I couldn’t attend the march and don’t have anything to say about it; except to recommend that you read the posts at Ms Musings, and also at Feministe, Feministing, the marchforchoice livejournal (including a post with lots of photos), Unreal City’s photo album (source of the photo at the bottom of this blog entry), Livejournal for Choice, and Echidne.
(UPDATE: Check out Red Polka’s coverage and photos, too.)
Alternatively, if you want to read about how many pro-choicers are evil, mean, stupid, unattractive and probably not even human, follow the links at Diotima and AfterAbortion.
UPDATE: In light of Sara’s update to her post, let me clarify that I’m not saying “pro-lifers are mean people who say mean things, unlike us saintly pro-choicers.” On the contrary, it’s clear to me that both sides demonize the other far too much; I’ve fallen into this trap myself sometimes, although I honestly try to avoid it. But I think it’s important for pro-choicers to be aware of what the opposition is saying to themselves, and that’s why I included those pro-life links.
And I also appreciate the pro-lifers who don’t demonize pro-choicers on a regular basis, such as Sara at Diotima and Emily at After Abortion.
UPDATE AGAIN: I replaced the word “all” with “many” – see the comments for why.
I took your invitation and followed the link to AfterAbortion. I didn’t read there how all the pro-choicers marching were evil, mean, stupid and probably not even human. Instead, I read a heartfelt, first person account of being at [not in] the march by a woman who regretted her abortion. She doesn’t generalize about the marchers as you imply. She even describes a few tender, empathetic encounters with people on the other side of the line.
You’re right, there’s nothing at After Abortion that gives the impression that pro-choicers are demonic and pro-lifers are inoffensive saints:
Nope, nothing like that there.
You must not be able to read very well then, Pangloss. From After Abortion:
“The March, in three words: “viciously, mercilessly abusive.” The amount of verbal aggression and abuse hurled at me personally, by women and men, of all ages, for carrying the I REGRET MY ABORTION sign, well, I thought that I was ready for it.
I wasn’t. Not even close.
I consider myself fairly far along on the “healing” and “public-appearances” scales. We stood, all 500 of us in the Silent No More Awareness groups, in total silence as planned, for over five hours, not replying or saying one word to anything that was said or done to us, and I do mean anything.
But nothing prepared me for literally mobs of livid people screaming the most hateful vicious snide things at me personally. We were spit on, and had an egg hurled at us from the marchers. There were two groups of Satanists. And the signs. Like the guy who held a handmade sign, “BABY KILLER” with an arrow pointed downward at himself. If not for the riot police, we would have been mobbed. There was that much viciousness. People broke through the riot police’s invisible line just to come up in my face and hurl insulting words. There were not enough police to form a complete line, so they would run up to me, shout out their abuse, and run back before the policeman or woman got to stop him/her. And I said nothing to anyone, just held my sign.”
I was a the march and I didn’t personally witness anything even approaching what was described by Annie–though there were more than a million people there so I might just have missed it. I do doubt that anyone threw eggs.
Annie also said:
“The answer to one of Em’s questions below: there were a TON of men there. Young to old, what seemed like thousands of husbands-dragged-along, even up to the ages of 85. Yes, they even had two double length busses for those elderly.”
I wouldn’t say dragged along. The vast majority of Marchers were women but there was a significant number of men like myself who went along to lend out support. One of the nicest parts of the March for me was when one woman told me how happy she was to see so many men taking the responsibility to speak out on such an important issue.
ooops, Sorry, Amp. I crossposted.
And may I mention that the italicized quote in Amp’s comment comes from Annie B.? I like the mention of the Satanists in there. But she’s not demonizing anybody. Just stood there quietly and watched as Satan’s minions marched through our capitol. I also like her complete lack of a sense of sarcasm and irony (Baby Killer sign).
Thank heavens that pro-lifers would never act like that. Or worse, commit acts of terror against their ideological opponents.
Well, Jake, they might not have said much but they did have their fetus porn signs and their fetus porn trucks out in force.
Yes, and she describes even more vile and mean things said and done to her at the March. But there’s also this:
“A young man of about 20 stopped as he was about to pass right in front of me. He looked Chinese-American, and he just stared as I cried. … I could barely speak, but I told him, ‘My daughter would have been 25, and she could have been your girlfriend…or maybe even your future wife.’ I couldn’t speak after that, and neither could he. He just looked at me with such pain in his eyes and touched my arm and said, ‘I am so sorry…’ as he reluctantly moved on slowly.”
And this:
“A woman dressed in pink with a short-cropped haircut caught my eye from the crowd as I’d been crying. She gazed at me, and called out, ‘I regret my abortion too!’ But she was part of the march. I didn’t understand what she really was trying to say. She was still pro-choice, it seemed. Yet she locked eyes on mine, and looked really sad for me. As the crowd moved her along, I just looked at her, still teary-eyed, not knowing what to say back. I thought she’d moved past, when suddenly she broke free and ran back, past the riot cop, and threw her arms around my neck to hug me, to console me!”
And this:
“Just as this woman, about my age, was about to pass out of sight, I saw her mouth the silent words, ‘I’m sorry…’ I smiled that pursed, sad smile in thanks and nodded my head.”
And there’s plenty more — too much to cut-and-paste here. It all certainly has the ring of truth — both the hateful epithets hurled at her and the compassionate reactions from marchers.
Point being that she obviously isn’t saying that “all” the people marching were evil, mean, stupid and inhuman.
Pangloss said:
“And there’s plenty more — too much to cut-and-paste here. It all certainly has the ring of truth — both the hateful epithets hurled at her and the compassionate reactions from marchers.”
No it really doesn’t all have the ring of truth to it. I’m not accusing Annie of lying exactly, but as somebody who was there, I very much doubt her version of events. I especially doubt her contention that eggs were thrown at her.
Were you there Pangloss? Then how can you judge?
Pangloss also said:
“Point being that she obviously isn’t saying that “all” the people marching were evil, mean, stupid and inhuman.”
Oh, I see you are caught up on the word “all”. Maybe you just need to learn to be a little less literal. When Amp says “if you want to read about how all the pro-choicers marching were evil, etc” he is not saying that Annie accuses all Marchers to be evil, etc but rather is using a bit of hyperbole.
Fair enough; the word “all” was incorrect. I’ll go strike it from the post.
Bah, for all we know the “positive” sounding posts are more attempts to look cute, reasonable, and not hellbent on a theocratic puritan society where guilt and self-effacing self-hatred are considered “natural” elements of the female character. They’ve lied about far worse, why wouldn’t they lie about this?
Anti-choicers are starting to take the old line “you attract more flies with honey than vinegar” very seriously, so expect most of their future lies to focus on sounding like they only have women’s best interests at heart. Never underestimate the power of gentle brainwashing in a Bambi-rotted popular imagination that can still believe there was a definite and pervasive link between Sadam and Osama.
For the record, I pretty much agree with Floyd; the “all” was hyperbolic. But it wasn’t worth keeping if it was going to foster misreadings.
And I also doubt that the report was truthful or (more importantly) provided a balanced view of what the event as a whole was like. For every pro-choicer who bothered to say a word to the pro-lifers there, there were probably a thousand who didn’t bother, but you won’t get that from reading the After Abortion post.
I also kinda doubt the anecdote of the woman who changed sides mid-march, and will continue to do so until it’s documented with her name, proof of her very recent pro-choice background, and a current interview with her.
Wasn’t there, Floyd. (But who’s judging? Are you helpless and unable to assess an account of any event or incident that you didn’t witness?) I found Annie’s journal compelling, genuine and, yes, having the ring of truth.
Did you see Annie, Floyd? You say you’re not accusing her of lying, but it certainly seems that your accusing her of fabricating events. Are you accusing her of having some pathology? (And your basis for that would be…?)
Amp: Annie doesn’t purport to offer “balance,” just her observations and feelings. And no doubt, in a march numbering the hundreds of thousands, there were thousands who said nothing to Annie. What would you expect her to record about them? That they said nothing to her?
