I reported April 20 that Pro-Life Action League had purchased 2 billboards on IN Tollroad I80/90 within 20 miles of Notre Dame to the east and west, protesting Obama’s appearance at its May 17 commencement. This is what the billboard was to look like:
The billboards were to go up April 27. But there came a problem. The sign company refused to call Obama “pro-abortion.”
It’s certainly odd what people get stuck on. Obama supports abortion. He is pro-abortion. What’s wrong with that? But the ambiguous and obviously sanitized “pro-choice” has become so much a part of our vernacular that a proper description of one’s position on abortion is no longer allowed. 1984. Where’s everyone’s abortion pride?
PLAL and the company went back and forth and finally agreed on “pro-abortion choice.” Joe Scheidler of PLAL told me he’s not even sure what that means (lol) but is happy “pro-abortion” got first billing – with the a-word underlined. So here’s the final sign, which went up May 4. Sorry it’s blurry, but I had to enlarge a small photo:
Don’t forget Pro-Life Action League could use donations to help pay for these billboards. Thanks in advance.
66 thoughts on “Slightly edited anti-Obama billboards near Notre Dame are up”
Comments are closed.
Truth hurts that is why they hate to say it.
If abortion does not kill a human being why should they object. Because it does kill a human being that is why. BO says that it is okay as long as we feel bad about it.
Squiggling in the word “choice” allows people a conscientious backdoor to escape.
They need to be asked – what is the result of an abortion-choice?
The only factual answer is: a dead human being.
Because birth-choice terminates the pregnancy with a live baby.
If abortion-choicers complain, ask them questions based on BioSLED:
http://www.thrufire.com/blog/2009/02/biosled-anti-abortion-argument/
hmm… good one.
Jill,
Frank Beckwith uses the term abortion-choice to describe those who support abortion. I like the term because I think that if someone supports legal abortion, then their term that describes them should have the word abortion in it. This is clearly why the term “pro-choice” exists; to stress something completely irrelevant to the actual issue. However, it is very difficult to make any progress discussing anything with someone who supports legal abortion by calling them pro-abortion because any point you make is lost to a semantic cry about your using of the tetm pro-abortion. The subject is then switched to what proper term to use and all is lost. Thus, I think pro-abortion choice is a decent compromise.
salvage cars sale dallas tx
in fact it is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes.
Great point Bobby.. I think it’s also important to note the difference between being pro-choice and being pro-abortion, and subsequently being pro-abortion industry…
There are many folks who are pro-choice, in that they want many pregnancy options to be available, and unfortunately one of these is legal abortion. These people are mainly ignorant of what abortion actually is, and the extent to which the abortion industry wants to prey upon women and disadvantaged families in order to make money off of their circumstances.
I have met some actual pro-abortion folks in my life, and they have very very disheartening logic and arguments for their stance but they actually favor abortion as the option that families choose within a certain sect or minority or group. For example, I have a relative who works in an inner-city school system who believes abortion should not only be a resource for the girls he works with, but should be pushed as the best option for them. It is truly sad, and very far from pro-choice.
Finally, there’s the political and monetary side. Most “pro-choice” politicians could care less whether the abortion rate increases or decreases, and they care less about whether or not the fetus is a person and the women has rights. They care that they receive money from the industry, from Planned Parenthood and NARAL, and they in turn push legislation that helps the industry, all the while giving it nice sounding titles like “freedom to choose” and “reproductive justice.”
Just some food for thought. btw, I have been waiting to hear Beckwith speak for awhile now. I heard he actually spoke at Notre Dame a couple months ago at the pro-life conference on campus.
Good points from you too, Greg. That’s awesome that you may be able to hear Beckwith speak. I’m sure he did speak at ND because he’s on sabbatical there right now, at least I think it’s his sabbatical, though he may be just visiting for a year. In any case, another point is that those whom you described above as “pro choice” who want to help pregnant women with many options and who don’t really even know what abortion is often feel threatened and on the defensive when we call them pro-abortion. It seems to me that by calling them pro abortion we have immediately set them up to feel like they’re in a fight with us rather than to open up to us and hear what we have to say. True, objectively speaking one who supports the legalization of abortion is pro-abortion, but I do think there is the emotional and prudential side of the debate where we have to let the person know that we care about them and wish to discuss it with them in a friendly, non-confrontational environment. God love you, Greg.
Great conversation here Bobby and Greg.
I agree with you Bobby, that using terms to describe any group results in an unknown reaction because you don’t know how the other person perceives that group.
