Breaking News: Pro-life protester shot in Lansing, MI

UPDATE, 9/12, 7:55a: Cal Zastrow, friend and prayer partner of Jim Pouillon, reported in an email Pouillon's granddaughter was in the school where Jim was shot.
_______________

UPDATE, 9/12, 7:45a: Grr, did this RH Reality Check post piss me off ('scuse me) on Jim Pouillon's shooter, Harlan James Drake - and I said so.
_______________

jim pouillon missionaries preborn.jpgUPDATE 9/12, 6:50a:

From CNN, last night:

Authorities have charged an Owosso, MI, man with 2 counts of 1st-degree premeditated murder in the Friday shooting deaths of an anti-abortion activist and another man, a prosecutor's office said.

Activist Jim Pouillon was shot and killed Friday while protesting outside Owosso High School....

Authorities say the suspect, Harlan James Drake, was offended by anti-abortion material that the activist had displayed across from the school all week.

[Photo via Missionaries to the Preborn as posted by CNN]
_______________

jim p.jpgUPDATE, 1p: MLive.com has a story on Jim Pouillon's pro-life history up as well as a photo, right.
_______________

Update 11:26: Good question from CBNnews.com's David Brody: "Pro-life activist killed. Will president make statement?"
_______________

Update 11:06: Here is an excerpt from an email sent by Missionaries to the Preborn :

jim1.jpg

Jim was an elderly man who always had an oxygen tank connected to him. Jim joined us on our Woodward Dream Cruise Tour for a few of our stops less than a month ago. The picture left shows him at the stop in Lansing - MI's capitol, on August 13.

Jim was a selfless, soft-spoken, kind-hearted man. All who knew him, knew this. Please pray for Jim's family...

______________

Update 10:59: Police are holding a press conference at 10:30a EST.
_______________

Update 10:54: Jim Pouillon filed a first amendment lawsuit that went to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, and was settled in 2000. It was partially affirmed, partially acquitted, and partially remanded. Read it here.
_______________

Update 10:39: The victim has been identified as Joe Jim Pouillon.
_______________

From LifeNews.com:

Owosso, MI - Local officials and state police are confirming that a pro-life advocate was shot and killed outside a high school in this MI town. The person, who is described as well-known but whose identity has not been released, was shot multiple times while protesting abortion outside Owosso High School.

Officials say the shooting occurred at 7:30 a.m. local time and most students were inside the school building at the time of the incident.

State police have also confirmed they apprehended a suspect about 8:15 a.m. at the suspect's home in this small community northeast of Lansing....

The shooting did not take place on school property but officials have locked down the school and taped off most of the front portions of the school grounds.

Now, local police say there has been a second, possibly related shooting, in Owosso that they are now investigating. The suspect in custody may have been involved in the second shooting that took place at a gravel company and officials say they are looking for other suspects who may have been involved.

"We have two murders," Shiawassee County sheriff George Braidwood told the Argus Press. "We believe they are related and we have a suspect in custody.

According to the Associated Press, in the spot where the protester stood, a black car is parked and a portable oxygen tank is lying next to a sign with a picture of an unborn child and the words life.

shooting.jpg

[HT: Eric Scheidler, Andrew Smith, David C., Arlene S.; photo of school via Flint News]


Comments:

*waits for press conference from Pres. Obama expressing outrage over this death*

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at September 11, 2009 10:44 AM


This is absolutely heartbreaking. The second shooting at the gravel company makes me wonder about the motive.

Posted by: Valerie at September 11, 2009 10:49 AM


But they are all so nonviolent and its only the prodeathers who get the threats, right? We are just terrorists. Life is cheap to them, born or unborn.

Posted by: Jill Guidry at September 11, 2009 10:51 AM


From what I understand, the man at the gravel company was shot first. I have heard an unconfirmed report that that man was the initial target.

After he was killed, the shooter figured he had nothing to lose by killing another person and decided to kill the "sign guy."

It appears that Pouillon was killed because of his pro-life activities.

Posted by: Lauren at September 11, 2009 10:57 AM


This is so sad. My thoughts are with the families of the two men, as well as the family of the suspect. I hope the police are able to figure everything out.