And I guess I missed any reference to a marcher who “switched sides” mid-march. I only read about those who came across the lines to yell at or speak with Annie or to give her a hug.
So, Amp, do you automatically assume all pro-lifers are liars or is it just Annie?
I don’t automatically assume all pro-lifers are liars (I assume the opposite of you and of Emily, for instance).
I do believe that Annie is so dedicated to her cause, and engages in so little critical thought about her own position, that she could make herself believe anything, so long as it suited her pro-life ideology. (And before you say it, yes, I’m sure there are some pro-choicers out there that’s also true of.)
I can also recognize an Urban Legend when I read it. I’ve heard the “protestor changing sides mid-rally” anecdote a few times over the years, in different contexts and regarding different issues. The story is just somehow too perfect in how it serves the purposes of the storyteller, and that I’ve heard it more than once makes me doubt it even more. Of course, it’s possible that that same story has in fact happened many times in many places, but still.
And with all due respect, Sara, there’s a difference between expressing skepticism about a story (saying I “kinda doubt” it) and saying someone else is a liar.
Saying “I kinda doubt” something leaves open the possiblity that I’m mistaken and the story is true, despite my doubts. Just saying “someone’s a liar” doesn’t acknowlege that possibility. So I think it’s a significant distinction.
[Edited to make this post less aggressive in tone, and to add the paragraph about why the distinction matters.]
Pangloss said:
“Wasn’t there, Floyd. (But who’s judging? Are you helpless and unable to assess an account of any event or incident that you didn’t witness?) I found Annie’s journal compelling, genuine and, yes, having the ring of truth.”
Only becuase you seem predisposed to find it compelling and genuine. I was at the March and I can assess her stories based on what I actually saw and actually observed and I find them to be less than believable.
Pangloss also said:
“Did you see Annie, Floyd? You say you’re not accusing her of lying, but it certainly seems that your accusing her of fabricating events. Are you accusing her of having some pathology? (And your basis for that would be…?)”
I have no idea what Annie looks like so I can’t say whether she was even in attendance at the March or not. She may have been.
And no, I’m not accusing her of lying (I wouldn’t presume to), nor am I theorizing any pathology on her part (I am not a licensed medical practitioner). However, I do find that people in their zeal (and I do find Annie to be a rather zealous person) often engage in exageration.
Like I said, I was there and I know what I saw and what I didn’t see. I know how the majority of Marchers acted, and am able to directly assess the mood and environment of the March. Based on my experiences I sincerely doubt that aspects of Annie’s account are true.
Oh, wait, Sara was probably objecting to me saying that I “doubt” that Annie’s report was “truthful.” That was very badly put on my part. I meant not that Annie is a liar, but that I think the larger truth of the event – that the vast, vast majority of hundreds of thouands of pro-choicers there did not say anything nasty or mean or at all to the pro-lifers – is something that Annie’s account overlooks.
I marched. It was powerful and moving, and I can’t really put it into words how it made me feel. Empowered, exhilarated, invigorated come close. And when I called my mom, she told me she was proud of me for doing my part to make sure no other women would have to do what she did in 1972. She begged her friends for money, and got together enough to fly to Washington, DC to have an abortion after the condom broke with her short term boyfriend. I am so proud of my strong, brave, feminist mom.
“Only becuase you seem predisposed to find it compelling and genuine.”
Au contraire, I’m simply not predisposed to believe that she’s lying.
Pangloss sez:
“Au contraire, I’m simply not predisposed to believe that she’s lying.”
Well given her past posts on this site, and the fact that I was at the march and frequently lingered near the anti-choicers to counter their false information, I have no trouble in saying she’s a LIAR. I mean come on! Spitting? Eggs? Breaking through the police lines to harass? Squads of satanists? The media would have been all over that if it was true on the scale she describes! Remember, the newsfolks are terrified of appearing “biased,” so at a march where millions of pro-choicers were counterprotested by a miniscule anti-choice contingency they would have leaped at any opportunity to pad the “other side’s” credibility.
Face it, she’s in the same imaginary universe as Jack Chick, and all too willing to stoop to any level for her crusade. She desperately needs to believe we are all monsters, and will see whatever she wants to.
DPA sez: “I was at the march and frequently lingered near the anti-choicers to counter their false information”
Meaning what, exactly?
“I have no trouble in saying she’s a LIAR. I mean come on! Spitting? Eggs? Breaking through the police lines to harass?”
And I have no trouble finding her account plausible. I myself was on the receiving end of streams of “pro-choice” abuse a few years ago. I participated in a relatively small, completely silent, pro-life demonstration, with no graphic signs or pictures, at which we demonstrators were spaced out about 5-10 feet apart over a number of blocks. I participated specifically because it was organized as a silent and peaceful demonstration. The organized opposition showed up, natch, and a great many individual fanatics took the opportunity to come within inches of my face, screaming curses, slurs, you name it. I do remember one young woman who did try to engage in some discussion, but she was the notable exception.
So, given the apparent pep-rally mood of the March last weekend and the diverse bunch who showed up (judging from the pix available on numerous sites), I have little difficulty giving credence to Annie’s account of her experience. (And if she really wanted to “demonize” the marchers, she could have done a better job — like leaving out all the parts about those marchers who expressed any empathy.)
Pangloss sez:
“Meaning what, exactly?”
Meaning every now and then a group of us would stop at a particularly contentious anti-choice sign (stuff like the classic “abortion causes depression and dementia in all women who undergo it, here’s some dubious distorted statistic that says its true” lie), so I would flip through the mythbuster print-outs I had brought with me and help dispel any doubts that may have arisen. It didn’t happen often, but it did slow me down for long enough to evaluate the anti-choice lines.
To their credit they were universally peaceful and harmless, which is further reason why I doubt anyone who attack them the way Annie describes.
Pangloss sez:
“And I have no trouble finding her account plausible. I myself was on the receiving end of streams of “pro-choice” abuse a few years ago blah blah blah…”
*Eye roll*
Riiiiiiiiight…hey Pangloss, want to tell me all about the abortion/breast cancer link you folks still love to harp on?
Pangloss sez:
“…(And if she really wanted to “demonize” the marchers, she could have done a better job — like leaving out all the parts about those marchers who expressed any empathy.)”
Not empathy, potential turncoat tendencies. Big difference from the PR perspective.
Hey Pangloss, why did you omit “squads of satanists” from my repeating of Annie’s claims? Was that too obviously out there for credibility, so you didn’t want to emphasize it again through repetition?
Zoe — Something seems a bit odd when someone is so jubilant over the death of a sibling.
Everyone else: There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve Annie. All she said was that people were generally mean and hostile. That’s certainly in line with my experience: Pro-choice activists are some of the most intolerant and belligerent people you’ll ever find. (The pro-life side has its crazies too; but this is not about them, because they weren’t marching.) And come on, as if all the people pictured here were sweet innocent little things who would faint in horror at the mere thought of being disrespectful to anybody.
Joe M sez:
“Zoe — Something seems a bit odd when someone is so jubilant over the death of a sibling.”
I read her post and I didn’t see anything about a sibling dying…oh wait, you’re talking about a fetus again. Tsk, you’d think by now he’d realize his views aren’t shared by everyone.
Joe sez:
“Everyone else: There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve Annie. All she said was that people were generally mean and hostile.”
Yeah, except I was there too, and no one on EITHER SIDE of the issue was “generally mean and hostile.”
And seeing as she’s the one living in Jack Chick county…
Joe sez:
“That’s certainly in line with my experience: Pro-choice activists are some of the most intolerant and belligerent people you’ll ever find.”
“We’ll” ever find? We ARE those people Joe! We have a pretty good idea of how we behave, and your charges ring especially hollow given your past “performances” on this site and your movement’s history of bombing, shooting, kidnapping, faux-anthrax mailing…
Joe sez:
“And come on, as if all the people pictured here were sweet innocent little things who would faint in horror at the mere thought of being disrespectful to anybody.”