This is sort of the deliberative approach Steve Wagner advocates – without names or labels, but simply putting the facts out there and discussing them – holding back on judgements and name calling – even when someone holds a contrary view.
I recently read something convicting, finding myself all too often engaging in a mocking of abortion-choicers, but it really is far more productive to ask others why they believe what they do – get it down to human issues that all of us face.
That doesn’t mean throwing away facts, but it does mean not being so offensive that they won’t listen. It’s a fine line.
Are either of you familiar with the “Columbo” technique?
Oh yes! The Columbo technique is what Scott Klusendorf advocates in his new book “The case for Life” (as I’m sure you’re aware). It is all about listening carefully, defining terms, and most importantly asking simple questions which are yet probing. “what do you mean by terminating a pregnancy?” “what do you mean by a religious issue?” etc. It causes people to probe deeper and really explain what it is they are saying.
It’s nice to see Notre Dame taking a stand!
Heather: Unfortunately, it’s not the administration of ND that’s taking a stand on this…would that they were. IF the ND admins. had never even entertained the thought of having BO speak at the graduation, none of this would be happening in the first place.
I’m actually dumbfounded this sign was able to get put up, even in it’s edited version…so this is definitely progress.
this whole thing is such a big shame. that we actually have spend all this time and effort to convince a CATHOLIC college that honoring pro-abortion politicians in wrong.
Jasper,
…I see this as a long-awaited, WAKE-UP call to all Catholics.
It IS unfortunate that it has to start at ND…but, hey, the Lord works in mysterious ways.
“Are either of you familiar with the “Columbo” technique?”
Isn’t this similar to the technique that Father Frank Pavone advocates as well?
As an aside, a good resource on abortion is a FREE handbook, that can be ordered on the Pro-Life Action League’s website. It’s called “Sharing the Pro-Life Message”.
Order at: http://freeprolifehandbook.com/
RSD,
I completely agree.
I was talking to two Gonzaga University students recently. (Jesuit institution) I mentioned that Obama was speaking at Notre Dame, they hadn’t heard. They were excited. I said there was some controversy about it, they asked “why?”
Posted by: Janet at May 7, 2009 10:58 AM
—-
Possibly – the technique is advocated by Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason, where Francis Beckwith worked for a little while with Scott Klusendorf IIRC. Later, Steve Wagner learned it and incorporated it into the work that he’s doing with Justice For All.
I wouldn’t be surprised Fr. Pavone used it.
I haven’t seen the PLAL handbook yet – I probably should get one.
Posted by: Hal at May 7, 2009 11:10 AM
I’m curious how revealing you were with your answer…
Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 7, 2009 11:48 AM
I said “some don’t think a baby killer should be honored by a Catholic institution.”
Hal – Just a guess here, but replying like that left an opening for them to ask what you meant by that or you came across to them as someone deeply convicted regarding abortion.
So which one was it?
I was talking to two Gonzaga University students recently. (Jesuit institution) I mentioned that Obama was speaking at Notre Dame, they hadn’t heard. They were excited. I said there was some controversy about it, they asked “why?”
Posted by: Hal at May 7, 2009 11:10 AM
Hal,
The Jesuits are a liberal group. I’m not surprised the Gonzaga students haven’t heard about the ND controversy. College students can be pretty isolated from the “real” world, especially when they live on campus.
Chris,I probably said it in a mocking way.
Why anyone would be awe struck by Obama is beyond me. They treat him like he’s some super human, non bleeding, super hero. I just don’t get it. Obama and his DRONE followers.
heather,
He’s cool.
I see that many of you here fit the description: “more Catholic than the Pope.”
Looking forward to your canonizations.
The Vatican, meanwhile, takes a less-harsh view of Obama’s pro-choice views:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/06/AR2009050603319.html?nav=hcmodule
heather,
He’s cool.
Posted by: Janet at May 7, 2009 12:56 PM
——————————————–
when you are ‘cool’ too long, one becomes COLD
I’m sorry Myron, but the Vatican is interested in diplomatic state relations with Obama as it has been with every other President in history. This is part of the point of the article in the Vatican paper. The MSM, being religiously clueless, certainly can not grasp that concept and will use anything they can to try and say that Obama isn’t as bad as he really is.
There is no need for me to give hundreds of quotes from the Vatican explicitly condemning abortion, support of abortion, or anything of that magnitude. The USCCB issued a statement several years back explicitly condemning any Catholic institutions that honored a pro-choice speaker. This is not “right wing” Catholicism, as has become the current buzz phrase. This is Catholicism period.
The Vatican in no way takes a less harsh view of Obama’s pro-choiceness.
