Will McGrew and his mother, Janet McGrew, who said she is proud that her son is standing up for what he believes in. (submitted photo)
jewel bush
The day before his Ben Franklin High School graduation, a time when teenagers might engage in pranks or attend parties with buddies, Will McGrew helped organize a counter protest to the NOLA Needs Peace, Not More Abortion Coalition rally. The action was held on Monday afternoon near the proposed Claiborne Avenue Planned Parenthood site, a controversial new state-of-the art health facility slated to open in 2014. A groundbreaking ceremony is scheduled for next week.
NOLA Needs Women’s Health – Support Planned Parenthood; a pro-choice, pro-Planned Parenthood effort, is the brainchild of 18-year-old McGrew and a direct response to the recently initiated NOLA Needs Peace, Not More Abortion crusade.
McGrew saw the billboards and immediately processed the message as potentially harmful to women. He created a Facebook group to welcome the expanded clinic into New Orleans, share information about women’s reproductive health and organize the pro-access voice locally — the perfect pairing of social media and activism.
“We know that whether or not abortion is accessible will not affect whether or not a woman will get an abortion. It might force her to a black market provider or to have an underground abortion,” said McGrew, who plans to study in Morocco for a year and then head to Yale University to major in global affairs. “In pro-life countries, abortion rates are higher because they don’t have access to providers like Planned Parenthood. The only difference is that 47,000 women die every year because they don’t have access to safe, legal abortions.”
Both sides of the debate came out in full force. Each side was armed with chants, factoids and signage: “More Planned Parenthood = Less Poverty = Less Crime,” and then there was the in-your-face, sprawling banner of a bloody fetus.
Amie Benson, 28, was among dozens of Planned Parenthood supporters on the neutral ground across from the pro-life, anti-Planned Parenthood gathering.
“I found the billboards offensive, especially so soon after the Mother’s Day shootings. It’s a poor argument and better things could be done for peace,” she said.
Last year, the Reproductive Justice Communications Group, a cohort of African American women-led organizations and activists, commissioned a poll of African Americans attitudes about abortion, contraception and teen sexual health in response to billboards that were popping up across the country that attacked black women and likened abortion to genocide in the black community.
The results found that 80 percent of African Americans agreed that “regardless of how I personally feel about abortion, I believe it should remain legal and women should be able to get safe abortions,” 71 percent said that “at least some health care professionals in my community should provide legal abortions,” and an overwhelming 89 percent agreed that “every person’s case is different and very private and personal, so we should leave decisions about abortions up to the individual woman.”
“Abortion only accounts for three percent of the services Planned Parenthood provides so I don’t understand how they can come here and protest the entire establishment of Planned Parenthood when they are cutting out 97 percent of services that women receive that have nothing to do with abortions,” said Mwende Katwiwa, an international student from Kenya at Tulane University.
“They are saying NOLA needs peace and that’s so true, but show me where the link is between abortion and peace? If we want to talk about how New Orleans needs peace, then we need to address the failing school system. We need to address things like the teen pregnancy rate. You do that by providing women with services like Planned Parenthood.”
Nearby Randy Dolin held up a blue sign with “I love <3 HER BODY … BUT SHE OWNS IT!” printed in colorful, large letters. Nick Beachy chanted: “I am Christian. I like gays. I am pro-choice, and I am saved.”
“The government should not have a say with what anyone does with their body. The Catholic Church’s hierarchy is entirely patriarchal and our government is mostly patriarchal. Men shouldn’t be making decisions for what women do with their bodies,” said Beachy, a graduating Metairie Park Country Day senior.
The most notable supporters – or protesters depending who you consult — were the young men, who were undoubtedly and unabashedly pro-woman and feminist. The prolific writer and scholar bell hooks — the inspiration behind my lowercased byline — defines feminism as a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation and oppression. And these guys get it.
“We know that pro-life policies in countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan hurt women and they don’t do anything to stop abortion. They just make it dangerous,” McGrew added. “I consider myself to be a feminist… . Equality is extremely important to me. Safe, legal abortion and access to reproductive health care as provided by Planned Parenthood is essential to equality.”
Thank you for reporting on this issue!
Great article jewel!
You may want to ask the murdered unborn about the definition of equality provided here…
Absolutely, much better they are born to a family that doesn’t want them, those kids turn out great… or thrown into the already overcrowded and underfunded fostercare/orphanage system. Our country’s job creation can’t keep up with population growth, better add some more unwanted children.