*looks at linked photos. Looks at them again. Looks at them a third time, wondering where to see the barbarian hordes Joe implies the overwhelming presence of*
Um, Joe, this is just like the time you linked to those perfectly reasonable court cases planned parenthood was working on…
I notice neither Joe nor Pangloss has offered an explanation for why the media hasn’t reported on the massive violence perpetrated against the doe-eyed anti-choicers by the Legion of Screaming Satanist Hooligans for Baby Eating. I mean c’mon, stuff like that is huge on TV, or even just in print. Remember that moto of American reporting “if it bleeds it leads [as a leading story].”
Here we enter another interesting bind of the anti-choice movement. It claims that the pro-choice movement is barely one step below the Vizigoths in terms of brutality, but the media never confirms this fairy tale. The usual right wing tactic when caught in such distortion is to claim liberal bias in the media, but how can that be if, according to the anti-choice mantra, the vast majority of the US populace is solidly anti-choice?
That’s when they fall back on conspiracy theories, last refuge of the credibility challenged. They then expect us to believe that a conspiracy powerful enough to pass something so “offensive to a majority of Americans” as Roe vs. Wade would waste its time, power, and resources on a super high profile and extremely unpopular “scam” like choice.
Sure. Whatever.
PDA queries: “Hey Pangloss, why did you omit “squads of satanists” from my repeating of Annie’s claims? Was that too obviously out there for credibility, so you didn’t want to emphasize it again through repetition?”
No, aside from the fact that it was your term, not Annie’s, it was just that right about then you started to drone on about how the “media,” being so “balanced,” would have surely reported on every lil’ thing that Annie saw…
Riiiight, PDA. I’m sure the NY Times or the Wash Post would’ve been right on it. They’re always trying to show “pro-choicers” in a bad light, right? Those major media outlets are just so pro-life!
And who ever heard of a rude or unpleasant pro-choice demonstrator? Naaah, impossible! They don’t exist. Lies, lies, lies, blah blah blah
PDA says: “Not empathy, potential turncoat tendencies. more blah blah blah”
How sad. So calcified in your views and responses that you can’t even recognize when admirable traits are being attributed to “you folks.”
Pangloss sez:
“No, aside from the fact that it was your term, not Annie’s…”
Annie’s quote: “There were two groups of Satanists.”
Pangloss sez:
it was just that right about then you started to drone on about how the “media,” being so “balanced,” would have surely reported on every lil’ thing that Annie saw…”
Every “little thing”?
Annie’s quote: “But nothing prepared me for literally mobs of livid people screaming the most hateful vicious snide things at me personally. We were spit on, and had an egg hurled at us from the marchers…If not for the riot police, we would have been mobbed. There was that much viciousness. People broke through the riot police’s invisible line just to come up in my face and hurl insulting words. ”
How on earth would brutality on such a scale get overlooked?
Pangloss sez:
“Riiiight, PDA. I’m sure the NY Times or the Wash Post would’ve been right on it. They’re always trying to show “pro-choicers” in a bad light, right? Those major media outlets are just so pro-life!”
So you do agree that your movement is such a radical minority that it can’t possibly have any effect on TV ratings or even get a single conservatives into influential news positions?
(side thought: Last time I checked even Fox News didn’t have anything to say about massive mobs attacking anti-choicers)
Pangloss sez:
“And who ever heard of a rude or unpleasant pro-choice demonstrator? Naaah, impossible! They don’t exist. Lies, lies, lies, blah blah blah”
Oh no, I’m absolutely certain there are unpleasant pro-choice demonstrators, just like there are in any movement. I know because I’ve had the misfortune of dealing with them personally, but I also know they are a miniscule minority, certainly not enough to to form the concentrated, unruly mobs Annie dreamed up.
Besides, if you want to play that game, I can certainly start talking about all the awful anti-choice protesters I’ve run into, not to mention the confirmed and reported on bombers, shooters, etc.
I’m sure the others who agree with me would also have their fair share to tell. Let’s not go there, hmm?
Pangloss sez:
“How sad. So calcified in your views and responses that you can’t even recognize when admirable traits are being attributed to “you folks.”
Reread those posts. The only “admirable trait” being expressed is doubt over whether a woman should control her own destiny, and that’s only an admirable trait to you and your ilk.
Looking through various photo albums like this one – photos selected by pro-lifers who wish to make the marchers look as bad as possible – I don’t see anything as bad as what Annie described. If so many pro-choicers acted that badly for that long, why didn’t anyone snap a picture?
I don’t doubt for a moment that some pro-choicers behaved badly. There are people (on both sides of the issue) who go to these marches and demonstrations hoping to pick a fight. Nonetheless, I’m beginning to feel that Annie is probably exaggerating.
Now, I don’t mean to be contentious here but….
Pangloss Said:
“Au contraire, I’m simply not predisposed to believe that she’s lying.”
And neither am I. As I said, I don’t know Annie and I feel no illwill against her. I would never merely think she was lying unless I had a reason to. I was there. I saw nothing of the kinbds of things that she describes. Other people in comments were there and they back up my perception.
However, I do think that you are as I said “predisposed to find it compelling and genuine” because you admit as much in your reply to DRA:
“And I have no trouble finding her account plausible. I myself was on the receiving end of streams of “pro-choice” abuse a few years ago. I participated…”
See, your experiences lead you to be predisposed to believe her account regardless of the fact that you weren’t there and regardelss of the fact that other people who were there offered testimony that here account simply didn’t match up with their experiences.
Joe said:
“There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve Annie. All she said was that people were generally mean and hostile.”
There is EVERY reason to disbelieve Annie. We were there. We are eye-witnesses to the events described and to the mood of the crowd.
I think it is amazing that people who weren’t even there are trying to tell those of us that were that our judgement of Annie’s story is false.
BTW–there was some violence against a pro-life proponent at the March. Army of God activist Chuck Spingola was arrested for assault against pro-life activist Ruben Israel.
Did Annie mention that instance of violence against a pro-lifer?
Eh, Joe. If my mom had not aborted my “sibling,” she probably would not have been able to go to college, which means she probably would have never met my father, which means myself and my two sisters would never have been born.
If she’d given birth at 18, she would be the woman she is today, my mother, who I dearly love.
Zoe sez:
“Eh, Joe. If my mom had not aborted my “sibling,” she probably would not have been able to go to college, which means she probably would have never met my father, which means myself and my two sisters would never have been born.”
*flush* goes the guilt trip…
On a partially related note, don’t you just love that surreal anti-choice claim that you can somehow regret never having existed?
Well, my mom had a miscarriage before me; if she had had that baby, she wouldn’t have had me. So, yes, I’m glad to exist, just like I’m glad she didn’t have me killed in utero. But even so, it wouldn’t occur to me to be quite so happy when talking about the death of my older brother. All I can say is I’m glad to be alive, but I’m sorry he died. That’s kind of contradictory, but there you go.
DRA doesn’t want to admit that anything dies in an abortion. So she slaps different labels around — like “fetus” — as if that changes the facts. (“Fetus” just means “baby” anyway.) Fact is, if there wasn’t another human life on its way, there would be no pregnancy in the first place, and no need for an abortion.
And anyone who didn’t notice the rudeness in the signs pictured has lost all ability to judge whether something is rude. The people pictured are clearly 1) already ready to be rude in their signs, and 2) psyched up by a mob mentality (my side would be the same way). The idea that all these people would all be angelically polite in person is just plain silly.
Funny: Amp linked to a photo gallery, and said that he didn’t see anything so bad.
How about this one showing black-masked pro-choicers directly looking at the pro-life crowd:
http://www.fetusinbloom.com/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=album24&id=DSCN7871
Or this one showing a pro-life person whose face is covered in ink:
http://www.fetusinbloom.com/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=album15&id=DSCN7323
Now a picture is just one moment in time. So there’s no telling what people said, how they acted, etc. But I just don’t believe that all those black-masked people were all nice Victorians who would need smelling salts if they ever thought of being rude. And I don’t think the pro-life guy’s face got covered in ink by accident.
It’s funny how people see different things in the same pictures. Kinda like an ink blot.
