Its there right to protest, so I say go on ahead and do just that.

Protesting is fine. It is not fine to bomb abortion clinics and to harass the doctors and the patients.
What doesn't make sense to me is killing people while you are protesting for "pro-life."

Richards' comments remind me of Feminists for Life, which is a group that I really agree with on a lot of issues. It is a pro-life group, but the focus of the group is on providing more resources for women who carry out unplanned pregnancies. A big part of their focus is on providing better living situations, childcare situations, etc. on college campuses. I urge all of the pro-life ladies to check it out! (Pro-choice people will probably find a lot of their work appealing, as well.)

Thanks for the info, lilkimbo!

Sarah, the people who bomb abortion clinics and harass patients comprise an incredibly small percentage of the pro-life movement.

You're welcome, kranky!

"Its there right to protest, so I say go on ahead and do just that."
second that!

I'm pro-life. I support protesting.

But my first reaction was: ACK! I wonder how this is going to affect traffic?

thanks for that info lilkimbo---I am personally tired of hearing that a pro-life person is anti woman, or that a pro life female v.p would be a step back for women! (Shame on Joe Biden for saying that)
I might join them

They're free to protest. And no, I don't see the pro-life and pro-choice movements joining together any time soon. Ain't gonna happen.

Oh man, I just made up with people in the GW Bush thread, now they have to bring up abortion?

j/k

I have an irrational dislike for protesters. I fully support their right to free speech and assembly. Heck, I go to an anti-tax protest every year. I don't get people who do it all the time. Don't they have jobs? We get the point! Please go get jobs and become responsible citizens!

It's their right to protest.
But sometimes it can go way too far...
I'm a student at the University of Oklahoma. Every year we have a pro-life group (I think called Justice for All?? Not sure so don't quote me on that!!!) come in and they set up several huge -like 18 foot- displays of aborted fetuses and fetuses at 10 weeks old that have been aborted. They are showing all the mutilation and what happens during an abortion.
They put up signs about 20 feet in front of the displays saying 'graphic images ahead' ... not nearly far enough to change your route or make sure to avoid the display if wanted. It is also in front of the library which is right in the middle of campus and I'd say that nearly 85% of the student body walks down that stretch every day.
It always incites both sides on the campus and there are always write ups in the newspaper ... This year the displays were up on November 3rd.

I am pro-choice ... just for the record.

kiki--I saw a protest like that a few weeks ago, not too far from my house. We didn't get a warning though, and a lot of the people holding up signs were, seriously, 8 or 9 years old. That was also disturbing to me. Kids that young should be out playing, not holding up those sorts of signs.

"Don't they have jobs? We get the point! Please go get jobs and become responsible citizens!"

This is the same thought I have about people who are present at celebrities' court trials. Um, you have nothing better to do than hang around a courtroom waiting to see if Britney will be acquitted?

It is surprising how antagonistic pro-life protesters can get. It really boggles my mind how they can possibly win support this way.

They have every right to protest. That is protected by the constitution. How refreshing that someone actually care about preserving LIFE

With abortion and gay marriage, we've got a culture war brewing and I'm not sure it's in the anti-choice/anti-gay marriage side's best interests to be launching it now. Their political wing is kind of splintered right now.

"do you foresee a future in which the prolife and prochoice movements work together to reduce the number of abortions?"

I didnt even notice the question!

answer: no. I wish there was a way but there isn't. It is a very touchy and sensitive subject I think more for pro-lifers! I am pro-choice but I would like to see abortion numbers go down.

and I was responding to kiki!

OMG me too kranky. maybe i'm bad, but my absolute first thought was "That's really gonna screw with my commute" LOL. But seriously, although I'm about 250% pro-choice, and they're probably going to make me late to work for 3 days, it is their right to PEACEFULLY and lawfully protest.

oh yeah- I don't think pro-life/choice can work together. It is about choice vs. life and I can't see those two coming together. NOW if we started rewording the issue better- really targeting abortion and how to reduce that maybe. To be honest, I still believe that even if provide education and resources for women so they have other options- I can't imagine coming together with anti-choice. I still believe women have a right even with all these resources to get an abortion if that is what they feel they have to do.

geebers-

I agree that pro-lifers can get antagonistic. So can pro-choicers. Actually, I think it's human nature to go overboard when you find a cause you are passionate about.

and steph - surely, you didn't think you could get anyway with the anti-choice/anti-gay statement? Are you tryin' ta start somethin'?

I dunno about the pro-choice and pro-lifers working together. I think it's possible as both sides want abortion numbers to go down.

I am going to plug lilkimbo's site again:

www.feministsforlife.org/

I think we could all agree a lot of these issues, and it would be ebenficial to both sides to work on them collectively. I really encourage people to check it out.

my uterus my choice. its not as publicly shocking as the duct tape mouth but i will fight for my right to rid things in my body like i would if it were a cancer. yes a child is not a cancer, but to some people in some situations it could be a cancer. dont start lecturing me.

Seriously Angela,

I was late to work once because their were people protesting male circumcision (Protect Sexual Integrity Now!). And boy - they were enthusiastic (about their cause, I mean). Yowzers. I had to remind myself that protesting is a GOOD thing, and I chose to live in this area.

