Comment by Forrest Curo on 4th mo. 2, 2011 at 11:52pm

The techniques of protest can be used for good causes-- and for bad ones, such as promoting the criminalization of abortion. Different situations can render such techniques effective or ineffective.

 

Being downtown by the major offramp on a cold & windy corner, with peace signs early Tuesday mornings... used to get us a few nasty gestures & incoherent remarks... but mostly we ran into people who said that seeing us out there made them feel better, more hopeful. These didn't find time to join us on their way to jobs, and the war went on, became wars, kept going on... The System is quite out of control, you know-- I mean it's not possible to change it, either for us or for the people "in charge".

 

Just monkey behavior, don't take it so serious! When two monkeys come together in  a place with one banana... they could fight & bite & maybe do serious harm to both themselves... but what's likely to happen is that one will take the banana and the other will let it go.

 

Now if the less-dominant monkey feels like making a challenge of it, you have something like a protest. He huffs himself up maybe 2X actual size, while the dominant monkey looms at him. And as before, one of them gets the banana, with a little bit of fuss and no teethmarks on anybody. It's not a bad practice; it just doesn't guarantee either peace, justice, or any concessions from boss monkeys.

 

And sometimes, it just comes down to "A person's gotta do what a person's gotta do." They know they aren't going to actually stop a war... but they don't expect and can't bring themselves to try to stop it violently, and they can't just let it happen unopposed. "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God."

 

Or they've lived under a government that's been disappearing their friends and family, where nobody is really safe from organized, institutional bullies with real, violent weapons. Maybe the price of food has been driven up by speculation in richer countries, so that they can't afford to eat. And they try to change things, knowing that some of them will suffer violence and maybe die-- but not wanting to make the situation any more violent than it already is, than it has been (under the table) for years.

 

Who's taking sides with the bullies here, my friend?

Comment by Rickey D. Whetstone on 4th mo. 5, 2011 at 11:17pm

Forrest

I had an employee that was not married.  We worked together on many projects. He worked for me about two years.   We saw eye to eye on 99 percent of the subjects that came up in everyday working environment.   He just happened to be working for me . . . when I was suckered into the public demonstration against abortion.

 He was for abortion . . . and we always had a very civil discussion on any subject.   I told him that he was brainwashed into accepting abortion by the public school system and that . . . the first day he would become a father  . . . his ideals would change.  Well . . . I saw him several years later at a restaurant . . .  he was so focused on his one year old son . . .  he was constantly kissing the kid . . . .  and I knew his ideals  on abortion had changed . . . without even talking to him.  Love always wins.   

Comment by Forrest Curo on 4th mo. 6, 2011 at 12:28am

It is not an issue of being "for" abortion. The actual question being debated is whether the law should hound women who are seeking one and people providing that service. The law did so, in my day, and the results included many unwanted kids and many dead young women.

 

Sometimes, of course-- quite often in the first few months-- miscarriages happen naturally. Sometimes recognized as such, more typically not-- usually rejected by a woman's body for genetic abnormalities. It may not be a problem for God; since it's never been my decision I haven't asked about that.

 

Adopting a baby... whom the mother really could not have raised... has connected me with one very lovable young man. But not a happy one. When circumstances, and the particular people involved, are too unsuitable, the life you're getting someone into can be a hard one. His actual mother should never have been faced with such a choice, but the world is like that, you know.

 

People think of laws... as if they simply prevented whatever they forbid. But generally they seem just to screw up people's lives a little more than said people might have done on their own.

Comment by Rickey D. Whetstone on 4th mo. 6, 2011 at 9:29am

Anyone who swallowed the lie . . . about too many unwanted children and thousands of back alley deaths in the world . . .  will never see the shortage of adoptable children . . . most childless  couples have to adopt from overseas countries because . . . there is a shortage of available children and the cause is . . . the service provided . . . as you have stated.

Comment by Forrest Curo on 4th mo. 6, 2011 at 1:38pm

Huh? I don't think I include all that many lies in my diet... although I get offered enough of them.

 

I don't believe in your "shortage of adoptable children." I've known too many adopted people who spend half their lives wondering who they "really" are, where they belong, who's their 'real' mother and why did she leave them to the care of strangers.

 

I myself had pretty much resigned myself to staying married to the wrong woman... and knew how much she wanted a kid, despite the physical obstacles. I didn't know how strongly we differed on how kids should be raised, but I thought the two of us got along okay (aside from the tv I had to get away from) until we'd finished adopting this baby-- when I got the little talk about "Forrest, we really don't have much in common..." So I escaped and he got raised "normal," by two mothers and a tv set-- and while he's turned out a pretty good person, he hasn't had an easy time of it. When he started a small 'heavy metal' band a decade or so ago, they called it 'Forced Life'.