LGDSaintsFan,
I’d actually argue that the US is facing a greater threat from lower birth rates. When one generation is significantly smaller than the last, the economy tends to shrink or stagnate and social programs are stressed by an aging population. This is already a major problem in Europe and Japan, which are gearing public policy to increasing birth rates.
Irrespectively, this actually illustrates my point above. Stonerolled basically says that abortion is murder, and you respond by talking about overpopulation and poor life prospects for unwanted children. It’s deontology versus consequentialism.
These issues can be teased out with philosophical hypotheticals, like whether it’s right to murder one person to save 100, but the problem is that abortion represents a unique set of circumstances and really can’t be easily approximated that way. However, each side needs to really address the reason for their beliefs. I tend to think that the appeal to consequentialism is normally a smokescreen, that the real issue is a simple moral divide, but I could be wrong on that.
LGDSaintsFan-I wonder why society has good enough sense to not follow your ideas out consistently. If the quality of life determined the value of life, we would be killing anyone and everyone that we deem as possessing an unsatisfactory life. Based upon the logic of your comment, why are we not killing the homeless? Why don’t we also snuff out the mentally handicapped? I imagine you haven’t thoroughly thought this out.
Why is the response from the right wing always an “all or nothing” approach? Can we not have a gray area, have some things be legal and not others? “If we’re going to outlaw nuclear bombs, then we should outlaw handguns”, “If we’re going to have the death penalty for murder, why not for petty theft?”, “If we are OK with euthanizing healthy pets in the animal shelter, can we just go around shooting homeless pets on the street?”
This is ridiculous, it doesn’t even deserve a response. If you aren’t going to add anything intelligent to the discussion, just keep it to yourself.
LGDSaintsFan, for the record, I’m not a right winger. I didn’t vote for Mitt Romney in the last election and wouldn’t in any possible world. Your equivocation of a political conservative with a religious conservative says a lot about you (equivocation is an informal logical fallacy btw). Your response is less than childish. I raised a few valid questions that naturally flow from your statement and you responded with what is easily considered an ad hominem (another informal fallacy). “I cannot answer it because you’re a right winger…I can’t answer it because it’s too ridiculous and undeserving of my time…so on and so forth.” I’ll go ahead and let you in on a little secret, any worldview that does not possess logical consistency, empirical adequacy, and experiential relevance or viability isn’t worth believing. If you cannot handle some questions and rejoinders to your position, it might be better not to post on a public forum.
It’s not because you’re a right winger (or not apparently), it’s because it’s a ridiculous hypothetical that is posed for the sole purpose of killing an argument without a response by posing an extreme example that no sane human being would agree with, akin to my similarly ridiculous questions. Save the big words, I’m not in highschool and you aren’t impressing me. Will you answer each of my silly questions with “logical consistency, empirical adequacy, and experiential relevance” if I answer yours? (please don’t, they’re stupid)
I believe that a ball of cells completely dependent on another human being for life is not equal to an intelligent, independant, down-on-their-luck human being. Apples and oranges. Can you think of any other situation where we demand a person sustain another human being against their will? Just my opinion, yes. That is my answer.
Yea, I’d be more impressed if you would apply those words rather than merely understand the meaning of them. Proposing counterexamples and hypotheticals are utilized often to show the lack of consistency and logic within a position. If a position is not logical or consistent, one shouldn’t believe it. Defining personhood is tricky (it’s the job of theology, science, and philosophy) but one thing is for sure, what is within the womb isn’t merely a lump of cells akin much to what blows off your arm when the wind picks up. At conception, there is a union of egg and sperm; the unborn is a zygote. This is a fundamental and radical break. Two things become one. The only thing needed is time, food, water, shelter, and oxygen to survive. The zygote is by nature a person. Not a potential person, but a person that will one day possess experiences, thoughts, beliefs, and everything else associated with life. It is a distinct entity with its own genetic code, and early on in the pregnancy, it has its own heart and circulatory system. Therefore, the fetus is technically not part of the woman’s body. To say its part of the woman’s body so she can do whatever she pleases with it confuses the fetus being attached to the woman carrying it and being a part of the woman carrying it. We do not decide whether someone is a person based upon their ability to survive on their own. Someone who is in a vegetative state cannot survive on their own without human care and sometimes the use of machines. Are we to conclude that they’re not persons? The problem with saying it’s not a person until it can exist apart from the mother is anyone can be placed in an environment where viability isn’t possible. What about young children, the mentally handicapped, or those within a comatose state? They cannot exist without the physical help from another individual. I see no good reason to believe that position. The argument goes as follows: If a fetus is a person (p), then killing a fetus is murder (q). The fetus is a person (p). Therefore, killing a person is wrong (q).
