Stanek weekend question: Is it morally acceptable to picket the homes of abortionists and abortion clinic workers?
UPDATE 5/29, 9:05a: Charmaine Yoest of Americans United for Life tweeted this thought, which I think is a good one to also probe: “I think it’s more of a question of effectiveness/strategy rather than morality.” Commenters yor bro ken, CC, and ninek all pondered the same. Thoughts?
5/28, 2:32: I mentioned a couple weeks ago an abortion clinic escort had asked to interview me. She posted my responses yesterday, and I’ll post hers on Monday.
Two of Jessica’s questions were:
- Do you think protesting anyone on the pro-choice side at their personal home is ok?
- Do you think “outing” abortion staff, volunteers, and/or patients to their neighbors, communities, schools, families, etc, is ok?
I answered “Yes” to both, mentioning that I, myself, had participated in such a pro-life picket (at the home of an abortionist).
What say you, and why?
May.28, 2011 2:32 pm |
Weekend question |
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.
Is it morally acceptable to picket the homes of abortionists and the homes of abortion clinic workes?
What does ‘morality’ have to do with it?
But yes and yes.
It is called focusing soicial pressure on the ‘dead babies r us’ crowd and making them own their ‘choice’. It increases the tension which is necessary to bring about a change toward justice.
Picketing the ‘dead babies r us’ folks at their places of worship, recreation, fraternization is also acceptable.
When the abortionists daughter/son pulls in the driveway of her home and gets out of his/her car and reads the name of her/his father/mother on the placards and then turns indignantly and walks away you know the strategy/tactic is effective.
The ‘dead babies r us’ mob are forced to confront the issue once more and this time it will probably be around the dinner table. Now the issue is not only inside their head and hearts, it is in their home.
No justice, no peace.
(1) Picketing at their homes – no, absolutely not. I don’t think that is acceptable in the slightest. For me, that crosses the line into harassment. If someone was running an abortion facility out of their home, it might be a different story, but otherwise we have to exercise common decency. Regardless of the repugnance of what they do for a living, they are still people with inherent dignity and entitled to privacy in their personal home.
(2) This I tend toward saying no as well, except in the instance of a church. I think a parishioner would have a moral obligation if there was a practicing abortionist or clinic worker in the congregation to let the pastor know so that the pastor could talk with him/her about why God really doesn’t approve of the murder of innocent unborn children. (Then again, some denominations like the ELCA and the Episcopal church celebrate the murder of the unborn, so it wouldn’t make a difference there…)
I guess if I knew that there was an abortionist or PP worker living next door to me, all it would really encourage me to do is to pray for him or her fervently, and maybe try to strike up a conversation about why I felt abortion was wrong if I saw him/her around the neighborhood.
Ms. Stanek is a terrorist. Terrorist; one who seeks to control others by terrorizing them.
I thought *celebrity* was a value within the American Dream? Could it possibly be that these people are not really proud of what they do for a living? Many of them proclaim what a service they are doing for humanity.
What is the confused significance of the word “outing” itself? The deeds of darkness hate the light.
It’s not only *OK* – I would say it’s incumbent upon anyone calling themselves Pro-Life to utilize every legal means to stop what they know to be a moral wrong. We already suffer too much complicity for allowing this travesty to occur on our watch.
Yes and Yes. The “right” to privacy was conjured out of thin air.
To the first question I say NO. It would only look like harassment, and it would give ammunition to the pro-aborts who already think pro-lifers are crazy zealots. It certainly would not change the heart or mind of the abortionist, but would probably harden him even further against Life. I don’t see the upside at all.
I say only if they are high prolife. For example I once participated in a candlelight vigil at a senators house (for another issue) and friends said it was harassment (even though it was completely peaceful). I think when you are a public figure it is part of your job. So any politician who supports abortion, any high-standing abortionist, PPH exec, etc. I think it is ok. Random community members you found out are pro-choice? Not so classy. Abortionist? Well…jury is still out for me.
by “pro-life” I mean profile haha!
It’s not only *OK* – I would say it’s incumbent upon anyone calling themselves Pro-Life to utilize every legal means to stop what they know to be a moral wrong. We already suffer too much complicity for allowing this travesty to occur on our watch.
Agreed. It evidences the courage of our conviction. If abortion is everything we know it to be, this is the least we can do in support of the lives lost until the laws are rightfully changed. It would be held against us (and is, frequently in my experiences of debating with pro-abortionists) that we can’t really believe that pre-born life is actually as valuable as post-born humans, or else we’d be raising more fuss than we do.
Could a movement so willing to violate universal social norms of basic decency and respect for the property and privacy of others in pursuit of its goals be that far off from violating the law as well? A line that is drawn at adherence to the bare minimum societal obligations one is expected to observe–i.e. the law–is tenuous at best. For now, the anti-abortion movement can mollify most of its more ardent members by pointing out that it’s still fairly young, that public opinion polls supposedly show incremental gains being made, and so on. But what about in 25 or 50 years, when abortion is still legal and the prospects for changing that have not improved? What will the Jill Staneks of the world be willing to resort to at that point after it has become perfectly obvious that nuisance tactics like these are not accomplishing anything? Here’s a weekend question I’d like to see posed on this site, if the webmasters have the courage: what, if any, conditions would be necessary for you to endorse violence or other acts of law-breaking as legitimate tactics for the pro-life movement to accomplish its long-term goals?
Amen X-girl!
The church is called to be salt and light.
“Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.” Ep 5.11
I wouldn’t worry about offending their sensibilities.
THEY’RE KILLING UNBORN CHILDREN!!!
If we happen to shame them…GOOD!
They should be ashamed of what they’re doing!
Could a movement so willing to violate universal social norms of basic decency and respect for the property and privacy of others
HA! HAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAAA!
willing to violate universal social norms
You mean like the norm of a mother caring for her child?
of basic decency
You mean like killing the most vulnerable human beings among us?
and respect for the property and privacy of others
You mean like hoisting around pictures of a naked dead woman who killed herself while trying to kill her child in utero?
Joan, your movement was FOUNDED on the PRINCIPLE (lie) that you pro-choice women were violating the law that existed protecting pre-born humans IN THE FIRST PLACE, and that you were dying by the MILLIONS because you were BREAKING THE LAW.
Don’t make me laugh.
Theoretically I would say yes to both. A serial killer deserves to be labelled as one. But I am uneasy and repulsed by the idea of picketing abortionists’ homes. It would give too much encouragement to the crazies with guns, like the guy posted about yesterday.
And no, Joan, no one on this site condones ANY kind of violence.
Except pro-aborts like you, of course.
“willing to violate universal social norms
You mean like the norm of a mother caring for her child?
of basic decency
You mean like killing the most vulnerable human beings among us?”
Bulls eye, spot on, you nailed it Xalisae.
Here, here.
I agree with you, Ed.
Awesome answers to the interview questions, Jill. Thanks for all you do.
I especially found it ironic that Jessica’s thinks it is violent if we call those who support abortion proaborts. If abortion isn’t violent why would calling someone a proabort be violent? They support abortion therefore they are pro abortion. A human dies in an abortion and if you support abortion you are pro death.
These terms sound violent to Jessica because ABORTION IS VIOLENT.
1. Picket abortionists home? No. Crosses the line to harrassment. How would you and your family and neighbors feel if pro-aborts decided to picket your home for whatever reason they concocted?
2. Out abortion staff? Yes. If they’re so afraid or ashamed of what they do that they don’t want others to know, then it’s time they change jobs.
My first gut reaction is no, don’t do it. The pro-aborts will claim that we are threatening violence (even if we are not). They’ll claim that by revealing the homes of abortion workers, we are telegraphing to violent people where the abortion workers live and to go get them. This may not be the intention at all, but the pro-aborts will believe (or pretend to believe) that it is. We must avoid even the appearance of evil.
I may be wrong about this. There may be positive things about such tactics that I don’t know about, which outwigh the negatives. But my first reaction is no, don’t do it.
I would say no to the first. That really smacks of harassment, and it most definitely could incite people with a more tenuous grasp on pro-life principles to violent actions.
However, as to “outing” people, with the caveat that I am excluding patients from the list of people Jessica gave, I have no problem with that. A major purpose of the pro-life movement, is to increase social pressure against abortion. Or, to put it another way, “Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word ‘tension.’ I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth.” – Martin Luther King, Jr., “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” April 16, 1963.
