Huge pro-abort counter protest of six
The Rocky Mountain Collegian optimistically reported “about 200” pro-abort students were anticipated to greet Justice for All when it brought its graphic abortion photo display to Colorado State University on Tuesday.
This after Campus Feminist Alliance president Lexy Hall bragged Monday afternoon she had garnered “127 confirmed attendees, 99 maybes and 491 awaiting responses,” via Facebook.
Hall assured Silveira her group would stand pro-abort guard against the 18-foot-tall photos of mutilated preborn babies “from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m.”
Then came the morning and The Rocky Mountain Collegian’s follow-up report:
In the cold of 7 a.m. on Tuesday, social work major Katie Kulcsar stood alone near the bike racks on the south side of the Lory Student Center holding a cup of coffee and looking out onto the Plaza.
As she waited, she made phone calls and sent text messages to fellow members of CSU’s Advocates for Choice and to folks from the Campus Feminist Alliance and Fort Collins’ Planned Parenthood.
By calling, her intent was to grow a protest group against the visually-disturbing anti-abortion demonstration put on by Justice For All, a Kansas-based pro-life group that set up camp on the plaza all day Tuesday….
And though only six joined Kulcsar in the counter-demonstration by 7:30 a.m., they said their message wasn’t any less clear.
So funny! The group did apparently grow – I’m guessing after the pro-choice boys finally untangled themselves from the pro-choice girls they’d identified through the Facebook group – although I note a final tally was never given, perhaps because the busy beaver pro-aborts were scurrying around too quickly to count:
By 10 a.m., the group had signs and people advocating for pro-choice, passing out condoms and fliers next to JFA’s demonstration. It also posted fliers on doors around the LSC, which read, “Graphic Images on Plaza. Caution: Alternate Routes Advised.”
How interesting that the young pro-aborts didn’t want their friends to see these particular graphic images, since we all know college students can’t handle gore – in this case exceedingly similar to that seen in slasher films.
Were they really so concerned about the mental welfare of their fellow students? Or was it that the stark and embarrassing reality of “choice” would be on unfettered display? Wish our ace student reporters had thought to ask that.
Also interesting that the pro-aborts avoided describing the particulars of the graphic images ahead. Were they mutilated hamsters? Dissected gallbladders?
In actuality their vague warnings likely had the opposite effect and attracted more curiosity seekers than if they’d not done anything.
Final thought on this pro-abort weakness and silliness: It seems to me that distributing condoms in front of huge photos of aborted babies would be a definite turn-off.
[Photos via The Rocky Mountain Collegian]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Ho hum, so pro-choicers aren’t ‘activists’. We just go about our own lives in our own ways. I would actually be surprised if there was a big turnout. It’s not like they’re protesting against war or anything.
There don’t seem to be many actual ‘activist’ pro-choice organisations. It is usually feminist or secularist groups undertaking any of these activities.
‘…after the pro-choice boys finally untangled themselves from the pro-choice girls they’d identified…’ – what is this supposed to mean?
It seems to me that distributing condoms in front of huge photos of aborted babies would be a definite turn-off’ – why? More condoms = less abortions.
@Cranium – “More condoms = less abortions.”
Nope. That’s a common fallacy Cranium.
Condom use never correlates with less abortion in any population where condoms are widely used.
What might be the sequence of events behind this incontrovertible fact?
Here is one theory:
More condoms –> false feeling of ”safe sex” –> More Sex
More Sex –> Even More Sex (it’s habit-forming) –> Pregnancy
PREGNANCY? …How did this happen?! - i didn’t know sex caused pregnancy!
… huh? what does “85%” mean ??
… i thought i was “protected”! what now? … i guess i have to …
Other theories include:
– i didn’t even use the condom b/c i was drunk
– i didn’t even use the condom b/c sex feels better without them
– i carefully and methodically put on a condom every single time no matter how heated the passionate moment is, however i got my condom from PP the abortion giant and there was a hole in it for some reason.
How can these college kids, all of whom are members of the Roe vs Wade generation, bring themselves to make common cause with a movement which relentlessly destroyed a large part of their generation?