What if I granted it wasn’t a person (which I don’t believe). Guess what? I’d still think it’s wrong for other reasons. What makes killing the fetus wrong is that the fetus, under certain conditions (time, food, water, shelter, etc.), will have a future, a future as a human being. It shouldn’t have to be written but humans produce other human beings. Don Marquis writes, “What primarily makes killing
wrong is neither its effect on the murderer nor its effect on the victim’s friends and relatives, but its effect on the victim. The loss of one’s life is one of the greatest losses one can suffer. The loss of one’s life deprives one of all the experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments which would otherwise have constituted one’s future. Therefore, killing someone is wrong, primarily because the killing inflicts (one of) the greatest possible losses on the victim…The effect of the loss of my biological life is the loss to me of all those activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments which would otherwise have constituted my future personal life. These activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments are either valuable for their own sakes or are means to something else that is valuable for its own sake. Some parts of my future are not valued by me now, but will come to be valued by me as I grow older and as my values and capacities change. When I am killed, I am deprived both of what I now value which would have been part of my future personal life, but also what I would come to value. Therefore, when I die, I am deprived of all of the value of my future. Inflicting this loss on me is ultimately what makes killing me wrong. This being the case, it would seem that what makes killing any adult human being prima facie seriously wrong is the loss of his other future.” Abortion is easily recognized to be the loss of a future for a fetus. This is absolutely an attack and assailment for someone. The argument goes as follows: A future life is of immense value for a human being. Killing someone deprives another of a valuable future life which is wrong. A fetus through abortion is deprived of a future life. Therefore, abortion is wrong. It’s airtight and true. If you want to read more, his paper can be found online ( http://faculty.polytechnic.org/gfeldmeth/45.marquis.pdf).
Regardless of Marquis’ great article, I believe what’s in the womb is a person. Conception is the best option for the timeframe for all the other options have defeators that are both apparent and agreed upon by philosophers (birth, viability, quickening, appearance, pain reception, brain activity, etc.). You asked if I could I think of any other situation where we demand a person sustain another human being against their will? You asked me for a hypothetical andnd I have an answer. Conjoined twins. Occasionally, a conjoined twin couldn’t survive on its own if he or she was to be detached from the other. Sometimes one twin literally shares the life giving organs with another that could survive without the conjoinment. We would not allow twin that could survive of its own the so called “right” to kill the other half because it is limiting their freedom. That one twin didn’t ask to be attached. It occurred as a result of someone else’s actions (much like pregnancy huh?). You’re going to disagree with my counter example because it does not help your position, but suffice it to say, your question did not fall to the ground without answer. You also mention intelligence, independence, and emotion (being down on their luck) as part of your statement about how a fetus us not the same thing as a person. The question I want to know, do you honestly think one has to possess those qualities to be a person? The answer is no. Those in a vegetative state or those that are comatose lack independence, emotion, and intelligence. They certainly have the potential for it (much like the fetus).
I’ll spare you what God thinks of abortion. You likely have read enough of the Bible to know what he thinks about people, the defenseless, and children. And, I’m not much of a betting man, but I bet you really don’t care. I know that logic, theology, philosophy, or any talk of ethics won’t really convince you. People believe many things because solely for self-interests. Man is many times
fundamentally irrational in his reasoning if it somehow will benefit him or her. People hold to a prochoice stance because from their perspective, they’re not free unless there’s a lack of restraint. That’s destructive at best. And I’ll spare you the big words and keep the message simple- you’re wrong. The encouraging thing for me is that one day all things will be put to right. Even wrong, silly beliefs such as your own.
LGD, you’re exactly right; this is not necessarily a black and white issue for all of us. You said it yourself but you refuse to apply that same logic to those that oppose Planned Parenthood (notice I did not say “pro-life”).