Increasing social tension and pressure, nonviolently, is an absolutely essential part of creating social change. Especially when there are a large number of abortion defenders who constantly try to say, “This issue is settled and we should all drop it.” Well, it’s not settled. It’s not getting dropped. I’m not sorry that the pro-life movement creates social tension and I’m not sorry abortionists and clinic workers feel it. I hope they do feel it. I hope they are shamed and rejected in their communities. To the point where abortion becomes utterly rejected by the entire country and criminalizes their work.
So, no. I have no problem with outing anyone as an abortion worker (again, patients are excluded). Nor do I feel sorry for them if they loose respect because of it. They work in an industry that kills children. It isn’t respectable.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4njer6BBgQ&w=425&h=349%5D
Joan
What if any, conditions would be necessary for you to endorse violence or other acts of law-breaking as legitimate tactics for the pro-life movement to accomplish it’s long term goals.
The best and most effective kind of violence in my opinion and of course the present conditions warrant this type of action is for pro-lifers to make planned parenthood’s agenda much more accessible to the public. So when pro-lifers go to clinics they should be prepared with literature on margaret sangers beliefs and the eugenics movement. Maybe something in book form to show how planned parenthood really feels about economically disadvantaged women and their offspring. So it’s just intellectual violence no one gets in trouble and women hopefully will get a clue as to the reason why they are so pressured not to reproduce. Something that would work even better is to have a documentary on t.v doing a complete history of the organizations founding beliefs and the money they receive to kill. And maybe it could be titled connect the dots.
Camille T.
The Downs’ baby that she held and comforted while he died in an American hospital without even a shred of mercy would probably disagree with you. Do a little research on how they murder the pre-born and then you can have a better understanding of who the real terrorists are.
Protesting at people’s homes, places of business, and social occassions has been appropriate social action for every other social ill, it’s always confused with criminal ‘harassment’ by those targeted by it, but there is a big difference between a peaceful protest, even at a person’s home or church, and invasion of privacy or criminal harassment. (That would be going *into* their home and protesting in their livingroom or sanctuary). A private facility, be it home, office, social gather, etc, if a private facility, if it’s ok to protest in one (as long as you stay on public ground or agreed upon private space) it’s okay to protest in another.
Animal Right’s Activists protest against preceived animal abuse at both home, office, other.
Civil Right’s Activists protest(ed) against racism at both home, office, other.
Environmentalists protest against logging, pollution, et al, at both home, office, other.
Homosexual Activists protest against their political enemies at both home, office, other.
Pro-choice Activists protest against high profile pro-life political enemies at both home, office, other.
Anti-Apartied Activists protested against diplomats from S. Africa at both home, office, other.
Am I making my point? As a matter of fact most of those people invade(d) private property during their protests. Animal Rights activists break into private businesses to stage protests. Environmentalists chain themselves/invade private businesses to protest. Civil Rights activists protested within private business. Etc, Etc, Etc. Pro-life protesters are polite enough in their civil protesting to remain on public land and not invade private to protest. They are perhaps the MOST polite protesters EVER.
Jespren, your reasoning essentially amounts to “Others do it so we can, too.” It IS harrassment and it IS still wrong, regardless of who does it. Moreover, it damages the credibility and message of the pro-life movement when we do it. So no, you have NOT made your point.
Absolutely not. To either accounts. Like Camille said, what these people are doing is flat out terrorism. I can rest assured in the idea that if the people who disagreed with your life-style picketed outside your resident you would be not only pissed off, but wallowing in your hypocritical attitudes. Id be pissed of if someone picketed MY home. Its my property. And if your argument is theyre outside the property line. Then they are nothing but trolls. And my advice is get a life.
Now. This POSTER. Has asked that we do not threaten or violate peoples privacy in these comments, but they just got done telling us how they do it to other people. its okay as long as it is to someone who we as a group disagree with right? Such as Pro-choicers. That my friends, is the most idiotic Ideal I have ever heard of. And I feel you should be smarter than this. Humanity -100 points.
Actually Tom, my point was society finds it acceptable practice in all other cases, so they can not logically call foul on pro-lifers doing it. It’s a case of ‘what’s good for the gander is good for the goose’. It’s socially acceptable to picket/protest at private facilities of any type as long as those protesters stay on public ground. Since it’s socially acceptable, it’s a non-issue, there is absolutely no reason for us to feel uncomfortable about a perfectly legal and agreed upon acceptable practice. The historical fact is that those protested always say their privacy and rights are being impinged upon but society has always allowed this as proper American civil protest. For us to have qualms about it makes no logical sense and holds us to a legal and ethical standard different than other political/moral protesters. As a group primarily made up of religiously minded individuals we already hold ourselves to a higher standard by choosing to avoid ‘civil disobedience’ by protesting on private property. But if you think that it’s inapropriate for pro-lifers to protest outside homes/places of worship, then you must logically say it was/is inapropriate for ALL protesters to do so as well. And yet other groups are not vilified for these practices. In fact most are applauded for it!
Jespren, that is total nonsense. The only people in “society” who “find it acceptable” to picket people’s homes are those who themselves engage in this egregious practice. Those who engage in such activity sink to a lower standard, not a higher one.
The “higher standard” which you have apparently overlooked is called the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” And stop twisting my words: I did NOT include “places of worship.” I said homes. Period.
Tom, the law finds it morally acceptable, society, in not condeming all those other groups I mentioned find it acceptable. That *you* might not is your choice. But you make us poor students of history to say society doesn’t find it acceptable. As for ‘The Golden Rule’, I would be annoyed if someone picketed me, but I would recognize it as their Constitutional right and close my blinds! Depending upon who was picketing me I may or maynot reevaluate my stance on whatever the issue was. More importantly, to me, is the Bible says we are to 1) follow God’s rule above man’s law and 2) follow our countries rules insomuch as they don’t conflict with God’s law. There isn’t anything in the Bible telling us not to protest immoral laws or people. So since it’s Consitutionally legal for us to protest outside a private place of any sort (that includes homes), I have absolutely no moral qualms about doing so. (Now I’ve never had the opertunity, I’m disabled and protests are extremely hard for me, but that doesn’t invalidate my stance).
I wouldn’t feel comfortable about protesting outside the homes of individual people who support infanticide. As far as outing “abortion” patients (read: the actual women who have committed infanticide), I would say yes, but only to their family and friends – and absolutely NOT on the internet or to strangers. (Of course, this really depends on the situation. I know someone who committed infanticide, and I’m sure as hell not going to go around telling people about it, because she was really coerced into it, and it’s not as though she’s proud of it.) But as for outing the actual “doctors” who kill the infants, hell yes! How else are the “fanatics” going to know whom to kill?
Austin Nedved wrote:
But as for outing the actual “doctors” who kill the infants, hell yes! How else are the “fanatics” going to know whom to kill?
Lauren wrote [on another thread]:
No disability is worse than being born without a soul, Joan. My condolences.
Maria wrote [on another thread]:
It’s ironic he thinks of himself as human, even though he has to be in a wheel chair and have a body guard.
Welcome, Christians, to http://www.jillstanek.com!
Jespren, I’m glad you agree that God’s law is higher than man’s law.
So when you hide behind the legality of protesting on the sidewalks in front of people’s houses (man’s law) and yet also acknowledge that you would be aggravated by people protesting in front of your house, you are making it quite clear that you are willing to violate the Golden Rule (God’s Law, Matthew 7:12).
So should those of us who are pro-choice be protesting in front of Catholic rectories?
As far as outing “abortion” patients (read: the actual women who have committed infanticide), I would say yes, but only to their family and friends – and absolutely NOT on the internet or to strangers.
That’s still a violation of patient confidientiality. But yeah, it’s great for intimidation. Let’s scare those women by threatening to ”out them” to their friends.
I personally wouldn’t be bothered by picketers if I knew I was doing nothing wrong.
But yeah, picket all you want. It’s sure to win the hearts and minds of those who might be ambivalent about the abortion issue. BTW, are you folks picketing outside the homes of legislators who support the death penalty or members of congress who support cutting back on WIC funds for those women who give birth?
“Homosexual Activists protest against their political enemies at both home, office, other”
Got a source for that?
“And no, Joan, no one on this site condones ANY kind of violence.
Except pro-aborts like you, of course”
When has Joan or any other pro-choicer advocated violence? BTW, if you’re doing the death toll tally, the score shows that the “pro-lifers” have a higher score. As I pointed out on another thread, Mr. Lang was deeply involved in the ”pro-life” movement. He even wrote down a “Hail Mary” regarding those who deserved to die.
Alice, did you know that MLK, Jr. supported Planned Parenthood:
“For these constructive movements we are prepared to give our energies and consistent support; because in the need for family planning, Negro and white have a common bond; and together we can and should unite our strength for the wise preservation, not of races in general, but of the one race we all constitute — the human race.”
