You are viewing zhangster

Dave - Freedom in Jail [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Dave

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Freedom in Jail [May. 6th, 2006|01:00 pm]
Previous Entry Add to Memories Share Next Entry
I walked up to Red Square, guitar on my back, ready to play a little folk music with my friends. Then I saw them.

Graphic depictions of genocide, the Holocaust, lynchings, pictures that stabbed me in the heart. Walked a little further and realized why the signs were there. To get people riled up with hurtful images, then relate that to abortions in order to convert the uninformed.

But how could they? How dare they capitalize on the suffering of millions of people for their own cause? It was extremely inappropriate, slanderous, and disrespectful to those who have died in actual genocides, to women in difficult situations, to African Americans, to Holocaust survivors. Fetuses have not faced that kind of horror, discrimination, and torture.

The vulgar signs killed my mood and demanded my attention. I went up to the group several times, told them they can display their dead baby pictures all they want, but the other ones needed to come down. They wouldn’t listen. The fact that 4 white guys and 2 women who have never experienced abortion were out there talking about the signs angered me even more.

Hurt and rage built up like a ball of fire that engulfed my entire being. I ran, jumped over the barricade (like that will stop anyone), started taking down all the hurtful signs – genocide, holocaust, lynching, animal torture, skipping the ones that just had aborted fetuses. I didn’t know where the strength came from. I felt I was doing it for the dignity of all the people who were being misrepresented.

The crowd cheered. Hardwick kept egging me on. “You’re going to jail!” he threatened over and over again with glee. I didn’t stop till the last offensive sign was down.

“Run, David!” Someone cried. “They’re going to arrest you!”

I hugged my friends. “Take care of my guitar.”

I bolted straight into Miller Hall. Out the back door. Up Sehome, I ran until I felt safe. Hidden behind snowberries and ferns, crouching, watching police cars drive by, my eyes and ears alert. I could have stayed on Sehome all day. They would have never found me.

An hour passed. I got bored. They’re going to catch me sooner or later, and I didn’t want them coming to class or hassling my roommates. I decided to turn myself in and get things sorted out. Walked up to the trails.

“FREEZE! Hands in the air where I can see them, down on the ground, NOW!” an officer barked. I stared into a silver nozzle. Slowly, I lowered myself down. Another officer yanked my arms behind my back, cuffed them, searched me, and started dragging me off the ground.

“Excuse me, officer, you’re hurting me.” I growled. “I would like to get up on my own.” He apologized and backed off. I got up, shook my head, and started walking. We passed a big black poodle on our way down to the police car.

“You caused a lot of damage out there. $2700. That’s a felony.”

“What?! It can’t be that much.”

“That’s what they’re saying.”

He got into the front seat and drove me to jail. (down Holly, right on Bay Street, left on Grand, past the courthouse)

A man behind a glass panel took down my information. Name, address, social security, a bunch of medical questions (all of which I answered “no”). They took my wallet, keys, everything. Said I’ll get ‘em back when I get out.

I walked into what looks like a military installation—dark hallways, flat rectangular lights, thick steel doors, olive uniforms. A dude wearing leather gloves and a backwards Mariner’s cap took my mug shot and fingerprints. He’s pretty good looking. A real friendly guy. He asked how I got my hair to stick up like that. “Beeswax.” “Aren’t you scared bugs might get in?” “Bees might be a problem.”

I received my jailhouse accessories (2 blankets, 2 towels, a pair of slippers I had no use for, a paper bag containing 2 sheets of paper, 2 packets of shampoo, a tiny pencil--the kind you use for lotteries).

“Wait in here.” He locked me in a detention room.

As I sat down, legs crossed, meditating, I heard in my mind, loud and clear:

“Anger is a Prison”

and I understood why I was in there. The signs were meant to piss people off, and I played right into that trap. By acting out of anger, I blocked off other options that could’ve convinced those passionate people to take a different approach. Not only did I fail to get my point across, I gave the other side more conviction to keep on doing what they’re doing. (sigh.) Live and learn.