I’m very opposed to many of Planned Parenthood’s current practices but that doesn’t make me Pro-Life. You might not believe this but it’s very possible to find abortion revolting and at the same time agree that it has its unfortunate but practical uses (rape, incest, medical complications, etc.). I’ll even go so far as to believe that if a woman chooses to abort her own child, she has that right. All that said, it’s ridiculous the amount of tax payer provided funding that goes to Planned Parenthood. I have take serious issue with that. As a member of the tax paying community (a shrinking community, I might add), I’m tired of financing people’s consistently poor decisions.
A woman has a right to decide what she does with her body. She also has the right to pay for it herself – not on mine or the government’s dime.
Can you fathom that viewpoint or does it not contain enough “empirical adequacy” to meet your standard of proof?
You’ve simply done what so many other here have- begged the question. If what is in the womb is a person, then a woman’s right to her body is subserviant to the person’s right to life. It really is that easy. In almost no other sphere of life do we allow a woman’s will to decide the fate of a baby. Apparently because it will be difficult, a mother gets to decide that the baby will not get to go to first grade, experience his or her first kiss, see their children grow up and go off to college, or grow old with their beloved. That’s absurd and tragic! Edmund Burke once said that all it takes for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing. Thank you for your cultural and moral complacency.
We live in a world where bad thinking exists and babies die because of that. You can imagine my frustration Rooster.
Does this mean that Planned Parenthood will be closing their Magazine St. office? If so, thank the . I understand they deal in ugly matters but that’s no excuse for such a dirty looking building.
the idea that abortion is a safe proceedure regardless of where it is performed is questionable at best, not to mention the continuiing psychological problems long after the proceedure.
The idea that abortions will stop if they are made illegal is ignorant at best. Worked great in the drug war right? The idea that a back-alley coat hanger is as good as a trained medical professional in a sterile environment is just plain STUPID, sorry you just have me at a loss for words with your ridiculous comment.
So, following your logic here, you should feel the same way about gun control. Outlawing firearms sales of any type will only encourage more criminal/black market movement. Right?
Why do I get the feeling you will apply different logic to an issue on the other end of the political spectrum…
…because you assume the citizens are as polarized as our government. Far from the case. I am an independent, I have ideas that align with both political parties and weigh each issue individually, I don’t just align myself with whatever some party’s platform is.
To answer your question, yes, I believe outlawing guns only leaves them in the hands of criminals, so I fall on the other side of the fence on that issue. I also however believe that there are certain weapons that shouldn’t be easily purchasable at Walmart. For instance, I don’t think RPGs and sniper rifles are necessary for either hunting or self defense. They could however do a lot of harm in violent acts. The line must be drawn somewhere, not every issue is black and white, legal/illegal.
LGD – I’m glad to hear that you don’t follow the lead of our two ‘leader-less’ parties here in the US and instead choose to “weigh each issue individually.”
However, as you weigh your decision on gun control, you might want to further educate yourself on the specifics of firearm sales in this country. Show me a Wal-Mart that sells RPGs. What is it about ‘sniper rifles’ that make them so inappropriate for the general public to own? Politics and paranoia aside, the only difference between a sniper rifle and a hunting rifle is on targets humans, the other animals.
Exactly. RPGs are illegal to sell in the US. Where is the outrage about government overreach? How will we defend ourselves against government tanks when this becomes an oppressive dictatorship!?
This is exactly my point, we all accept that there needs to be a line drawn somewhere. To play devils advocate, a legal AK-47 with a 100 round drum on it could do just as much damage as (if not much more than) an illegal RPG, could it not? Sniper rifles are still legal by the way, and yes they are simply for targeting humans, we all remember the DC sniper case. Sniper rifles are scary because they make it so you can be a mile away and ambush a human being, assassination not terrorism/crime. Artillery is illegal too, should it not be? I think everyone would agree citizens shouldn’t be allowed to own tanks, howitzers, and stealth bombers (if one had the money). All that being said, I have no problem with assault rifles, I remain of the opinion that sniper rifles however shouldn’t be legal. The argument is where the line is drawn, not an absolutist all-or-nothing. We’re way off topic though…
Way off topic or not, your logic is all over the place. If you’re trying to argue that it’s wrong for people to be upset with government control of some things but not others, you’re wrong here.