MLK, Jr.
“I hope they are shamed and rejected in their communities. To the point where abortion becomes utterly rejected by the entire country and criminalizes their work”
Not going to happen in the areas of the country that value individual freedom. And when abortion was criminalized, women died and unwanted children filled orphanages where they were abused. That you would seek to bring women back to “the good old days,” underscores the misogyny of the forced birth movement. No better way to control women than to control their reproductive organs.
My personal take on the issue is that this “issue” takes up far too much time and energy when we should be devoting our collective brainpower to other things.
Is it merely coincidence that the majority of abortions occur in the segments of the population which are systemically depressed economically? Is it currently a question of “morality” (which is arrogant and pretentious, by the way) when perhaps it should be considered a question of economics?
My own belief is that babies who cannot have a place in their mother’s life should be born and then put up for adoption. I don’t like the idea of putting an end to a potential life, but I at least have to accept that sometimes economics is a more powerful motivator than “morality”.
As far as the picketing is concerned, I find what these people (abortion clinic workers) do no more repulsive than any other job. Those who assume that human life has a powerful intrinsic meaning just because we happen to be conscious is missing a few screws up top. I’m wholeheartedly against picketing these folks. Unless, of course, they’d be willing to join me in picketing against bakers or janitors. I hate those fellows.
“My own belief is that babies who cannot have a place in their mother’s life should be born and then put up for adoption”
Now that abortion is legal, there are many couples on the waiting list for babies – special needs kids not so much. If abortion is criminalized, there will be a surplus of babies which will mean opening orphanages. But with government cutting back on funds for this kind of thing, what happens then?
But again. I suspect that if we “pro-aborts” were to picket the residence of Catholic priests, there would be some objections raised. And they would be valid. Nuff said.
CC, both you and joan advocate violence against unborn children; you even offed your own unborn child with a turkey baster, remember? And bragged out it right on this site. Joan thinks all Down Syndrome children should be murdered before birth. She said so just today.
The only difference between you and Lang is that both of you want to pretend what you’re advocating isn’t violence. I say: Own it!
BTW, the sign, in the photo, that says “killer” underscores how the homicidal tendencies of deranged anti-choicers like Roeder, Rudolph, etc. and now, Mr. Lang, are exacerbated by the violent lexicon of the ”pro-life” movement. It’s just a short hop from thinking about these “murderers” to committing murder, in the name of God, against these ”murderers.”
MP- Marry me? You’re wonderful! Hahahaha… Yeah, last I checked Jesus said many things about loving thy enemy, but never actually mentioned abortion. Eh, ‘Christian’ is a loose term, as it were.
CC, both you and Joan advocate violence against unborn children; you even offed your own unborn child with a turkey baster, remember
I don’t know if my turkey baster “offed” an “unborn child.” More likely, it prevented a fertilized egg from reaching the uterus - the point at which the medical community defines the beginning of the development of the “human” embryo. I had an unusually long period after unprotected sex. It was 1968 and if abortion had been legal I would have had one and been proud of it today as it was far better to terminate the fetus of a psychotic abuser than to give birth to it. Besides, I need to finish college and a baby would have gotten the way. There, now you know. You can feel free to castigate me as a selfish you know what; but I really don’t care. My experience just solidified my pro-choice world view.
Inasmuch as you hate abortion, Lori, it’s legal and no more violent than the removal of any other organ from the body. But are you really saying that abortion is the same as murdering abortion providers? Is that the position of your church?
Tom, you missed the last half of the verse “for this is the Law and the Prophets”. It’s against God’s law to kill innocents. If I had inadvertantly slipped into mental bondage that allowed me to justify killing innocents (or breaking any other of God’s laws) I ABSOLUTELY would want anyone, stranger or friend, to do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING possible to snap me out of it. Even though, in the midst of such chastisement, I probably wouldn’t be very happy. Not being annoyed isn’t the end all be all of life. In fact I find it to be so unimportant as to be laughable that people bring up that they might be ‘bothered’ by someone else exercising legal rights. I would never do to someone what I wouldn’t want done to me if I was in a like situation! If I was going to do something unbiblical I sincerly hope everyone around me that knows I follow the Bible would do their level best to keep me from it. In fact my non-christian friends would ‘censor’ what books they recommended to me, what gatherings they invited me to, what movies they recommened. If I’m in a group of my (mostly non-christian) friends and they are all talking about a movie they all loved I can ask them ‘would I like this?’ And they will honestly say ‘i loved it, bt no, you shouldn’t read it’ likewise I have mentioned titles in a ‘hey I’ve heard good things about this and I’m planning on reading it’ and have them say ‘no Jessica, you shouldn’t read that.’ Those are minimal examples, I know, but there have been more serious examples where relatives have had to (figuratively) beat me over the head to turn me from a bad path. And I have appreciated that. So no, I am NOT forgetting ‘the Golden Rule’, I am infact applying it while ignoring the PC feel-good secular version that says being ‘happy’ is the goal in life.
I don’t think we should picket the homes of abortionists. But I do believe we should picket their place of “work”.
I don’t home picketing is in any way constructive to changing the person’s opinion about what they are doing and I also believe ultimately it doesn’t help the prolife cause.
Right. B/c a gestating human being is just a bodily organ of his/her mother. 9_9
CC, no, I can’t quote a source because I don’t keep random news articles. I will say the articles I’ve read of homosexual activits protesting outside someone’s home has primarily been from U.K. or European sources. Although I read an article about a protest outside a pastors house in CO when CO had it’s hate crimes bill up for vote. And there have been a few cases I’ve read about in Canada as well. Also one in the U.S. where they protested outside of not only the house of a father who objected to pro-homosexual teaching at his daughter’s public school, but outside his daughter’s school as well. ( I find specifically targeting minors reprehensible, even though legal not a practice I would ever commit). That last one is referenced in the book Crayons to Condoms, but my copy is currently on loan so I can’t directly quote it for you.
Yes, CC, I already know how hardened and selfish you were and are. Your unborn child would have “gotten in your way.” So naturally, he or she had to go. It would have been the same with you I think, no matter whether your pregnancy was very far advanced or not. Better to kill than to change yourself or your selfish lifestyle to accomodate someone else’s needs.
You’ve also bragged in the past about your “Dionysian” lifestyle” on this site, so I know you aren’t ashamed of it. Too bad you never figured out that someone besides you might get hurt by it. And I think you are hurting today even though you will probably never acknowledge it, though you badly need to.
But are you really saying that abortion is the same as murdering abortion providers? Is that the position of your church?
Yes, that is what I say and it is exactly what my Church says. A human being is always a human being to be treated with dignity, whether it is newly created life in the womb, an old person at the edge of death, or an unrepentant murderer. In most cases, the Church would be against the death penalty, even for abortionists; not because it doesn’t consider killing the unborn less of a crime, but because a human being is not to be treated like a thing. (Cf. John Paul II Evangelium Vitae).
A much more coherent position than your “hey, it’s legal, who cares” or your idiotic claim that the unborn child is just “another organ in a woman’s body.” Please don’t insult science like that.
Jespren, your selective hypocrisy does you no credit. Even the apostle Paul acknowleged that all things were legal but that not all things were beneficial (I Corinthians 6:12, 10:23). You cannot have it both ways, i.e., you cannot hide behind man’s law while claiming to follow God’s law when the two are in conflict. You don’t like the idea of someone picketing your house but you have no problem doing doing it to someone else. At least show enough intellectual honesty to acknowledge your hypocrisy on this point. Feel free to have the last word … I have nothing further to say on this matter.
The words “terrorism”, “harrassment” etc. are being used to label behavior that makes someone uncomfortable. That kind of speech is what the First amendment specifically protects.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
We as Americans are protected by the First Amendment to utter speech that offends others makes them feel uncomfortable. If we lie, the laws of libel kick in. If someone uses the information we disseminate to commit a crime, that’s not our responsibility. It’s their’s.
To try to blame those calling a spade a spade and to call them terrorists is totalitarian.
The fight is to clarify our perception of reality. What happens at fertilization, or the biological beginning of human life? A Person comes into existence. Keep on fighting, Jill!
I have been targeted by the opposition with a website made on me listing my address and employment. It made me uncomfortable and and bit fearful, but that person had the right to do it. Thank God.
I tried to edit up above, but too late.
