious/superstitious beliefs that I don't share. Neither of us will convince the other.

Your comments on The World According to me:

"But let's be clear as to what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints stance is on abortion:

Human life is a sacred gift from God. Elective abortion for personal or social convenience is contrary to the will and the commandments of God. Church members who submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions may lose their membership in the Church.

In today's society, abortion has become a common practice, defended by deceptive arguments. Latter-day prophets have denounced abortion, referring to the Lord's declaration, "Thou shalt not . . . kill, nor do anything like unto it" (D&C 59:6). Their counsel on the matter is clear: Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion. Church members who encourage an abortion in any way may be subject to Church discipline. "

Having spent the first 19 years of my life as an active Mormon, I'm well aware how difficult it is to convince them of anything different than what the "church" says. They drill into your head every week that you belong to the only true church (and several times on fast Sunday). If you belong to the only true church, then the logic follows that anything said by the leaders of the only true church is the ultimate truth of the Universe. I don't have the debating skills to compete with your certainty based on this -- which having had it once myself, I've come to realize takes a lot of different life experiences to wake you up.

Since your religion believes that gender is an eternal experience and that the ultimate destiny for women who make it to the top of the Celestial Kingdom and the production of spirit babies, it would come as no surprise that one who follows your religion would believe that women who don't want "God's plan" for them would be unnatural and "selfish". This would further be confirmed if most of the women you know really enjoyed their roles as mothers, as many -- but far from all -- women do. And how many would dare "come out of the not-wanting-to-center-life-around-children closet" if they don't with such beliefs?

When I try to view what I've said about abortion from my 19 year-old active-Mormon perspective, I'm aware that I'm wasting my time in arguing. And while you are not me at 19, you probably see it close enough to that perspective to make all this considerable time I'm spending on this one subject a waste.

So lets agree to disagree, shall we?

(okay, I'm done now)
Feb. 12th, 2007 03:01 pm (UTC)
Re: 100% of aborted children are denied a choice in the matter
I have continued this debate because I enjoy rational exchange of ideas, and I find that exchange to be valuable. I can empathize with your frustration at responding to various commentors on various posts. However, I think you'll find that I have not used any of the arguments you've listed as being so frustrating to you. I have structured my arguments factually, cited my sources, and responded to each of your arguments.

Your final response to me implies that I am "just" a Mormon, and so cannot think for myself. You say that you used to be a Mormon, but that your life experience, including raising two children at a young age, is what caused you to "wake up."

Though I have yet to awaken from my Mormon-induced stupor, I will share some of my own life experiences with you. My wife and I had three children before our 28th birthday, two of whom were conceived despite our use of birth control (so much for sex education). During this time I worked full time, went to University full time, and never made more than $10 an hour. At one point I was waking up at 5am so I could catch the train at 6, and didn't return home until 8 that night, only to have to do homework once I got there. It was hard. My own life experiences have taught me quite well what it means to raise a child at a young age. In fact, I raised three.

That being said, I think most of the excuses for wanting an abortion depend on one very important thing: is the fetus a human. No matter how hard to raise or how inconvenient the baby may be, abortion is still not an option if she is indeed a human. My positive argument is borrowed from John Noonan: If you are conceived by human parents, you are human. I wrote a quite extensive post on this not too long ago.

In reading through all of your posts on the subject, your argument seems to grant humanity only to those with a "fully developed brain and fully developed nervous system." My complaint with that definition of humanity is that it denies personhood to many born people lacking those things, including my uncle who was born with many handicaps, such as blindness, inability to walk or say more than a few words, and a complete lack of use of the left side of his body. His brain is far from being fully developed, and while he lives it never will be. He does not even possess the "potential" to be fully developed.

Although there are a few people out there that disagree, I don't think that terminating the lives of premies, newborns, the elderly, or people like my uncle is justified.

( 12 comments — Leave a comment )


Sunflower A
Jennifer Killpack-Knutsen
I'm on Common Circle.net


This blog is an ever evolving project. I write about local and national politics from an independent-left point of view. I'm also exploring ways to live with less impact on the planet and trying new ways to be an involved and active citizen.

I welcome your feedback. If you comment to one of my posts and you are not a livejournal user, please sign your name at the bottom of your comment. Thanks!
Search Engine Helpers:

green living ecology environment Salt Lake City Utah politics left independent Jennifer Killpack Jennifer Killpack-Knutsen Jenny Jenni carnival of the green social justice peace progressive conscious citizenship activism

How do we fix the mess we're in?

Green Jenni/Jen's Journal

Latest Month

March 2010


Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Witold Riedel