Posted by: Alexandra at September 11, 2009 11:00 AM


Let's lift up the family in prayers for comfort like we did for the family of Tiller.

Posted by: xppc at September 11, 2009 11:02 AM


Sad.

Posted by: rasqual at September 11, 2009 11:03 AM


Are they going to stream the press conference online?

Posted by: Lauren at September 11, 2009 11:06 AM


The proborts won't care!

Posted by: RJ Sandefur at September 11, 2009 11:23 AM


Praying for all involved. How tragic.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at September 11, 2009 11:28 AM


God help us. It is no accident that they chose 9/11 for this. Our prayers will be more important than ever.

Posted by: Jade Southwick at September 11, 2009 11:40 AM


If pro-aborts have anything to say at all they'll contrast the premeditated murder of Tiller to the random act of violence upon Pouillon and say they're not the same. Remember, pro-aborts are so obsessed with death they'll give one murder more weight than others.

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at September 11, 2009 11:41 AM


My heart skipped a beat when I saw this. He was an innocent old man...he wasn't hurting anybody. I can't stop thinking about his poor family. I hope that nothing but good wishes come to them. And I hope that this wasn't motivated by his activism.

I don't know what to say after that besides, "I am so sorry" to his family. This is tragic.

My heart is beating so quickly that I feel lightheaded...

Posted by: Vannah at September 11, 2009 11:49 AM


I'm from Grand Rapids, just an hour west of where this took place. Very sad indeed.

For the sake of his sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at September 11, 2009 11:49 AM


As a pro-choicer I condemn the individual who
killed the anti-abortion protester in no uncertain terms.
There cannot be any justification for this
murder. But you anti-choice people must realize that the shoe is now on the other foot.
As the fashionable saying goes, the chickens are coming home to roost for the anti-choice movement . Two wrongs do not make a right, but if
violence comes to those who any of those who oppose abortion and protest, they are hardly blameless.
My condolences to the family of the murder victim. I hope the perpetrator will be brought to justice soon, but do not want him to be executed .
Life imprisonment is far worse than execution .

Posted by: Robert Berger at September 11, 2009 12:57 PM


Pro-aborts are insane and violent. I had pro-life bumper stickers on my car and I was tailed a few times as people screamed out their windows at me and gave me the finger...they screamed things about "choice" so I know it was over my bumper stickers. My husband told me "No bumper stickers!" when I got a new car. I haven't been tailed or cursed since.

Its very scary to stand up for life in this death loving society. My thoughts and prayers are with this man's family.

Posted by: Sydney M at September 11, 2009 1:11 PM


Mr. Berger what a stupid comment. Really. We don't kill 5 million children a year, it's people like you who do the killing and who encourage the killing. Your kind believe in violent means to end a pregnancy and often take those violent tendencies into other parts of your life - like spousal violence and child abuse. Oh and also posting stupid comments on prolife blogs.

What I want to know is will Janet Napolitano now add prochoice liberal left wing people to the homeland security terrorist list? I'm after all this does aptly demonstrate that all prochoicers are violent thugs who kill innocent people sitting in wheelchairs.

Posted by: angel at September 11, 2009 1:14 PM


Robert: "...if violence comes to those who any of those who oppose abortion and protest, they are hardly blameless."

It's the fault of the victim that he was holding a sign peacefully? Does this mean that if someone shoots someone who holds a sign saying "Register to Vote!" then we can blame that person who was holding the sign for the shooting?

This is the United States of America where we have a guarantee to the freedom of speech! We are encouraged to speak out minds! This was all that this man was doing.

Please, ANY peaceful protester is NEVER "asking for it." Yikes!

Posted by: segamon at September 11, 2009 1:16 PM


Robert Berger,

Don't spoil an otherwise good post with your absurdity about chickens coming home to roost.
Unlike most of you PC folks, we PL people realize there are deranged individuals out there who kill for whatever reason they see fit. We are not so wrapped up in creating a martyr that we overlook the facts, as you folks so conveniently did when Tiller and other abortionists were killed.