My reaction to the first photo is that there is a group of pro-choicers standing quietly in front of anti-choice counter-protesters. The pro-choicers are holding banners which show an opposing point of view to those of the anti-choicers. I see no indication of violence or anger in the photo.
The second photo? It’s a guy standing on the sidewalk of an empty street. Is it ink on his face? A birthmark? I’m unable to tell. I’m also unable to tell when the photo was taken. Was it before the march? After the march? 4 years ago? Today? There’s no way to know.
Joe M. writes: “How about this one showing black-masked pro-choicers directly looking at the pro-life crowd”
How about it? It shows black-masked pro-choicers directly LOOKING at the anti-choice crowd. How horrible. Where are the photos of the violence Annie describes?
Joe,
How about this one for the mood of the crowd:
http://www.fetusinbloom.com/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=album24&id=DSCN7910
Look at the way that vicious infant on its father’s shoulders LOOKS at the pro-life contingent off to the right of the camera’s view.
Sorry, LEFT of the camera’s view. It is the vicious infant that is looking to it’s right.
Heh:
How about this one showing black-masked pro-choicers directly looking at the [yelling, fist-shaking] pro-life crowd
“Directly looking”! Oh, God, the inhumanity! (Sorry, Joe. Your choice of words just struck me as amusing.)
I think it’s pretty safe to say not all pro-choicers are saints, and not all pro-lifers are saints. That doesn’t change the fact that between 800,000-1.15 million people marched in favor of reproductive rights on Sunday.
DRA, Floyd, Zoe, it must have been an amazing experience. Anything else (besides the supposed behavior of a very small number of people on both sides) that those of us who were stuck at home might like to know?
Having had a chance to look through all 40 of the photos now I notice something. The photographer seems to have spent all day following the anarchists. Who are hardly representative of the crowd as a whole. Hell, they’re never representative of any protest they attend (excepting anarchist demos, of course). I can understand the photogs attraction, though. All that red & black. And the Anarchist Cheerleaders are always fun. Still, 75% of these photos are of the anarchists who probably were less than .1% of those in attendance.
Thanks for your patience & have a nice day.
Did you check out the pix Amp linked to, Floyd? Are you sure you were at the same march? Any chance that among the hundreds of thousands of people there you may have not have witnessed everything that happened that day?
But, right, I’m the one who’s “pre-disposed” to a particular view…
Joe sez:
“DRA doesn’t want to admit that anything dies in an abortion. So she slaps different labels around — like “fetus” — as if that changes the facts. (“Fetus” just means “baby” anyway.) Fact is, if there wasn’t another human life on its way, there would be no pregnancy in the first place, and no need for an abortion.”
Oh something dies alright, obviously a physiological process ends, but I have no regrets for an entity that scientifically speaking has no mind or a blank mind incapable of thinking or feeling anything. “Cuteness” is not a measure of humanity, but the capacity for significant thought is. An entity that has known only darkness is incapable of even imagining itself, let alone having significant thought, and that is the difference between a fetus and a baby.
Hey, ever noticed that anti-choicers never used the remains of critically deformed fetuses on their posters?
Joe sez:
“And anyone who didn’t notice the rudeness in the signs pictured has lost all ability to judge whether something is rude.”
I’m sorry, what’s that your saying? I can’t hear you over the historical echo of the bombs only your side detonates.
This shouldn’t need explaining, but here goes: It’s a picture. A snapshot. When you look at pictures, you can’t see what words were being said, what happened during the minutes before or after the picture, or anything else. I would have thought all that was obvious, but it seems to need repeating.
But you can see that some menacing-looking pro-choicers took notice that there were dissenting views there. If you believe that ALL they did — all that anyone did — was look in silence . . . well, how naive. What planet do you live on if you haven’t noticed that pro-choicers are just like anyone else: they can become belligerent and intolerant when faced with people who disagree with them.
Pangloss sez:
“Did you check out the pix Amp linked to, Floyd? Are you sure you were at the same march? Any chance that among the hundreds of thousands of people there you may have not have witnessed everything that happened that day?”
Setting aside the fact that most of the (selectively posted) photos linked show nothing exceptional, I can assure you we didn’t see everything, but our point is that nothing on the unmissable scale Annie described happened. Not even the photos (from people who hate our guts and would have no reason not to post unflattering photos) support her Jack Chick style fantasy.
Once again, where’s the media coverage? If it was really as vicious as claimed why didn’t the cops make a ton of arrests? The Washington police force is not known for liberal views, so why would they have spared such a blantantly monstrous mob?
Joe sez:
“What planet do you live on if you haven’t noticed that pro-choicers are just like anyone else: they can become belligerent and intolerant when faced with people who disagree with them.”
*sound of a clinic exploding and Dr. Slepian getting shot*
Huh, whassat Joe? Oh right, you were trying to imply that the possible actions of a tiny minority of bad apples should certainly be used to tar and dismiss the actions of the remaining, peaceful 99.99%. OK, that makes sense, given that our side has such a history of crazed violence. I mean after all, Remember all those pro-choicers who have beaten and killed people in a foolish attempt to earn the sympathy of America?
“Once again, where’s the media coverage?”
What’s the diff, PDA? You still wouldn’t believe it. You’re convinced that in a sea of hundreds of thousands of people (or over 1M, if you believe NARAL) you somehow were aware of the mood and actions of every little clot of marchers. And besides, you know that mass media, always bending over backwards to curry favor with “anti-choicers”, blah blah blah…
Well, if you’re going to mention the handful of doctors killed over the last 30 years, I’ll say that I oppose this strongly.
Now, do you oppose ripping off a baby’s arms and legs? Do you oppose sucking a baby’s brains out? Oh, whoops, that’s what happens during many abortions. That’s what pro-choicers were marching to defend. Come back when pro-lifers stage a million-person march for the sole purpose of defending the handful of men who killed abortion doctors.
It’s pretty common when engaging in political rhetoric to take the most out-there comments of the people you disagree with and go on to denounce those comments.
Deep River Apartments seems to me to be doing this when he talks about what Annie wrote, at the same time that he accuses Annie of doing it when she writes about her experience of the March.
Is this a representative photo? It shows a group of strained, tense-looking Marchers as they walk past a small pro-life group (the people holding the yellow circular signs).
If anyone had asked me in advance what most people at the March would probably look like as they passed small bunches of pro-life people on the sidewalk, I would have guessed something like what I see in this photo.
By any reasonable count, there were upwards of 500,000 people there.
Since Annie stood at the side of the March, she probably saw and to a lesser extent, was seen, by most of those marchers. I would have been amazed if out of that large number, some of them didn’t exhibit rude, in-your-face behavior.
It doesn’t surprise me that those moments stand out in her memory. (I think a lot of people are like that–when we come home to our spouse at the end of the day, do we de-brief about the 99 neutral things that happened, or about the one rude comment our co-worker made?)
I suppose that if I were in Annie’s shoes, I might have thought that the rude people were only saying what the others were thinking but were too polite to say. I wonder if that’s true, or whether those marchers were also pained and upset about some of this? Did they say so, or was it one of those times when a person feels frozen and lets the moment pass?
Here’s a photo that is sad in and of itself. The woman kneeling, it says on her sign, had an abortion 13 years ago and is suffering. She looks…it looks to me like she feels demeaned, perhaps by the thoughts she is thinking about herself, and has heard from the many judgmental people in the pro-life community and maybe also some in the pro-choice community.
The caption over the photo wrenches my heart.
Joe sez:
“Well, if you’re going to mention the handful of doctors killed over the last 30 years, I’ll say that I oppose this strongly.”
That’s good, and you’ll notice I never lumped you in with that minority of bad apples in the anti-choice movement. More on that in a moment…
Joe sez:
“Now, do you oppose ripping off a baby’s arms and legs? Do you oppose sucking a baby’s brains out? Oh, whoops, that’s what happens during many abortions. That’s what pro-choicers were marching to defend. Come back when pro-lifers stage a million-person march for the sole purpose of defending the handful of men who killed abortion doctors.”