Is there a difference between a RPG and a legal AK-47 with a 100 round drum? Yes. The fact that you think there isn’t is indicative of your lack of knowledge on the subject. An RPG is a rocket propelled shape charge. It can not only kill hundreds in a crowd with one shot, it can pierce almost any armored vehicle (or thick wall) given the right trajectory. A legal AK-47 is a semi-automatic weapon; this means it would take the shooter minutes to fire all 100 of his rounds, not to mention taking aim at a different target each time.
Secondly, you miss my point about the sniper rifle. A sniper rifle and a hunting rifle are the exact same thing. Same ammunition, same optics, same manufactures, same skill required to shoot. Again, the only difference is the individual behind the trigger. A sniper rifle is not a ‘type’ of weapon but a way in which a weapon is used.
My point in explaining the exact details is twofold:
1.) An RPG is a terribly lethal explosive weapon. It has absolutely no civic use whatsoever. A semi-automatic weapon can be used in protecting one’s home or reasonably “bearing arms.”
2.) You don’t know the facts. If you took the time to learn and understand the facts, you wouldn’t be so likely to post mindless nonsense on message boards.
Your flawed argument is called a ‘slippery slope.’ You can point out gray areas all day long but it doesn’t prove anything. It also doesn’t provide any solutions. Mature your comments and stop acting like a college freshman who just finished his first day of philosophy class.
Two thoughts on this.
First, going through a pregnancy isn’t necessarily an easy thing to do. And if something goes terribly wrong and the mother’s life is seriously threatened by continuing the pregnancy, some hospitals refuse to terminate the pregnancy no matter what the woman wants or what her doctor recommends. So the mother is sacrificed.
Second, I’m sure some women may question their decision to have an abortion. I’m equally sure some women don’t regret it, and that others question the decision to continue the pregnancy.
Sad that so many people ignore the people that can’t defend themselves…the babies. They should look at photos online of these “procedures.” If you can honestly look at photos of aborted babies & say it is still NOT wrong, you need to look in the mirror & have a discussion with the Lord.
It’s intellectually dishonest to equate all abortion procedures with the so called “partial-birth abortion” or late-term abortion. But then, fear and repetition make a powerful statement in our society…
And if you saw how chicken nuggets were made you’d be vegan. If you saw the conditions in which that iPhone was made, you’d be a technophobe. Which lord, by the way? One of the 2000 “wrong” ones currently worshiped across the globe or the “right” one that was chosen for you? The bible is clear on abortion by the way, just need a priest to perform it… Numbers 5: 11-31
So you are saying you would rather be ignorant? Smart comment. But seeing you are an atheist, murder can’t be wrong to you bc we are all just animals. That chicken for the nugget & a human are the same to you, right?
Your commentary is an embarrassment to others who call themselves Christians. You aren’t winning any converts with your arrogance and ignorance.
Well if I see you eating a chicken nugget and talking on your iphone one day, I’ll know that all your talk is just that. Typical, hypocritical do as i say not as i do. Now that you are no longer ignorant will you change your lifestyle? Try to live a completely cruelty-free life, good luck not using medicine, topical treatments, and anything produced in Asia (hint, don’t shop at Walmart anymore).
And don’t knock atheists. If we removed all atheists from the planet we’d lose about 97% of the Academy of the Science and only about 1% of the prison population.
By the way, that computer you used to type your response was invented by a gay atheist, Alan Turing.
Another great article. Sad that the local Christians are often brainwashed at a young age and cannot see that the pregnancy and the ability to plan a family is an important human right. Sad also that they use the terms like murder to scare and terrorize young careless girls into having babies they are not prepared to support, raise or educate.
These brainwashed religious types make me think that there should be a minimum legal age for any religious brainwashing. Imagine how fast the Vatican would fold and how the Israelis and Arabs would somehow get along if no one on earth was legally allowed to brainwash any person with foolish religious dogma that is under the age of say 15.
Imagine if Everyone would have to respect each other and the rules would be limited to those we learned in kindergarden. Do not hurt people, do not lie, do not cheat and do not steal.
It’s interesting to see how the ultra-conservatives react to the realization of just how much they have agree with Muslims.
“Realization” would require sustained thought.
Interesting that in the Eastern world where a woman has no real rights – seems to fall right in line with the modern US conservative Christian practice of the denial of women in having a say in planning their own parenthood.