No Mr.B... now its you PC folk who finally have to swallow a lot of bile and acknowledge that deranged people exist on any side of any issue. You can no longer wail about your "martrydom". You have to explain that PC people do not advocate this type of thing. You may have to explain that because the shooter may have visited a PC website or had a conversation with someone from a PC organization, this is not in itself proof that PC organizations advocate this. Remember how this was proof positive that Tiller's killer had been "inspired" by PL people. Of course it was irrelevant that Tiller's killer had spent time in the militias and no time in a PL organization. Noooo, just didn't quite fit the template of the dedicated abortionist gunned down by the deranged PL gunman with the blessing of PL organizations, right Mr.B.?

Poor Rachel Madcow will have her work cut out for her. The trouble she went through to "prove" a connection between Tiller's killer and Operation Rescue. Her endless dissertations on Tiller.
Now this!! I wonder how hard she will work to "prove" a connection between this shooting and some PC organization.

Posted by: Mary at September 11, 2009 1:29 PM


Uno: Is anyone else in favor of banning Robert Berger?

That's just beyond the line of indecent. He had it coming to him? I don't even know how to reply to that.

Dos: I've read the comments on MSN's article. Not much better than Robert Berger's. There are so many people saying, "Serves him right! Stay out of America!" or "You all at to go to hell, you crazy anti-choicers!" On MSNBC, they said that it was likely that he was targeted for his activism, which is distressing (obviously).

This is wrong. He was just an old man. What was he doing that was so threatening to the big bastion of power that is pro-choice? He wasn't harming anyone, just holding out signs with truth on them, and a bigot went out and killed him? I don't think that all pro-choicers are responsible, but ignorant bigots like you, Robert Berger, make it so difficult to keep faith in the good of humanity.

Posted by: Vannah at September 11, 2009 1:29 PM


"Pro-aborts" are insane and violent?
Really ? I'm sorry if a few stupid people who happen to be pro-choice caused you trouble, but these louts are in no way typical of pro-choicers.
And the vast majority of pro-choicers would never commit violence or murder in the name of their pro-choice beliefs, including me.
Pro-choicers are probably LESS violent than
anti-choicers . You think I'm happy to see an innocent but misguided man killed ? Are you kidding ? He may not be personally guilty, but
the collective actions of many anti-choicers are responsible for his senseless murder .
And to accuse pro-choicers of being responsible for abortions in America is the height of intellectual dishonesty. No pro-choicer is trying to force women to have abortions, and certainly not me.
And don't try to tell me that anti-choicers are all warm and cuddly .Many are extremely abusive to women trying to seek LEGAL abortions and harass them mercilessly, and do something they have absolutely no right to do- namely try to bar women's entrance into abortion facilities.
No one has the right to try to bar any one from legally entering any building.For any reason. Period. That is a crime and a violation of the rights of citizens.
I don't have the right to try to bar any of you anti-choicers from entering any building. If I did so I would be deserving of being arrested and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.



Posted by: Robert Berger at September 11, 2009 1:34 PM


So when is the AG gonna send out security people to protect pro-lifers?

As the fashionable saying goes, the chickens are coming home to roost for the anti-choice movement . Two wrongs do not make a right, but if
violence comes to those who any of those who oppose abortion and protest, they are hardly blameless.

Now that's just ignorant. Someone shoots you as you stand (or sit) on the side of the road, and it's the victim's fault? Puh-leeze.

Posted by: Milehimama at September 11, 2009 1:40 PM


Gee Robert Berger, 1:34PM

How does it feel with the shoe on the other foot?
The irony is that I agree that no PC organizations would have supported this and I have no interest in chestpounding and endless wailing over martyrdom. I also do not support accusations where there is no basis for them.
A marked difference from the reaction of abortion advocates when an abortionist is killed.

Maybe this will force Rachel Madcow to spare her ever dwindling audience her mindless conspiracy theories and tiresome dissertations on dead abortionists.
We finally agree that deranged people are everywhere and can strike anyone for whatever sick "reason" they see fit.

Posted by: Mary at September 11, 2009 1:45 PM


"Two wrongs do not make a right, but if
violence comes to those who any of those who oppose abortion and protest, they are hardly blameless."

