Walk for Life vs. Roe v. Wade birthday party: Abortion showdown SF

On January 26, two diametrically opposed ideologies chose San Francisco as their battleground. To our left, the pro-choice army convened at the city's Embarcadero to celebrate the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade (which formally legalized abortion throughout the United States); to our right, the pro-life army convened for its ninth annual Walk for Life (the largest anti-abortion event on the West Coast).

What happened when the two armies clashed?

Did the "misogynist Christo-Fascists" triumph?

Or did the "racist baby lynchers" prevail?

The answer can be found in that old '60s slogan, "What if they gave a war and nobody came?" Because while huge numbers of people did indeed show up, the two camps studiously avoided each other. Well, that's not entirely true: The main army of about 1,000 leftists put on a little show to amuse themselves and then basically fled the field of battle before the vastly more numerous pro-life crowd even started marching. Only a handful of leftists stayed around to confront their opponents, but they drowned in a sea of 50,000 pro-lifers. (Yes, it was that lopsided.)

Along the way, we were treated to scenes like this:

[Pro-choice woman haranguing pro-life marchers:]

Get your vaginal probe out of my vagina!

Get your crucifix out of my uterus!

Oh yeah, the truth hurts!

What are you teaching your little children? How to make women DIE???

Get your crucifix out of my uterus!

Get your crucifix out of my uterus!

Get your crucifix out of my uterus!

Get your vaginal probe out of my vagina!

Get your crucifix out of my vagina!

Get your vaginal probe out of my vagina!

That's disgusting! What are you looking around for?



Get your crucifix out of my vagina!

Get your crucifix out of my vagina.

Get your crucifix out of my uterus!

Get your vaginal probe out of my vagina!

Get your vaginal probe out of my vagina!

Get the cross out of my...uterus.

Get your crucifix out of my uterus!

Oh, a t-shirt: We wouldn't want you to learn anything!

Vaginal probes out of my vagina!

Get your crucifix out of my uterus!

But wait — we're getting ahead of ourselves. Let's go back to the beginning of the day and see what happened at each stop along the way.

I was lured to the Embarcadero by announcements from various feminist groups that there was to be a major rally on January 26 to celebrate the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Especially exciting was the planned "flash mob performance" to "end violence and sexual oppression." But when I first got there it was nothing much more than a few hundred people standing around holding paper bags with seemingly off-topic messages like "33% of women in prison report childhood SEXUAL ABUSE." What this had to do with abortion was anyone's guess.

After a while, a parade of local politicians took to the stage to support abortion rights. Here we have Scott Wiener, a gay city supervisor who recently made international headlines (and infuriated some of his constituents) when he proposed the first-ever city-wide ban on nudity. Behind him we have none other than Sandra Fluke, the wealthy 31-year-old college student who has so much sex she can't afford to pay for her own contraception. Or at least so she falsely claimed in an attempt to make a political point during congressional hearings. Even though nobody actually believed her ridiculous calculations, it instantly made her a hero to the left and a laughingstock to the right, and now she spends her days giving speeches at feminist events like this one. Does it really matter what she had to say here at RvW40? No, it didn't. Her mere presence was the point, a statement in itself.

Some participants carried a banner saying "Good women have abortions," which is either a very bold assertion, or some poorly mangled grammar, or a too-clever attempt to intentionally craft a message with several possible interpretations. I vote for option three. If an offended pro-lifer were to look at the banner and say, "Are you implying that the mere act of having an abortion makes someone a good person, and by extension that not having an abortion makes one a bad woman?", then the liberal with the sign would reply, "No, you silly conservative, all we're saying is that having an abortion doesn't necessarily mean you're a bad person; good people can have abortions and remain good people." But as the conservative walks away, intellectually defeated, the liberal snickers, "Ha ha! Fooled you. We are indeed saying that abortions make you good. And we're getting away with it, because our message is so ambivalently worded that we can always deny it to your face should you ever try to pin us down!"

I kept seeing the same message at various parts of the rally, this time at the NOW booth. I wasn't sure if the same banner was being passed around, or if the organizers had several printed up.

As several people already noted on Twitter, Code Pink showed up at this event wearing the same giant vagina costumes that gained them so much notoriety at last year's Democratic convention.

I was hoping to see them do the vagina dance, but (as we will soon see) when the pre-arranged flash-mob dance started, the costumed Code Pinkers alas didn't participate and instead just stood in the audience.