Who is the blonde guy facing the camera in the first pic? He looks like an actor from a TV show I watch… the actor plays Myles Leland III in “Sue Thomas, F.B.Eye”.
by cranium on Oct 7, 2010 at 1:53 am
“…after the pro-choice boys finally untangled themselves from the pro-choice girls they’d identified…’ – what is this supposed to mean?”
——————————————————————————————————————————-
cranium ab surdium
When I was a young stud on the hunt for young ladies who were sexually active, I targeted the babes who smoked. If they smoked, then it was an indication that they were ‘easy’ or ‘easier’. Low hanging fruit, ripe for the picking.
Now, there were some girls who did not smoke who did the deed, and there were some girls who smoked and did not do the deed, but smoking was a pretty reliable indicator.
The smell of stale cigarette smoke was a bit of a turnoff, especially being a non-smoker myself, but I was not looking for a long term relationship built on mutual respect and shared interests.
(I am no longer young, nor a stud, nor ‘on the hunt’. I have bagged my last babe. [28 years fidelity to one woman] I removed my self from the game after one STD, one dead son, and multiple broken hearts.)
Today’s feministas have made the identification of likely candidates for recreational sex so much easier.
When the lovely lasses wear tee shirts promoting ‘condoms and choice’, it is a much more identifiable and reliable indication of promiscuity than ‘smoking’ and it lets the would be studs know they have a very good chance of evading responsibility and, more importantly, accountability should their ‘tangling’ with a liberated lass result in a ‘pregnancy’.
[Accountability= paternity suits, and subsequent child support for at least 18 years.]
The boys don’t necessarily have to be pro-choice to be ‘tangled up’ with the more than willing waifs.
The boys are more interested in gratifying their lust than finding an ideological soul mate.
All the contemporary sophistries aside, it used to be known as ‘whoring around’. (I use ‘whore’ in a non-gender specifc manner.)
Well, I was most ardently pro-choice in my late teens and early 20’s, and I was a virgin until I was almost 23. I would definitely not have listened for one hot second to anyone who continuously asserted that I was promiscuous because of my political beliefs, which were based on principle and not personal convenience. It is one more way to demonstrate that you’re wrong, and if you’re right then you shouldn’t need to rely on crap like that.
What is gained by making comments like that? What is lost?
From the post
In actuality their vague warnings likely had the opposite effect and attracted more curiosity seekers than if they’d not done anything.
EXACTLY, JILL!!
I agree with Alexandra, I think the personal comment was uncalled-for, not helpful, and stereotypical. Regardless of why they didn’t show up, the point is that they weren’t there and the pro-lifers were.
It wasn’t me who first suggested that pro-choice girls are easy. It was Chris Rock. Warning, vulgar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tCkqWptDH0
If I saw signs saying “Warning: visual assault ahead” I would have gone out of my way to see the photos myself and see what all the fuss was about. Dumb move on the part of the pro-abortion group.
Yeah, and I think Chris Rock is being a jerk. Again: what is gained by comments like that? What is lost?
Agreed, Sydney.
My curiosity would get the best of me.
The blond guy is my buddy Steve and I have helped Justice for all at this event numerous times. Many, many people become pro-life when they see the truth. Great analysis Jill.
“It wasn’t me who first suggested that pro-choice girls are easy.”
Alexandria, just like you I was ardently PC when I was younger and was not sexually active until I was 21. And Chris Rock is ALWAYS a jerk.
I don’t like the term “easy” because it is sexist. I don’t think it’s a good idea for anyone to be promiscuous, but why is it still acceptable for men to be so, but women who act this way are still referred to as “sluts,” “tramps,” etc.?
Anyway, at my alma mater, the PC student group had T-shirts printed that said “JUST SAY NO TO SEX WITH PROLIFERS.” One could imply that they were saying “yes” to sex with anyone else. Then to prove that they had the right to “control their own bodies,” they took off their tops. Even the PC students on campus were puzzled by this. It certainly didn’t do much to dispel the stereotype.
Jojo, I love the way you blow the myth that “more condoms=less abortions”. Indeed, as recent studies show, it is mythical to think that contraception of any kind leads to less abortions. It is important to realise that Planned Parenthood knows that too. That explains why they can be at the same time promoters of contraception and providers of abortion. They know that when a young woman comes to them for cotraceptives, she will likely be back one day for an abortion. and maybe later on yet another abortion, boosting PPs bottom line and expanding their business. All the while the woman is being used and abused by PP and by her sexual partner(s) while PP thrives on her misery.
