Becoming Pro-Life: The Never-Ending Debate

I joined a debate group. This was a special debate group to me, though I didn't feel that way at the time that I joined. There was one before that, but I think it got deleted or something? I don't remember. Anyway, this group, which is no longer used as of this writing, changed me in a number of ways. I was pregnant (early along) when this group began, and it did not end until quite some time after I had given birth. It was the longest, most successful, most active debate group I've seen. Some might disagree, say that it was not successful, but as a whole, I really do think it was. I met people in that group who taught me much more than I ever could have realized I wanted to learn had that group not existed. 

Now, I mentioned that this group lasted a while, but I'm not exactly going to comment on every post that affected me, but I'll share some posts (both from in and out of the group) during this time that influenced me. We'll start, of course, as far back as I can.

Let me point out there that I'm going to mention first impressions for people I've met, as well as state how my views of them have evolved. Also keep in mind that prior to this group, all I pretty much did was sit on Planned Parenthood's page or the Pro-Choice page or NARAL's page and attack any anti-choicer that dared set foot on them. I even posted nasty things on Pro-Life pages. I even had created a page or two to bash Pro-Life pages. I'm willing to admit here that, for the most part, the people who go onto pages of the opposing side don't generally do so to provide some awesome insight or thoughtful discussion. This is also true of those who respond to them. This is especially true of pages that stalk people or other pages of the opposing side and post what they share. They aren't doing it to point out actual flaws in the argument. They are doing so to insult, harass, and otherwise attempt to degrade the movement by using (sometimes) bad apples to apply to the whole. If we used the bad apples, though, to apply to whole movements, then no movement would or should be treated with any degree of respect. I fully admit these things because I have done them. 

Noting that, let's move on.

You're a jerk, and you're also a jerk, and you're a jerk too, and you're a pretentious jerk.

I was still pretty militant in my Pro-Choice views--and remember that no one was going to change that--when I joined this group. I was also, still, using the poorest of poor arguments. I remember that when I joined the group and started debating with the people in it, I still thought of Pro-Lifers--erm, anti-choicers, mind you--as anti-woman, misogynistic, men who were born in the wrong century since they couldn't control every aspect of a woman's life, and anti-choice women were perhaps twice as bad as anti-choice men for having abandoned their own gender (but you could be sympathetic to anti-choice women--they were brainwashed, of course, by the patriarchy--by men). So this group comes along and nothing is different, I think. There were a ton of people in this group, so I'm not going to be able to recall all of them, but I'll be mentioning the ones that majorly played a part here. 

I want to go in order, here. Meet Jerk, Also A Jerk, Jerk Too, and Pretentious Jerk and please, for the love of all that is sacred, remember that these are first impressions and speak nothing of how I feel for them now:

Also keep in mind that my logic that you will see here was 150% sound. And this is the short version of their offenses. The rest are still on trial.

Jerk: JBH. Meet JBH. He's this anti-choice male. Religious. Calls himself "Pro-Life". He's a really sweet guy. Funny. Witty. Smart. Everything an anti-choicer should never be. I don't remember if he said there was logic behind the Pro-Choice stance, so I'm leaving that out (for now), but to summarize his "crimes":

1. He's an anti-choice male (felony)
2. He's a religious anti-choicer (misdemeanor)
3. He calls himself Pro-Life (misdemeanor)
4. He hadn't yet converted to the infallible Pro-Choice stance (felony)
5. He's actually logical (felony)
6. He's a nice anti-choicer (felony)
7. He's a human being and not a monster (felony)

Sentence: 100 years of "Stop that!"

Also A Jerk: CW. So here's this guy--anti-choice. Religious. He thinks there is logic behind the anti-choice movement ("Pro-Life", he says). He says he's "open to change" but there hasn't been a compelling Pro-Choice argument to make him do so yet. He's nice. Smart. Also witty. He even has a Pro-Life blog. Can you tell yet why he's a jerk? Let me put this simply. He qualifies as a jerk because: 

1. He's an anti-choice male (felony)
2. He's a religious anti-choicer (misdemeanor)
3. He thinks there is logic behind the anti-choice movement (felony)
4. He calls himself Pro-Life (misdemeanor)
5. He hadn't yet converted to the infallible Pro-Choice stance (felony)
6. He's actually logical (felony)
7. He's a nice anti-choicer (felony)
8. Has a Pro-Life blog (felony)
9. He's a human being and not a monster (felony)

Sentence: 199 years of "I hate your guts."