Yeah, that would demonstrate hypocracy on my part, except that no persons were killed. I’ve given you my position, and repeating that a fetus is a person over and over again despite the fact that that’s obviously absurd doesn’t make it true.
To Pangloss and portions of Emily: I’m being defensive because the anti-choice side isn’t reasonably claiming that a tiny minority of pro-choicers are bad apples, they want to portray that a vast majority of pro-choicers are savage beasts. I never denied that we have 0.01% bad apples just like every other reasonable movement, but folks like Annie try to distort exceptions into rules. That not only understandably pisses me off, it’s a laughable accusation coming from the side whose bad apples resort to outright murder and terrorism!
I could easily take over this thread and turn it into a distortion about how the vast majority of anti-choicers are terrorists. I would use the same tactics as Annie and Pangloss, selectively quoting news articles, posting photos of clinic-bombing victims and mug shots of bombers, decontextualizing statistics about anti-choice behavior, and generally make it look as though the anti-choice side is made up solely of psychos.
But I’m not going to do that. Yet. I’ll trust that Joe and Pangloss will notice their houses are made of glass and two can play at their games.
So let’s try to end this way: I never said the march didn’t contain 0.01% of bad apples. Clearly at least one ink egg was thrown. However, Annie is just as clearly lying when she implies the majority of the march was vicious and dangerous. I saw with my own eyes that practically everyone on BOTH SIDES was well behaved (and I stated that earlier in this thread).
Pangloss sez:
“And besides, you know that mass media, always bending over backwards to curry favor with “anti-choicers”, blah blah blah…”
So I repeat what I said in an earlier post:
Are you admitting that your movement is such a radical minority that it can’t possibly have any effect on TV ratings or even get a single conservative into an influential news position?
Emily: “It shows a group of strained, tense-looking Marchers…”
I disagree. It shows a group of chanting marchers. I see no strain or tenseness there. I would say that they look serious. But it is a serious issue.
Ink blot, ink blot, ink blot.
That goes for photo #2 as well which I don’t think is, “sad in and of itself.” I mean you go on to speculate about what is going on in the picture. The conclusions you come to are far from obvious.
Ink blot.
Emily:
I think you’re probably quite right in describing how Anne’s exaggeration came to be; a handful of in-your-face rude incidents becomes a claim that it was only the police presence that prevented mass mob violence. That doesn’t make it not an exaggeration, and it doesn’t make it wrong for pro-choicers to object to the unfair characterization of our march and our movement.
Jake:
The guy with ink on his face was indeed at the March; he was reported on in the papers. Someone threw an egg filled with ink and it hit that guy. What Pangloss either didn’t know or forgot to mention is that (according to the AP reporter) the egg was thrown from the sidelines at the march – not from the march at the sidelines. The police arrested somebody for it. I don’t know if the person arrested was pro-choice or pro-life (one pro-life site I read said that AP reported he was pro-life), and I don’t think Pangloss knows either.
Some pro-lifers have claimed the guy must be a pro-lifer because – look! – there’s a pro-life sign in the background. But that’s not meaningful; anyone who had walked to the side of the march to recover from being hit by an ink egg could easily end up photographed with a pro-life sign in the background. It doesn’t mean it’s his sign.
* * *
Pangloss, I haven’t denied that pro-choicers are often rude. I don’t doubt that many carried rude signs and some yelled rude things to the pro-lifers there (although I feel it’s likely that the vast majority just ignored the pro-lifers, beyond looking at them. And I don’t think being “looked at” is a legitimate complaint from counter-protestors who attended to be seen). But I also don’t think that Annie’s account – which gives a powerful impression of a constant stream of in-her-face invective and barely-restrained violence from mobs of pro-choicers – is likely to be accurate.
I do question why – if they were constantly on the verge of violence, if they frequently mobbed Anne and got within inches of her face, etc – we haven’t seen any photos of it. It’s not enough to say that the Times conspired against you. There were pro-life photographers there; FOXnews was there; the Washington Times was there. If Annie’s description of the event was accurate for more than a few isolated moments, there’d be footage.
I’ve also attended many marches at which there was a contingent of folks in bandana masks – and I know that nearly all of those protests were non-violent. So just because there were masked protestors doesn’t automatically equal violence or near-violence.
Amp, I think you’re confusing me with some other posters.
I didn’t “forget to mention” something about the ink-filled egg incident because I never mentioned it in the first place; that was Joe M. I know all us pro-lifers look alike. ;)
And I never suggested a conspiracy among newspapers. That was PDA, who claimed that major media outlets seek to “pad the credibility” of pro-lifers. I was merely ridiculing that view.
Well, I’m having my own identification problems. My brain sez DRA but my fingers keep typing PDA.
I wasn’t saying that the guy w/ ink on his face wasn’t at the march. I was just pointing out that the photo, on its own, has no context. What the story is, I can’t tell. And neither can anybody else by just looking at that photo.
As to the rest of the pictures, well…. most of them look to me like a peaceful demonstration march full of people. Some having fun, some serious, some shouting slogans and chants. There is one photo of the anarchists where it looks like someone down the line is pointing and shouting at the pro-lifers. One photograph out of 40 where I see a pro-choice marcher (who appears to be part of the anarchist contigent which is notorious for bringing confrontation to marches that want no part in confrontation) shouting at counter-demonstrators. The series of photos seems to me to confirm the peacefulness of the march and counter-demonstrations.
But maybe that’s just me. Which is why I keep saying, “Ink blot, ink blot, ink blot.”
Pangloss sez:
“And I never suggested a conspiracy among newspapers. That was PDA, who claimed that major media outlets seek to “pad the credibility” of pro-lifers. I was merely ridiculing that view.”
Ah, you’re mistaking my intent. I’m just trying to lure you into either admitting your side of the issue is a radical minority that the papers and newschannels can safely ignore as consumers, or that there is a kooky conspiracy to ignore and silence the supposed anti-choice majority in this country.
Kind of childish of me, I know, but remember who threw the first punch.
Got it, DRA. So you don’t really believe some of the stuff you write. It’s all just some sort of rhetorical ploy…
…which is a perfectly legitimate debating technique. Using such rhetoric is a reasonable way both of exposing possible flaws in opposition thinking, and of exploring ideas that might help deepen our understanding even if we don’t entirely agree with those ideas.
In this case, I think DRA was just pointing out that there’s no satisfying explanation for why there are no news photos that show anything as extreme as what Annie described.
* * *
My apologies to both Joe and Pangloss for forgetting which of you said what.
Yes, except I have trouble believing that DRA was engaged in rhetorical ploys when s/he wrote:
“Remember, the newsfolks are terrified of appearing ‘biased,’ so at a march where millions of pro-choicers were counterprotested by a miniscule anti-choice contingency they would have leaped at any opportunity to pad the ‘other side’s’ credibility.”
Of course, the idea that the major media seek to “pad the credibility” of pro-lifers is a pretty absurd claim, so I can fully understand why DRA would now want to distance him/herself from it.
Well, in my opinion DRA’s statement is an exaggeration, but I do think the media’s desire to be “evenhanded” can create distorted coverage, and in this case the distorted coverage helped the pro-lifers.
There were 500,000-800,000 pro-choicers there and maybe 1,000 pro-lifers (probably less); yet most of the newspaper accounts gave a fourth or a third or sometimes even half the space to covering the pro-lifers there. I think it would have been better if the counter-protestors had been given just a paragraph or two, and nothing more. (The same applies to pro-life marches where the pro-choicers are barely in attendance, comparitively speaking).
…which is a perfectly legitimate debating technique. Using such rhetoric is a reasonable way both of exposing possible flaws in opposition thinking, and of exploring ideas that might help deepen our understanding even if we don’t entirely agree with those ideas.
If you’re referring to what I said earlier–which is that it’s pretty common for people to address themselves to the more out-there comments of people they disagree with–I have to disagree with what you’re saying here.
It’s a legitimate debating tactic, sure, if what you want is to de-legitimize “the other side”.
But if what you want to do is seek the truth, finding flaws in the weakest arguments and statements of “the other side” is a slow boat to China.
