The Pro-choicers Were Wrong Here.

[cali]

At a Kentucky campus, pro-choice students, destroyed a pro-life group's memorial. (No, I'm not going to refer to them as forced birth advocates) The latter erected small white crosses. The former tore the crosses down and trashed them.

Students plan vigil to protect display
by Sarah Loman, Amy Ehrnreiter and Amanda Joering in News

Members of the Northern Right to Life are camping out Thursday to protect their display of anti-abortion crosses, following the damage and removal of the display on Wednesday by protestors. The group has decided to press charges against those responsible. "We called the police and told them that we decided to press charges," said Julie Broering, treasurer for the group. The members reached their decision after a day-long deliberation.

http://media.www.thenortherner.com/media/paper527/sections/20060412News.html?sourcedomain=www.thenortherner.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com

This is not the way for the pro-choice advocates to express their support for a woman's right, and it's a terrible image for us to project. Their are many ways these students could have protested the memorial set up by the pro-lifers.

[msgadget]

1. Reminds me of the war advocates

mowing down the Camp Casey crosses...

[TheLeftyMom]

2. I agree with you

Even if we disagree, it should be done respectfully. They have a right to their memorial, just like Cindy Sheehan has a right to Casey's and the pro-choice movement has a right to protest.

You don't change minds by being nasty to the opposition.

[helderheid]

8. welcome to DU!

:hi: what a cute website you have! Love the belly pic!

[TheLeftyMom]

46. Thanks!

It's been up for a while, I published the cookbook last year. But when I switched jobs I had to stop advertising it. So much for free speech, eh?

So I switched again and I totally have to update it!

[SammyBlue]

24. I disagree completely

They do this to us, we do nothing and the media calls us weak!

Give them a taste of their own actions. Use a play from these people's play book, let them whine, then do what they do, claim "it was an outside group that we neither encourage nor want."

We know the GOP encourages and condones this! Let's use a play from their play book against them, something I've been advocating for YEARS!

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SammyBlue]

29. You take your way, I'll do it mine. And my way was very successful

in college.

We made the GOP look like fools and idiots.

Sometimes, taking the high road is impossible, especially against these new brand of REpublicans.

To quote Mario Van Peebles:

"This is a New Jack City and I need some New Jack Cops."

[rinsd]

38. Your way was sucessful in college?

In what way?

"We made the GOP look like fools and idiots."

Through the time old art of vandalism? Do tell.

[SammyBlue]

61. Using their tactics against them, and I will leave it at that.

eom

[Brian Stevens]

30. We can always pull a France. lol

And you're right SammyBlue. I am tired of us being looked upon as weak.

[rinsd]

37. "They do this to us, we do nothing and the media calls us weak!"

What a huge stinking pile! Vandalism is NEVER a winner politically even in our bizarro media culture.

"We know the GOP encourages and condones this! Let's use a play from their play book against them, something I've been advocating for YEARS!"

Yes, you know what that got us. Front page coverage of Democrats slashing tires for a GOP GOTV effort!

[TheWraith]

67. It's one thing to take action. It's another thing to become an asshole.

Trashing somebody's efforts like this, no matter how stupid they are, is a well and truly scumfuck thing to do. It's freeper behavior. I'm all for hanging them by their own rope, but there's a difference between that and simple hooliganism. You want to use their BS against them? Print out leaflets about Walmart's support for forced abortion in China, and distribute them around right wing neighborhoods. Or make some bumper stickers reading "More Blood for Oil" and attach them to all the fatass SUVs you can find. I'm all in favor of agressive action. But what you don't do is you don't wander around behaving like a monkey and throwing your shit at the wall.

[jsamuel]

3. yep, it was wrong

[Mandate My Ass]

4. It was certainly wrong, but why use the word "us"

as if there was a pro-choice meeting and we all decided to attack the anti-choicers exhibit? I think an overwhelming majority of pro-choicers would find this totally unacceptable. We fall into the RW mode of painting all pro-choicers as rabid, atheist, femi-nazis based on the actions of a handful of misguided students acting at the behest of a teacher who obviously has issues she needs to deal with.

This has nothing to do with the pro-choice movement per se, which doesn't advocate squelching dissent.

[Gormy Cuss]

33. Look around on the thread for the answer.

There are other posters willing to label all anti-choicers as Republicans as if there is no difference between the two terms. Unfortunately some of us here have falling into that RW mode of labelling all dissenters as "them." For example, the discussion gets ugly very quickly here when liberals who are against abortion voice that view without couching it by say they're pro-choice because some presume that a personal stance against abortion is the equivalent to being anti-choice.

