Pro-Choice Advocates Rally On Bridge

The Texas Legislature’s vote banning nearly all forms of abortion unleashed protests across the country.

There were several in Westport last month. This afternoon they continued at the town’s favored political meeting place: the Ruth Steinkraus Cohen Bridge downtown.

(Photos/David Vita)

22 responses to “Pro-Choice Advocates Rally On Bridge

  1. Thought it was an anti-vax mandate protest😎🇺🇸

  2. Drove by it. Like 20 people. Another Westport “protest”!

  3. Let’s remember “my body, my choice” when we’re talking about vaccines as well. Can’t have it both ways

  4. So Matthew it sounds like you are pro-choice for both vaccines and abortions. Good for you for advocating the pro-choice position!

  5. What I cannot understand is why protests like this one are held on a bridge to distract drivers. Is that really smart? So drivers should look sideways while in motion instead of keeping their eyes straight ahead? Wouldn’t the protest be more effective if it were in a public park, where there could be interaction with people? Doesn’t help having websites and blogs glorifying these dangerous events.

  6. For some reason, protests and demonstrations in Westport happen on that bridge. I remember a pro-Vietnam War demonstration happening there n the late 1960s.

    • Perhaps it’s because of the 35,000 +/- cars that cross the bridge daily and might see the signs…in a park, 350 people might see them.

  7. Eric William Buchroeder SHS ‘70

    I’m totally on board with the government staying out of women’s private affairs assuming the socially conscious of Westport are willing to stay out of the affairs of the people of Texas.

  8. David A Cleveland

    Save one or two I don’t think these women have to worry about getting pregnant

  9. Eric William; should the people of the north stayed out of the southern states perpetuating slavery…….oh, sorry, you probably DO think they should have…my bad.

  10. Chris Washington

    Does life begin at conception? First of all, we must understand that the debate is not whether the Zygote immediately after fertilization is alive or not; it is definitionally alive. Sperm cells are alive, egg cells are alive, bacterium are alive. The Zygote is alive just as much as are other cells. It is incontrovertibly ‘not dead’. The question is not whether it is alive, but whether or not that Zygote is a human organism, and therefore deserving of the rights of personhood.

    Once the process of fertilization ends, it is clear that a new human organism has formed. The new Zygote has all the DNA and genetic information stored within its capacity to be able to form into a fully-developed human being without any additional input. While the mother provides the residency, it is not her, but rather the unique instructions of the DNA giving direction to the cells of the new Zygote that is allowing for this development to occur.

    At the end of fertilization and thereafter, immediately the process of development occurs into a fully-functional human being. There is tremendous growth, specialization of cells, creation of tissue to support various organs of the developing life. Within a matter of days, the heart begins to form, the eyes begin to form, and other organs form. The Zygote (and its successive stages) can obviously respond to stimuli, metabolize on its own, reproduce on its own, and grow on its own. This is all based upon completely unique cells that are distinct in their genetic code from the mother. 

    By any definition, the embryonic entity after fertilization is a distinct organism, and a life form. It is obviously a human life form, not a bacterial or plant or animal. 

    We can also look at this from the reverse angle, in looking at what constitutes death. At death, we go from a living organism (human person) to a nonliving organism (human person). Medicinally, death occurs when the brain becomes entirely defunct, which often can occur before the heart stops beating. After medicinal death has occurred, many cells can still be functioning within the organism. That means that while the organism (person) is deceased, there are still cells that are alive. However, after death, these cells are unable to have the ability fo function together as a complete organism. Therefore what departs from the person biologically at death, is not necessarily the cells (which remain alive for a time), but rather the ability of the cells to be a cohesive organism together.

    This is precisely what the Zygote has. The embryonic entity is not made up of just cells, it is made up of cells that have the ability fo function as an integrated whole within the entity itself. It has all the properties that define an organism, all the genetic material it will ever need to form into a fully-formed human being. It never has more genetic information or more properties of what define an organism as it advances through its successive stages, than it has following fertilization. Thus, the embryonic organism is in possession of what leaves a person once they are deceased, namely the coordinated integration.

    The alternative ‘explanations’ for when life are created are wholly untenable and arbitrary. They can be trifurcated into 3 basic arguments: the argument from form, ability, and preference. 

    The argument from form posits that a human organism must take a specific outward ‘form’ in order to constitute life. In essence, for a human to be human, it must look human from our perspective. The conclusion is quite disturbing; for how much malformation are we willing to accept before we revoke the rights of existence? The assumptions lead us to very protean and capricious conclusions.

    The argument from ability necessarily is arbitrary. How much ability is necessary to constitute a life? How much ‘viability’ must be inherent in the organism? This must be false, since many fully-formed individuals do not have viability or consciousness, and yet they are human.

    The final argument from preference is the most disturbing, which posits that human life exists at the preference of another individual. Philosophically, this definition has proven to be utterly baleful, and often portends mass genocide. The logic that human life must be a function of another individual’s preference is the foundation upon which the Holocaust, slavery, and all genocide occur. Should individuals claim they have the right to deny objective personhood rights based on preferences, that will inevitably lead to destruction and mass murder (as it has in abortion).

    Alas, what are we left with? We are left with the argument that science leaves us with. The very element that leaves the individual at the point of medicinal death is what the Zygote and embryonic maintain, even in its most nascent stages, namely the ability for the cells to function as an integrated whole: growing, developing, reproducing, maintaining a physiological balance between organ systems, adapting to circumstances, repairing injury, as a unique entity and under the chemical code of its unique DNA structure. Humans cells that are not part of an organism simply do not behave in that way (as we have seen in the example of the deceased).

    It should come as no surprise that in our objective analysis of the biological basis for the origin of life beginning at fertilization, that it perfectly reconciles with what is read in sacred Scripture. As God is God over nature, nature reflects His will.

    To paraphrase former Ambassador Alan Keyes, Creation does not take place in the womb. God the Creator, prepares us in secret, and knows all the hairs on our head and has counted all of our days, before there was yet one of them. Before anything temporal, God has already completely fashioned us in His mind. God prepares us in secret as a manuscript, He just publishes the result in the womb.

  11. Ever notice how a pregnant woman immediately has a “glow?” Two souls in one body🙏

    • Thank you. I have been focusing on this issue. Your wisdom and apologetic is valuable.

      • Chris Washington

        You’re very welcome, Tim. I enjoy researching various topics, mostly to educate myself. I am by no means a biologist, nor have I formally studied the topic, but I wanted to share my defense of life beginning at conception. I am happy to know that you found it to be edifying. 

        I much prefer posting links rather than personal formulations; I humbly appreciate your kind words of support. 

        Education | National Right to Life

        Why Pro-Life? The Case for Inclusion | MCCL

  12. Chris Washington

    God Is Pro-Life:

    Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo’s Conception

  13. Chris Washington

    Pfizer Quality Auditor Shares Emails Of Executives:
    October 7, 2021

Leave a Reply