DC Cookie: Controversy Week: Road Kill

Wednesday, May 24, 2006

Controversy Week: Road Kill

I remember reading this post a while back, and feeling incredibly disturbed by the pictures and the related links, in much the same way I am disturbed at the sight of a dead raccoon on the side of the road with his head imploded by the pressure of a 5 ton SUV**. The images don't make me contemplate the issues at hand; in actuality, they just make me want to stop eating my lunch. I don't believe that's the reaction our protester friends are looking for, but it's the reaction they get. When I see their propaganda, I think "Get a life...and put that road kill where it belongs - in the soil."

Here is my issue with abortion protesters, dressed up in devil costumes, holding plastic babies and carrying pictures of a bloody fetus. Nobody gives a crap! Nobody going into the clinic, at any rate. People who linger outside of a doctor's office in an attempt to shock and frighten have little to no affect on the actual decision-makers themselves. When a woman enters a 'family planning center,' you can bet that she has taken a long time to think through her decision, no matter how many people are standing outside of her window praying. I roll my eyes at the pro-life argument that "abortion should never be used as a means of birth control." As if an abortion is some simple pill that a woman can take and never look back. Abortion is a complicated, emotionally draining, life-altering procedure that takes days of contemplation, and years of recovery. I know - I've helped multiple friends through them. Given the magnitude of such a decision, I believe steadfastly that it's something a woman should be allowed to contemplate, no matter how she became pregnant; irresponsible sex, rape, or monogamous, committed intercourse.

Protesters...go home. If you really want to make a difference, talk to your daughters. Openly. They're really a lot brighter than you think.

**Although I must admit, the sight of a Michelin-squashed opposum gives me an immense sense of pleasure.

29 Comments:

At May 24, 2006 1:23 PM, Carrie Broadshoulders said…

Amen. No controversy from me on this one! I'm in full agreement.
At May 24, 2006 1:56 PM, Tyler said…

^ +1
At May 24, 2006 2:36 PM, KassyK said…

Agreed with every single word you wrote. Beautiful and well said. :-)
At May 24, 2006 2:52 PM, Anonymous said…

May I play devil's advocate, and ask whether or not it's okay to have a late term abortion?

Having said that, I don't think that many women would decide so late in the pregancy to abort. All the pictures shown on the site you linked are indeed of late term abortions.

Secondly, we could avoid such abortions all together if we could have adequate facilities that can expedite the process within the first trimester. Delay tactics by protestors only increase the emotional hardship endured. I applaud their democratic efforts to make their feelings known, as long as they do not block any entrances, which is a violation of an individual's rights.

But I am afraid that this is a highly polarized issue. Be prepared to see some nasty posts. Free speech is hard to stomach sometimes.

- Raincouver
At May 24, 2006 2:55 PM, Phil said…

BOOOOO!!!
At May 24, 2006 3:02 PM, Heather B. said…

Damn you for being so eloquent...
At May 24, 2006 3:08 PM, O-FACE said…

Not my topic of choice because I'm not qualified to make the decision....
At May 24, 2006 3:13 PM, Anonymous said…

Everyone finds such images repellent. The reaction is simple and genuine. There are those who present the issue as if it were simple, too, and imply that one's position on the issue should be the same as one's reaction to the image. It is demagoguery, I think, but effective. Too many people are eager to have a complex issue made simple.

The images are hard to ignore. For some, drawing attention to the issue is enough. Polarization is the goal for others. Shock works, just as it does for the tabloids - and some blogs and bloggers.

"Controversy Week" is here because you found that an image you posted led to argument rather than debate. You were, I think, surprised by the intensity (not necessarily the quality) of the comments. You witnessed the passion and polarization, and it's not so different "offline".
At May 24, 2006 3:20 PM, EJ Takes Life said…

Well said, Cookie.