I hope it didn’t appear in my earlier comment that I agree in any way that Annie’s account is an exaggeration. Could she have added, “The great majority of the people who walked by didn’t say a thing to me?” Sure. I think most reasonable people would have assumed from her account that that was the case.
Perhaps it would be helpful for people who felt antagonized by Annie’s account to say how they would have experienced her witness at the March, had they seen her there silently standing by the side of the road, holding a sign that says “I regret my abortion”.
Would you have felt curious? antagonized? found her witness to be insignificant and rather silly? wondered about her humanity? felt sorry for her?
If people around you in the March had shouted something rude at her, how would you have responded?
Emily, I was responding to Pangloss’ post that came directly before mine, not to your post. Sorry for the confusion.
(I did respond to your post as well, but that was a few posts earlier.)
* * *
Regaridng your new post:
I was referring to intellectual playing, Emily, not picking on weak arguments. Even when you’re examining the very strongest opposition arguments, I think that asking “what if” and exploring views that you don’t agree with can sometimes be valuable.
I think sometimes de-legitimizing the other side is necessary.
That said, I think it’s necessary to address the out-there comments as well as the stronger arguments. If a pro-choicer said “all these pro-lifers are in favor of shooting abortion doctors,” you’d probably find it worthwhile to disagree with that statement (I certainly would, and I’m pro-choice).
* * *
Let’s move to another example. I think that Paul Marx and his organizations are pretty “out there” as pro-lifers go. But he has a real impact. For instance, he funded a research group to China which came back and reported that the UN Population Fund actively support coerced abortions there.
That’s nonsense, of course, and only those pro-lifers who believe that pro-choicers are evil, loathsome demons who don’t care in the slightest about women’s autonomy and only want to kill babies should believe it. Other teams – including a Bush state department team and a pro-life politician from the UK – who have investigated these claims have found them to be false.
Nonetheless, Paul Marx’s lies caused the US to defund the UN Population Fund. The result? Less medical care and birth control for third world women, leading to the deaths of thousands of women and infants, not to mention tens of thousands of avoidable abortions.
And what’s ironic is that the UN Population Fund is anti-abortion; they don’t perform abortions, they don’t fund abortions.
So if pointing out that Paul Marx is an anti-Semite helps people to find his organizations’ statements less credible, then I’m happy to point out his anti-Semitism. In the real world, I don’t think we can afford to ignore the opinions that are (or should be) marginal, because those out-there opinions can have real, and deadly, consequences.
* * *
But in general debate terms, of course I think you’re right; the best thing to do is to address the strongest arguments of the opposition, as honestly and civily as we can.
Panglos said:
“Did you check out the pix Amp linked to, Floyd? Are you sure you were at the same march? Any chance that among the hundreds of thousands of people there you may have not have witnessed everything that happened that day?
But, right, I’m the one who’s “pre-disposed” to a particular view…”
In my very first post in this thread I said:
“I was a the march and I didn’t personally witness anything even approaching what was described by Annie–though there were more than a million people there so I might just have missed it. I do doubt that anyone threw eggs.”
I admit now as I did then that I was only one person out of 1.1 million. I might not have seen everything that happened. I can judge the mood of the crowd though. If there were people acting rude they were so small as to be negligible (and that is true of both sides of the issue–I have been to a lot of protests, teach-ins, and demonstrations here in DC over the years and the March was the most peaceful and polite event I’ve probably ever witnessed here. You don’t have to believe this eyewitness if you don’t want to. That is your decision, but don’t try to tell me what I did and didn’t see please. I was there. You weren’t.
And,yes, you are the one predisposed to a particular view–hell, I showed that you admitted to that fact.
Also, I did look at the pics on that page that Amp posted and I have to agree with Jake Squid and Hestia. None of those pics show any of the kinds of behavior that Annie described.
Joe sez:
“And anyone who didn’t notice the rudeness in the signs pictured has lost all ability to judge whether something is rude.”
I for noticed rudeness in the signs–that’s why we call it fetus porn. It was in the pro-life signs and plastered all over the sides of vans and trucks.
Please don’t accuse pro-choice people of being rude when the pro-life sides exploits the very thing they claim to be fighting against to emotionally manipulate people. Thank you.
Emily: Would you have felt curious? antagonized? found her witness to be insignificant and rather silly? wondered about her humanity? felt sorry for her?
I’ve talked to and read thousands of pro-lifers, and I think I understand the position of the kneeling woman as well as any pro-choice man who has never had an abortion can (which is, admittedly, probably not too well). My answer to all your questions is “no.”
Frankly, I probably wouldn’t have thought anything about her at all, beyond “oh, another pro-life protestor, but one of the non-mean ones so that’s cool.”
If people around you in the March had shouted something rude at her, how would you have responded?
I hope I’d say something like “c’mon, leave her alone, she’s not what we’re here for.” But you never really know what you’ll do in a situation like that until you’re there.
That said, I don’t really feel that bad for people who go to opposition marches in order to counter-protest. It’s an entirely avoidable situation for them – they don’t have to counter-protest – and they must realize that they’re bound to encounter some rude people who will say rude things. I’d rather everyone be kind to each other, but there are other instances of rudeness which take higher priority for me.
Also, let’s not forget that many of the counter-protestors – not Annie and her group, but many of the others – are also extradinarily rude. In my observation, the people who scream “god hates you!” and wave gory posters are a very significant portion of pro-life protestors, even if they’re a minority of pro-lifers as a whole.
In case anyone is confused as to what I am saying about the March, I am not claiming that all the pro-choicers were just skipping along merrily handing out flowers to all the pro-life people.
I am saying that contrary to the reading of the March presented over at After Abortion by Annie, the March was a very civilized affair with both sides reigning in their more aggressive tendencies. Annie can claim that certain events happened, and as I said, I am not going to call her a liar–but I do feel that her descriptions were exaggerations.
I do resent the attempts by some people who will remain nameless to try and goad me into calling Annie a liar. And I certainly resent the shielded accusations that I am lying–and the person who did that will not remain nameless–Pangloss. Please don’t do that. I have remained respectful throughout this comments thread and I expect at least the same in return if you don’t mind. I was there and I am telling you what I saw and heard–that’s all. Based on what I saw and heard, I can judge whether Annie’s characterization is correct or whether it is an exaggeration.
Now, that I have gotten that off my chest, I apologize to anyone I might have offended.
Also, let’s not forget that many of the counter-protestors – not Annie and her group, but many of the others – are also extradinarily rude. In my observation, the people who scream “god hates you!” and wave gory posters are a very significant portion of pro-life protestors, even if they’re a minority of pro-lifers as a whole.
Yes, I agree and I hate this. It happens to me in person. I gave a talk once in front of a pro-life group about my negative emotional experience (read: profoundly f-u-d psychologically) after abortion. A woman raised her hand when I was done and asked, “But you do understand that you killed your baby, right?”
Is she representative of all pro-lifers? I hope to God not. Actually I guess not, since to my great surprise I became one.
At the same time, I do wonder at times whether “Mr. and Mrs. Average Pro-Life Person” doesn’t secretly think very judgmental things about me and is just too polite to say them. I don’t think but sometimes I do wonder.
I wasn’t writing this to circle back to Annie’s post, but it does remind me of the possibility that Annie may have felt that ALL the marchers secretly were thinking the rude things that a VERY FEW of them were saying, or else they would have intervened.
Personally, I have a hard time unfreezing my brain to respond in the moment when someone says something demeaning to someone else, so I understand why the moment passes and we let the demeaning comment/person go unchallenged.
Damn Amp, I envy your ability to maintain your serenity in this issue. Even after plenty of opportunities to practice reigning myself in I still blow my top every time the not-so-veiled accusations come my way. My lack of tact drives me even crazier because I know anything I say could easily be decontextualized and used as anti-choice propaganda (they love to do web pages on “The horrible things woman-hating womb defilers say:…”)
You’re an internet saint, that’s what you are.
Emily sez:
“(read: profoundly f-u-d psychologically)”
F-u-d?