Another man unlocked the door and took me to my cell.

E-Block.

I got in, and

SLAM!!!

went the door behind me, echoes bouncing off the concrete everything, ominous, like your whole future is trapped inside. (So that’s why they call it the slammer.)

Black paint peeling off the walls like scabs. In a corner, someone scrawled “To hell and back.” Others have scribbled their initials or drew crosses.

The windows were all frosted except for a tiny thin line you can peer through to the outside world. A sliver of hope, reminding you where you are, and where you’d rather be.

Soon the other guys came back from the rec yard. Asked me what I was in for. “Malicious mischief, first degree.” I gave a detailed account of my battle with the signs. “You did the right thing man, tearing that shit down. I wouldn’t want my daughter seeing that.” I got a lot of respect from everyone there. Some inmates offered me legal advice, which I gladly accepted.

I found a book (“The shipping news.” By Annie Proux). Sat down near the phones and started reading. I’d hear fragments of conversations:

“---I love you, baby. We’ve been married for eight years, you know.”

I tried to read, but can’t concentrate. My mind keeps going back to the incident.

“---I’ll be out soon. 10 more days, they said.”

I’d look up now and then. Guys were sitting around, pacing, talking, pacing playing cards, pacing, back and forth, back and forth like lions inside a cage.

“---Can you take care of my dog?”

That night, lying on a plastic mattress in my cell, eyes closed, hands over my heart, I forgave the anti-abortion people, the police, and myself. I prayed for the best possible outcome for all parties. I saw light and felt warmth emanating from my chest, spreading out like wings, transforming my anger into forgiveness, compassion, and peace. All my worries left, and right there in that cell, I was free. More free than I’d ever been.
linkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: aricaiu
2006-05-06 09:01 pm (UTC)

(Link)

David,

Thank you for sharing. I'm so glad to hear what happened in your own words, and it was good seeing you last night at the dance. I hope you had fun!

Would you mind if I linked to this post on my blog? (A lot of non-Western people read it, and I don't know if you want the traffic on your LJ.)

-Ariel
[User Picture]From: zhangster
2006-05-07 03:35 am (UTC)

(Link)

feel free to link it if you want.
:)
[User Picture]From: velveteen
2006-05-06 11:13 pm (UTC)

(Link)

At the very least, you got encouragement that the comparison of abortion to Holocaust victims is waaay outside the mainstream.

Way to break the mold, though, even if it was an angry action. Sometimes we have to use those emotions as tools, no?
[User Picture]From: cari_lynn
2006-05-07 01:01 am (UTC)

(Link)

yay david!! good post. my cousin read it and she likes it too.
From: (Anonymous)
2006-05-09 11:24 pm (UTC)

Tolerance, not violence

(Link)

Dave,
Instead of violently attacking those with whom you disagree, why not refute their arguments?

Scott Klusendorf
www.prolifetraining.com
From: (Anonymous)
2006-05-10 02:58 am (UTC)

First Ammendment?

(Link)

David,

I've heard a rumor that you are an avid proponent of exercising one's right to free speech, and that this is a common theme of your Underground Coffee House debuts. Is this true? If so, do you find any irony in your actions?
[User Picture]From: zhangster
2006-05-10 06:02 am (UTC)

Re: First Ammendment?

(Link)

k, a little more background.

i have a friend who recently went to Kosovo as part of an international team to verify that a genocide happened there. He brought back pictures and videos and showed them to me. I was very disturbed and saddened, and those images have stayed with me to this day.