What I find most damning is that the people are often out there holding the signs and chanting the slogans are voting for leaders who reappropriate funding for public education into a war chest, throw up roadblocks to early childhood immunizations and affordable health care, and slash welfare benefits to single mothers. They send out the message that a pregnant woman has a moral duty to give birth, but that once that kid is outta there, she's shit outta luck.
At May 24, 2006 3:36 PM, A Unique Alias said…

I completely agree! No one gives a fuck what protestors think.

That includes World Bank protestors, Rumsfeld/Bush/Iraq war protestors, Falun Gong/China protestors, and Zioninst protestors.
At May 24, 2006 6:43 PM, Carrie Broadshoulders said…

I agree- nothing wrong with giving women the full information on what the process entails. If you think by doing that you will curb the number of abortions, I think you're completely wrong.

As for late term abortions, I oppose any legal restriction on them simply because I think either a fetus is a fetus (legally) or it's a baby. And to me its not a baby until a woman gives birth to it. While I don't like it, I refuse to support government involvement in what a woman does with her body and regardless of how far along the fetus is, it's a fetus and it's part of her body...regardless of whether it could live outside of her body or not.

That said, I think it's pretty shitty to wait until the third trimester to make such a decision. Then again, it's not my body.

Another controversial issue is that a woman can abort a fetus and shirk the responsibility of raising a child, but a man cannot make that decision and even if he wants nothing to do with the child, can legally be made to support it for 18 years. What do people think about that?
At May 24, 2006 8:35 PM, Anonymous said…

You are seriously misguided if you honestly believe that "Nobody gives a crap!" about what the antiabortion activists have to say. Truth be told, abortion stops a beating heart and maybe the shock value photos provided and displayed by the protesters might just make people realize this fact. Furthermore, I find it interesting that you dedicate an entire day of "blogging" to bash what the American constitution affords as a right: Freedom of Speech and Expression.
At May 24, 2006 9:06 PM, Carrie Broadshoulders said…

She's not bashing their right to protest, but rather the tactics they use. She never said they have no right, she just said they are stupid. And if you need a picture of a dead baby to convince you one way or the other, then you're probably an idiot to begin with and shouldn't be allowed to express your opinion. I respect their right to express their opinion but I also respect Cookie's right to express her's. And so should you.
At May 24, 2006 9:41 PM, Barbara said…

Protesters are simply an annoyance in what must be one of the most difficult decisions a woman will ever have to make. Let's hope this country is smart enough to continue to make it a woman's choice.
At May 24, 2006 11:55 PM, Anonymous said…

Right on, Carrie!

And, Amen, Cookie. You rocked this post.

Way to toss it up.
At May 25, 2006 5:39 AM, Anonymous said…

No wrath, Sean. I did read your comments, but felt that they were inflammatory in tone. Just my take. Reductio ad absurdum is a useful technique of debate, but I felt that many of the comments were intended to shock or insult rather than persuade.

WRT our hostess' assertion that protesters "have little to no affect on the actual decision-makers" I agree in the case of women seeking care. There are, however, other decision-makers: physicians may decide that to offer services is dangerous or disruptive, politicians may decide to limit access to services, and so on.
At May 25, 2006 10:32 AM, Jinxy said…

From their perspective, I'm sure the protestors would rather have it on their eternal souls that they were merely "annoying" over the fact that they did not lift a finger to attempt to prevent something they viewed as morally reprehensible.

Abortion is convenience.

Sorry. Just speaking truthiness to power.
At May 25, 2006 10:42 AM, Carrie Broadshoulders said…

Abortion is convenience?

That's absurd. The idea that every woman who has an abortion does so freely and with emotional detachment to the fact she is terminating a pregnancy is insensitive and just inaccurate. Sure, there are many women who probably have no emotional response to the procedure and do use it as a form of birth control. I'd guess even those woman wrestle with their conscious over the decision a little. But the fact remains that if made illegal, these women will still choose to have the procedure, often at a greater risk to themselves than if it is allowed legally to be performed.