It is unfortunate that neither this article nor the quotes from the individual who organized the protest in support of Planned Parenthood point out that providing abortions is a relatively small part of what PP actually does. By providing education, contraception, and certain specific healthcare for women, it is quite apparent that PP actually may reduce the need for abortion. We shouldn’t accept the dishonest claim of the conservatives who claim that PP = Abortion. Remember the words of Jon Kyl’s campaign when walking back his blatant lies about Planned Parenthood: they were “NOT intended to be a factual statement!”
A case can be made that the SS reduced murders of Jews bc by causing less Jews in the world, they reduced future murder of them. Good logic.
Aww yay, way to go beat everyone else to the Nazi comparison. Familiar with Godwin’s law?
That’s remarkable that you are going to criticize someone else’s logic when you lay a turd like that out for everyone to see. Nice going!
I was using an absurdity (Godwin’s Law) to point out the idiocy in your argument. You promote killing of innocent babies. Pretty simple.
“You promote killing of babies.” That’s an outright lie. Pretty simple. If you go back to my original post I promoted education and contraception. It’s really quite telling that you, Kurt Buchert, are so quick to judge others and tell them to “have a chat with the Lord” while you run around spreading false witness. Or I guess the 9th commandment doesn’t matter to you when you are spreading your political ideology.
The only useful information gleaned from your posts here (ie your Nazi reference) is that you are deliberately ignorant and arrogantly self righteous. I hope for your sake that you don’t use your real name on here, promoting that kind of stupidity. I certainly wouldn’t hire you.
Well said Craig! They hypocrisy of that flows from the mouths of “Christians” like Kurt Buchert is disgusting. The way people spread hatred and lies in the name of religion is abhorrent.
Um. Its there in Paragraph numero 10.
You, Will McGrew, are an admirable young man.. with an equally admirable mom , that raised you to be such.
The most notable speaker was when Abby Johnson, a former director of Plan Parenthood (another woman). She told of her experience one day when they were short on staff and she had to assist with an abortion. She watched the ultrasound in horror as the thirteen week old baby squirmed and struggle to survive. She and all directors continued to get pressure to increase their quotas of abortion. The fact is abortion is Plan Parenthood’s big money maker and they are in the process of converting all of the clinics to abortion facilities.
My daughter Eva – a rising Ben Franklin Senior- and I attended this event together. She invited me. Thank you for your fair, unbiased and honest reporting on this event. As a parent sometimes the hardest part about teaching your child to develop her own opinion is watching her express it. That was not the case yesterday. I am proud of Will and Eva and all the other “children” that stood for Planned Parenthood.
This is not honest reporting. I was also there Monday night to see how these things go. It was the pro-abortion crowd that were vitrolic, rude, and outlandish. The article gives the impression that there was a civil discussion and demeanor where thoughtful individuals on the prochoice side merely shared facts. That was most certainly not the case. There were some older women who were respectful but, for the most part, all the college students were absolutely childish. There really is a lot of talking back and forth between the two groups without much understanding. The pro-abortion group’s signs largely trumpeted the following statements: no man has the right to tell a woman what to do with her body, my body= my choice, women need healthcare, we won’t go back to using clothes hangers, etc. The general position was one of freedom and choice. “No one has the right to _____________. After all, this is America.” This of course was yelled; not softly spoken. I saw a bunch of women afraid and upset over the prospect of losing free or cheap pregnancy and STD care. The pro-life advocates held signs saying the following: no one has the right to murder, killing children is wrong, children are a gift from God, Planned Parenthood= more dead babies, abortion is violent, etc. Their position was one of morality. “It is wrong to take the life of _________ because life is a precious gift of God.” One group focused on freedom and oppression while the other focused on morality and social goods.