 

I'm not saying that aborting the bit of tissue that gave rise to him would have been better. If God wanted him born, that would happen one way or another. But the woman who'd needed to live here as "an illegal", with all the privations and stresses that imposed, whom we later drove to LA so she could get back to her sweatshop.... She had to go through 9 months of pregnancy, the risks of giving birth, then the loss of the baby she'd carried and delivered. And she should have had that choice... along with the possibility of a life that might have had room for him.

 

When we allow a humane life for people after birth... talk to pregnant women--individually and sympathetically, with their consent, while listening and paying attention to how they feel about it-- about whether they should be forced to give birth. Don't send the cops to make them do it, if you want to preach about "bullies."

Comment by Laura Katherine on 4th mo. 6, 2011 at 8:15pm

Rickey, it really troubles me that you are calling "thousands of back-alley deaths" a lie. Women have died, and continue to die, in significant numbers due to the inaccessibility of safe and legal abortions. Regardless of your political and moral views of abortion, that is a simple fact that is easily verified.  You are insulting these women and degrading their lives by casually throwing around the accusation that their very existence is a "lie."

 

Furthermore, it's simply untrue to say that abortion has caused a lack of "adoptable" children in the U.S. Call your local Children's Services office if you don't believe me. I am sure that they will beg you to become a foster parent for some of the multitude of children who need such care. As a teacher I work with children in foster care and with children who have been adopted. Believe me, the problem is not a lack of children! There are many children in state custody -- too many for us to care for adequately with the limited resources and foster parents at hand.

P.S. I am a mother who wholeheartedly supports abortion rights. And my views were only strengthened by my experience of  pregnancy and motherhood.

Comment by Rickey D. Whetstone on 4th mo. 6, 2011 at 9:27pm

Laura 

I have three natural children . . . six in India  . . . more than forty in Africa.   I think I'm doing my share.  If I had the cash . . . no one would ever starve or need a bed or a roof over their head.   And I would never think of killing any human for any reason.  

I'm glad that you not my mother. 

Comment by Forrest Curo on 4th mo. 7, 2011 at 12:54am

The disagreement looks to be about: "What is 'a human'?" If 'a human' is a spirit who is or has been embodied as a conscious human being... We all agree about that part.

 

We also agree, I believe, that 1) It is not truly possible to kill such a being. And 2) we don't normally appreciate it if someone kills our body.... but 3) Sometimes, in some circumstance, we might.

 

My mother was hanging around a long time in a blind, painful, drugged body with no power to move, eat, or speak... and at 80+ her prospects of improving were not too good.... and the best my father could do for her was to make the nursing home disconnect enough tubes to let her starve. Not good, not bad, just the best we knew for her.

 

My wife says that if she gets like her mother-- with terminal dementia-- she'd want me to "just shoot me." I understand perfectly, and I don't know how I'd deal with that in fact, just have to hope it doesn't come up. My old family doctor's wife came down with a form of cancer he knew was incurable, so one night he took her and himself for a short drive in their garage. Right? Wrong? Human.

 

For normal circumstances, we agree on laws to discourage people from killing our bods without permission.

 

We don't agree as to whether a live tissue with the potential of embodying a human being... is "a human being." We do agree that that potential shouldn't be casually thrown away.

 

We see a great many people whose lives are a mess because their parents really didn't, couldn't show them a good way of expressing love--whether innately so, or due to temporary circumstances. It doesn't mean they aren't good people, or "can't love", but when they do, they can really make each other miserable. Some of us unlearn a little of that... maybe when 'it's too late' for this life, but eventually. (There's a lot of eternity to go...) But not everyone who "wants children" is going to be good for them, and adoption agencies don't have a great record for selecting candidates.  Our worker was telling me and my (ex)wife about a couple they'd approved, where the husband ended up beating the child to death. Mostly they just try to make perfectly foolproof decisions, and while they wait, the children who are supposed to benefit just get older, and older, and more and more emotionally ruined...

 

It isn't the sort of thing you're going to "solve" with simple judgments.

Comment by Laura Katherine on 4th mo. 7, 2011 at 9:46pm

Ricky, I'm simply saying that you have said some things which are untrue, and which I feel called to correct publicly in the name of integrity so that the falsehoods do not continue unchecked.

 

There is not a shortage of adoptable children in the US. That is just plain untrue, and repetition of the falsehood hurts the many children who are waiting for services.

 

Women die around the world as a direct result of  illegal abortions. It is a lie to say that they do not, and it invalidates their very real suffering.

 

Say what you will about abortion -- I am not here to argue that point -- but please, speak with integrity when you do so. Speak the truth.

Comment by Paula Deming on 4th mo. 8, 2011 at 10:59am

Rickey,

Laura speaks my mind when she asks you to speak with integrity. That also involves not deliberately insulting people with whom you disagree. Telling Laura that you are glad she is not your mother was unkind.

I hold you in the Light. Paula

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page