When I saw the signs in Red Square, comparing genocide to abortion, I was very upset that someone would use genocide in such a way. Abortion is no where near as horrific as genocide, and it was very disrespectful to the people who died in Rwanda and the Holocaust to be compared to aborted fetuses in America. Fetuses have not been hated and systemically targeted by acts of brutality and torture.

my action against the signs was an expression of the pain and anger i felt, rooted in feelings of sympathy i have for victims of ethnic violence. my reaction to the signs were honest. i allowed my anger to overpower my rational mind, and i realize that it's something i need to work on.

while i do support free speech, i think people should be considerate when they exersize this great freedom. freedom comes with responsibility. it is irresponsible to provoke people's emotions with images out of context.

i have never talked about free speech in particular in any of my performances at the Underground. i strongly support the right for people to express their truths however they wish, but i also encourage people to love and respect one another and have sympathy for people with difficult lives. i would say that the most common theme i focus on is compassion.
From: (Anonymous)
2006-05-10 12:10 pm (UTC)

Re: First Ammendment?

(Link)

Dave,
I realize that some may object to these pictures on the grounds that they substitute emotion for reason and therefore should not be used in public debate. But this objection misses the point entirely. The question is not, Are the pictures emotional? They are. The real question is, Are the pictures true? If so, they ought to be admitted as evidence. We ought to avoid empty appeals to emotion, those offered in place of good reasons. If, however, the pictures substantiate the reasons pro-lifers offer and do not obscure them, they serve a vital purpose. Truth is the issue.

This is precisely the point feminist (and abortion advocate) Naomi Wolf makes in a New Republic article:

"The pro-choice movement often treats with contempt the pro-lifers' practice of holding up to our faces their disturbing graphics....[But] how can we charge that it is vile and repulsive for pro-lifers to brandish vile and repulsive images if the images are real? To insist that truth is in poor taste is the very height of hypocrisy. Besides, if these images are often the facts of the matter, and if we then claim that it is offensive for pro-choice women to be confronted with them, then we are making the judgment that women are too inherently weak to face a truth about which they have to make a grave decision. This view is unworthy of feminism."

Borttom line: If abortion advocates are correct that abortion is no big deal, why are they so bothered by the pics? They can't have it both ways.

Scott Klusendorf
www.prolifetraining.com
[User Picture]From: zhangster
2006-05-10 04:57 pm (UTC)

Re: First Ammendment?

(Link)

scott, i did not have any objections to the pictures of aborted fetuses. i was told they are displayed with permission from the women who aborted them. i would not have minded at all if all they had was dead baby pictures.

i explained in my story why the other pics were disrespectful and hurtful, and the emotions they brought out in me.

let's take a look at the statement you made. you claimed that i was "violently attacking those with whom i disagree." this statement makes it seem like i would attack people who have disagreements with me, and that i was a violent person incapable of having reasonable arguments.

now, in reply to your statement, i could say that you are "stretching the truth for emotional effect in order to persuade people," or i could say that what you said was "a vicious attack on my character in an attempt to villify and dehumanize me."

people would react very differently to the above statements. first statement would garner a rational debate, where as the second statement would cause people to react emotionally, perhaps with anger.
From: (Anonymous)
2006-05-10 01:47 pm (UTC)

Re: First Ammendment?

(Link)

Dave,
You write: "Abortion is no where near as horrific as genocide, and it was very disrespectful to the people who died in Rwanda and the Holocaust to be compared to aborted fetuses in America."

Your reply here is question-begging. It only works if you assume, without argument, that the unborn are not human beings. But you need to argue for that with facts and evidence, not merely assert it.

So what's your evidence?
[User Picture]From: zhangster
2006-05-10 05:06 pm (UTC)

Re: First Ammendment?

(Link)

i could make the assumption that fetuses are not yet alive because they're not breathing, based on the fact that when we stop breathing, we die.

however, i make no such assumption that aborted fetuses are not human beings. i make the assumption that aborted fetuses--let's call them baby human beings, why not-- have not experienced the torment and suffering the other people have experienced, some for years and years. it is unreasonable to compare the two experiences (abortion and genocide), and makes light of the suffering of other people.
From: (Anonymous)
2006-05-10 08:13 pm (UTC)

Re: First Ammendment?