A short time later I saw one of the abandoned vagina costumes lying on the ground, and I was sorely tempted to borrow it for a few minutes, put it on, and go become a vagina dancer myself. But, as usual, I chickened out. "Don't be a pussy!" my conscience yelled at me, but the mixed message only made me more conflicted.

Various communist groups, like these humorless Bolsheviks, drifted through the crowd.

As usual, liberals freely allow extreme revolutionary communists to set up booths at their events, and no one complains and the media will not comment on this practice. Yet imagine if the reverse was true: that conservatives allowed, say, neo-Nazis to set up booths at their events. First of all, it would never happen, as the conservatives would ban them and/or boot them out instantly, for if they allowed the extremists to contaminate their events, the media would trumpet the presence of the neo-Nazis and tar the whole movement with them. But when (as it always does) the exact same thing happens on the liberal side — silence.

Note also in the photo above that amongst the communist books on sale at this pro-choice rally was Friedrich Engels' The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, one of the fundamental building blocks of the left's anti-family philosophy. In this seminal tome, Engels argues that the nuclear family is a modern invention designed to oppress women, and that group marriage or polyamory or free love are superior social structures, and that capitalism can only be destroyed by first destroying the traditional family. Just in case you thought this "pro-choice" thing was actually about "choice" or any other idiotic progressive euphemism. The left's ultimate purpose for making abortion legal is to facilitate promiscuity so as to destroy sexual fidelity and along with it the sanctity of the nuclear family, paving the way for socialist revolution. Perhaps the average foot-soldier in the pro-choice camp isn't aware of this, but the leaders at the highest echelons of the movement surely must be.

This sign is actually a fascinating logical paradox. The statement can only be true for one generation. If you start in the first generation with a fetus, and then it grows up into a "woman for choice," then that woman gets pregnant, and being a woman for "choice," she then chooses to abort the second-generation fetus, which does not grow up to be a woman for choice, because it does not grow up at all. Even if some women choose to not abort later-generation fetuses under this signs's scenario, the population of each pro-choice generation will decrease in comparison to a separate pro-life group, in which all fetuses will come to term.

Some game theory problems can only be solved by setting some original parameters and then letting the simulation play itself out through many iterations. It'd like to see a computer scientist devise a schematized real-world "game" which incorporates the various parameters in the abortion debate and let it run for hundreds or thousands of generations to see how it ends up. Say, for example, you start with two equal sub-populations, one which is "pro-choice," and one which is "pro-life." The pro-choice units copulate more often, but also use birth control more often, and when they do get pregnant, they're much more likely to abort the offspring. The pro-life units have less sex, but also use less birth control, and when they do get pregnant, they're far less likely to terminate the offspring. Let the simulation run and see which side begins to dominate. But to make the simulation more realistic, you'd have to account for the fact that the pro-choice side controls education and the media, so that a certain percentage of young units on the pro-life side will be successfully indoctrinated and lured into the opposing camp. However if the pro-choice population begins to drop precipitously, then their grip on the indoctrination levers will start to loosen, meaning fewer converts. Simultaneously, the "biological clock" factor will play out in favor of the pro-life side, since as pro-choice units age their craving to have children will increase and may make them cross over into the pro-life camp. Anyway, one could fiddle with the parameters and see if an equilibrium can be reached, or if one side or the other will always come to dominate as the function collapses.

Alternately, one could make a brainless sign and leave it at that.

This was one of the most ill-conceived paper bags, with the vaguely menacing and arithmetically challenged message





one in three: RAPED OR BEATEN

Is that a threat? Or a math quiz?

Many people were wearing buttons that said "Dr. George Tiller: HERO."

(For those unfamiliar with his name, Tiller was a Kansas doctor who specialized in performing late-term abortions, and who was eventually murdered by extremist madman Scott Roeder.)

It's now de rigueur at events like these for over-the-hill former '60s activists to dress up as "radical grannies"; even though such women almost certainly never spent their lives as old-fashioned housewives, they imagine that if they don the stereotypical costumes of mid-century mid-America (aprons, hats, etc.) this somehow magically accords them the respect and credence one might normally give to "respectable old ladies," and that this respect will transfer effortlessly to the radical politics they espouse beneath the artificial costumery. Or, in other words, they hope that people like me will think, "Gee, if this respectable old-fashioned granny has far-left opinions, then such opinions must be mainstream and reasonable!" Nice plan, but sorry, didn't work.