I hope that the local pro-choice leaders have condemned this action because I agree with you, the pro-choice movement does not advocate stifling dissent.

[omega minimo]

49. Lots of confusion will come from using two terms unecessarily

"There are other posters willing to label all anti-choicers as Republicans as if there is no difference between the two terms."

There is no need for "two terms" when pro-choice means supporting reproductive health privacy and legality within the society, that YOU might not make within your own body/family.

"For example, the discussion gets ugly very quickly here when liberals who are against abortion voice that view without couching it by say they're pro-choice because some presume that a personal stance against abortion is the equivalent to being anti-choice."

Then perhaps those "liberals" need to broadcast that it is a choice they (think they) would not make for themselves, yet support as a general societal right to reproductive health and privacy. Again, that is called "pro-choice."

It's not necessary to even have any semantic problems about it, is it.

[Gormy Cuss]

54. It should not be necessary to have semantic problems about it

but it happens on every hot button issue, not just this one. Frankly, I don't understand the position that one is personally opposed to abortion yet pro-choice but I know far too many people who believe just that and mean it.

On this board I would like to think that a self described liberal can say he or she is personally against something without being required to qualify that they're not in favor of imposing something on others. I guess that I'd rather assume that the average DUer doesn't need that clarification,and if they do, it can be asked politely rather than in an accusatory way. Civility doesn't hurt.

[omega minimo]

56. They might as well just say they are "pro-choice" without having to share

(necessarily) or impost their opinion on what they would do in their own private life. Right?

The term "Pro-choice" encompasses both. The need of "a self described liberal can say he or she is personally against something without being required to qualify that they're not in favor of imposing something on others" (which you say is not your position) seems overly focused on their own life than on public life.

[Gormy Cuss]

62. Right,

except when it's clear that others in the discussion are suggesting that this is not a tolerable position to have and be pro-choice. That's why I'm getting at. I think "pro-choice" is one of the better framings we have on this side of the spectrum because it means exactly what it says, unlike the term 'pro-life' which has been demonstrated to cover only life up until birth.
As I said before, I think it's appropriate to ask why a poster felt the need to qualify it, but I get annoyed when instead someone replies in the form of an accusation rather than a question.

[Sinistrous]

5. However, trashing those crosses does pale in comparison to

assassinating doctors, blowing up clinics, and maiming clinic employees.

And now convince me that the act of placing the crosses was not incendiary in itself.

Sinistrous

[cali]

9. Incendiary is in the eye of the beholder.

We all view things through the lens of our experiences and sensibilities. What's incendiary to you can be touching to someone else. You have every right to say you find the act of placing crosses offensive and incendiary, you have no right to decide that it's incendiary to all.

This wasn't about assassinating doctors or blowing up clinics. Bringing it up is a straw man.

As for why I used us, that's easy. I was referring to how this reflects on the pro-choice movement as a whole. You used clinic violence to point out the hypocricy and bad acts of the pro-lifers even though the vast majority of pro-lifers don't endorse those tactics. The other side will do the same to the pro-choice movement.

[tigereye]

14. we should be careful not to become what we hate

good call, Cali.


The use of violence in any form never justifies more violence.

[omega minimo]

50. You're absolutely right and thank you for posting these two points

"However, trashing those crosses does pale in comparison to assassinating doctors, blowing up clinics, and maiming clinic employees."

It's too easy for today's college students to ignore what may seem like ancient history-- the legacy of terrorism, harrassment and murder perpetrated by religious (!) bigots against women, women's health (not limited to abortion) clinics and doctors/health care professionals (even in their own homes). These tactics were applauded by the same fanatics who have now insinuated themselves into EVERY aspect, every organization of American life. Those students placing toy crosses may need a reality check in how that legacy affects them.

Although the OP considers that a "strawman" it is anything but. Only if we embrace doublethink will we ignore recent history as connnected to current events.

"And now convince me that the act of placing the crosses was not incendiary in itself."

There are many folks now putting phots on grave markers of fetuses that never fully developed, never were born, never took a breath, never opened their eyes.

Are these photos gruesome tributes to a miscarriage wrapped in a blanket with a little hat on? Is that grisly?

Are these photos celebration of a life that almost-was--- and "an important part of the grieving process"?

As you point out, the tiny crosses "memorial" is incendiary on a number of levels-- and raises again the issue of when life begins.

[rinsd]

60. Uhhh every protest is incendiary by its very nature.

To say the word as if to taint this event is ridiculous as well as trying to conflate the gruesome fetus pictures with a bunch of white crosses.

Far better these types of protests vs. the violent nature of some of the pro-life movement.