CC, I may be wrong to say you were hardened and selfish back in 1968 at the time of your abortion. I didn’t know you then. You were confused and in a dangerous a place in an abusive relationship — a place I’m sure you wouldn’t have been in if you weren’t living carelessly. It’s understandable you took the way out that so many others have without really thinking. But something had to lead to your present hardness. Shutting your heart to what happened to your child and to you can lead to that hardness though. I would love for your to change and seek healing in the Sacrament of Penance. It’s not too late.
When I was learning to drive, my instructor told us that in order to stay centered in the lane, we needed to look far down the road. What this debate needs is some perspective.
If I’m an abortionist in total denial, maybe I need some picketers in front of my house to shame me into taking a hard look at what I’m doing. Maybe the Holy Spirit has been working on my wife and children and perhaps the picketing is the proverbial “last straw” that causes me to rethink my chosen profession of killing children. Maybe, in this case, that’s what love looks like. Like Jesus cleansing the temple.
MAYBE A WEEKEND OF EMBARASSMENT IS WORTH ESCAPING AN ETERNITY OF TORMENT.
But wait, I hear you say that we need to be kind and loving to those in the abortion industry, and not confrontational.
So which is it? Which is the better approach? The honey of kindness or the rod of correction.
The answer is yes, or both.
While the rod of correction guy seldom gets the credit, most often it requires a combination of tough love and compassion to get people to change their behavior.
Love your local abortionist…picket his/her house.
Just reading through this – there are 2 Eds here…I’m the Gay one from ireland and I say ‘No’ to both questions.
No child killing with tranquility!!!
The neighbors of child killers deserve to know of his or her occupation!
There should be more, not less protests of these evil terrorists!
Man up, America!!
Ed at 8:51, amen, it’s not hypocritical to say people need both tough love and gentle love, they are in no way contradictory. We should love people enough to risk being unpopular.
Ambrose
I’m not sure why but I would think the God of the bible might expect us to be a little pro-active when it comes to defending the rights of the pre-born to life.
You don’t want anyone picketing your house but you would have no problem picketing theres.
You do see the difference between picketing someones house just to picket and picketing someones house because killing pre-borns is what they do. Picketing for the same of picketing would be silly. Picketing because an individual adds to the death toll of pre-borns, everytime he or she kills a pre-born, is a right we have as Americans to be a voice for those who have no voice.
Our church members protest in front of the local abortion clinic by reciting the Rosary and Chaplet of devine mercy, we don’t even hold any pictures of killed babies and the pro-aborts driving by still swear at us, give us the finger, call us names, it enrages them, just from our praying…
Evil prevails when good men do nothing! This is why we are where we are as a nation in the first place. We are too politically correct for our own good. We have become an anything goes society which is leading to our ruin. There was a time when they would have been run out of the country or hanged for killing babies. But now we are worried about them thinking we are harassing them. They kill babies, why should we apologize for making them uncomfortable about it. With that said, I think that it would be more effective to do peaceful quite prayerful vigils at their homes and churches. We must stand up for what is right while remembering that the clinic workers need God too.
Picketing homes? Absolutely not. It’s a waste of time and energy. It’s bad for public relations.
However, the abortionists who post here to defend abortions are big hypocrites. You think human decency means being all polite and politically correct while you destroy unborn children? What a politely brutal society abortion fans seek to create.
ninek,
Would you have approved of exposing Nazi guards who were gassing Jews?
We are called to rescue those unjustly led to the slaughter, not create a good
public relations plan!
CC
In asmuch as you hate abortion, Lori its legal and no more violent han the removal of any other organ from the body. But are you really saying that abortion is the same as murdering abortion providers. Is that the position of your church.
I have a hypothetical question for you. If your in a building burning and in the next room is an infant. You for whatever reason have decided its best not to rescue the infant but the firefighter knowing you are full able to escape goes and rescues the baby. Is the firefighter right or wrong. It’s really not good to make people feel guilty for defending life. The abortionist of his or her own free will choose a job that involved killing the innocent. Do I think they should be shot down? No I don’t think that is fair to the person shooting them. I think they should instead rot in jail. And if as a human being you dare to demand mercy than what could make you possibly think a pre-born is not entitled to the same mercy.
But again. I suspect that if we “pro-aborts” were to picket the residence of Catholic priests, there would be some objections raised. And they would be valid. Nuff said.
Who would object? And for what reasons?
If priests were actually killing humans, I agree picketing their homes would be in order. I’m not sure why you would picket any Catholic priests. What would your signs say? ”I Hate Catholic Priests” or “Priests Don’t Support my Right to Kill Children”
All of the priests I’ve known would come out and chat with you, probably invite you in for a cup of coffee, ask what brings you and offer to pray with you.
Yes and Yes. Nobody wants an abortionist living next door. It is creepy and they bring down the property value.
Let’s not think of them as picketers. Let’s think of them as the Paparazzi of the Pro-Life Movement, waiting for just a glimpse of those held up by CC and Joan as true American heroes-profiles in courage.
Yes, on both counts.
@CC
““Homosexual Activists protest against their political enemies at both home, office, other”
Got a source for that?”
I don’t know who posted the original – but I am both pro-life and for gay rights and I have participated in a candlelight vigil in front of a senators house for the gay cause. It was peaceful and legal – and that’s how I think it should stay on the pro-life side, too.
CC says: May 28, 2011 at 6:59 pm
“So should those of us who are pro-choice be protesting in front of Catholic rectories?”
===================================================================
It’s a moot point. Leftist have been protesting inside the ‘church buildings’ for years. Is the parsonage any more or less holy ground?
If it butters your biscuit to do so, then knock yourself out.
I don’t think there should be a constant presence every week, but I think that people should be informed if their neighbor is a serial killer, just as they have a right to know if they are living near a sex offender who preys on children. I wouldn’t want my children in the house of someone who made his or her living killing babies, and I wouldn’t want that person influencing my children. I think a targeted mailing might be a better way of spreading that information, however. I think deliberately, personally outing a person who has had an abortion is cruel and won’t help anyone (except perhaps in circumstances where they are directly affected–say, telling the baby’s father or warning someone thinking of dating the woman that she might kill his child.) Outing people as pro-choice just to do so is silly, but if it were to come up in conversation why should it be hidden? If someone protested my pro-life views at my house, I would consider it honor to be hated as Christ was. If they were on my property and it were within my rights to do so (I own half of my private road, and anyone may legally use it because it was once a town road, so I’m not sure whether it would be legal for them to be on my road if I wished them to leave), I would ask them to leave. If they were loud or threatening I would call the police. Or I might erect a large picture of a living fetus on my lawn and put up some sloganeering signs of my own. Or I might engage them in conversation. But I am not ashamed to be pro-life and to support the right to life of every innocent human being. I am not ashamed of being anti-choice on killing children, or of being against the deaths of women and children in legal or illegal abortion.
CC says: May 28, 2011 at 7:08 pm
“When has Joan or any other pro-choicer advocated violence? ”
===================================================================
ClutchCargo,
Every time you defend butchers like George Tiller, Leroy Carhart and Kermit Gosnell.
Question: Are there times when you don’t remove the [human] fetus intact?
Carhart: Yes, sir.
Question: What do you do then?
Carhart: My normal course would be to dismember that extremity and then go back and try to take the [human] fetus out either foot or skull first, whatever end I can get to first.
Question: How do you go about dismembering that extremity?
Carhart: Just traction and rotation, grasping the portion that you can get a hold of which would be usually somewhere up the shaft of the exposed portion of the [human] fetus, pulling down on it through the os, using the internal os as your counter-traction and rotating to dismember the shoulder or the hip or whatever it would be. Sometimes you will get one leg and you can’t get the other leg out.
Question: In that situation, are you, when you pull on the arm and remove it, is the [human] fetus still alive?
Carhart: Yes
Question: Do you consider an arm, for example, to be a substantial portion of the [human] fetus?
Carhart: In the way I read it, I think if I lost my arm, that would be a substantial loss to me. I think I would have to interpret it that way.
Ken – every time I read those quotes, I shudder.
Carhart admitting to dismembering human beings.
What kind of madness defends such actions? :(
I recall back in the mid 60’s … it was common for people to be outside the White House yelling “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?”
That was President Johnson’s private residence at the time. Those opposed to the war brought attention to their opposition of the war in this way.
If it was good enough for the POTUS to hear, why sure, it is good enough for people to picket an abortionist’s home with the same chant. “hey, hey … how many kids did you kill today?”
After all, it was about the same time that reproductive “rights” were being pushed forward and the onslaught of innocent children began legally in 1973.
Just some ideas from history . . .
There are times when police departments post pictures of “Johns” in the newspapers – and certainly, photos of sex offenders are posted all over the internet.