Would I be asking too much if I expected “Visual Assault” girl to hold her warning sign when a Planned Parenthood Vox group has a table set up?
You know…the tables with plastic penises and vaginas, sex toys, condoms, plugs, dental dams,
Fulton Sheen’s Three to Get Married?If I saw signs saying “Warning: visual assault ahead” I would have gone out of my way to see the photos myself and see what all the fuss was about. Dumb move on the part of the pro-abortion group.
It reminds me of the part in the fifth Harry Potter book, when most of the wizarding world refuses to believe that Voldemort has returned and Harry gives an interview to The Quibbler about how he saw Voldemort return. Professor Umbridge, who’s become the school dictator, bans the newspaper from the school. Hermione gets excited and sees this as a good sign; now that reading the interview is banned, everyone is going to want to find it and read it to see what the big deal is.
Chris Rock is a jerk. I don’t think “someone else said it first” is a terribly good defense.
The blond guy is my buddy Steve
Not bad, not bad at all. Maybe he can be in our prolife beefcake calendar! (gives a cougar growwwl) ;-)
James C,
Thank you and your buddy Steve for your powerful witness to the truth of what abortion does to an innocent preborn child!!
I am grateful for your voice!! I am grateful for MEN in the prolife movement!
I like that Chris Rock video, but the same concept was in the movie Dogma, too. That had Chris Rock in it, but it was actually Jason Mewes (Jay) who said this: “We figure an abortion clinic is a good place to meet loose women. Why else would they be there unless they like to ****?”
“Ho hum, so pro-choicers aren’t ‘activists’. We just go about our own lives in our own ways. I would actually be surprised if there was a big turnout. It’s not like they’re protesting against war or anything”
———————————–
Dang! That’s the best Truth I heard a pro-abort said in a long while…
You heard it from the horse’s mouth…they don’t care enough about their cause to walk the walk. In fact they don’t care about anything else except their own life.
army_wife: The blond haired guy in the top photo is Steve Wagner of Justice for All.
Here’s his site:
http://stephenmwagner.blogspot.com/
Meh, it figures that Steve is married (presumably happily).
(sighs and retracts claws) :-(
The name of the actor that this Steve guy looks like is Ted Atherton. IMDB doesn’t have a pic of him but if you ever look up a Sue Thomas, F.B.Eye fan site and look at a picture of the character “Myles Leland III” it is uncanny how mch Steve looks like him.
Thanks for the info, guys!
I think I might have seen posted on this blog “If you really want to know when life begins just ask any guy getting ready to roll on a condom”. It’s not rocket science unlike what BHO replied to Rick Warren ”That’s above my paygrade”. Nah!
Thanks Jojo Dancer your post is right on regarding condom usage as it was regarding homosexuality. I appreciate your honesty, and transparency not PC but “the truth will set you free”. Joanne I agree with you also. Did you or anyone see the documentary “Blood Money”? Carol Everett, ex-abortuary owner states in the movie that (I paraphrase here) “we knew if we got a young girl on birth control we could count on each of these girls to come back for 4-5 abortions”.
And ladies no, it is not every pro-choicers experience that they are or were promiscuous but my guess is that you are the exception but I am very glad that you did not expose yourself to the physical, emotional, mental, social and spirtual risk of prosmiscuity. I also agree with you phillymiss, there is still a double-standard in place, labeling women as “hos, bitches, sluts’, etc and men as “studs, hunks,” etc. but if you listen to the music of rappers, watch the movies, the computer games, the websites, etc women are called these names unabashedly promoting this degradation of women.
I agree that a warning sign would in fact make me want to see it all the more however if I had two young children with me it would make me turn around. I would have no problem with those signs if they were preceded by a NC-17 restriction. If you guys want to stand there with those signs and show them to adults that’s fine. It’s when you assault children “even your own” that really bothers me. I wouldn’t show a child a picture of a C-section birth for the same reason… nightmares.
yor bro ken (and I shan’t respond to your droll little name game – again)
When I was about 16 I found girls who went to church, oh and girl guides too, to be more, um, ‘accommodating’. Others were too strong minded to be easily persuaded or misled, the ‘good’ girls seemed to be bursting to release their chains.