[omega minimo]

65. If you miss the point, just leave it alone, and skip the insults

please

[azurnoir]

6. They were very wrong

one of the things that must be avoided at all costs is doing anything that will allow Fundies to take on the "martyr" status. Fundies love to appear to be a martyr almost as much as their Islamic extremest counterparts (although the latter is far more likely to be willing to take on personal cost, rather than just the appearance)

[donsu]

7. tearing down the crosses is OK by me

nt

[MelliMel]

10. Yeah, it really helps one look logical and driven

not by emotion, but by reasoning. :eyes:

[donsu]

16. they say the crosses were for dead babies - wrong

the crosses were for blobs of a not yet formed fetus.

the forced pregnancy people were twisting and framing the subject.

[MelliMel]

18. Forced pregnancy people?

What's wrong with anti-choice? Not logical sounding enough?

Sorry, tearing down crosses does not help when someone who is pro-choice tries to argue for reason against the usually overly emotional/bordering on histrionic anti-choice crowd. It just makes you look as kooky as they look.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[davidthegnome]

12. Interesting

This reminds me of the Boston Tea party. I read once that Benjamin Franklin told the rebels that they should apologize for the damages, or pay for it, or something. Admittedly, it's a poor comparison, and these students definitely were out of line. I'm just not at all surprised, people are pissed off, everywhere you look today, you see angry faces. We're tired of the right trying to enforce their concepts of morality upon us.

[cali]

13. The best way to counter

speech you find offensive, is more speech. They could have protested the crosses without resorting to this kind of bullshit action.

[RB TexLa]

15. Agreed, it's free speech end of argument

[TheMightyFavog]

17. How do we know these were even pro-choice advocates?

This could have been just a bunch of drunks on the way back from a house party or a bar doing this.

Remember, nothing lacks of brains nothing more than college-age people full of booze.

[omega minimo]

51. Great point-- lotsa "cool men" on this thread making sense

:yourock:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

52. How Do We Know It Was Bush Supporters Who Did That To Cindy's Crosses?

I'm sure they know full well who did it. Let's not be silly here.

The OP is right. But I recognize this is an isolated incident in which the pro choicers were definitely wrong and crossed the line. But there are always going to be extremists on both sides that engage in shameful acts. Fact is, these shameful acts tend to occur far more often from the pro-lifers.

[cali]

57. Agree, OMC, that

the shameful acts are perpetrated more often by the pro-lifers. I just like to post articles or information, from time to time, that challenges the self-righteous mindset that creeps in; that we're always right and pure, and the other side is always evil and wrong. Black and white thinking is not my favorite thing.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

63. I Hear Ya My Friend, I Hear Ya.

[demgurl]

19. The article does not show for me.

One question I was going to seek out, in the article, is how they know it is pro-choice people doing that. Did they catch them? The article will not come up for me thus leading me to think perhaps they do not have proof that it is pro-choice people and they had to change the article.

I just like to try to take in all the facts before I make a decision and it is not unlike the right to make a knee jerk reaction and assume things. Did they remove the article?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

20. The word is anti-choice! Not pro-life............ eom

[jayfish]

21. Does This School Receive Public Funds?

If so, those crosses shouldn't be there in the first-place. I wonder if the people who destroyed the signs did so over separation of church and state or the pro-life issue?

Jay

[RB TexLa]

23. Here is one on the campus of a school that recieves public funding

What should be done about it?



Trinity Chapel at Boston College

[jayfish]

27. That church is different and you know it.

It's been on campus for nearly 50 years. Perhaps you wanted me to say burn it down or some other inflammatory gesture so you could get into a good dust-up.

Jay

[RB TexLa]

28. no big dust up, just saying that government monies going into a

place doesn't legally prevent all religious symbols from being used on the campus, granted I used a Catholic school that receives government money through it's students. But a school being even state supported and operated does not prevent the use of such symbols by students in an exercise of free speech. There are of course limits to such and lines that have to be drawn regarding speech of many different types, I don't think the memorial in question crossed the line regarding free speech and separation of church and state.

[jayfish]

32. I Agree.

I also think that this particular protest(pro-lifers)was firmly rooted in religion and had little to no secular value. Any idea if the pro-life group was required to get permission from the school to stage its' protest on school property?

Jay

[rinsd]

36. Huh?

Perhaps you can explain how a student group protest using crosses somehow breachs the wall between church and state?

[jayfish]

39. They Were Protesting And ,...

erecting religious symbols on school Property and by it's very nature, the pro-life movement is a religious movement. Seems like a breach (even if a small one) to me.

Jay

[rinsd]

41. I don't think its an issue

If the school was to erect crosses, that would be an issue.