True, an abortionist is not breaking any legal law, but a moral law, so I see no reason why their photos cannot be put up for people to see a “who’s who’ in their industry. After all, people like Cecil Richards should be quite happy to see who is helping her pull down her multi million dollar salary.
So, yes and yes … my final thoughts on the questions.
It makes no moral or logical sense that most of the people here would be comfortable “outing” an abortion doctor but not a woman who has had an abortion. If abortion is murder, then the relation between abortion doctor and post-abortive mother is logically identical to that of hitman and person who has hired a hitman to kill someone. Shouldn’t the neighbors of a woman who has had an abortion know that they are living next to a murderer?
Non problem Truthseeker, I have just been insanely busy.
Joan, traditionally (when abortion was illegal or when dealing with illegal abortions today) poeple have recognized that, usually, the mother is not complicit in the abortion, she has been forced or cohersed into it by others or lied to to obtain her consent so the mothers, unless a clear example of maternal intent existed such as multiple attempts to abort with no sign of cohersion, were not charged. Pro-lifers today remember this basic point. While certainly today more women are complicit than they once were, we understand the reality that still *most* women are not willfully and with criminal malice and forethought killing their babies. We have compassion for those cohersed, forced, or lied to and put the onus in the same place it was during the days of illegal abortion, the fully aware and complicit doctor/nurse/other who physically destroys the life. Some women of course are complicit, and should be tried for their ‘hiring of a hitman’ to kill their child, but making that determination is almost impossible to do unless you are also intimately familiar with the women (or like a police officer have done an extensive investigation) so we tend to err on the side of innocent until proven guilty. Abortion doctors have proven guilty.
There is a difference, also, between performing an action once and repeatedly performing it each day. If I knew a neighbor had committed adultery once, I wouldn’t feel compelled to tell anyone, except perhaps the neighbor’s spouse if they did not know. I think adultery is wrong and horrible, but I don’t feel it’s necessary to expose someone’s sins to the world; it is neither loving nor charitable.
However, if my neighbor were a serial adulter(er/ess) bent on seducing every adult of the opposite gender on my street, I might feel that I should tell those I know so that they could make sure not to get too close to the person, protect their spouse, and make sure their children didn’t spend time in this person’s house. Adultery is not illegal, and what people have done in the past is not my business. But if others I know may be in spiritual or physical danger, it is acceptable to tell them. Abortionists are evil. They kill children for a living. I would want an opportunity to protect my children from their influence. I wouldn’t want them to be in a position to advise a child in my neighborhood on sex, pregnancy, or morality. What’s in the past is done, and I believe that people can change. Exposing sin in someone’s life when I know little about the circumstances does not help anyone, unless somehow the person I am exposing it to needs to know.
Jespren, woman using IVF are not coerced.
There’s a whole class of women who deliberately conceive with an intent to keep only the most fit children and discard the others. Those (in the US) who pay reproductive endocrinologists for IVF procedures.
Typically 8 or more children are “created” each cycle in a petri dish and then examined (pre-implantation genetic diagnosis) to see which ones to transfer and which ones to freeze and which ones to discard. They don’t freeze all that aren’t transferred, because, when compared to Nature, the process of IVF creates more embryos that don’t develop properly.
Many pro-lifers think that IVF can be performed without surplus children being created. Wouldn’t be financially viable in this country. Maybe in a European country where IVF is subsidized by the government.
Having a single embryo transferred doesn’t mean that only one embryo was created. The docs doing these procedures are not prolife and may mislead patients. Remember how they changed the definition of conception from fertilization to implantation?
If we acknowledge that we are persons from the start (beginning of the process of fertilitzation), the horror of IVF should be obvious. Graphic pictures won’t work here -just a declaration that “all men are created equal”.
The women who use IVF don’t have the excuse of being coerced. They are paying big bucks for it – contingent on the fact that they ignore the reality of what they are doing. In the name of being desparate for a baby, if more embryos are created than transfered, they are participating in a goulish eugenic procedure.
IVF docs justify wasting embryos by saying the preimplantation death rate in nature is just has high. There’s a couple of questionable studies from the 50s they use as proof. Bad science, Nazi science. They are Hitler’s dream fulfilled. If you can’t see where this is going, you’ve got blinders on.
Reproductive endocrinologists and women participating in IVF, where it involves the creation of more embryos than are transferred, are the face of abortion pro-lifers don’t want to look at. The Medusa Head.
I challenge anyone to begin picketing a Fertility Center in your town. Probably not good PR, right? But prophetic.
Spot on, Hiawatha!
I’m fully persuaded that the IVF industry was a major part of the defeat of Amendment 62 in Colorado in 2010. Jennifer Lahl is doing excellent work exposing their very dark side and the damage to young women who donate eggs. They are persuaded by altruism and the lure of
cash to pay off student loans but not told of the health risks.
Much more education is needed about the babies in the deep freeze, those dissected for “science” and the eugenic foundation that most cavalierly ignore.
Praxedes 4:04p, myrtle miller 5:06p; and Hiawatha 8:18p: Thx… :)
All, thanks to some of your comments and a Tweet post, I’ve added a related question. See update.
joan says: May 29, 2011 at 5:25 am
“It makes no moral or logical sense that most of the people here would be comfortable “outing” an abortion doctor but not a woman who has had an abortion. If abortion is murder, then the relation between abortion doctor and post-abortive mother is logically identical to that of hitman and person who has hired a hitman to kill someone. Shouldn’t the neighbors of a woman who has had an abortion know that they are living next to a murderer?”
==================================================================
Joan of Arcania,
It makes no moral or logical sense to YOU.
That is more an indictment of you and your inability and/or dysfunction than those who disagree with you.
Logic seems to be a tool of convenience for you. You use when it helps you, you reject it when it resists you.
But thank you for making the point that social pressure is an effective deterrent to anti-social behavior.
If I had a murderer living next to me I would want to know,wouldn’t you? And when the murderer knew he/she/it knew had been exposed I have to believe it/he/she would attempt to flee or kill the one who exposed him. That is what murderers do. They kill people.
Is it morally acceptable to picket the homes of NAZI death Camp Workers ?
Camille Tschaggeny says: May 28, 2011 at 2:48 pm
“Ms. Stanek is a terrorist.”
===================================================================
Jill,
Welcome to the club.
But I understand, like me you don’t limit your activities to the USA. You travel abroad and encourage others to re-sist the ‘dead babies r us’ mob.
Be prepared for the additional accusation that you are an ‘international terrorist’.
For the record, just how many innocent victims have you maimed or killed?
How many innocent victims have been maimed or killed because you encouraged others to resist the ‘dead babies r us’ mob?
Has the Department of Justice classified you as an uindicted co-conspirator or the Department of Homeland Security placed your name on the ‘no fly’ list?
Does your burqa have a ‘dead man switch’ attached to it?
Jill,
I know the answer to all these questions are none and/or no.
You have never advocated violence or fear or intimidation, but the wicked fear the truth and the truth does great violence to the lie.
John 8:37,40,43-44,46-47 [Yes] I know that you are Abraham’s offspring; yet you plan to kill Me, because My word has no entrance (makes no progress, does not find any place) in you.
But now [instead] you are wanting and seeking to kill Me, a Man Who has told you the truth which I have heard from God. This is not the way Abraham acted.
Why do you misunderstand what I say? It is because you are unable to hear what I am saying. [You cannot bear to listen to My message; your ears are shut to My teaching.]
You are of your father, the devil, and it is your will to practice the lusts and gratify the desires [which are characteristic] of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a falsehood, he speaks what is natural to him, for he is a liar [himself] and the father of lies and of all that is false.
Who of you convicts Me of wrongdoing or finds Me guilty of sin? Then if I speak truth, why do you not believe Me [trust Me, rely on, and adhere to Me]?
Whoever is of God listens to God. [Those who belong to God hear the words of God.] This is the reason that you do not listen [to those words, to Me]: because you do not belong to God and are not of God or in harmony with Him. AMP
Jill, it might be a good strategic move for the Personhood Campaigns to picket the homes or clinics of IVF docs. That would focus the question on the identity of the beings in the petri dish because the child is not even in the womb when the lab techs discard “unfit” embryos. That spatial separation is a great big achilles heel.
I challenge Americans United for Life, NRTL Priests for Life etc. to address IVF. I know they and other pro-life groups won’t touch the issue. The Personhood campaigns try to skirt around it with the “single embryo transfer” line. Again, lots of embryos can be created and the best chosen to transfer.
IVF came in soon after Roe and is viewed only as beneficial by most Americans who call themselves pro-life. They have not been made aware of the “wasted” embryos, only the frozen and transferred ones.