I was a virgin til I wasn’t.
I was promiscuous til I wasn’t.
As a son and a father I would desire my children to be chaste to spare them the same grief that I caused/experienced by ‘whoring’ around.
“And Chris Rock is ALWAYS a jerk.”
Don’t forget, honest. At least in this case.
army_wife : Heh – Steve does look like Ted Atherton.
Although the paper reported only 6 protesters, there were actually more throughout the day. I estimate the number was more like 30. The folks who were a committed presence all day probably numbered 15.
The more important number, I think, is the number of pro-choice advocates — I estimate around 500 — from the campus who made their viewpoint known on our free speech board, poll tables, on our open mic, and/or engaged in dialogue with our team of more than 65 volunteers and staff.
The point here is not to say that the “counter-protest” numbered that many, but to say that “protesters” are not a good gauge of who on a campus is willing to argue for the pro-choice view and dialogue and even rethink their position.
When pro-life advocates purposefully seek to engage those who disagree — one of the purposes of Justice For All’s “Abortion: From Debate to Dialogue” training program — pro-choice students come out of the woodwork. They’re more than ready to engage us.
My question is this: do we as pro-lifers want to talk to pro-choice advocates? If so, we should start with what JFA considers to be the three essential skills: asking questions with an open heart, listening to understand, and finding common ground whenever possible. When we do, we find that many pro-choice advocates listen in return and allow us to offer a compelling case for the pro-life view…one that causes them to rethink their position.
Steve Wagner
Blog: http://www.stephenmwagner.com
Web: http://www.jfaweb.org
“When I was about 16 I found girls who went to church, oh and girl guides too, to be more, um, ‘accommodating’. Others were too strong minded to be easily persuaded or misled, the ‘good’ girls seemed to be bursting to release their chains.”
Why don’t you fill us all in with stats of the number of ‘accomodating’ church-going- girls vs. the strong-minded non-church-going girls. What are the numbers Cranium?
The fact that you in your own words persuaded and/or misled young girls (predatory behaviors) doesn’t take away from the girls’ goodness in the least, church-going or not.
It only points out the absence of goodness in you.
I’ll let you do that if you wish Praxedes. I only said what I found, mainly as a response to yor bro ken’s little description of what he had found.
And although you may not accept it, I assure you I was not predatory at all. In fact I often found myself the target of the ‘lust’ of some girls. I did not have to persuade or mislead, that was the hard work required to achieve any interaction with girls outside those groups. It also never led anywhere too untoward anyway, just ‘fooling around’. But it was these ‘sheltered’ groups where I did find myself more ‘in demand’ and needing to make less effort.
In my ‘goodness’ I did not push things and there were no unintended consequences. But then again, people always tell me I’m too soft :-)
“Others were too strong minded to be easily persuaded or misled, the ‘good’ girls seemed to be bursting to release their chains.”
You weren’t talking about the girls that lustily targeted you.
You talked about how the ”strong minded” could not “be easily persuaded or misled.” Therefore, it was the weak (or naive) you preyed upon and as a result of your persuasions and lies these girls became um, ‘accomodating’. They ‘seemed’ to you to be bursting to release their chains but that doesn’t mean they were.
Some of us good church-going girls learned the hard way about you persuasive, misleading ‘good’ ole boys.
But then again, people always tell me I’m too soft.
This I do believe. Soft Cranium.
That’s my point Praxedes, they didn’t need to be persuaded or mislead. They initiated things. They took things as far as they wanted to. I just responded to their lead, I acquiesed to their ‘direction’. Whereas with the none-church goers, they needed real effort to achieve anything with.
Any time someone does something that you don’t agree with you consider them to be evil or predators don’t you. Wake up, see the real world, there are far more dangerous ‘predators’ than a 16 year old boy letting girls find what they want with him.
‘Persuaded’ and ‘mislead’ were your words, not mine. It’s hard to rewrite history when it is right here in black and white. One only has to re-read what has been written.
This sentence alone speaks volumes of your nature, “Whereas with the none-church goers, they needed real effort to achieve anything with.”