Isn't the only compromise between the pro-life pro-choice crowds to let the states decide? Technically that would be the constitutional answer. What is constitutional *should* rise above our opinions this way or that, should it not?

Good point beavis. I've heard it argues that abortion wouldn't have been such a devisive issue if we had let the people work it out, rather than the courts.

I wish they could find a better way to work together for the betterment of women and their choices. Helping women with unplanned pregnancies is a much better use of time imo than protesting. I believe protests can work but I think people who are pro-choice, myself included, would be more apt to listen to someone talking about the programs they have created to help mother and baby (especially talking about legislation to fix the adoption/ child welfare system) instead of just trying to take away options.

But its their right to peacefully protest anytime they see fit.

Protests are fine as long as they're not violent. They should absolutely exercise their rights to free speech and assembly as much as they want. I may not agree with the protestors, but they have those rights.

Not starting anything, simple statement of fact.

steph-

Nope - I would say you stated an opinion about a particular group's strategy, not a fact.

But then, I don't belong to the anti-choice/anti-gay marriage group. They are two very different issues, you know.

I think this issue is different from the gay marriage issue in that a lot of young people are pro-life, not anti-life. However, I feel that there is a huge generational divide when it comes to gay marriage.

"Helping women with unplanned pregnancies is a much better use of time imo than protesting. "

I've said that before too...Im sure there are some out there helping but there are much more protesting. It would be great if they all just helped some of these women out!

I'm personally tired of this being a divisive issue. It's been that way since before I was born. I'm not saying it isn't important, its longevity exemplifies how important it is. I think it will continue to be that way until we compromise and let states decide.

Um stephley, it was not fact, it is your opinion and one that was wrong in regard to me at least, and many other pro lifers.

About letting the states decide, it some states ban abortion there will be a lot of complication about crossing state lines, illegal back alley abortions, etc. Look at the consequences of abortion being banned in Ireland. I see that will make this much much more sticky than it already is, and before any talks about banning anything those kind of issues should really be addressed by the pro-life side. Its along the same lines as making a poor woman have a child and then not supporting the mother and child with the services they need to thrive. The consequences should be thought about. That website is actually doing some of that and I think its great! It would be great if we could focus on lowering the number of abortions instead of banning it (and the work of pro-lifers to ban birth control, but I wouldn't get started on that)

I have never read about/heard of/seen a legitimate group that actually wants to ban birth control. To whom are you referring, mydiadem?

The Republican Party is more than a little splintered right now and any advances the anti-choice or anti-gay marriage groups hope to make will require some organized, elected, political strength.

I agree with stephley completely. It is a fact that the American culture war is often waged on the pro/anti-life/choice/whatever-you-call-it and abortion fronts, and it seems rather clear that the far right wing of the Republican Party is clearly splintering from the more socially moderate portion of it.

Pro Life America, Pharmacists for Life, just to name a few. Here is an article about what the Bush Adminstration tried to do to open to door to limit or ban access to birth control

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5421109

The Bush Administration has drafted a set of regulations that would define abortion as “any of the various procedures -- including the prescription and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action -- that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.” The regulation also would allow any employee of a healthcare provider to refuse to treat any individual receiving any services that would violate the employee’s moral beliefs.

Allowing someone to refuse to give birth control is not in any way equivalent to banning birth control. That's a jump. And birth control doesn't result in the termination of the life of a human being in utero.

And I am aware of Pro-Life America, but I certainly don't consider them a legitimate group. I don't know much about Pharmacists for Life. I will have to look them up.

'And birth control doesn't result in the termination of the life of a human being in utero.'

Not according to these groups, they see birth control pills as potentially preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg and therefore as an abortion. The proposed create a more broad definition of 'abortion. This definition would allow health-care corporations or individuals to classify many common forms of contraception — including the birth control pill, emergency contraception and IUDs — 'abortions' and therefore to refuse to provide contraception to women who need it.

This could disrupt state laws securing women's access to birth control. They could jeopardize federal programs like Medicaid and Title X that provide family-planning services to millions of women. They could even undermine state laws that ensure survivors of sexual assault and rape receive emergency contraception in hospital emergency rooms

I can't find much about them, other than their own website. But, the point I was trying to make is that the vast majority of pro-lifers do not want to ban birth control and making statements that make it seem like they do only serves to divide.

Was it Republicans that were responsible for the passing of Prop 8?

These groups may believe that, but I was referring to the quote given about the Bush administration.

And, as I have stated, these groups are fringe groups. They don't represent the mainstream pro-life movement. A pro-life friend of mine was harassed and beaten by drunk pro-choicers on campus when I was in college. (She didn't press charges, so no, I can't prove it.) Should I now say that pro-choice people are violent toward pro-life people?

Not entirely Piper, but they're the party the anti-gay marriage people will need on their side - the Dems as a party won't be. And the issue clearly isn't going to stay in California.

Focusing on the fringe groups on the other side may make us feel better about our own positions, but it does nothing to further the discussion.

What you're saying might be true of many pro-life citizens (Catholics want to ban birth control BTW, they see it as morally wrong. I don't know what percentage of the nationwide pro-life movement is Catholic, but its the majority here in PA) these steps are supported by many pro life groups and by President Bush.