If the leaders of the pro-life movement won’t do it, the grassroots should via picketing wherever.
.
Yes, Joan my neighbors know I’m a murderer. The topic came up because I have my daughter’s name tattooed on my arm and they asked me about it. They have all told me how sorry they are that I was coerced into an abortion I didn’t want. They are also glad that I offer abortion recovery to anyone that asks and that I am on the board of our Life Care Center. Good thing they love and not hate, eh?
Have a great day, Joan!!
Joan says:
“It makes no moral or logical sense…”
That’s where your argument fails, Joan. You have no moral or logical sense. That’s the whole point we have been after with you.
If you were motivated by logic, you would embrace the contention of the biological discipline of Embryology, which maintains the human identity and status of the organism as a distinct human organism from the moment of fertilization.
Were you driven by logic, you would embrace the lessons from history that demonstrate every human atrocity on a mass scale having at its core the exercise of political whim, whereby whole groups of humans are stripped of their personhood identity.
Were you driven by logic and morality, you would understand that personhood is intrinsic to being human, precisely because of the kind of organism one is (human).
But you are not driven by logic or morality. These are faculties of reason, which you have never, ever, demonstrated here.
You are driven by predatory whim and narcissism, which originate from the opposite cerebral hemisphere as morality and logic. Predatory whim and narcissism always, ALWAYS arise from past, unresolved trauma. In people who avoid the pain of therapy these traumas metastasize into predatory rage, of which you are a clinical case study. You have expended hundreds of hours here at this blog as the champion of tearing defenseless babies apart.
Don’t dare invoke logic or morality.
You have none.
Gerard Nadal says:May 29, 2011 at 1:20 pm
Ouch! That’s gonna leave a mark.
Even an insensitive lout like me winced when I read that.
I like you better as the professor on Gilligan’s Island.
But it is all true, so true, and you articulated it so well.
You are an artiste and I am but a mere mechanic.
Again, I bow to your mastery of the language.
Joan,
TRUTH will set you free, but HE is probably going to make you angry first.
I like you better as the professor on Gilligan’s Island.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Ken, you quack me up. ;P
as for “outing” doctors, believe me most people do know what others in their neighborhood do for a living…
When I lived in a very wealthy neighborhood a few years back I can remember talking to a friend who pointed out an especially large mansion. She told me (in whispered tones) that the man was an abortionist. When I asked her about it, she said it was well known and that he had moved out to the country for privacy.
I don’t believe we should picket homes. The action doesn’t “out” the abortionist and I believe it doesn’t win any support for prolife causes. Instead it further demonizes us, makes us look like quacks and fanatics and maybe even hardens the heart of the person being picketed. I also worry about the trauma inflicted on the abortionist’s children.
Has picketing someone’s house ever caused an abortionist to change his/her mind?
It is not morally acceptable to do that because it is harassment and to try to conquer evil by using evil tactics is not the way.
We should be able to protest at their houses, they murder babies right by my house in Lakewood, Co. just three blocks away from my front door.
If we had a “Just law system”, we should be able to go to their homes and take them out then turn them into the law to be put to death for Murder.
That interview you linked to with Duck in your post, Jill, is by far one of the most skewed, ridiculous “interviews” I’ve ever read. She asked questions comparing pro-lifers to the Taliban and then got all self-righteous when you answered intelligently. WOW. What a joke. Jaw droppingly UNintelligent and biased on her part. I look forward to reading your interview with her. I have no doubt your interview will be far more respectful.
I am more and more convinced that discussion with intelligent (but wrong :D) pro-choicers like Doug is just less and less possible. The commenters on Duck’s article are a great example of that, sadly. :(
I couldn’t get through the whole thing, Kel. Her propagandizing with no chance of retort was just more than I could take. :P
mp
If you don’t mind when you post something negative about a persons remark would you mind posting the thread it was on and the time. Thanks. It looks like most of those comments were taking out of context. I do think though Mr. Nedved’s comment are not representative of pro-life views. Of course it would be nice if all pro-lifers were perfect but I believe because most pro-lifers try to lead a good life they are more susceptible to fear tactics that your side is so adept at employing. I think a simple exercise that would better help you to evaluate the goodness or lack thereof of either side is to think 50 million dead babies. One side advocates for the carnage to continue. One side fights against it. That’s what helps me to decide and what really helps me to continue to fight for life is the picture of the babies thrown out like trash.
X, most of the interview seemed based around the false assumption that being pro-life is a wholly religious issue. I don’t blame you for not finishing it. :D
An emphatick “YES” to both – and yes, I’ve done so. To those who kvetch about “using evil means”, please understand that these means are not evil. Yes, indeed, they are meant to instill discomfort to the complacent, but causing discomfort does not indicate evil. Were that the case, Jesus Himself would be evil, since He caused much discomfort to the complacent. Come to think of it, that’s a large reason why the powers-that-be had Him crucified.
Will the mainstream-lamebrain media villify us for that? Of course they will! So what? Grow some spines, people!
Yes, neighbors can be quite oblivious as to what their neighbors do for a living. I’d like to know if there was blood money in my neighborhood. And I do agree with the poster who stated that a little embarrassment here is much more preferable to eternal misery in hell.
Everyone has the right to privacy. I would consider their homes out of bounds. Howeverv aking them feel uncofertable in what they do is something i think we should be doing more often, if they are Christians or Jewish then yes point them out to their pastor or rabbi, letpeople who could possibly change their minds know what they are doing, and at leastthey may be pressured into quitting.
As for the Duck interview, time for Wm Butler Yeats
The Second Coming (Slouching towards Bethlehem)
Turning and turning in the widening gyreThe falcon cannot hear the falconer;Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhereThe ceremony of innocence is drowned;The best lack all conviction, while the worstAre full of passionate intensity.Surely some revelation is at hand;Surely the Second Coming is at hand.The Second Coming! Hardly are those words outWhen a vast image out of Spritus MundiTroubles my sight: somewhere in the sands of the desert.A shape with lion body and the head of a man,A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,Is moving its slow thighs, while all about itReel shadows of the indignant desert birds.The darkness drops again; but now I knowThat twenty centuries of stony sleepwere vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
No justice, No peace
I dont think its right to invade someones home. The clinic is where the protesting needs to take place. I am not sure if protesting on someones private property is even legal. However if someone is an abortionist I think its okay to out them. They shouldnt have a job they need to hide.
I like you better as the professor on Gilligan’s Island.
Me too, Ken. Good one ;-)
“They shouldnt have a job they need to hide.” – first come the protesters with placards, then comes who carrying what?
“If we had a “Just law system”, we should be able to go to their homes and take them out then turn them into the law to be put to death for Murder”
This sums up, in one simple sentence, the cognitive dissonance of the “pro-life” movement and why the non-pro-life movment views them as hypocritical and possibly dangerous. This comment underscores why the pro-life movement is seen as willing to protect what they define as “life” by taking life away from a “post-born” human which seems to be a contradictory position. And it’s just a short psychological hop from accepting the state’s executing of an abortion provider to an individual taking ”justice” into his/her own hands.
“X, most of the interview seemed based around the false assumption that being pro-life is a wholly religious issue.”
Many of comments, on this blog, are framed in Christian terms. Many of these comments contain biblical quotes. The pro-life movement is largely owned by Christians. The Roman Catholic Church is avowedly anti-choice and its council of Catholic Bishops lobbies heavily against abortion. So while it’s not a “wholly” religious issue, it takes its energy and its raison d’etre from Christianity.
If the following quote represents the thinking of most pro-lifers, than it is, clearly, based on Christianity.
“The vision of LIFE is to multiply healthy, Christ-centered life-giving ministries wherever abortion exists”
Educate the community. More likely neighbors would LEARN there’s an abortiionist nearby if they are educated. Like Joanna, I don’t think its a good idea to picket houses. There is a line that should not be crossed. If you educate the community, eventually the neighbors WILL find out if there’s an abortionist in the area.
In my pro-choice state (which mirrors the attitudes of other Northeast states) abortion providers live in affluent upscale neighborhoods with other folks who are pro-choice. These people would not be too happy about anti-choice zealots invading their neighborhoods. And in such neighborhoods there are zoning and traffic restrictions which would work against home protests.
CC says: May 30, 2011 at 9:44 am
“In my pro-choice state (which mirrors the attitudes of other Northeast states) abortion providers live in affluent upscale neighborhoods with other folks who are pro-choice.”
“These people would not be too happy about anti-choice zealots invading their neighborhoods.”
