This holiday season, anti-[choice] activists in several states are renewing one of their favorite traditions: harassing women in front of family planning clinics with mean-spirited [Holiday] carols.
RH Reality Check reports on the antics of [Anti-Choice] Wisconsin:
Yes, for the few days leading up to [Holiday], [Anti-Choice] Wisconsin has pledged to deck the halls, or at least the sidewalks, of Wisconsin clinics with [Holiday] carols for the “empty mangers” that will exist due to [choice].
Via their website: Last year’s Empty Manger [Holiday] Caroling effort was so popular, we’re doing it again this year, and in more cities to boot! What better way to bring the joy of [Holidays] to a place where [choice] abounds?
Meanwhile, the [Anti-Choice] League’s website lists a jam-packed schedule of anti-[choice Holiday] caroling in the Chicago area. Events are also listed in Birmingham, Alabama, and several California cities.
In the true spirit of the holidays, women who need help from reproductive clinics will now have [to] face a swarm of religious ideologues who have turned their condemnation into song for the occasion.
Please note the bracketing; do not allow the reactionaries to own the language!
Published on ThinkProgress Health By Marie Diamond on Dec 9, 2011 at 10:32 am
Always Question Authority 
Wishing you a very merry Pro Life Christmas and always hoping there will be room for you at the proverbial Inn.
Peace on Earth to men of good will. Joy to the World.
OneoftheSheep,
Until the credulous sheep wake-up, and free themselves from the ranks of the literal, limited mind, and join the ranks of the ironic, inquiring mind there will be neither Peace on Earth to men of good will, nor Joy to the World.
Reasons Greetings,
Madison
Madison, I am surprised that after the mature, respectful exchanges we had that you lowered yourself to antagonizing someone who wishes good will and peace and joy to the world. I am certain that you, too, wish nothing but peace, joy and good will to the world, do you not? If you simply say “Same to you” you remove their power to antagonize the issue. And being a believer does not necessarily make one sheep. Some people who are extremely intelligent spent many years reading, researching and searching for their personal beliefs. Just because you aren’t there with them doesn’t make them sheep. I have never seen research on or personally noticed proof of global warming, but I believe the experts… does that make me a sheep? These folks are simply believing the people that are experts in their faith. Why does that merit scorn?
Maura,
The sheep comment, though quite apropos, was derived from the commenters own “id.” The commenter was either being intentionally antagonistic, or failed to read my about page where in the second sentence of I pen “The intent of this blog is to inform readers of the vast negative social and political implications to humanity caused by the poison of specifically religious, and generally political, radical right-wing dogmatism.” I suspect the commenter to be guilty of both, and meant intended the former. I have no regrets with my comment.
Let’s be clear. I am an anti-theist, meaning not only do I not have a belief in a god or gods, but I desire to see the world eradicated of all religions. I do make my feels pretty clear in my about page, now if theists choose to make comments about their puritanical sensibilities being hurt then so be it. I am not responsible for that. If that occur, and they insist on hanging around, then they are simply trolling at that point, and I will disengage conversation.
In Reason,
Madison
Well, I don’t feel this is any longer worth discussing on this site then.I hadn’t read your site other than this post. I cannot debate with someone so completely closed minded. If you cannot live and let live you’re no better than the radical right. You may want to check out secularprolife.org if you ever feel like opening your mind a bit.
Maura,
It’s too bad you feel that way.
By the way there is no such thing as a radical right. The left has radicals, and the right has reactionaries. That is why the right keeps saying radical Islam, to somehow equate reactionary religion with the left.
Christian, White privilege in this country has had enough live and let live, and the history of religion in this world has had enough of live and let live. Calling it out for what it is is not closed minded, and comparing it to being no better than the “radical” right is once again a logical error of false equivalence.
Reasons Greetings,
Madison
MERRY CHRISTMAS! oh geez, i hope that wasn’t mean spirited. I’m so glad you noticed our presence. I joined the LA carolers this past weekend. I just want to let you know that despite what you may have engrained in your mind about pro lifers, we’re not there to harass anyone. Is it so difficult to understand that we are there to help the women make a better choice for HERSELF (research has already proven that abortion hurts women mentally, psychologically and physically– see Lanfranchi’s study on breast cancer in post abortive women, among many others) and her child? We’re not there for the money, like the clinics, doctors, clinic escorts, we’re there for the women…and we do it out of respect for ALL life.
adi,
I would love to see the documentation of the research of which you refer. Also, I don’t recall women asking for help to make better choices for themselves. You are making a big assumption that you have the better choice of which to offer.