Berger, you're clueless. You have no idea what justice is. How can you find fault with someone holding a sign on a streetcorner? Your ignorance is astounding.

Lori Lamerand, president and Chief Executive Officer of Planned Parenthood East Central Michigan, also expressed shock and sadness at the news.

"We want to be very clear that we have no idea if this was related to his views, but Planned Parenthood would never condone any sort of violence against anyone, regardless of their views," said Lamerand.

(Except of course the brutal dismemberment and murder of pre-born children. That we will condone and even promote whole-heartedly.)

Posted by: Ed at September 11, 2009 1:45 PM


Milehimama,

Excellent point about the AG sending marshalls to protect PLs. However, I wouldn't hold my breath. The AG wasn't terribly concerned when summer school children in Detroit were gunned down by gangs or an army recruiter was shot by a deranged Islamic gunman. We have to realize that only certain senseless shootings and killings qualify for any kind of "concern" or attention from the media or our attorney general.

Posted by: Mary at September 11, 2009 1:51 PM


I'm with Vannah in suggestion that Robert Berger be banned, or at least his comments edited. When we were discussing Tiller's death, I seem to remember a few "he had it coming" style comments being deleted. These comments are completely inappropriate for this thread.

Posted by: Janette at September 11, 2009 2:07 PM


It was just confirmed that Jim was targeted because of his pro-life views.

www.lifenews.com/state4409.html

Here's the quote:

"Sara Edwards, the chief assistant prosecutor for Shiawassee County, has confirmed that Pouillon's pro-life stance was the reason he was targeted and said the suspect officials have in custody disapproved of his abortion protests outside the schools.

“There was some displeasure with how open he was,” she said. “He tended to carry big signs with very graphic pictures of fetuses.”

The suspect will likely be charged later today."

Posted by: Lauren at September 11, 2009 2:16 PM


From the NY Times rag:

Prosecutors said the suspect, who is 33, targeted Mr. Pouillon because he disapproved of the victim’s protests in front of children at the school.

“There was some displeasure with how open he was,” said Sara Edwards, the chief assistant prosecutor for Shiawassee County. “He tended to carry big signs with very graphic pictures of fetuses.”

I personally don't think Berger's comments should be banned. The are insightful into the whacked out reasoning that proabortion supporters engage in.


And to accuse pro-choicers of being responsible for abortions in America is the height of intellectual dishonesty. No pro-choicer is trying to force women to have abortions, and certainly not me.

you wanna talk about intellectual dishonesty. Hah! Prochoicers are the ones who started out by claiming an unborn child was a blob of tissue, or a blood clot.
Prochoicers don't want women to view ultrasounds. Can't have women really understanding what it is that they are chopping up.
Prochoicers are the ones who can't and won't accept research that demonstrates the emotional and physical harm that comes to women from abortion.
Prochoicers are the ones who are FORCING pharmacists and doctors to perform abortions or prescribe abortifacients.

Talk about intellectual dishonesty: your whole platform is built upon intellectual dishonesty.

get back to us, when you start calling abortion what it is, the death of a human being.

Posted by: angel at September 11, 2009 2:22 PM


"There cannot be any justification for this
murder" Robert Berger at September 11, 2009 12:57 PM

"...if violence comes to those who any of those who oppose abortion and protest, they are hardly blameless." Robert Berger at September 11, 2009 12:57 PM


"He may not be personally guilty, but the collective actions of many anti-choicers are responsible for his senseless murder." Posted by: Robert Berger at September 11, 2009 1:34 PM

Mr. Berger, in the space of 37 minutes you've laid culpability for this heinous act at our feet. You have a very serious mental disconnect. They say the synapse firings in the schizophrenic brain are all over the place though the thought sequence seems logical to them. Your illogic is astounding.

You say: "And the vast majority of pro-choicers would never commit violence or murder in the name of their pro-choice beliefs, including me." Abortion is MURDER and you support and others 'commit' unthinkably horrific, violent murders against preborn humans at the rate of 115,000 a day world wide.