=============================================================
ClassConscious,
Just exacly the kind of bigoted statement we would expect from you.
Reminiscent of the hood wearing klanners in the south during the civil rights movements;
Black agitators and white sympathizers keep out.
Born white and pround of it and I be segreationists til I die.
Whites only water fountain.
But that was exactly the kind of people the civil rightw workers wanted to confront and expose.
On the issue of protesting at someone’s home, as long as the pro-lifers stay on public land and don’t block driveways or damage their property, I don’t have a problem with it. Of course, if I lived in a neighborhood with an abortionist, I’d be happy to let pro-lifers park or stand on my lawn.
As to their so-called right to privacy, remember that abortionists are nothing more than serial killers that the civil authorities refuse to prosecute because of their failure to uphold basic human rights. I’d do the same for any other serial killer in my neighborhood.
The pro-aborts have suggested that some protestor might come with a gun or something, but I think that is ridiculous. The family members’ lives are in much more danger from the fact that they live with a murderer!
“remember that abortionists are nothing more than serial killers that the civil authorities refuse to prosecute because of their failure to uphold basic human rights”
No, they’re doctors who are providing medical services which are legal. To say that the civil authorities are “refusing” to prosecute abortion providers is ludicrous as there is nothing to prosecute.
But keep up that incendiary rhetoric about abortion providers being “serial killers” as you just might give birth (metaphorically speaking) to the next Scott Roeder. But your hands will be clean so it’s all good….
My sis is a doctor.
If a perfect stranger walked up to her and asked her how many patients she had seen that day or how many boils she had lanced or blood samples she had dawn, she might wonder why they asked the question, but she would not be embarrasssed or ashamed to answer the question honestly.
If a perfect stranger were to ask Leroy Carhart how many patients he had seen that day, how many pregnancy tests he had administered and how many abortions he had performed Leroy’s palms would be sweaty and his pants would probably be wet. [Bullies are usually pathetic sniveling cowards who wilt when confronted by someone whom they perceive as more powerful than them.]
My sister has yet to have an attempt made on her life as result of practicing medicine. She has not purchased an armored truck or nor does she don a bullet proof vest before she ventures out into public nor does she carry a weapon.
No picketers have showed up at her clinic or her home or her place of worship.
My sister enjoys the company and mutual respect of her fellow doctors, nurses and staff, but she and the most of the medical community shun abortionists, even the doc’s, nurses and staff who are ‘pro-choice’.
Abortionists are the bottom feeders, they are the pariahs of the medical community.
Their blood money may afford the fancy cars and homes in gated communities, but it cannot purchase them respect.
If I lived next door to an abortionist, I would post a warning sign indicating what he/she/it did and exactly where she/he/it lived and I would erect a tall and stout stone wall between it/she/he and I.
When the picketers showed up at the abortionist house, I would offer them food and drink and the use of my restroom.
Many of comments, on this blog, are framed in Christian terms. Many of these comments contain biblical quotes. The pro-life movement is largely owned by Christians. The Roman Catholic Church is avowedly anti-choice and its council of Catholic Bishops lobbies heavily against abortion. So while it’s not a “wholly” religious issue, it takes its energy and its raison d’etre from Christianity.
My Pro-Life movement is not, and whenever I meet the pro-choice head-on with citation of facts, sworn testimony of Harvard biology professors, and excerpts from science textbooks, I only receive back personal opinion and accusation of lies and religious bias. That tells me all I need to know about my movement vs. yours.
Many of comments, on this blog, are framed in Christian terms. Many of these comments contain biblical quotes. The pro-life movement is largely owned by Christians. The Roman Catholic Church is avowedly anti-choice and its council of Catholic Bishops lobbies heavily against abortion. So while it’s not a “wholly” religious issue, it takes its energy and its raison d’etre from Christianity.
It is the ignorance and anti-intellectualism of the proabort that prevents them from seeing that a thing can be wrong for a host of seemingly unrelated reasons. So, as a Roman Catholic scientist, allow me to connect the dots.
Embryology teaches that a new human being, a new human organism comes into existence at the moment of fertilization:
http://gerardnadal.com/2010/01/07/more-from-the-scientific-community-on-the-identity-and-status-of-the-human-embryo/
So, this being purely scientific and not religious, I expect all proaborts to line up behind scientific truth (This is where Joan can begin to redeem herself in the logic department).
Next, from a purely logical (again, more opportunity here, Joan) perspective, proaborts can all agree that personhood rights are accorded only to humans, as personhood is the recognition of the moral and legal standing of an organism based upon the KIND of organism under consideration; which is why blacks eventually got their full standing under the law after a civil war, constitutional ammendment, Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act. It took a few hundred years to get it right with those who were deemed 3/5 a person under Article 1 of the US Constitution, and persons not at all under the 7-2 Dred Scott ruling of the US Supreme Court (same vote margin as Roe v Wade).
Further, logic and history tell the horrifying stories of Native American genocide, slavery, segregation, the Holocaust, Incarceration in camps of Japanese-Americans, forced sterilizations of the developmentally disabled, etc, all because of the shared mentality with proaborts of not recognizing personhood as an intrinsic status based on the kind of organism one is.
So far, religion hasn’t entered the picture. However, religious folk embrace all of this along with what they understand to be an even greater dignity and status intrinsic to all humans. But that isn’t at all necessary to be pro-life.
One simply needs to be receptive to the truth, literate in history, and preferably not a raging narcissist.
“So, this being purely scientific and not religious, I expect all proaborts to line up behind scientific truth”
But why isn’t the scientific/medical community lining up behind you?
“Further, logic and history tell the horrifying stories of Native American genocide, slavery, segregation, the Holocaust, Incarceration in camps of Japanese-Americans, forced sterilizations of the developmentally disabled, etc, all because of the shared mentality with proaborts of not recognizing personhood as an intrinsic status based on the kind of organism one is”
All the aforementioned categories are those who have exited the womb. Abortion was legal, in the US, until white folks were concerned that there were too many “others” being born. Hence, starting in the mid 1800’s, white women became “breeders.”
“My sister has yet to have an attempt made on her life as result of practicing medicine”
She is not involved in abortion.
“most of the medical community shun abortionists, even the doc’s, nurses and staff who are ‘pro-choice’ ”
Which “community” is that? As I’ve stated, in my pro-choice neck of the woods, there’s no “shunning” – ewww, sounds so Puritanical and biblical.
“Abortionists are the bottom feeders, they are the pariahs of the medical community.
Again, not in New England where they are respected members of the community who serve on all sorts of educational and cultural boards and commissions.
Ken, your experience in a closed society does not mirror that of many parts of this great country.
And BTW, your incoherent rant about racism, in response to my factually based comment, was, typically, bizarre. Reality is that doctors, in general, live in affluent communities. In my pro-choice area, that includes a diverse population including Hindus, minority members of the Patriots and Celtics, and quite possibly your Jewish relatives if they’re upscale and pro-choice, which describes the majority of American Jews. Sorry for the does of reality.
CC,
I am still waiting on the other thread for ou to respond about your false assertion that hormonal birth control has no negative side effects on the women who ingest them. I could repost it for here.
Do you deny that steroid (artificial hormone cocktails) use, especially over prelonged periods of time, has a history of causing mood swings and depression. Do you deny this?
But why isn’t the scientific/medical community lining up behind you?
Monetary gain. Duh. Give me a harder question next time.
CC
I would imagine in any neck of the woods where the majority are pro-choice that there’s shunning but it’s probably just a little more sophisticated than biblical shunning. For example in your neck of the woods if you were to become pro-life and became vocal about it too what degree do you think you would be shunned? Another question should New England become predominantly pro-life how long do you think it would take for some serious legislation to come forth that protected the unborn? What I love about New Englanders is their attention to detail! Or maybe I just got thay impression from watching, This Old House.
CC says: May 30, 2011 at 6:42 pm
“My sister has yet to have an attempt made on her life as result of practicing medicine”
1. She is not involved in abortion.
“most of the medical community shun abortionists, even the doc’s, nurses and staff who are ‘pro-choice’ ”
2. Which “community” is that? As I’ve stated, in my pro-choice neck of the woods, there’s no “shunning” – ewww, sounds so Puritanical and biblical.
“Abortionists are the bottom feeders, they are the pariahs of the medical community.
3. Again, not in New England where they are respected members of the community who serve on all sorts of educational and cultural boards and commissions.
4. And BTW, your incoherent rant about racism, in response to my factually based comment, was, typically, bizarre.
1. [I do believe you have expressed a logical conclusion. You should frame it or get it bronzed.]Exaclty! Most rational people would not invest 8-10 years of their life and hundreds of thousands of dollars to become an ‘abotionist’ and have to carry around all the negative baggage associated with that ‘choice’. The few freaks who do are doctrinaire humanists and feministas.