The pro-choice crowd has a really hard time understanding that this, while influenced by religion, is not solely a religion debate. I’ll admit, this likely isn’t helped by people walking around with rugs that have a picture of the Virgin Mary on it or gigantic crucifixes with a creepy looking Jesus hanging half-dead from it (he’s not dead). The perception may be in some sense founded. But nevertheless, this isn’t merely a group of people forcing their religion on someone. I heard one young women yell about the separation of church and state and how the prolife crowd isn’t following it. “Keep your religion out of my $%^&*!” Comments and signs baring such rhetoric were common. The problem is that, while religion plays a large role concerning morality, one does not have to be religious to affirm the immorality of killing a baby. That’s simply a matter of ethics. Furthermore, it seems somewhat intolerant to tell people they must leave at the door a fundamental part of who they are. “You can have an opinion as long as it does not contain religious or moral implications for other people.” The moral have no less a right to say something is wrong anymore than the prochoice advocate has the right to say “it’s wrong for you to force your morality on another.” It needs also to be said that no one in the prolife crowd hates women or wants to see women suffer without healthcare. That’s an easily burned straw man. The issue is about the gradations of good and ethics of killing a part of the human race. It is good for a woman to have a right to her own body. It’s better for women to not murder a part of the human race. Our rights end where others’ begin. Such incorrigible facts are apparently taken for granted in our day and age.
Many of the proabortion ladies pointed out that the most prolife countries on the planet were also the most oppressive to women: Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq. The problem I have with the linkage is those countries really aren’t prolife in any meaningful sense of the word. The prolife stance is one where one values the sanctity, dignity, and loveliness of life in such a way that we actively seek to extend the wholeness and happiness of all invited to such a feast. Everyone agrees women are oppressed in those countries. There are stories of women being stoned for wearing loose clothing, hands being cut off because someone stole bread to feed their family, and a host of other human rights violations. Our problem is that the abortionist is more in line with the Islamic fascists than the prolifer. Only one side believes it’s a right to pluck a child out of the womb. J. Budziszewski writes, “It is hard to see why people should object to a world in which babies are cut out of their mother’s wombs with daggers, but not one in which mothers invite daggers into their wombs so that their babies may be cut out.”
Many of the ladies pointed out much of the good Planned Parenthood is involved with. They sought to make the debate about the right to healthcare. I can admit with a pure heart, Planned Parenthood does some good. The problem though is the amount of abortions they do perform instead of advocating other avenues of services. They perform 145 abortions for every 1 adoption referral. In NOLA, all other women’s health services Planned Parenthood may offer are readily available elsewhere. In 2011 alone, they aborted 333, 964 babies. That’s over 900 a day. I don’t deny that they offer some services that are helpful to women. My fundamental issue with the nonprofit is the number of abortions they perform. Contraceptive services dropped by 8% and cancer prevention services dropped by 35% while abortion services increased by 26%. For someone who is convinced from revelation, reason, and rigorous scientific evidence that what is in the womb is a person, this is a cause for concern.
There were two sides represented at the event. Jewel Bush, your bias is showing. Why not cover the whole story and ask the prolifers some questions? It’s writing like this that makes folks lose faith in the media. Someone referred to this writing as “fair, unbiased, and honest reporting.” I’m going to assume that the lady who wrote that has never known such a piece of reporting because this is in no way an example of that. Do better next time.
For the record, NO ONE is pro-abortion. Frankly, everyone is pro-life, pro-life for children who are wanted and going to be loved and accepted into a family that is ready for them. The term pro-abortion makes me sick. As a pro-choicer, learn how to coin the movement before you bash it.
You’re playing a semantic game. You can choose to call the pro-abortion/prochoice position whatever you want but, in the end, the babies are still dead. Everyone within the debate knows what it means to be pro-choice (the choice to terminate the pregnancy). Furthermore, anyone that knows the history of abortion in this country will readily understand why the pro-abortion constituency intentionally utilized the language of choice instead of abortion. It was an attempt to make the position more palpable to the middle-of-the-road folks.
So from your comment, apparently what determines the value of life is the quality of life. I’ve noted this above as absurd in an earlier comment. It also needs to be stated that the right to choose, as sacred as it may be, does not carry with it the arbitrary right to destroy human life. This is as much a miscarriage of justice as it is a miscarriage of a human baby. I’m glad the term “pro-abortion” makes you sick. The reality also makes me nauseas as well.
I’m not sure about your population growth opinion although I get the idea that less productive (younger) members of society means less benefit for the older retired generation which are dependent on them. I also know that we’ve surpassed the point globally that the earth can sustain the human population, relatively recently, and our nations ability to keep jobs for college grads is abismal. I don’t believe we can just continue growing exponentially forever, but I digress. Maybe we need to refund NASA so we can colonize other planets.
