neadods | Pro-choice - Whisky Tango Foxtrot?

diannelamerc found this first: an LA Times article about a new Catholic political action group specifically formed to fight abortion.

Y'know, the classiest counterprotest (I should say, the only classy counterprotest) to the Women's Lives march last year was the line of Catholic officials in full regalia standing silently outside their church along the route. They didn't demean themselves by shouting soundbites, they didn't blaspheme by saying that Jesus was doing X, Y, or Z, they just stood there as a visual reminder that the church Does Not Approve.

Well, they're being classy no longer. The order will have a decidedly political bent, and will be active rather than contemplative, Pavone said. Its priests will be trained to conduct voter-registration drives, use the media to get out their antiabortion message and lobby lawmakers to restrict abortion rights. They also will learn to lead demonstrations outside offices where abortions and family-planning services are provided.

Yes, priests. According to the article, this is a male only group. Because we all know that men have such a deep natual understanding of the ramifications of an unwanted pregnancy. That's why they're uniquely suited to provide what they describe as counseling services to women who are "tempted to abort their child".

Can y'all pray a damaged fetus healthy? An unhealthy mother healthy? Provide childcare? Restart an interrupted high school/college education? How about providing parenting education? Can you even provide funding to pay for this child that must be born at all costs (that you won't be personally bearing?) What about security, can you at least give that, considering that the Washington Post recently had a huge series of articles about how the leading cause of death for pregnant women was murder by unwilling fathers? Planning on talking to the men at all, are you, or just those sinful, sinful women who think their lives should be about more than the contents of their uterus?

'Cause if the answer is "no" then crawl back under your croziers, boys, you've got nothing worth doing. Jesus didn't say "suffer the children to come unto me by spitting on their mamas."

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I'll start with the easy answer first - there is a website where you can build your own icon. The URL is huge and somewhere in Japan; I'll look it up in the morning and post because - shhhhh - I did it during a slow day at work and that's where my notes are.

>catholics the world over sponsor "choose life"-type programs,

Which is a great thing and more power to them. That's not what I'm livid about. What I'm furious about is exactly what I said above - that a whole new layer of activists is being formed out of people who cannot comprehend the issues behind pregnancy, and who make no comment about dealing with the pragmatical burdens of an unexpected pregnancy.

I don't lash at the Catholic woman's group mentioned in the article - women at least can grasp what a pregnancy does to a life whether they've gone through it or not.

And I will lash out at any group that uses social pressure to make nonmembers of their religion conform to that religion or who insist that women carry unwanted fetii to term without making any provision to help them do so. That's not Catholic-specific at all - heck, most of my pro-choice religious rants have been aimed at fundamentalist Protestants. And if I read tomorrow about a Muslim, Jewish, or Pagan anti-choice group, I'll go gunning for them too.

I don't think that priests are hunting women down who've had abortions. (I do think that fundamentalists are, so they can trot them out at counterprotests, but that's another rant.) I do think that forcing women to bear children with no "help" but a lecture and a blocked clinic is no way to "save life" and I think that a woman's rights to her life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness should not be subjugated.

the icon making website: http://illustmaker.abi-station.com/index_en.shtml

i thank you for your rational, mild reply. far more helpful and far more effective a means of communication than the one before you. your points are all valid, and i appreciate your perspective.

not being a woman, i'm guessing there are things i will never be able to understand about certain womens' rights. but dialog and discourse are the keys to opening doors; thanks.

High horse, much?

Every time I have tried to discuss this matter without being passionate, men like you--judgment based on your words above--have told me I don't know what I'm talking about and that as men, they had the right to decide FOR me what I did with my body. Which is bull.

I gave you rational reasons for my positions and convictions, one being that I am NOT of your religion and thus do NOT accept your claim that "abortion is always wrong" and thus YOUR religion has the right to interfere with what I do with MY body. And you have the nerve to try to claim that my communicative style isn't "helpful" or "effective"? Without even having the nerve to address me directly?

Nope. Doesn't work that way. If you're a male, you don't have the right to tell me what to do with my body. Period. You're not going to be the one who could die in pregnancy. You're not going to be the one possibly impoverished. You're not going to be the one whose life is thrown into chaos. You're not the one who could be supporting a disabled infant.

Until you are, while you may have your own religious convictions which I respect, you have zero right to interfere with my exercising my right to my own personhood and control of my own body.

See you on the barricades, because based on what you wrote, you're as closed-minded as any of the counterprotester males I heard calling me a slut and a whore as I marched to protect my body.

and i'm the one on the high horse?

fine, i'll engage you directly. i didn't before because (and can i just borrow your "style" for a minute?) you're a hot-headed, rakish zealot.

i find it hard to believe your entire family was kicked out of the church because your relative was disabled. i find it hard to believe you're so open-minded and righteous when you can do nothing but condemn anyone who doesn't share your point of view.

i never said the entire world had to behave according to the tenets of my belief; i said that as instruments of the Church, priests and laity alike are obligated to do what they can to advance their own causes. you're doing the same thing, motivated by personal reasons.

there's nothing wrong with that. if the world suffered homogeneity we'd probably all just kill ourselves because really, what's the point?

don't you ever dare group me into anyone's category--"men like you"--you've never met me. you're too hot-headed to read what i've written in any light but that which you cast upon it, prejudiced and wicked.

i'm gay. i know what it's like to be a minority. i know what it's like to struggle for acceptance. i know what it's like to fight, every day, for my own right to survive in a world that thinks it might just be better off without me.

but i would never call you--or any of your friends, colleagues, compatriots, or any other sort of peer--a whore or a slut. i am outrightly offended at the very suggestion.

and i really do wish you had responded courteously, instead of lashing out with unmitigated contempt.

You find it hard to believe that my family was TOLD BY PRIESTS not to come to church because of a severely disabled "disruptive" family member? Well, that's *your* problem. It HAPPENED. It happens again and again, but mainstream society doesn't hear about it, as mainstream society doesn't *choose* to hear a lot about the disabled and their families.

If I *were* a zealot, I'd be anti-gay. I'm not. You began by judging me and my communicative style. Judge not, lest you be judged, I believe is the phrase? Saying that "abortion is always wrong" IS a judgment and a lot different from "I personally think abortion is wrong and [for a female] I could never have one."

Wicked? If we go strictly by the teachings of certain sectors of Christianity, we're *both* in the same boat there based on what you and I have both revealed about ourselves. Do I believe I'm wicked for being Jewish? Nope. Do I believe you're wicked for being gay? Nope. But don't you call *me* hot-headed when you're calling me prejudiced and wicked.

I *do* think you're closed-minded, I do NOT think you have the right to impose your religious beliefs on my body, and I think you deliberately ignored the entire points of my posts to make your points and misread others.

I refuse to debate you any more, because you're not listening. That's your prerogative not to listen. But don't be surprised when some women get angry over male rhetoric about "abortion being always wrong." Expecting me to be courteous when my life and my freedom are at stake is as foolish as me expecting you to be courteous when some anti-gay bigot attacks your right to live and love as *you* please.

Pro-choice - Whisky Tango Foxtrot?

Re: reply and a question

Re: reply and a question

Re: reply and a question

Re: reply and a question

Re: reply and a question

Re: reply and a question