In Reason,
Madison
here ya go: http://umanitoba.ca/news/blogs/blog/2010/04/30/news-release-abortion-linked-to-mental-illness/
and here: http://www.deveber.org/summary-womens-health-after-abortion
Of course, there are just as many studies that refute it these findings – which is why I think this is not the crux of the issue – I think the big probelm is justifying this in the face of basic human rights concerns.
Maura Cranley,
You hit the nail on the head when you penned that “this is not the crux of the issue.” I believe the crux of the issue is the amount of unwanted pregnancies. Two ways this could be lessened is through sex education and adoption. The irony of this is that the people that are so outspoken against a woman’s right to choose are the same people that are for abstinence only (a proven failure) and are producing multiple children, but adopting none. So in essence they exacerbate the problem, then fight to ensure its continuance.
In Reason,
Madison
Maura Cranley,
These are quite incomplete, and through your own admission probably have many studies that that refute it these findings; however, why would one want to go back to the day of back-alley coat hanger abortions of pre-1973 Roe vs. Wade. That really hurt women mentally, psychologically and physically. It also cost many of them their lives.
In Reason,
Madison
I respectfully disagree about the crux of the issue. The crux of the issue is whether or not it should be legal in a civil society to take another’s life because to allow it to live is an inconvenience.
I am praying my Rosary for all of you! Have a Merry Christmas and God bless!
Cadet,
I am thinking for all of you Catholics! Pray for all the amputees, and let me know how that works out for them.
Reasons Greetings,
Madison
Wow…not “live”, then what is it? Doesn’t think? A baby in utero certainly has brain activity which increases as the baby grows. Science has already proven that the fetus can feel pain afer 8 weeks. If you want to take God out of it fine, but let’s stick with what science has already proven to be true.
In love and with an “anti-choice” heart
If you are against abortion, that is fine, then don’t have an abortion, but your opposition does not give you the right to make that choice for other women. I fail to see the complexity of that concept.
In Reason,
Madison
Well, I’m also against murder, child sex and slavery – – does that mean it’s ok for everyone else and I just shouldn’t do it? Didn’t abolishonists make that choice for slave owners? Didn’t just and reasonable law makers outlaw child brides because it is the responsibility of a civil society to protect those who have less power? Outlawing the slaughter of children is simply the responsibility of a civil society in order to protect the most basic of human rights: life. If you are to argue that an unborn child is not human or not alive, that is a different matter, and one that could be ended by a embryology text book. However to over-simplify the issue as “if you don’t like it don’t do it” indicates a sincere incongruity with the rules of a civil society as a whole.
Maura Cranley,
You are likely for capital punishment also, but your arguments are false equivalents for the argument at hand, neither of which had to do with what a woman chooses to do with her body.
In Reason,
Madison
Actually, I am opposed to capital punishment – the taking of a human life is an incivil action in what is to be a civilized society. Killing is never a solution to a “problem.” I do understand that many think that what a woman does with her own body is the issue, but it isn’t the woman’s body that is being put to death – there is no part of the woman’s body (at least when an abortion goes right) that is destroyed by the procedure. Doesn’t the person being put to death have a say? A criminal sentanced to die is entitled to speak their piece. And since the person being put to death in an abortion is incapable of speaking for oneself, isn’t it incumbant on a civil society to speak on their behalf? I think that this is a basic issue of human rights – no different from that time in our very sad human history when (___fill in the blank___) were considered lesser humans and therefore simply disposed of. At one time, it was the slave owner’s right to terminate their property… and this is the same. This is a living, growing, developing human being who – according to our constitution – has inalienable rights. What that means, if you look up the term, is rights that cannot be granted nor taken by another person – rights that are theirs, simply by the fact that they exist. Therefore, the first of these rights being life – it should be granted above all other rights.
Maura Cranley,
Your being anti-choice and against capital punishment is the exception not the rule for the high majority of those of the anti-choice persuasion. I guess when all is said and done it boils down to whether one considers a fetus to be a person. Personally, I do not.