(Link)

In your comment, you grant that the fetus is indeed a "baby human being." How do you justify denying them the rights that all other baby human beings enjoy (life, protection, etc.)? Why is it permissible to kill some baby human beings, but not others?

Since we agree that the fetus is a human being, that means 1.37 million innocent human beings are killed in America each year by abortion. Webster's New World Encyclopedia, Prentice Hall General Reference, 1992, defines "genocide" as "The deliberate and systematic destruction of a national, racial, religious, political, cultural, ethnic, or other group defined by the exterminators as undesirable." That definition readily applies to abortion. The "national group" is American "unwanted" unborn children (baby human beings) and they are now being destroyed at the rate of nearly 1 out of every 3 conceived. They are being terminated in an elaborate network of killing centers.

Illustrating the connection between abortion and genocide does not "make light of the suffering of other people." Rather, it elevates the grave injustice of abortion (viewed by many Americans as a choice and a 'right') and places it in its proper context. Abortion is genocide.

To read more about why this is so, visit http://www.abortionno.com/Resources/abortion.html

-Tom
From: (Anonymous)
2006-05-10 10:13 pm (UTC)

Re: First Ammendment?

(Link)

"i make the assumption that aborted fetuses--let's call them baby human beings, why not-- have not experienced the torment and suffering the other people have experienced, some for years and years. it is unreasonable to compare the two experiences (abortion and genocide), and makes light of the suffering of other people."

Your argument here suggests that genocide is determined by the amount of suffering the victims experience. Let's say in Rwanda, the victims were all given anesthetic, so they feel no pain. Next, using some new weapon, which kills thousands in its range in the blink of an eye, countless numbers of Rwandans are slaughtered instantly. Now, the level of torment and suffering is virtually non-existant when compared to other accounts of genocide in history. Does this A) make it justifiable? B) make it unqualified to be called "genocide"? The answer is no.

You could argue that those in Darfur have suffered more than victims of the holocaust, or vice versa. It does not belittle either by saying both are wrong, and share parallels that in each case a group was killed in mass quantity because they were undesirable. In this same vein, it should not be an offense to compare abortion, which kills millions every year by our own hands, to the holocaust, Darfur, Rwanda, etc. Although they are different, just as any account of genocide varies from another, it should not prevent us from drawing parallels and making a point to discuss, just because they are not entirely identical.

Part of the reason this comparison is so offensive to many is because this form of genocide is taking place in our own country, supported by our laws, by the politicians we elect, by our professors, etc. Clearly, something so accepted by society, which those of us 33 and younger have never been without, a "right" for women, something we can comfortably ignore without being obviously affected by on a daily basis, may make it seem outrageous when called "genocide." It is much easier to point the finger at someone else than it is to point at ourselves. Similarily, it may have been outrageous to some when they were told slavery was wrong when they had known no different, when they depended economically on the free labor of slaves for their income, when their whole lives laws, teachers, parents or elders had told them that blacks were not persons, or certainly not equal. So it is certainly understandable that some may disagree or be dumbfounded by such a comparison in this case with abortion. However, just as certain people's reaction to a claim about the injustice of slavery did not determine whether it was right or wrong, we find the same to be true for abortion as well, and that's why we are exposing this truth and drawing these comparisons.

Moreover, just as we have no place deciding if or how much someone or a group of people have suffered, unless we ourselves have experienced the same, we cannot say that "baby human beings" do not suffer.

- Andrew St.Hilaire (BTW, I'm the guy who was snapping pictures, sometimes inches from you, and tried to pull you away a couple times all while you were tearing down the display on Tuesday :) )
[User Picture]From: zhangster
2006-05-11 03:03 am (UTC)

Re: First Ammendment?