But individuals even when on school property are not subject to church/state seperation issues. Even if said group is religious.

The one possible issue could be that the student group receives funding from the school, but even there I think free speech case law triumphs.

[jayfish]

43. It's A Pretty Fine Line.

Suppose that all of publicly-funded entities who have been forced to take down nativities or menorahs in recent years decided to hold a "Save Christmas/Chanukkah" Contest. The winner of said contest would have the honor of erecting a menorah or nativity in his/her own name. Seems like a loophole big enough to drive through.

Jay

[cali]

44. That's completely different

In that case the state is sponsoring religion. These were students exercising their first amendment rights.

[jayfish]

45. Ok, Drop The Contest Portion...

of the analogy and look at the question again. As a citizen with no connection to government what-so-ever, Is it ok for me to put-up a nativity on public property?

Jay

[rinsd]

58. What loophole?

Building up a strawman and then knocking it down does not constitute an "ahhh-haaa!" moment.

[meganmonkey]

22. At my college, the anti-abortion folks did a cross memorial

- sounds a lot like this one. This was in 1993 or 1994.

The pro-choice group responded by hanging coat hangers in the trees with signs listing info about illegal abortion deaths and the like.

Both memorials remained up for several days, and each group respected the other's memorial.

I, however, didn't particularly jive with either group, so I went to a free clinic and got a box of 1,500 condoms and passed them out to all the people who were visiting either display in between classes.

[GreenPartyVoter]

25. Sounds like the best possible situation. Everyone was heard. *high five*

[Strawman]

31. Now THAT sounds like a constructive use of energy

:toast:

I question the motives of people who create spectacles that accomplish nothing just to "feel political" or don a political identity like a trendy outfit.

[Lexingtonian]

34. Well, putting up crosses is wrongful

as a symbolism. The implication that all the foeti are a priori Christian is sort of insulting and exceedingly provincial.

I don't know why pro-choice people have to be on good behavior all the time. I wouldn't have done what they did, though- I would've added in some swastikas and little hooded figures into the display, had I wanted to do something about the faux sanctimony.

[bunkerbuster1]

35. I'm not seeing anything about "damage" in the linked story.

If pro-choicers did destroy their display, of course I'd denounce that. That's the same kind of chickeshit stuff they pulled on Sheehand.

But--I just don't see where you're getting this information.

[Richard Steele]

40. It's not the Cross story at the top- it's further down. Here's a link:

http://media.www.thenortherner.com/media/storage/paper527/news/2006/04/12/News/Right.To.Life.Group.To.Press.Charges.Against.Protestors-1851538.shtml?sourcedomain=www.thenortherner.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com

And not only is the damage undisputed,
a professor has admitted that she was the leader
of the group that destroyed them.

[rinsd]

42. That professor has a seriously misguided interpretation of free speech

[omega minimo]

47. & there are many other ways these "pro-lifers" could help women &families

and work for positive changes in all our lives, rather than demonize women with cheesy and inflammatory displays.

:hi:

"Their are many ways these students could have protested the memorial set up by the pro-lifers."

[Lars39]

48. In case you missed it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=932735&mesg_id=932735

[Warren DeMontague]

53. At least *they* didn't shoot anyone.

Beyond that, they're pissed off- as anyone ought to be when busybody, moralizing, self-righteous, authoritarian, religion-drunk control freaks try to use or expand the power of the state to legislate what individuals can and cannot do with their OWN bodies.

What they did was wrong*-- not in a blowing up a clinic way, but in a keying someone's car way...



but I can't blame 'em for being pissed off.

*if, indeed, it was "pro-choice advocates", at all, as someone else upthread mentioned.

[politicaholic]

55. Does anyone hear a high pitched whine?

poor them. Perhaps they need to go back to the old 'calling women sluts and telling them they're going to hell while they enter the clinic' method.

How about this...fuck them.

They have NEVER been civil and are in the process of derailing the once balanced federal judicial system for their minority agenda.

I repeat---fuck...them.

[omega minimo]

68. Youre so right-- so is the righteous indignation

[AllieB]

59. I thought it was presumptuous to assume the foetuses were Xtian

they weren't baptized, and there's a good chance that the mothers who decided to have this medical procedure may have been Jewish, Muslim or some other religion. To me it shows their innate prejudice and narrow-mindedness.

Also, religious symbols are generally not allowed on school property, unless it's a Xtian school.

[bluestateguy]

64. I don't condone what the pro-choicers did

But the forced birth advocates need to understand that their demonstrations will make a lot of people angry, and sometimes angry people decide to do something about it.

[cynatnite]

66. Completely agree! n/t