Jerk Too: CB. He's an anti-choice male. He's religious. He tries to get under your skin with well-thought-out wit that makes you laugh and hate yourself later since you just laughed with an anti-choicer.He also thinks that there is logic behind the "Pro-Life" stance. But he doesn't really say that he'd convert to Pro-Choice. Charges:

1. He's an anti-choice male (felony)
2. He's a religious anti-choicer (misdemeanor)
3. He thinks there is logic behind the anti-choice movement (felony)
4. He calls himself Pro-Life (misdemeanor)
5. He hadn't yet converted to the infallible Pro-Choice stance (felony)
6. He's actually logical (felony)
7. He's a nice anti-choicer (felony)
8. He didn't say he was open to #5 (misdemeanor)
9. He is a witty anti-choicer whose evil plan is to get under your skin by making you laugh (misdemeanor)
10. Doesn't have a blog but still does a lot of research and writes Pro-Life papers and whatnot--they're well-thought-out and sound (felony)
11. He's a human being and not a monster (felony)

Sentence: 300 years of "Nope."

Pretentious Jerk: Now, if you thought those other guys were bad, let me introduce you to JB, a smart, religious Pro-Life male who is pretty high up there on the Pro-Life ladder. He's celebrity status in my eyes (still is :P). He does a lot for the Pro-Life movement. Blog, podcast. He's open to change and is for finding common ground with Pro-Choicers. He thinks the Pro-Life stance is logically sound. And if you think he sounds bad now, I want to let you know it gets worse. Much worse. In one of the early days with talking to him, I remember--I don't remember exactly what I said, but I used the term "anti-choicer" which was clearly the correct term to use--JB told me that in the group, we didn't use terms like "Pro-Abortion" or "Anti-Choice". We used Pro-Life and Pro-Choice. Are you kidding me? No, really. He said that. So let's wrap up this section with some of Pretentious Jerk's crimes:

1. He's an anti-choice male (felony)
2. He's a religious anti-choicer (misdemeanor)
3. He thinks there is logic behind the anti-choice movement (felony)
4. He calls himself Pro-Life (misdemeanor)
5. He hadn't yet converted to the infallible Pro-Choice stance (felony)
6. He's actually logical (felony)
7. He's a nice anti-choicer (felony)
8. Has a Pro-Life blog (felony)
9. He's a human being and not a monster (felony)
10. He has a Pro-Life podcast (felony)
11. He's a Pro-Life celebrity (to me) (felony)
12. He thinks finding common ground with Pro-Choicers is possible (felony)
13. He thinks finding common ground with Pro-Choicers is a good idea (felony)
14. Did I mention he was a human being? (felony)
15. Did I mention he was a nice person? (felony)
16. Did I mention that he told me not to call him anti-choice? That he had the audacity to tell me to use the obviously incorrect term of "Pro-Life?" Did I tell you that? 'Cause he did. He seriously, really, did that. (superultramegafelony)

Sentence: Over 9000 years of "NO."

Were any of these first impressions wrong? Well, the anti-choice bits were. But otherwise, these first impressions were completely correct. They all committed the added offenses of treating people on the opposing sides as human beings, not actually hating women, and other miscellaneous offenses, that are, as I said, still in trial. It was these four people who played perhaps the largest role in my transition, but it was not limited to them and I will again do my best to include as much as I can and list as many people as I can that helped me on my path to becoming Pro-Life. But it didn't actually start out that way. Before they even began to help me to become Pro-Life, they helped me become a better Pro-Choicer.

Breaking The Rules: Why Are You Helping Me?

I don't know if they intended to help me become a better Pro-Choicer or strengthen my convictions in the Pro-Choice stance, but they did. They helped me to challenge the arguments that I used, and helped me to find better ones to use. While I used the bodily autonomy argument countless times, and while (to me) that is still perhaps the strongest argument in favor of the Pro-Choice stance (along with some arguments that the fetus is not a person, though I think I think this one is weaker--and that wasn't a typo in the statement). Pro-Choicers in the group also used much better arguments than I did. I kept seeing the poorer arguments that I used shot down with actual logic, yet still, some stood. This debate group, and many of those involved, made me want to not only analyze my position and strengthen them, but in general become more informed. 

I began to read around this time--read about abortion. Arguments, court cases, the Constitution, various interpretations of the aforementioned articles. Books, newlsetters, journals, LifeNews, LifeSiteNews, BBC, Slate, RH Reality Check, just about anything and everything I could get my hands on. I still do this to this day. So I read Roe v. Wade, and some of the cases it linked to. I read about fetal personhood laws, the history of abortion, the Constitution and its interpretations. I read the dissenting opinions in Roe v. Wade--I wouldn't do that before, didn't want to even slightly admit that I could be wrong, you see--I looked up more cases. Bodily autonomy, abortion, personhood, fetal homicide laws, murder laws, I read it. I read about other countries--El Salvador, Romania, Albania, the UK, China. I read about religious views--Islam, Christianity (some different sects, though I concentrated more on Catholicism), Judaism, Buddhism. I read about the Holocaust, slavery, the civil rights movement, the feminist movement. I read about adoption laws. I read about back-alley abortions. Fetal pain, fetal development, pregnancy complications. This is the tip of the iceberg.