(Link)

i agree with you on some points, and disagree on others, but as a student with many other responsibilities, i don't have time to do research on this subject matter and make all my points.

i totally respect your desire to defend the unborn. i see that you are acting out of compassion for lives that could have been, and it is noble. however, i do not agree with villifying women as mass murderers, nor do i think its appropriate to use pictures of genocide for anything other than talking about specific incidents to generate sympathy for the victims portrayed.

while i don't think we can come to an agreement on the issue of abortion and genocide, i do feel that my action against the signs were inappropriate and illegal, since they are private property that someone has spent time and effort in creating. for that i apologize.
From: (Anonymous)
2006-05-11 03:58 am (UTC)

Re: First Ammendment?

(Link)

"i see that you are acting out of compassion for lives that could have been."

We are acting out of compassion for lives that were. We also act out of compassion for women. Abortion hurts women.

"i do not agree with villifying women as mass murderers"

Nor do we. We never have. The signs place blame not on the women, but rather on the nation. Hence the U.S. coins, reference to the Constitution, etc. in the signs.

"nor do i think its appropriate to use pictures of genocide for anything other than talking about specific incidents to generate sympathy for the victims portrayed."

Well said. The specific incident: abortion in America. The victims we are trying to generate sympathy for: the unborn, baby human beings.

"my action against the signs were inappropriate...for that i apologize"

Apology accepted. Thank you.

-Tom

From: (Anonymous)
2006-05-12 03:26 am (UTC)

Re: First Ammendment?

(Link)

I have to say that you have a bit more credibility with me on some levels than the people who were afraid to even look because they were knew that it would raise questions about their beliefs and practices that they couldn't answer.

That said, I think you have been mislead into thinking that the pro-abortion side is compassionate toward women. I just got done reading "Jane Roes" book Won By Love and I have to tell you the phrase "abortion hurts women" is more than a slogan. (Roe from Roe V.S. Wade, also known by her legal name Norma McCorvey)I think reading her book would give you another perspective.

She worked in abortion clinics for years and she knows from firsthand experience that the "choice" usually offered there is abortion. The clinics don't get paid for adoption referrals, and they can't sell the baby body parts. They don't care that the young girls are devastated when they realize what they have done. They don't care that many of the early teens brought in are brought there by their 40 year old "boyfriend" (not a boy and not a friend). They are too busy biting the coins to make sure they are gold.

The clinics are very dirty, the abortion lobby lobbied against a bill that mandated the same level of cleanliness as is mandated at veterinarian clinics. Many girls are injured and some are killed by uncaring abortionists who line up as many girls in a row as possible. Most doctors refuse to do abortions (especially since the advent of ultrasounds) so normally it is the bottom of the barrel who end up doing abortions. They know they are less likely to be sued for malpractice by uneducated ashamed girls. The suits are likely to be thrown out by liberal judges anyway.

My nephew is adopted and sometimes when I think of abortion I wonder what would have happened if his mother had gone to planned parenthood for counseling, instead of giving him up to a family that couldn't conceive their own children to love?
From: (Anonymous)
2006-05-13 01:56 am (UTC)

Re: First Ammendment?

(Link)

Everyone, both sides, has really lost sight of the most important issue facing the human race, OVERPOPULATION. The earth has a finite amount of resources to sustain human life, and advancements in technology which provide more efficient use of those resources have a limit. Human society has evolved several mechanisms to keep its population in check such as, genocide, war, and indifference produced by greed, etc. Nature does its part as well with disease, natural disasters, and predatory animals etc. But, human beings have developed an uncanny capacity for procreation and self-preservation; which throws the whole system out of balance. The solution, if it exists, is something that all humans who have chosen to be socially responsible should strive for. Human beings are mass produced by unskilled labor, people will not stop having sex, ever. Really, lets be realistic on this one folks. People the world over (regardless of race, religion, culture, etc.) like to do it and that hasn't changed in millions of years, it is inherent to their nature. Unfortunately, people doing it produces lots of little people, more people than the world can handle! So what is to be done? Assume for the sake of argument that nature is trumped by technology (i.e. diseases can't evolve fast enough to kill people off, predatory animals are all fat from eating too many people, whatever..) so all that's left is the mechanisms of human society to keeps its population in check. Which implies mass starvation, war/genocide, baby killing, exporting people to space colonies, or perfect contraception etc.
From the tone of most peoples' arguments it seems that morality generally dictates starvation, war, and baby killing etc. are "bad." So....what is to be done?
From: (Anonymous)
2006-05-18 05:14 am (UTC)

Re: First Ammendment?