In Reason,
Madison
You are separating the issue… it doesn’t matter what people ‘think,’ only what is true. People ‘thought that African slaves, women and Jews were inferior, but that doesn’t make it so. Because a “majority” of people who oppose abortion do not quibble with Capital Punishment makes no difference to the right and wrong of taking a human life. Because you don’t believe a fetus is a person doesn’t make it true. The physical growth of a human being is on a constant, unbroken continuum depending on the passage of time since conception. You know a fetus born at 7 months has the exact same development biologically as a fetus still in utero at 7 months – so why is one afforded rights and one not? A tadpole may look different from a frog, but biologically it is the same species and genus from fertilization through full development. Likewise, from the moment of conception you have a biological homo-sapien. I can see no reason why one homo-sapian deserves more rights than any other. Because you “think” so doesn’t mean you are correct. People used to think the world was flat and the moon made of cheese. Some people “think” God created the world in 7 days.
Reblogged this on Worldsocialist1's Blog.
Well I’m sorry people but an unborn child is just that, it is not a live person, does not think and consequently has no rights. This may sound harsh but I would rather teach good birth control than have children brought into this world who are not wanted or loved from the outset and may even be ill. It’s easy to get emotional but good education from the outset is what’s required.
Supernova,
Apparently we are two birds of the same feather. We are definitely tracking concerning this matter.
In Reason,
Madison
I don’t understand why if you “don’t think” that equates to no rights. What about the new born, elderly, mentally disabled… because they “can’t think” does that mean they don’t have rights? When you start putting qualifiers on what makes people worthy of having rights you are in dangerous territory.
Maura Cranley,
You have committed the logical error of false equivalence. First of all, the primary issue is the woman’s right to choose, which has absolutely nothing to do with anyone’s opinion concerning her choice. The secondary issue is the rights of a fetus, which is where your logical error of false equivalence comes in. The newborn, elderly, mentally disabled have rights because they are considered a life. They have certificates of live birth to prove it. A fetus is not a person, and that is why it does not have a certificate of live birth to prove it. But again, that is not your, or my concern that is the mother and only the mother’s concern. If you, and I disagree with abortion, then we, and when I say we, I mean you, should not have one. It is really a none issue.
What’s more is that not only is a woman’s personal, and private right to choose to have an abortion, but it is also a legal, let me repeat that, a legal medical procedure in the United States for her to do so.
Again, if one wants to do something productive to help prevent abortions in the United States, then maybe Christians should push for public school sex education, greater access to condoms, and adopt some of the so many unwanted children instead of having little sports teams of their own.
In Reason,
Madison
Well, I am not a Christian, so what they push is of no consequence to me, and again I say that the disagreement is that the primary – inalienable right – is the right to life. The right to choose is the secondary right. One’s right to do as they wish stops where it interferes with another’s right to life.
Something ‘legal’ is immaterial in the realm of right and wrong, as my earlier examples of child brides, slavery and women’s servitude illustrates. Because something is legal doesn’t make it right. Likewise, a government document is not what makes something ‘legitimate.” Just ask all my gay friends who were ‘married’ long before they were allowed. If the government paper and laws made it “right” then how is it that in some countries a fetus IS a person – and in some countries a minority is not? The laws are irrelevant to what should be our concern: the civil existence in peace of all human beings. Regardless of their stage of life.
Maura,
I am relieved to read that you are not a Christian. I was wondering why you were so rational. You and I wholeheartedly agree on the “Something ‘legal’ is immaterial in the realm of right and wrong” concept. I feel deeply concerning the difference between what is legal and what is just. It peeves me so when the ignorant make the claim that without religion how can one be moral. Well, a better question would be with religion how could one be moral, but history has already answered that, hasn’t it? I digress, the answer is through literature, and inasmuch as legal vs. justice is concerned, “Les Miserables” comes to mind doesn’t it.
In Reason,
Madison
Are you people for real? What happened to their right to have an opinion for Gods (oops sorry!) sake?
Supernova,
Certainly people are entitled to their own opinions; however, they are not entitled to their own facts, and when their Supernatural opinions have an effect in the natural world rational persons must stand up to their irrational opinions.
In Reason,
Madison
My first thought is that maybe an empty manger would have been better. But some other made-up religion would have come along, and it might have been even worse. Oh, I’m sorry. It did, anyway. About 600 years later. There’s no winning.