Do I retain all of that information? I wish I did. Still, I know so much more now than I did then about just facts. My "flat-earth" knowledge on abortion and related issues has transformed into a "round-earth", yet still, there are so many places to explore, even now. There is so much information, so many thoughts, so many questions. I am still boggled by it. At the same time, I love it. I love that people haven't stopped coming up with new thoughts or ideas. I love that I love that people are making more and more connections to things that we may not have connected before. I love the debate. Let me clarify that point: I love the ideas, the philosophy. I don't love that people, born or not, have been  hurt, killed, murdered, during it. I hope that makes sense.

I was inspired, by Pro-Choicers and Pro-Lifers alike to read, to learn, to do better in my arguments. I do want to take a moment to introduce some Pro-Choicers that, during this time, this beginning, really had an influence on me as well. I want to introduce you to some of my old friends. Some of us are still friends. Some are not. I want to do this for a number of reasons. First, I want you to realize or keep in mind that Pro-Choicers are human beings too. They have dreams, goals, wants. They are educated or not. They are not all out to kill or murder babies. They are not all trolls. They are not all stupid. They are people, and they should be treated as such. And I realize that after being the ass that I was to a huge number of Pro-Lifers, I have no right to ask that Pro-Lifers treat Pro-Choicers with respect, but I'm going to do so anyway. 

Now, I'm not going to dig too much into their personal lives. I'm merely going to tell you what I thought about them:

With our powers combined...

JG: If I had to pick someone to describe as a "Bad-Ass Pro-Choicer", she would probably be it. She was never afraid to be blunt, never hid from criticism. In short, she did not give two shits what you thought about her, and I admired that. I still do. I think I always will. She had a brilliant mind. She could verbally cut you to pieces--rip your arguments to shreds before you even had time to blink. She came to be one of my fence-sitting buddies. 

CM: In terms of superheroes, I guess I'd call her "The Hulk." If you were Pro-Choice, she was amazingly nice to you. If you were Pro-Life, she didn't care, but if you had the audacity to claim that abortion should be illegal, she was a brick wall. You weren't going to get past her. You weren't going to be able to knock her down. If you remember the story of the "Three Little Pigs", you remember that the big bad wolf tried to blow all of the houses down. CM is comparable to the brick house. I mean that in a loving way, of course. I think I'd also compare her to heavy artillery!

KD/AV: Another strong Pro-Choice advocate, she, like JG, ended up helping me to learn to be a bit nicer when it came to Pro-Lifers. KD was smart, and very kind and supportive of others. I confided in her with issues I'd never told anyone before. There was a night I'd left home and was prepared to go to a homeless shelter, and she helped me find one. She sent me care packages a couple times. I will never in my life be able to thank her for the things that she has done for me.

MV: Another of my Pro-Choice friends who helped me out beyond the internet. She took me into her home, coming from out of state to come and get me to bring me there and dropping me off back at home afterward. She was a true friend if there ever was one, and like KD, like many of my friends, I will never be able to not only pay her back for what she has done, but I will also never cease appreciating her for her actions, nor be able to come up with a way to appropriately thank her (to the proportion of my thanks) for the things she has done for me. I remember that while I was there, at her place, she also gave me some books. I have every single one still, in the exact condition in which I received them.

EAR: She was sweet. EAR was the kind of Pro-Choicer that was so nice, could word things so effectively, that sometimes I would think of her as having the ability to tell you to go to hell in such a fashion that you look forward to the trip! She is an invaluable friend. She was another Pro-Choicer that helped me to open up and be nicer to Pro-Lifers. 

JO: JO was like JG in the sense of bad-assery, to me. Blunt. Not afraid of others. I think she was one of the Pro-Choicers that made me want to look into the laws of other countries, being that she didn't live in the United States and her laws were therefore different than ours. Some other Pro-Choice friends (KM, IVD/DD, CM--different CM from the CM mentioned above, and SS) also pushed me into this direction. After I had my daughter, JO sent me a shirt for her. It's too small for my daughter now, but I still have it, still cherish the gift.

KW: Here was another Pro-Choice lady I admired. Strong convictions, like the others. She also runs a page (more than one, I think, but I cannot remember for certain) that has a ton of followers on Facebook. She is very logical, and is so compassionate. Extremely compassionate to the plights of others. She is one of the Pro-Choicers that I keep in mind when I start to feel bitter (due to events that will be mentioned later) against some Pro-Choicers. She is an excellent example of one of the best Pro-Choice advocates.