DRA asks:
“F-u-d?”
FF answers:
http://www.le-solutions.de/img/fun/01/catfud.jpg
Fucked-up. That’s what I meant to say.
In agreeing with Ampersand earlier, I should have said, however, that I don’t agree that many pro-life people at rallies are aggressive and judgmental.
I have been at one such gathering in my life. It was small–about 50 people. Two of the men were over the top. They were agitated, loud, vicious, hyperactive and scary. The others were praying quietly. I learned later that these two men have often been remonstrated with by the local pro-life community, to no effect.
If I had been a random passer-by, I would have come away from that event thinking, “Gee, a lot of these pro-life people are creepy freaks”, even though it was just the two loud men.
I still don’t get it.
My choice to abort and the abortion itself messed with me psychologically for a long time. That’s what I was trying to say.
It’s still a struggle for me at times.
No, I mean I still don’t get how anyone was supposed to connect that to the Far Side gag. It’s really obscure.
In any case I feel sorry for you and hope your condition continues to improve. However, I do hope you are not one of those types who then falsely concludes that the majority of women are driven into dementia by abortion, and thus tries to take the choice away from everyone.
Hey, chill out, Floyd. I wasn’t goading you into accusing Annie of lying. I was pointing out that it seemed you’d already done so, even tho’ you blanched from using the word “lying.” For example, either eggs were thrown or not. (I mean, I don’t know how one “exaggerates” about the existence of an egg in the air.) So be it.
And I didn’t accuse you of lying either, fella. When I asked if you were sure you were at the same march, I was engaging in a little hyperbole. Don’t be so literal.
In any case I feel sorry for you and hope your condition continues to improve. However, I do hope you are not one of those types who then falsely concludes that the majority of women are driven into dementia by abortion, and thus tries to take the choice away from everyone.
Thank you.
I point out from time to time on my blog that the fact that some women experience psychological distress after abortion is not a good argument for making abortion illegal.
I encourage people who are interested in learning more about how abortion can be experienced to visit the post-abortion stress syndrome site.
It’s run by a woman who is pro-choice and who doesn’t allow any religious or political arguments on her boards. You have to register to access the messages on the boards. There are over 6000 registered users.
Reading the main message threads is probably the best way that anyone can have their eyes and mind opened to what it means to experience an abortion as a profoundly negative event.
The Canadian Medical Association (their equivalent of the AMA) published an article in their main journal last summer that indicated that women who abort have a 2.6 times higher rate of psychiatric hospitalization in the two years following an abortion compared to women who carry an unplanned pregnancy to term.
They got a lot of heat for publishing this article but ably defended themselves in an editorial.
I hope that more empirical research is done in order to find out more about who is most at risk for experiencing an abortion as a traumatic event, and to find out what kinds of treatment are most effective.
Well I took a little tour of the site you linked to Emily, and I must say it seems very strange to me.
Removing politics and ideology from the discussion strikes me as counterproductive, as the guilt, fear, and puritanical judgmentalism that are instilled in women are a major contributing factor to cases of post-abortive psychological trouble. For cases like that, how can you recover if you don’t talk about the society that subtly and not so subtly makes you hate yourself?
Still, I guess it makes sense in a way. There are sites for people dealing with the after effects of birth (post-partum depression etc.). Why not a nonjudgmental one for abortion?
If it truly is nonjudgmental…I never underestimate the cunning of this opposition.
Pangloss’ internal logic of his/her posts confuses me.
First there’s this:
Hey, chill out, Floyd. I wasn’t goading you into accusing Annie of lying. I was pointing out that it seemed you’d already done so, even tho’ you blanched from using the word “lying.” For example, either eggs were thrown or not. (I mean, I don’t know how one “exaggerates” about the existence of an egg in the air.) So be it.
Which I would take to mean “saying someone is exaggerating is saying someone is lying.”
Then there’s this:
And I didn’t accuse you of lying either, fella. When I asked if you were sure you were at the same march, I was engaging in a little hyperbole. Don’t be so literal.
Which is Pangloss admitting that s/he engaged in hyperbole, ie, exaggerated, which by the logic of the top paragraph is an admission to lying.
Back to the original post, however, I laughed out loud upon reading the “Kerry sucks less” sign. How perfectly it sums up my own feelings.
Annie: Eggs were thrown.
Floyd: I don’t believe eggs were thrown.
That’s an either/or, Raznor, not a matter of exaggeration. (In other words, I was not equating exaggerating to lying — I was saying that the word “exaggerate” seems not to fit this dispute.) Or to quote RadGeek: tertium non datur.
And if you want to equate hyperbole with exaggeration, I won’t quibble. (But only a pedantic literalist would equate hyperbole w/lying.)
Hmmm, touche. I need to read these comments that I copy and paste more carefully.
A few of the marchers, including a large group representing the Socialist Workers’ Party, seemed eager to engage in a harsh exchange of words with these anti-choice groups. This ignited passion and anger that set them apart from the majority of calm, hot pink emblazoned masses of marchers. Still, watching them jump around and lead loud cheers, I began to wonder, am I angry enough about abortion issues to be marching?
From a pro-choice marcher, writing in the Tufts Daily.
Pangloss said:
“Annie: Eggs were thrown.
Floyd: I don’t believe eggs were thrown.
That’s an either/or, Raznor, not a matter of exaggeration. (In other words, I was not equating exaggerating to lying — I was saying that the word “exaggerate” seems not to fit this dispute.) Or to quote RadGeek: tertium non datur.
And if you want to equate hyperbole with exaggeration, I won’t quibble. (But only a pedantic literalist would equate hyperbole w/lying.)”
Okay, here’s part of the problem. You are reading what you THINK people are saying and not what they are actually saying. I didn’t say eggs were definitely not thrown. I didn’t even say I don’t believe eggs were thrown. I said, and I quote, “I was a the march and I didn’t personally witness anything even approaching what was described by Annie–though there were more than a million people there so I might just have missed it. I do doubt that anyone threw eggs.” Now, you might think those are the same things but they clearly are not.
If we want to come to some kind of understanding of each other’s positions we need to start actually reading peoples’ words and not changing them however subtly to make them mean what we want them to.
Do I doubt any eggs were thrown? Yes. Am I making any judgement on whether eggs were thrown or not in that statement? Not at all. I am merely expressing doubt based on what I ACTUALLY SAW. This is not an either/or situation. It is merely me saying that based on what I saw at the March I doubt that anyone threw eggs. I am not calling Annie a liar as I have pointed out several times. In fact I went through great pains to state that I was not calling Annie a liar and that I wouldn’t presume to make the claim that she was out to mislead anyone.
I am really getting tired of going over this with you Pangloss, because you seem to want to argue over semantics and despite your protestations really do appear to want to goad me into calling Annie a liar. Or last create the impression that that is exactly what I am doing.
You do the same thing at the beginning of this thread when you object to Amp’s use of the word “all” in the op trying to make it seem as if Amp is mischaracterizing Annie’s post when Amp was clearly using hyperbole. Then later cry foul when I take offense to something you claim was hyperbole (but which clearly wasn’t).
Lastly, before I start to ignore your childish games please let me know exactly how many times I have to point out that I am not calling Annie a liar, that my impression of the March was based on my own experiences as one person out of 1.1 million, and that others might have a different impression before you start to actually read what I am saying and respond to that rather than to what you are projecting onto my words. I should only have to do it once.
Absurd Tales From a Post-Post-Roe World #1:
Imagine the following scenario if Roe is overturned and an amendment is passed declaring life to start at conception.
The most common flaw with traditional female sterilization is that a sperm can get past the seal in the fallopian tube and fertilize an egg there, causing an ectopic pregnancy, a lethal condition in which neither egg nor woman survives. Any surgeon operating on such a lethal condition will then be obligated to re-implant the fertilized egg back into the woman “in the correct place’ so that a “normal pregnancy” can continue, despite the fact that she intended never to have another child. Sorry girl, tough luck.
Absurd Tales From a Post-Post-Roe World #2:
Imagine the following scenario if Roe is overturned.