In fact, here is a somewhat related article from the Washington Post that Father Z ripped to shreds yesterday.
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/05/thomas-reese-sj/
I see that many of you here fit the description: “more Catholic than the Pope.”
Looking forward to your canonizations.
The Vatican, meanwhile, takes a less-harsh view of Obama’s pro-choice views:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/06/AR2009050603319.html?nav=hcmodule
Posted by: Myron at May 7, 2009 1:52 PM
……………………………….
Hi Myron,
Many Catholics (me too) would prefer to be called a ‘friend’ by Jesus, than be canonized. I nearly puked at the thought that morality is a matter of popularity (in this article). This ranks right up there with freedom = comfort.
Here it is. In the 2004 document issued by the USCCB “Catholics in Political Life”, the bishops wrote
“Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.”
This can be viewed at http://www.usccb.org/bishops/catholicsinpoliticallife.shtml . I’m sure E.J. Dioanne Jr thought he was being clever and cute when he referred to those Catholics who agree with the above statement as “more Catholic than the pope” (though Patrick Madrid and Pete Vera wrote a book by that title 5 years ago), but clearly Mr Dioanne has no idea what the Catholic Church teaches as is evidence by his woeful ignorance of the above teaching. He saw one article in L’Osservatore Romano and absolutized it. It is truly pathetic that men like him are considered reliable news sources.
“True, objectively speaking one who supports the legalization of abortion is pro-abortion, but I do think there is the emotional and prudential side of the debate where we have to let the person know that we care about them and wish to discuss it with them in a friendly, non-confrontational environment.”
Sorry, I have no interest in this approach. If a pro-choicer doesn’t change his/her mind after seeing what abortion does to unborn child, they are a waste of time. MK spent hours of discussion with many aborts, none of them (which I know of) have converted.
Hey Jasper.
“If a pro-choicer doesn’t change his/her mind after seeing what abortion does to unborn child…”
This is the kind of situation I have in mind, though, right? As we said above, many people who label themselves as pro-choice don’t really know what abortion is, or have even seen what it does to an unborn child. To even get them to consider it, we need to, at least initially, not come across as hostile IMO.
Well yes Bobby, I would agree with that. What I meant was that some people (while it can be fun debating with them -Doug comes to mind), we could spend hrs upon hrs discussing abortion and they won’t budge an inch.
btw; hope your wife is doing Ok. Good luck with delivery, etc.
Some people support abortion rights, some people support abortion bans.
I think Jasper’s right, not too many people will change their view because of clever debate. Recent studies have shown that much of decision making is subconscious, with rational thought used to defend a position, not reach a decision.
I would submit,for example, that there isn’t an argument that can be made that would move Bobby from his religious beliefs, nor one that could convince me to adopt such beliefs. We can defend our positions with arguments, but we can’t change each other’s views that way.
Sorry, I have no interest in this approach. If a pro-choicer doesn’t change his/her mind after seeing what abortion does to unborn child, they are a waste of time. MK spent hours of discussion with many aborts, none of them (which I know of) have converted.
The point is that you don’t know. Most people don’t change their minds overnight. But most people are not going to enter the discussion that could eventually change their minds if someone comes at them looking to insult or even just with the point of view that they deserve to be insulted.
“Recent studies have shown that much of decision making is subconscious, with rational thought used to defend a position, not reach a decision.”
So the decision making that these researchers used to come up with their methodology for conducting this experiment by their own results was not made by rational reason, yet it was done subconsciously. Why would we have any reason to believe this study then if it fails to live up to its own criteria?
I know that that’s irrelevant to your point, Hal. I just think there is a lot of bad science out there. Bad methodology, bad statistics, and bad philosophy make for bad science.
Perhaps, there is a discrepancy between an action and a mindful perception-thought-idea. I agree with Hal somewhat, because many ‘thinkers’ believe that there is a necessary connection between thought (or will) and reality … so much so that many believe that ‘abortion’ is an issue. However, I tend to agree with Jasper … abortion means death … for babes … for us (what family means, what society means; and, what it means to be human). Death is a silly way to control hope!
“The point is that you don’t know.”
Ah, yes I do know. It’s almost always unsucessful. The people one has to spend hrs and days debating with are not worth it. It’s better to reach those who open to truth and maybe are just uninformed about what abortion is. Somebody who has read the stories on Jill Stanek.com for day and months and are still pro-abortion, these people I believe have callous hearts and are unreachable.