2. [One step forward, two steps back.] MEDICAL, the ‘medical’ community.
3. Please list the names of the ‘abortionists’ in your neck of the woods and then give us a list of all these prestigious organizations who have invited them to serve on their boards. [PP, NARAL, NOW, and the ACLU do not count.]
4. You appear to have understood the charge very well, though you have not done so well at refuting it.
Please give us the name of any med school that provides training and board ceritification in the specialty of ‘abortion’.
Please provide us with the results of a survey of med school students or grads which indicates the percentage of those who want to make ‘abortion’ their specialty.
Some biographical date on Dr. Pablo Rodriquez
http://www.projo.com/livechat/hispanicchat/content/rodriguez-bio.htm
Rodriques is affiliated with Planned Parenthood so he’s in the public sphere. Other doctors, including mine, who do abortions are not in the public arena. As this is an anti-choice blog frequented by former Operation Rescue terrorists and those who harbor less than charitable thoughts about abortionists, I would have to be crazy to name them as that could actually put their lives in jeopardy.
And you might find this interesting:
“some good news out of California where two hospitals, UofC, San Fransisco and Stanford, are leading the way in training new ob-gyns in family planning services, including abortion services.
At Stanford the effort is being led by Dr. Paul Blumenthal, described as a national leader in family planning research. He is quoted as saying major university medical centers around the country are increaslingly recognizing that family planning seervices, including abortion care, are “an integral mainstream component of women’s health care”.
The article points out that 81% of all students studying to becaome ob-gyn specialists are women and, according to Lois Backus, director of Medical Students For Choice, this generation of female students “don’t want to be told what they can’t do”.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/09/953430/-Women-Docs:Abortion-Should-Be-Part-of-Our-Training
And regarding abortion ”certification” - Nice try for a gotcha but you didn’t. Abortion is part of gynecological training and any gynecologist, who is board certified, is trained to do it unless they opt out. Harvard, University of Virginia, and Johns Hopkins are three top schools that provide this training.
But Ken, why didn’t you answer my question regarding where your sister works. But if you want to fantasize about how abortion doctors are shunned, go for it. If it makes you happy….Maybe you can provide actual data regarding the “shunning” other than anti-choice wishful thinking.
And birth control pill safety:
ATLANTA – U.S. health officials have for the first time released contraception safety guidelines for more than 1 million women who have had weight-loss surgery or have certain medical conditions.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines, released Friday, say it’s safe for women with medical conditions to use most contraceptives.
But the CDC issued some warnings, including some concerning birth control pills, the most popular form of contraception for American women. The pill may be less effective for women who have had one kind of weight-loss surgery because the procedure may leave them less able to absorb the active ingredient.
Another warning: Some women with inflammatory bowel disease have a higher risk of blood clots. Those women generally should not use the estrogen-containing form of the pill, which may further increase their risk.
The CDC borrowed from international guidelines, but also wrote new advice for women with certain conditions more common in the United States, such as inflammatory bowel disease and rheumatoid arthritis.
CDC officials say women should talk to their doctors with questions about contraception. Many doctors may have felt uncomfortable prescribing contraception to women with some of these conditions, said Dr. Herbert Peterson, a University of North Carolina professor of maternal and child health.
But the new guidelines should answer doctors’ questions about potential risks from certain forms of birth control. That, in turn, may make it easier for more women to get birth control, added Peterson, who led a panel of experts that helped CDC write the guidelines
http://www.crohnsforum.com/showthread.php?t=12690
As all medications have potential side effects, the birth control pill is no different. I took it for 25 years and had no problems; although I know some women who did have problems. So no big deal here despite the mythology of the forced birth movement.
“For example in your neck of the woods if you were to become pro-life and became vocal about it too what degree do you think you would be shunned”
There are many anti-choicers in our community and they’re not ”shunned.” Being New England we have a live and let live attitude. But it’s quite safe to say that New England and New York will never become majority “Pro-life.” One reason is the shrinking of the Catholic community which is the biggest proponent of “pro-life” views in the region. Even many of our Republicans are “pro-choice.” As true conservatives, they don’t believe the government has any right to control what folks do with their bodies.
I am more and more convinced that discussion with intelligent (but wrong ) pro-choicers like Doug is just less and less possible. The commenters on Duck’s article are a great example of that, sadly.
Kel, discussion is totally possible. Will that mean that one person or the other will necessarily start believing as the other does? No.
I’d be interested in hearing Abby Johnson’s take on this question. This is not necessarily something I think is a moral question. Before I do something like this I try to ask myself these questions:
1. What are my intentions?
2. What fruits will come from this?
3. Is this something I can do charitably?
4.Lord, is this what you are calling me to do?
I think there are some people who may be called to do this and others who aren’t simply because of personality differences.
Kel, discussion is totally possible. Will that mean that one person or the other will necessarily start believing as the other does? No.
Obviously you haven’t read some of the stuff other pro-choicers have been spewing here. Maybe that’s because we’ve had to unpublish a lot of the garbage. Even though I disagree with you, Doug, I appreciate that you can discuss this issue without resorting to a lot of the ad hominem attacks I’ve seen.
Kel, no doubt there is the ad hominem stuff, but it’s on both the parts of pro-choicers and pro-lifers alike. For what it’s worth, Jill’s site doesn’t have much, compared to many other sites where abortion is a frequent topic.
This practice on both sides is wrong and needs to be stopped immediately before someone gets killed. This is a explosive practice that is ripe for major violence and stupid law suits… If this happened at my house they would all get the hose and then bags of flour on their heads…
random woman “I am 5 months along and I am planning on having an abortion.”
random troll pro-choicers “That’s your choice. Who am I to tell u what to do?”
random pro-life woman ”I’m going to go peacefully picket at an abortionists house.”
random troll pro-choicer “NO u shouldn’t do that! THat’s wrong!”
Seems the “pro-choicers” have forgotten how to “trust women” or how to “not tell a woman what to do with her body” or how not to “impose their morality on others”…
Do to others as you would have them do to you. I certainly would not want unknown baby killers picketing my house, so No to the picketing at home. I don’t have a problem with being “outed” for my pro-life stance so I’m all for ”outing” them. They want “choice” so let the world know the “choice” they made.
CC
There are many anti-chociers in our community and they are not shunned.
So if cases started coming forth where it was proven and/or have already come forth showing prejudicial treatment of individuals because of their pro-life views, what then?
Being in New England we have a live and let live attitude.
If you really believe that CC and you are a New Englander than I’m assuming your against patient assisted suicide and euthanasia. And of course as a state this would be the pre-dominant view as well.
I don’t remember mentioning New York. I’ll believe for New England first and smile when individuals that have been indoctrinated with anti-life sentiment decide they’ve had enough. When people start waking up and saying, “golly gee I fit the profile of people these live and let people have decided aren’t worthy of life”. Then maybe who knows they’re will be a ripple on that old stagnant pond.
Even many of our Republicans are “pro-choice”.
Actually there anti-choice. If they were pro-choice the baby would have some say so.
And in response to your last statement if that’s what they really believe than someone needs to let them know the unborn have bodies.
Protesting Murderers is perfectly acceptable, as well as outing them. Not only is it morally acceptable, but it has already been adjudicated, check out Frisby v. Schultz.
Somebody said that this is a form of harassment. Even if picketing murderers homes is harassment, I think it is still right because people that murder human beings deserve to be harassed. Think about it, they should be rotting in prison or executed; are you really worried about harassment?
Biggz says:
1. “This practice on both sides is wrong and needs to be stopped immediately before someone gets killed.
2. “This is a explosive practice that is ripe for major violence and stupid law suits.”
3.” If this happened at my house they would all get the hose and then bags of flour on their heads.”
==========================================================
b,
1. Wake up an smell the decomp.
Somebodies has already been killed. 99% of the victims were pre-natal children.
2. Less that 20 of the ‘dead babies r us’ crowd have been injured or killed in over 30 years by acts attributable to pro-lifers.
Many more unfortunate women have been killed as a result of ‘safe and legal’ abortion.
So far it seems the members of the ‘dead babies r us’ mob have behaved like bulllies they are. They only pick on babies and women in distress.
3. The police might give you a pass the first time, but once you had been warned, I am fairly certain you would be charged with assault and battery.
Word of advice: Be very carefull not to get any flour or water onthe police officers or their vehicles. They don’t have any sense of humor about that.