The right wing is constantly complaining that gay people are after “special rights,” when in fact they are only after the protection from discrimination that would allow them to lead normal American lives. However, if Roe is overturned, gay people will actually gain a special right: The right never to fear casual sex with a safe partner. Gay couples will enjoy limitless sexual freedom while straight ones will live in constant terror of the condom breaking or the sterilization failing (the pill will probably not be an option if laws are passed stating that the fertilized egg is a person).
Absurd Tales from a Post-Post-Roe World #3:
Imagine the following scenario if Roe is overturned and laws are passed declaring that the fertilized egg is a person.
Every sexually active woman will wash dozens of fertilized eggs out of her system through natural failure in her lifetime. But since every fertilized egg will be considered a person then it will be our civilized obligation to discover a scientific means to ensure that EVERY fertilized egg becomes a pregnancy in order to stop this “tragic loss of life.”
Until we discover such a method we will have to enforce that every woman constantly wear a small pad that will safely catch fertilized eggs. Since such eggs cannot survive on their own for long she will have to visit a special center every day, where scientists will work round the clock to sort fertilized eggs from the mess. Such fertilized eggs will then have to be re-implanted into the woman’s womb to make sure they “develop this time.”
Absurd Tales from a Post-Post-Roe World #4:
Imagine the following scenario if Roe is overturned.
Necessity is the mother of invention, right? Imagine the demand there will be in a post-post-Roe world for a quick and cheap way of transfering a recently fertilized egg from one womb to the other. Rich conservative women who accidentally become pregnant but don’t want to engange in the “sin” of getting an abortion in a country or state that still allows it might consider paying poor women to carry the eggs to term for them. And of course the average anti-choicer wouldn’t complain about that since it is a fair capitalist free trade exchange and the fetus will “survive” to dissapear into the adoption system. After all, the average anti-choice position isn’t about punishing the woman for sexual freedom…right?…right?
Absurd Tales from a Post-Post-Roe World #5:
Imagine the following scenario if Roe is overturned.
Gogo gadget loopholes! As long as you don’t kill the fetus in a state where it is illegal you’re fine right? Well what about just freezing the embryo for later use, the way they do it in fertility clinics? You’re not killing it, just delaying it and storing it outside your body for some undefined period of time.
Imagine the possibilities for clever women who accidentally get pregnant and don’t want a child. They can just freeze and forget about them, get them lost and damaged in a bureaucratic shuffle, or when they have the time and money transfer them to a state or country where abortion is legal and discard them there. Can you imagine the anti-choice side trying to find a leg for their case against this to stand on? They would get laughed out of court, and receive the evil eye from infertile people and the fertility industry.
Of course this option will only be available to rich and middle class women at first, but as medical science advances the embryo extraction and freezing process will become easier and cheaper.
Remember what they keep telling us, it’s only about preserving “innocent life.” Well that’s exactly what would happen, preservation…forever.
i was at the march and i didn’t notice either side misbehaving to the extent annie describes. certainly there was some shouting, but some of that was from people trying to be heard over the bullhorns the anti-choice crowd was using to call us murderers and tell us to “get back in the kitchen” and to call us perverts etc. admittedly, there was ample screaming and shouting from both sides, but that’s to be expected at a demonstration/counter-demonstration.
for the most part, i just marched along quietly, occasionally joining into the chants, but mostly just feeling really empowered and overwhelmed by the magnitude of the event. “this is what democracy looks like!” it absolutely changed my life in an incredibly positive way.
i did see several of the “i regret my abortion” signs and i wondered which of them was annie. i can imagine that she must’ve felt extremely outnumbered and that from her perspective our side was decidedly “anti-annie” and not just pro-woman/pro-choice. that was the main reason i didn’t shout at any of the anti-choicers, i knew that one of them was her. although i TOTALLY disagree with pretty much everything annie says, i really don’t see how shouting at her will make anything better. (i was happy that our side WAS shouting back though, and sticking up for ourselves.)
also, there was a world bank/IMF protest the day before the march for women’s lives so i suspect that accounts for the large number of anarchists who turned out for our march. they were a small faction of the march, not the vast majority as the photos on fetusinbloom would have you believe.
i posted photos from the weeekend on ofoto. you can check ’em out here http://www.ofoto.com/I.jsp?c=110izd4v.1it4mbjj&x=1&y=jnx99m if you’re interested…
xoxo, jared
Great Pics, ms. jared. I see you really liked the Old Post Office Pavilion. Did you know you can actually go to the top of the bell tower and look out over all of DC?
Thanks for linking to my photo album — I’ve been getting a few hits from your blog (which is very articulate, by the way) and I wanted to stop by and say hello.
Also, I will never understand the mentality of people like the “Rachel’s Vineyard” folks: they regret their choice, so nobody else should be allowed to have that choice? There’s a time when you have to look at your life and say, “I made a bad decision, but at least it was my decision to make.” Or, the harsher version: “I’m a moron who chose wrong and now I’m taking it out on every other woman in this country.”
There was an interesting post on the interpretation of choice support statistics over at http://respectfulofotters.blogspot.com/
Here’s an excerpt:
“According to a recent Gallup poll, women aged 18-29 – all of them born after Roe – are more likely to call themselves “pro-choice” than any other demographic group in the country. 54% of them say they’re pro-choice, compared to 51% of women aged 30-49 and 44% of women aged 50-64. Newsweek notes a UCLA poll finding that 55% of first-year college students support abortion rights, down from 64% in 1993. That’s definitely alarming, but in combination with the Gallup poll it’s hard to single it out as a specific failing of young women.
The Gallup report is worth reading in full, because – in contrast to the polarized news coverage of the abortion issue – it depicts an American people who are groping for nuance. For example: Only 40% of polled Americans say that abortion should be legal in all or most circumstances, and yet 60% say that abortion laws should stay the same or be liberalized further. Only 48% identify as pro-choice, and yet Ruy Teixeira cites other Gallup polls showing that 66% think abortion should be legal in the first trimester, and that only 30% think that Roe v. Wade was bad for the country. That discrepancy suggests to me that – like “feminist” and “liberal” – “pro-choice” has become a term largely defined by its detractors.”
By the way, Jake Squid and Ampersand repeatedly professed to be ignorant about whether the guy who got pelted with ink was pro-life or not. The ink-faced picture of him is here.
And lo and behold, here are two pictures of the same guy earlier, holding a pro-life sign. Here and here.
Joe M.,
Actually, I said that I couldn’t tell the story from the one out of context photo. The 2 additional photos you link to provide the necessary context. Thanks.
But there remains the question of who threw the inkegg. As Ampersand wrote, “…(according to the AP reporter) the egg was thrown from the sidelines at the march – not from the march at the sidelines.”
I’m afraid we’ll never know the answer to that one.
But, again, thanks for providing the links to the other 2 photos.
I attended the march. The pro-choice marchers were happy and proud to be exercising their rights–much unlike the sad, pitiful faces of the abortion opponents along the sidelines. The pro-choice marchers were peaceful and I saw only a couple occasions where anyone even exchanged words with anti-choice protestors. The story about marcher throwing eggs is blatant lies, as are stories of marchers shouting cruelly at the anti-choice protestors. The only violence I encountered were the scary men blocking our way as we walked from our hotel to get to the march. We had to leave the sidewalk and cut across the grass because these hateful men kept jumping in front of us–their arms folded across their chests and hate in their eyes. It was disgusting. The men in my family would never behave in this way–they are not violent towards women. And to the woman who regrets her abortion–YOU SHOULDN’T HAVE HAD ONE…YOU HAD A CHOICE. Don’t think just because you screwed up, that its your place to punish other women and take away their rights.
Havent any of you women looked up any facts on Kerry. He does believe in abortion and will allow the killings to go on. Havent you any brains? Bush is the ONLY president standing up against this crime. Do you really care about our lives???
-Lac
Oh, thank god. Here I was all along thinking pro-choice meant Kerry was going to try to use the law to force me to become a baby factory. I shan’t be voting for him now.
Pingback: feministe
Pingback: feministe