AH: Now, she's not Pro-Choice in the traditional sense of the term. She's a fence-sitter. Her views and her vast understanding of human tendencies (psychology, particularly) leads me to admre her. She's one of those people who will look at all sides of a situation, and judge according to facts but is not biased toward the decision one way or another. What I mean by that is that she will make a judgement without regard to what others may think of her views. I have other friends like that, some Pro-Choice (SF), some Pro-Life (GT). Some people who are Pro-Choice or Pro-Life judge with the foundation of judgement their Pro-Choice or Pro-Life views. AH does not do this. Nor, of course, do all people. I'm just making a point here. She had a falling out, so to say, with a number of my other Pro-Choice friends, and they may not have liked that I remained friends with AH, but I will never regret doing so (and will thank them also for respecting my choice of friends). 

All of the people I mentioned here are far more than their Pro-Choice views. Some might not think their qualities (such as stubbornness) is admirable, but I think we are all capable of these qualities. Also, these Pro-Choice friends did much more than debate abortion. They are supportive of animal welfare, environmental welfare, and also possess excellent ideas on the economy, and other political issues. They are good people. There are extremists, crazy fanatics who go out and be violent for their cause. These are not them. These were--some still are--friends of mine, and even if we are not friends, I would defend them and their views to the end if I had to. Many of them played a role in helping me get out of an abusive situation--with my now ex-husband. They helped me (along with the Pro-Life friends) build up my confidence again. And I will never be able to thank any of my friends enough for the things they have done for me. 

Now, before I conclude this post (which is longer than I intended, but it has a lot of information) I want to talk about something fun. As I was strolling through the memories and the past posts, I told myself that I didn't want this series of blog posts about how I came to be Pro-Life to be too serious. The information bit is over, for now, but I want to share a memory from the group I mentioned here. Well, I lied, I guess. This is a memory that is somewhat significant, because it showed to me that even if there was a Pro-Lifer or Pro-Choicer that used really really bad arguments, we (Pro-Life and Pro-Choice) could stand together. And maybe it was just because this argument/thought was really really really bad, but I don't care.

Pro-Lifers and Pro-Choicers Unite Against Bad Math

I wonder if my friends who saw this will remember it? There was a post in the Never Ending Debate group. It was a question that I'm sure many of us have seen here and there. The question was as follows and posted in the group:

Think fast lifers!

There's a clinic building on fire. There are fertilized embryos in test tubes in one room and a two month old infant in another. You can only save one.

Who do you save?

There are a number of places you can look to find why this question does't actually challenge the Pro-Life position and that a Pro-Lifer can choose to save the toddler without becoming no longer Pro-Life for embryos, but that's not the point here. 

In the group, there's this guy (Pro-Life?). We ended up changing it to three embryos at some point. And he says he is going to change from saving the toddler to saving the embryos. His logic? That the embryos have a greater chance of survival than the toddler. How? He explains that there is a 100% chance of survival for the toddler, sure, but there is a 35% chance of implantation for the embryos and since there are three of them, that equates to a 105% chance of survival for the embryos. Don't believe me? His exact quote:

I factored failure rates for implantation into my 3 embryos-figure. 3 embryos that successfully implant 35% of the time works out to 3*0.35=1.05, which is greater than one.

And before anyone says that he didn't "specifically say 105%", I want to say two things: 1. Yes he did and 2. Here's another direct quote:

The newborn has a 100% of survival, but three embryos at 35% each add up to 105%.

In fact, he even explains exactly how many embryos it would take to "equal" the survival rate of the toddler:

In this scenario, 3 outweighs the toddler. It would take approximately 2.86 embryos to equal the toddler. 

You don't have to be an expert in math t know that when it comes to survival, you cannot have a 105% chance of survival. You either have a 100% chance of survival or less. So Pro-Lifers and Pro-Choicers are quick to point this out to him. He doesn't accept any of it. Some responses are as follows:

Pro-Choicer: a born child is more viable than a embryo. Fact. Many people do ivf for years implant 50+ failed embryos. Tell them one HAS TOO work. Because they fail, all the time. 

Me: "implant 50+ embryos" BUT THEY HAD A 1,750% CHANCE OF SURVIVAL O_O 

Pro-Lifer: Actually, I do think it's that simple [that a born child is more viable than a frozen embryo]. If a zygote implants itself in a woman's fallopian tube, abortion will be necessary to save the life of the mother. Better to lose one life than two, and the mother has the greatest chance of survival. In this case, the infant has the greater chance of survival than the embryo(s). I see this as along the same lines. Save the one with the greater chance of survival. In this case, the infant has a 100% chance of survival. If you rescue him from a burning building, you're not going to leave him out on the street to die.

I just felt the need to share that for the memories. We had some good times in that group! Also, this is where this post ends. I apologize for making this explanation so long! The change didn't just happen in one day.