“The people one has to spend hrs and days debating with are not worth it.”
after reading what I wrote maybe a little cruel. Every person is worth it. It’s just gets darn frustrating sometimes. I’m not just refering to commenters, but politicians and others too..
As a pro-choice individual who has spent quite a bit reading the site, I can firmly say that I will not change to the anti-abortion point of view. Nor will I return to Christianity. I remember MK, and I remember when HisMan posted several times a day, and those two posters, more than any other, turned me off further to the opinions and religious beliefs represented on this board.
You know why? The insults. The constant insinuations that I wasn’t worth it. Antics like the abortion plane drive me further and further from any sort of agreement, and frankly, make me want to disagree just for disagreement’s sake.
I would submit,for example, that there isn’t an argument that can be made that would move Bobby from his religious beliefs, nor one that could convince me to adopt such beliefs. We can defend our positions with arguments, but we can’t change each other’s views that way.
Posted by: Hal at May 7, 2009 9:14 PM
In essence you are correct Hal. God is the one who moves a persons heart, but it is the actions and words of others who prepare that heart for him. People must see the face of God in others.
Bobby doesn’t need a conversion other than to do what all sincere Christians do – try to live the Gospel more fully etc. He has already embraced the truth.
And of course Alexandra’s point is quite right- people don’t change their minds overnight and certainly won’t if others are demeaning or insulting to them.
But from a spiritual point of view, God works in a way that is best for each soul and only if the soul wills it. God always leaves us free to choose. I believe a person sincerely seeking to know the truth will eventually come (back) to God.
In fact this is how many of today’s great Catholics came to be. They were seeking to uncover the truth and found themselves embracing the teachings of the Catholic church.
There’s hope for you yet, Hal! ;)
We can defend our positions with arguments, but we can’t change each other’s views that way.
Posted by: Hal at May 7, 2009 9:14 PM
——
So how do people come around to changing their views?
HA,
I am sorry for the insults. I apologize on behalf of other posters. I am sorry that you have been made to feel as though you aren’t worth it. You are.
By the way, being prolife isn’t like a club you join. It is a movement made up of people that believe we ALL have inherent value from conception to natural death and we will defend the lives of the unborn and help their mothers. We work towards justice and protection for the weakest and most defenseless among us.
So how do people come around to changing their views?
Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 8, 2009 6:43 AM
I would say that one can present the facts but unless the other person is open to them, there isn’t much that can be done.
Why do people who support abortion refuse to believe basic scientific facts about the unborn child?
Hal,
You must admit your eyes have been opened to things. You have thought a lot about what you see and read here. That abortion without choices is not choice.You have watched my story. You have seen for yourself that PP covers up statutory rape.
Maybe seeing ultrasounds of your grandchildren will in fact draw you closer to the truth that we are human beings from the moment of conception.
I am praying for you, Hal.
HA,
“I remember MK… turned me off further to the opinions and religious beliefs represented on this board. You know why? The insults. The constant insinuations that I wasn’t worth it.”
MK? Are you sure? She always tried to be nice and reach out to everyone. You may be confusing her with someone else.
Posted by: Myron at May 7, 2009 1:52 PM
It’s funny because the “Support of Pregnant Women Act” that was mentioned in the Vatican article was introduced by Democrats for Life. Hardly on the same level with Obama and other pro-abortion Democrats. The article didn’t mention that, but said it was “surprising.” No doubt he was unaware of the origins of the bill. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt regarding your ignorance of the originator.
… drive me further and further from any sort of agreement, and frankly, make me want to disagree just for disagreement’s sake.
Posted by: Human Abstract at May 8, 2009 2:20 AM
Pride is the downfall of many a man. Why cut off your nose to spite your face?
It reminds me of the story of the man who said he would instantly convert if he saw as little as a cut finger healed at the waters of Lourdes. A woman who had a horrible skin condition that disfigured her face was healed at the waters in his presence. When the people asked for his conversion he said “She’s not pretty enough.”
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at May 7, 2009 2:09 PM
Bobby, I thought that article was great! Very few people can read between the “even though”s.
Thanks Carla.
Pride is the downfall of many a man. Why cut off your nose to spite your face?
Kristen, I don’t think anyone would argue that it’s wise or admirable to maintain a factually incorrect position simply because you don’t like the people you’re debating with. But the point is, why would anyone involved in a discussion want to create an obstacle that would need to be overcome by the person whose mind they’re trying to change? People are far more likely to change their minds when they don’t have to overcome their own pride to do so.
People are far more likely to change their minds when they don’t have to overcome their own pride to do so.