Sometimes these misleading, persuasive teen boys grow into the far more dangerous predators that you refer to. Sometimes these boys push a bit harder once she realizes she has been misled. Sometimes they become men who pressure women to abort. Sometimes they become abortionists. Sometimes they beat their girlfriends or wives when the persuasions no longer work. Sometimes they leave her alone to raise the child(ren) they both are responsible for. Sometimes they become politicians who use words like ‘mispoke’ rather than ‘misled’.
Sometimes they become outspoken advocates of horrible atrocities like abortion that furthers the objectification of females.
It is you, not me, who needs to wake-up and see the real world.
“Any time someone does something that you don’t agree with you consider them to be evil or predators don’t you”
I do believe that misleading and persuading others to get what you want in spite of it not being in their best interest is evil and predatory behavior. You often excuse others (yourself included) who do this, don’t you?
If you actually read what I have said with a less self-serving approach you would realize that you are the one attempting to ‘re-write history’ in an attempt to twist it to suit your desired outcome. I say that with the acknowledgement that the way we speak, write and read things does entail variable comprehension.
My initial statement was: ‘When I was about 16 I found girls who went to church, oh and girl guides too, to be more, um, ‘accommodating’. Others were too strong minded to be easily persuaded or misled, the ‘good’ girls seemed to be bursting to release their chains.’ – OK, let’s break it down.
“When I was about 16 I found girls who went to church, oh and girl guides too, to be more, um, ‘accommodating’.” see the full stop? That means the sentence and it’s statement has ended.
Then we proceed: “Others were too strong minded to be easily persuaded or misled”, – comma, see the comma?
“the ‘good’ girls seemed to be bursting to release their chains.” as in, no persuasion or misleading was required.
Does this make it clearer?
And then you go off on a diatribe of self-serving accusations of tenuous and non-evidential links, and end with an absolute doozie! –
‘I do believe that misleading and persuading others to get what you want in spite of it not being in their best interest is evil and predatory behavior. You often excuse others (yourself included) who do this, don’t you?’
– I’m not the one attempting to ‘persuade’, mislead’ or even cajole, harangue or harass others to get what I want – I’m arguing that people should be able to lead their lives as they wish without certain groups displaying the above behaviors.
“Others were too strong minded to be easily persuaded or misled,”
You wouldn’t be able to separate out which girls were ‘too strong minded’ if you hadn’t accomplished what you wanted with those that weren’t.
Everyone here can read what has been written and decide for themselves. I have been tested and have been found to have no problems with reading comprehension. In fact, I scored well enough to teach it in our public schools.
Does this make it clearer?
You betcha. Please keep writing because the more you type, the clearer you become. Especially to good, strong-minded, church-going women who are no longer easily misled.
Oh yeah, abortion is WRONG. OK let’s break it down.
Abortion. Is. WRONG .
Period. See the period?
I hope this makes it clearer for you oh so Soft Cranium.
You’re almost good at distorting what others have said.
The church girls (and the girl guides) initiated ‘activities’, the non-church girls didn’t. They required persuasion to even get anything started. That’s what I found, that’s what separated them.
‘I scored well enough to teach it in our public schools.’ – and what is it that some of your cohorts on this site have said about education?
‘Especially to good, strong-minded, church-going women who are no longer easily misled’ – in my opinion, the fact that they are church going shows that they are misled. Just my opinion of course. But I am sure that they are good women.
Oh yeah, abortion is accepted. OK lets break it down.
Abortion, Is. Accepted.
See the period? Any period. Abortion exists within them all.
My head can’t be that soft if I keep bouncing it off you without falling down :-)
Your monicker is so so appropriate Praxedes.
“Abortion, Is. Accepted.”
Abortion is accepted by some. Misleading and persuading girls to have sex is accepted by some.
To the rest of us they both will always remain wrong.
then in relation to abortion Praxedes, you are on the losing side.
It’s not about winning to me Cranium.
then what are you doing Praxedes?
and that’s cranium with a lower case c as it is merely a nominal monicker, not based on some nefarious, barely known historical figure
“then what are you doing Praxedes?”
Bringing the Truth to you cranium.
You bring your truth. Not the truth. Not my truth.