I do agree that we need to invest more time and energy in educating young women on protecting themselves to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Birth control should be readily available. Sex ed should include information on how to prevent pregnancies should a person choose to have sex. Sex is not an ugly thing and people are going to do it regardless of what they are taught. Just because you think it should be something for after marriage doesn't mean I should have to feel that way. I'd want my kids raised to protect themselves in every situation. I find it amazing the same people who condemn a teenage girl for aborting a fetus she doesn't want and couldn't raise would also not want that girl taught how to have prevented that pregnancy in the first place or given the resources to have prevented it in the first place. It's absurd. And it isn't just about pregnancy.
At May 25, 2006 11:05 AM, Anonymous said…

Consider the following… Hypothetically, let’s assume that it were legal to terminate the life of a child for up to a year after birth. (I know you’re saying… “but wait you’re missing the distinction”… to which I say “yes, you’re right… but this is my hypothetical”)

Pretty appalling concept, right? I mean actually being able to kill a child for up to a year after birth? And the means by which the termination takes place… a meat grinder. “Really, a meat grinder?”

So now you’re thinking “Ornac is only trying to sensationalize the issue and is going for shock factor the same as a protestor” In a way, you’d be right… because again, let’s assume the above were true and that children 11 months in age are being ground up in meat grinders. Your heart would break for those children who were terminated just after they took their first steps. And what about the kids who were learning to talk. Wouldn’t you be shouting at the top of your lungs “look what you’re doing to these kids… STOP!”

If you believe in your heart-of-hearts, regardless of what some law says, that a fetus is a living, though not breathing, human being, you’d have a glimpse at what motivates those protestors. I happen to find the images they publish and display grotesque and they make me want to look away. But I think that’s kind of the point.
At May 25, 2006 12:15 PM, Carrie Broadshoulders said…

The images are also pretty inaccurate since as previously stated they depict very late term abortions. While those happen, those are certainly not the huge percentage of abortions that are performed every day. If you showed pictures of what a fetus typically looks like in most abortions, I think people would actually feel quite differently.

Oh and your hypothetical situation sucks. But I think we get that you were just trying to illustrate a pro lifer's viewpoint on what abortion represents. I mean you're still wrong, but we get it. No one denies their emotional attachment to the issue. But their feelings are irrelevent when we discuss true facts that most abortions do not involve what you've described in your hypothetical.
At May 25, 2006 12:42 PM, Brian said…

The abortion debate is fraught with irony, some of it funny in its own way.

The antiabortion movement consists mostly of conservative Christians; this same group is more or less overwhelmingly in favor of the death penalty. You don't hear much of the beating-heart issue at that point, though, do you? George Carlin once said it's apparently just an issue of timing.

I always find the antiabortion (because that's what it is, it isn't 'pro-life' any more than the pro-choice is 'pro-abortion.' NOBODY is pro-abortion) stance interesting, if only because it fails to consider the fact that they have themselves made a choice, which is all anyone is really asking for. You made yours, let the rest of us make ours. And besides, if it's a religious issue, then a) free will, anyone? and b) the Bible tells you pretty clearly that you are not to judge others, that's up to God. Unless there's been a revision nobody mentioned to me. Oh, and how many clergy/self-proclaimed Christians are now in prison for injuring/killing providers? Guess those Commandments have a little more leeway than we thought (see death penalty, above).

I don't mind protesters, per se, I mind people who willfully interfere with the lawful conduct of others just because they disagree. Hold signs, walk around, but crowding/bullying/vandalism/assault just makes you look bad, and fair-minded people less inclined to listen to you. Abortion, World Bank, PETA, all of them. Your rights extend only to the point where they interfere with the rights of others.

And Ornac's analogy is flawed on many levels, but especially when you consider the pro-life/pro-death penalty thing. I mean, if you can say up to 1 year, then what's the upper limit on your hypo? I do think there are conflicting motivations there.

None of this would be a problem if all of these fetuses would just learn to speak English. Dammit.
At May 25, 2006 12:46 PM, Jinxy said…

So let's only kill the ugly looking fetuses and not the ones that kind of look like a baby, right Carrie?

Better yet, we should hold fetus auditions. Only the ones that cloesely resemble a baby should be spared. The rest we should be free to abort. Right?