Posted by: Alexandra at May 8, 2009 11:27 AM
Pride is your own matter. (Not “your” as in you, Alexandra, but the general population.) That’s why it’s one of the seven deadly sins. You only ruin yourself with pride, no one else cares. In fact, it just makes one look like a stubborn fool.
I understand and agree with that, Kristen. I have certainly struggled with my own pride at times.
But I think that if the point of discussion is to change minds then it doesn’t really matter whose ‘fault’ the prideful reaction is. Either way it’s there, and it’s something that must be dealt with before a mind can be changed, so I think everyone is better served by respectful, polite, and generally non-insulting discussion.
I agree Alexandra, I think we all struggle with pride. But if HA was saying that MK was insulting I’ve got to think that he is proud to a fault.
Now if he was talking about Hisman that’s a different animal all together. ;) (I think even the very religious, while I admire their devotion, do more harm than good when too proud.)
Oh, Kristen, I definitely think HA was mistaken in identifying MK as one of the insulting commenters! I just assumed that was a mistake in memory and it didn’t even occur to me that we were talking about the MK’s of the online discussion world! She’s a sweetheart.
Posted by: Alexandra at May 8, 2009 1:23 PM
Had to be a mistake! But I’ve gotten into it with Hisman so I can’t fault HA for that. Of course, regarding my argument with Hisman it was his pride that was a fault, not mine! ;)
How long will this billboard be up? I will be passing through South Bend around July 4 and would like to see this billboard for myself if I can.
I have to defend His Man. His posts are excellent!~
The “objection” made by the sign company is typical proabort thinking. The word “choice” adds nothing to the statement, because every thing we do is a “choice”.
Wouldn’t it be nice if there was an authoritative source to determine how the general public understands such phrases? Oh wait, there is one! It’s called a “dictionary”, and there are several of them online, and free! Here is a sampling of what some of them say about the word “proabortion”:
pro-a·bor·tion adjective – favoring legal access to abortion: in favor of open legal access to voluntary abortion http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861736813 (SINCE REMOVED!)
pro-abortion SYLLABICATION: pro-a·bor·tion PRONUNCIATION: pr-bôrshn ADJECTIVE: Favoring or supporting legalized abortion. http://www.bartleby.com/61/27/P0572700.html
Main Entry: pro·abor·tion Pronunciation: (‘)prO-&-‘bor-sh&n Function: adjective : favoring the legalization of abortion -pro·abor·tion·ist /-sh(&-)n&st/ noun http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pro-abortion
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) – pro·a·bor·tion –adjective: PROCHOICE http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=proabortion&r=66
Proabortion: PROCHOICE http://dictionary.infoplease.com/proabortion
“I remember MK… turned me off further to the opinions and religious beliefs represented on this board. You know why? The insults. The constant insinuations that I wasn’t worth it.”
Human,
You don’t make any sense, MK treated pro-aborts better than pro-lifers….
MK maintained the position that women who abort are sociopaths, and women who don’t want children clearly don’t love their significant others enough.
Of course, that was also a while ago; quite a while ago. I don’t know what’s happened to her or where she went or anything.
HisMan was the worst offender, though. My fiance at the time asked me very politely to no longer post her, as I would always walk away fuming and even more disinterested in the Christianity that he claimed to represent.
Oh, HA, I think I remember that conversation. I do seem to remember that MK said that women who have abortions and don’t regret them exhibit sociopathic tendencies, and things got out of hand from there.
I found myself getting curt with her once myself, in a different discussion, but she’s really very compassionate and level-headed. I guess I think that the really important difference between someone like her and someone who comes in slinging hellfire and condemnation all around is that when things get moving quickly and people stop thinking about what they’re saying — that’s when she says something that can irritate the person she’s talking to. Not just as a course of normal conversation. Usually, after the fact, she sees her part in the conlict and doesn’t just stick by her guns and maintain that she’s right. I’ve seen her apologize and I’ve seen her say that even though what she said wasn’t entirely wrong in her own belief system, it wasn’t the best representation of her feelings, and she’s sorry if her choice of words offended people. etc etc etc. I sometimes disagree strongly with the things she believes, but I’ve found that usually she is pretty considerate in how she frames them.
MK was wonderful to me, a post abortive mom. She knew what I had been through and offered me nothing but love. Never judgment.
You may find MK over on the blog two seconds faster.
It is the first one in Jill’s life blog links.
You people hardly make any sense. Doesn’t war and the death penalty kill people too?
HI Vlad.
“Doesn’t war and the death penalty kill people too? ”
Yes. What does that have to do with abortion?
I want to say – thank you for this!