(Link)

Hi - I just came across this hence the late post.

If you read the UN reports, much of the world is going to be in an UNDERPOPULATION crisis in the next 50 years, some much sooner. GOvernments around the world (I can dig up specifics - don't remember any offhand) are offering people money to have babies. But finding few takers.

Everyone in the world could fit on the island of Maui. And there is enough food for 4-5 x the current population. What we don't have is a political will or economic system that says people are more important than $.

The overpopulation myth was 'exploded' on the front page of the NY Times back before 2000. Here is a link to the Times of India on the same subject.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/497918.cms Interestingly, it's the richest men in the world (Bill Gates, Ted Turner, Warren Hathaway, etc) who are pushing for world wide population reduction....
From: (Anonymous)
2006-05-20 02:11 am (UTC)

Re: First Ammendment?

(Link)

Underpopulation crisis?
Given 4 square feet of personal space, 8 billion people will fit on Maui.
There are over 6 billion people on the planet.

The amount of reliably sustainable farmable land and associated resources given the current energy distribution pattern can comfortably support about 9 billion people.
If those resources are distributed perfectly equally among all people of the world it is estimated that 11-12 billion is the ultimate carrying capacity of the planet.

It is true that some regions have fewer people than in times past, but the world as a whole has more people. As evolution progresses more efficient methods are developed to utilize resources, while simultaneously time passing increases the population. The question of what kind of equlibria exists between these two rates has been debated and as a whole human ingenuity has won out so far. However, the earth has a finite amount of sustainable energy and the survivability of each individual is directly proportional to the amount of energy available to them. For any given efficiency of resource use, fewer people means a better quality of life for the population as a whole (excluding the obvious problems when pop. is minute.)

As cultures become more affluent birth rates tend to drop which balances the local population (this is alluded to in that article you posted.) What causes the birth rate to drop?
From: (Anonymous)
2006-11-14 06:42 am (UTC)

Re: First Ammendment?

(Link)

Hi, just websurfing and stumbled across this argument many months after the fact, but I felt that I had to respond because, in an odd way, the person above hit exactly what I, as a pro-choicer, believe.

Women have been having abortions for thousands of years and will continue to have them into the forseeable future. As a pro-choicer, I'm not trying to fight for the ability to have an abortion. I'm fighting for the right to have an abortion done by a doctor in a clean and sterile environment.

I'm fighting for the right to have an abortion clinic in my area, so that people who can't drive to the next county over can have one and the ones who can aren't just one more in "the row" waiting for their turn. I'm fighting so it's not "the bottom of the barrel" who are the only ones willing to perform an abortion. I'm fighting for the woman who wants an abortion because the other option is lying on her back through her pregnancy (something she can't afford to do) and hoping she doesn't bleed to death during childbirth. I'm fighting for abortion for the woman whose choices are starving to death alongside her newborn or pointing a gun at her abdomen, secure in the knowledge that while society doesn't have to prevent her from starving and doesn't have to foot the bill for an abortion, the local ER still has to treat a bullet wound. I'm fighting because while people made a big show of dead fetuses on large signs, they don't bother showing what happens to the ones that live, the ones that are abandoned in dumpsters, orphanages, in families that never wanted them in the first place. I'm fighting because it's not just uneducated and ashamed girls who want and need abortions, but I'm fighting for those uneducated and ashamed girls just as hard. I'm fighting because women are not incubators and sometimes there's a lot more at stake than just an unborn child, because the world is done in shades of gray and sometimes you have to kill one to save four. I'm fighting for abortion because Roe vs Wade isn't enough while we still have all the things that happen in the above poster's comment. I'm fighting because it should be a legitimate, honest-to-God choice and it's not fair to anyone involved, not the women, not the men, not even the unborn, that it's not.