Can I quote Dennis Leary?

I know what it's about. "I don't want to eat the meat because I love the animals. I love the animals."

Hey, I love the animals too. I love my doggy. He's so cute. My fluffy little dog. He's so cute - There's the problem. We only want to save the cute animals, don't we? Yeah.

Why don't we just have animal auditions. Line 'em up one by one and interview them individually.

"What are you?"

"I'm an otter."

"And what do you do?"

"I swim around on my back and do cute little human things with my hands."

"You're free to go."

"And what are you?"

"I'm a cow."

"Get in the fucking truck, ok pal!"

"But I'm an animal."

"You're a baseball glove! Get on that truck!"

"I'm an animal, I have rights!"

"Yeah, here's yer fucking cousin, get on the fucking truck, pal!"
At May 25, 2006 2:11 PM, Carrie Broadshoulders said…

MJ-

Wow, way to really miss the point. I said nothing of the sort. I said that the protesters are giving the impression with their photos that a fetus looks like their pictures when aborted. 90% of the time, that is wrong. Period. It has nothing to do with what it looks like as to whether a fetus should be aborted or not. It has to do with truth. Nearly 60% of abortions in the United States happen within the first two months of conception, 80% by the first 10 weeks. Show a picture of a fetus at 10 weeks and you tell me if it looks like the signs these folks are holding up?
At May 25, 2006 2:21 PM, Jinxy said…

Roger. Got it.

We should only save the cute looking fetuses.
At May 25, 2006 2:26 PM, Carrie Broadshoulders said…

As the former Miss Fetus 1978, that's fine by me.
At May 25, 2006 2:26 PM, Anonymous said…

"if you can say up to 1 year, then what's the upper limit on your hypo?"

I arbitrarily chose 1 year to illustrate that from a pro-life/anti-abortion/[insert your descriptor here] perspective the whole 1st/2nd/3rd trimester, morning after, [insert your gestational age here] is very much arbitrary and irrelevant. A life is a life is a life... Whether it be at the point of conception, 1 minute before birth, 1 minute after birth, or 11 months old.

IMHO the abortion debate becomes so inflamed because people are typically debating two different things…
Pro-Choice - Right to Choose
Pro-Life - Right and Wrong

Pro-Choicers are saying, don’t take away my right to choose, while Pro-Lifers are saying, but wait… abortion is wrong and that “right” doesn’t *really* exist.
At May 25, 2006 3:12 PM, Brian said…

I hear you, ornac, but my point is that it's just not consistent:

If 1st vs 2nd vs 11 months old is all the same, life is life and it's as simple as that, then by extension pro-life should include ant-death penalty. That's the inconsistent part. 11 months is no different from 11 years or 31 years, based on your argument. Otherwise, it's, "You can't kill your own baby, but we reserve the right to do it later."

Pro-choicers are saying that we should all make our own decisions, and pro-lifers are saying that they should make your decision for you, because they know better than you do what you should be doing. It's righteous, not necessarily right.

The big difference seems to be that pro-life, and conservative ideology in general, only really deals in 'should,' while the more liberal and pragmatic framework deals adds a large dose of what 'is.' Hence all the conflict about education re: abstinence vs contraception.
At May 25, 2006 4:08 PM, Carrie Broadshoulders said…

The women and the men who knocked them up before they married them of course.
At May 25, 2006 4:57 PM, Anonymous said…

“and pro-lifers are saying that they should make your decision for you, because they know better than you do what you should be doing”

I think societies do this all the time… sometimes referred to as laws. Pro-lifer’s don’t necessarily want to take the choice away… but rather make the choice illegal. Just because I feel I have a right to shoot my neighbor, my feelings do not make the right exist. A pro-lifer says shooting Neighbor and abortion are morally equal and their goal is to get the courts and society to recognize that. Admittedly, their means are somewhat jacked most of the time… with da bombings, da pictures and things such as this. (with my horrible Arnald S. impression)
I personally would rather everyone express their views @ the ballot box (or on blog posts).