I understand your assessment of it being a simple case of deontology vs consequentialism. I simply find myself relying more on an analysis of the latter when making decisions. As you said, kill 1 to save 100? Crazy decision, but one that has been made before. The free thinking individual – free of superstition – to me should always be considering the repercussions of their choices as the prime criteria for making a decision.
Is it moral to not kill the one and let 100 die? what about 1000? Is their blood not equally on your hands? If you save a kid from being raised in an abusive household who would otherwise go on to abuse their children or become a career criminal and eventual ward of the state, are you not saving from harm those secondary kids and crime victims? This philosophical argument can be played out ad naseum, I’ll just stop now. Agree to disagree?
The truth is this is not my reasoning for being pro-choice. There is a reason it isn’t called pro-abortion, but pro-choice. I simply don’t believe it is my – or anyone else’s – place to make what is presumably the most difficult decision a woman will ever make, for her.
It is mindboggling that the author hears the 3% quote, and then actually uses the 3% quote in an editorial.
The use of this 3% statistic (abortion is 3% of what PP does) is egregiously used to make it seem that abortion is not that big of a deal and barely a blip on the radar.
Simple analogy.
McDonald’s offer of french fries is just 3% of what they do as an organization.
Probably true, right? They offer 30+ menu items, they also: Hire, franchise, train, run charitable events, build, advertize, sponsor, offer benefits, manage inventories, organize corporate functions, and on and on and on and on…
So plausibly, the offer of french fries is simply just 3% of what they do as an occurrence.
But as a % of their “business”? of revenues? of physically required activity? It’s a HUGE % of what they do.
Complete pseudo-intellectualism to offer the PP 3% statistic of abortions.
Before accusing others of pseudo-intellectualism, you should make sure you have your facts. Take a look at Planned Parenthood’s Annual Report (pages 4-5): http://issuu.com/actionfund/docs/ppfa_ar_2012_121812_vf/5
The 3% number comes from the amount of procedures performed. This does not include hiring, franchising, and the other items you describe.
Now obviously “HUGE” % of revenues is not a real number, so why don’t you share what that number is?
Assumptions, as far as the eye can see. “Pseudo-intellectualism” indeed. Do you know for a fact that their 3% number includes unrelated business activities such as hiring and cleaning? How exactly does one quantify hiring, franchising, training, running charitable events, etc. in the same statistical analysis as french fry sales? How is french fry sales exactly 3% when considering these other non-sales business functions? Your analogy -not a metaphor- is what is attempting to make something seem to be what it isn’t. It’s made up, and based upon complete assumptions to fit your steadfast opinion. Pseudo-intellectualism indeed, appealing to the unintelligent reader to accept as a perfect analogy. Do you expect to convert the pro-choice crowd with these made up numbers? Is their business model the shocker we’re supposed to find unacceptable?
The 3% abortion statistic is in terms of what services people come into a planned parenthood to receive. Something that is actually quantifiable, comparable. It doesn’t include the time they spend cleaning the bathrooms, paying the utilities, and dusting the file cabinets as you would want us to believe with your ridiculous analogy.
Regardless, your point has no merit because you act as if it is this magical number that matters, as if there is a certain threshold percentage that would be acceptable to you. Would you be OK with it if it was less than 1%? I think not. You just don’t like abortion regardless, say it like you mean it.
I attended this rally and I can’t believe this is the best Uptown Messenger can do on reporting on this event. How is it that the Uptown Messenger reporter only came away with this slanted and biased article? There was at least 10 pro-life supporters to every pro-abortion supporter. Why wasn’t one pro-life supporter interviewed for this article? Is Uptown Messenger a pro-abortion news outlet or are you going to do another article explaining and educating people on the other side issue?
This article failed miserable to explain both sides of the issue. Will you be doing another article educating your readers on Pro-Life supporters beliefs?
Great job Will! So wonderful to see a young man standing up for what he believes.
As a side, can all the anti-choicer’s please refrain from using pro-abortion? No pro-choicer’s are pro-abortion. I don’t think ANYONE is pro-abortion. For the most part, in fact, we are all pro-life, when that life is wanted and able to be taken care of and loved. Please stop clinging on to this word “pro-abortion” to make your argument sound better when it sounds about as disgusting as those fake photos you all get from the same website of “aborted fetus'”. Do a tiny bit more research and you’ll find them to be false, exaggerated and a sickening display of your movement.