That's why I fight.

~Nicole
From: katosphere
2006-05-13 03:33 am (UTC)

Re: First Ammendment?

(Link)

Uh... so the U.S. government is "killing babies" and "hurting women"? Women are just the government's passive victims? Sweet. What else can I get away with, while we're busy denying my agency? I'm just a woman, after all.


...When did LiveJournal become a message board service?

David--if they're spending this much time typing at you (on *%&@ing LIVEJOURNAL of all places), they must consider you a significant and influential pro-choice figure. I know you probably didn't ask for that. I think you're handling yourself admirably. On behalf of a whole lotta women and men, thank you.

And to the anti-abortion faction here: thanks for relying on words and rational arguments. Whether I agree with you or not, it's a nice change of pace.
From: (Anonymous)
2006-05-22 01:03 am (UTC)

Re: First Ammendment?

(Link)

David, real proud that you put some fear in these people. That is what they need. You did the right thing no matter what anyone says & you should not have apologized.

jerret
[User Picture]From: zhangster
2006-05-23 06:20 am (UTC)

Re: First Ammendment?

(Link)

i acted from the heart and expressed how i felt at the time. i did not intend to put fear in those people. i don't think i did the right thing damaging their property, no matter how disgusting it may be. (they can always make more, and it just gives them more incentive.)

i don't need to convince people who already feel the way i do. when i acted out of anger at the anti-abortionists, i didn't change their minds or their approach, so in a sense, i failed.

thanks for your support, though. :)
From: (Anonymous)
2006-05-28 05:54 am (UTC)

Re: First Ammendment?

(Link)


David,

Re "when I acted out of anger", as a wise person taught me many years ago, when people react with anger and criticism, they invariably are telling you a lot more about themselves than the subject at hand.

I have been donating to pro-life groups for many years, but most seemed more or less ineffective. That's what I like about CBR, the group that caught your ire with their GAP display. I'm sure you've heard the expression "the opposite of love isn't hate, it's indifference". In an analogous way, the biggest obstacle to the pro-life movement is apathy.

My donations helped pay for those signs that you destroyed, but as I read about the incident in the CBR newsletter, I was greatly heartened. I'd much rather have the signs destroyed than ignored. If your reaction had been disinterest rather than anger, the signs serve no purpose.

From your writing, you seem like an intelligent, thoughtful, and caring person. Based on that and your reaction to the display, I believe that you are firmly "pro-life" in your core, although it may take a few more years to give you the confidence to break free.

BTW, I'm different from most pro-life folks that I know in that I prefer to think of myself as "anti-choice", where "choice" is defined as the freedom of one person to choose to take the life of another for personal convenience. While each life lost to such a choice is a tragedy, the lasting damage is to the society that looks the other way. It greatly distresses me to be part of such a society, and I can't sit idly by.

The purpose of the GAP display is to deprive people of the excuse "I didn't know". People who can look at the display and feel nothing are truly pro-choice.
From: (Anonymous)
2006-05-30 04:28 pm (UTC)

Re: First Ammendment?

(Link)

He was pissed about the genocide pics, not the dead babies.
If someone brutally tortured and killed someone you knew and then paraded around with a picture of it, it'd probably gross you out too.
Unless you're a christian, they seem to get off on prancing about with crucified pics of jesus and what not; which has got to be the oddest thing I've ever encountered.
[User Picture]From: zancro
2006-05-31 09:51 pm (UTC)

(Link)

. . . lovingkindness . . .