I will give you this, you are consistent with your desire for the perpetrator (I mean, the one who pulled the trigger) when you say "Life imprisonment is far worse than execution" --that, at least, meshes with your "Abort the babies who might live in poverty" stance. If the perpetrator were to be executed, though, he would be given a barbituate along with the intravenous potassium chloride, something George Tiller's guiltless victims were never afforded.

Posted by: klynn73 at September 11, 2009 2:34 PM


Speaking for myself, let's keep Berger Boy!

He does not back up ANY of his claims with objective research and/or sources.

And now he's all miffed that we're intellectually dishonest. Repeat after me: HYPOCRITE!

I like a good freak show now and then.

Posted by: carder at September 11, 2009 2:36 PM


I grieve with and pray for comfort for Jim Pouillon's family. I commend him for his twenty years of dedication and his sacrifice for "the least of these". May God grant him the privelege of meeting those who he prayed for during those years. And may he hear those words we long for, from the lips of the One who gave His life for all: "Well done, good and faithful servant."

Posted by: klynn73 at September 11, 2009 2:46 PM


I can't believe that he was shot in front of a school...

Those poor children who had to watch that- I couldn't even imagine.

Posted by: Vannah at September 11, 2009 2:49 PM



So Mr. Pouillon was targetted for his PL views. --Proof positive that PC organizations inspired his killer and supported him.
-Obviously this shooting is the result of PC rhetoric. No way do people gun down other people simply because they're deranged, they must be inspired by rhetoric!
-Proof positive that PC organizations and individuals were involved in a conspiracy and PL people are out to prove this!
-PL people should unite to end "hate speech", Constitution be damned. After all, this shooter had to have been inspired by PC rhetoric and we have to silence this once and for all and end this killing.
-Did this person ever speak to a PC person or visit a PC website? Does he have the phone number of any PC people? That's proof PC people or organizations were part of the plot.


Maybe this will give PC people who spouted this nonsense following the shooting of Tiller, especially on this site, some idea of just how ridiculous they sounded.

Posted by: Mary at September 11, 2009 3:03 PM


Vannah,

An excellent point about the children. Let's just hope those so "outraged" about children seeing pictures of fetuses will be equally outraged about children witnessing a shooting, and actually being placed in danger.

Posted by: Mary at September 11, 2009 3:05 PM


Mary 3:03, excellent point. Wonder if any of them will "get it".

Posted by: Bethany at September 11, 2009 3:20 PM


Oops I forget that I can't cuss here. Well how about this, Robert, F*** you. I hope you never go into the people business. All in favor of banning Robert? I for one would like to send his childish butt to his room without supper.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 11, 2009 3:25 PM


Oh okay, good. Well, delete the one with the explicative since it's not allowed.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 11, 2009 3:26 PM


If it makes you feel better, Pip, I've said quite a few inappropriate words at that. Then I had to go listen to Sigur Ros and try to stop myself from going off on a tirade. So you're not alone.

With you all the way on the ban, too.

Posted by: Vannah at September 11, 2009 3:36 PM


Pip, I've cussed too.

Posted by: Lauren at September 11, 2009 3:38 PM


"Robert: "...if violence comes to those who any of those who oppose abortion and protest, they are hardly blameless."
----------------------------------------

Let's modify this to be:

"...if violence comes to those who any of those who SUPPORT abortion and protest, they are hardly blameless."

...does that make sense??

NO and neither does the original statement.

Posted by: RSD at September 11, 2009 3:48 PM


Hi PIP,

You must be a mindreader. I was just thinking about you. Its good to see you here again and I hope all is well.

Posted by: Mary at September 11, 2009 3:59 PM


PIP,

....and still full of p--- and vinegar as well!:)

Posted by: Mary at September 11, 2009 4:13 PM


Jim Pouillon is already being demonized by the MSM.

Posted by: Lauren at September 11, 2009 4:19 PM


Lauren- where? What are they saying about him?

Posted by: Vannah at September 11, 2009 4:24 PM


Basically listing every minor offense he's every committed and choosing photos to frame him as an extremist.

I mean, do we really need to know that he got a j-walking ticket in 2003?

Posted by: Lauren at September 11, 2009 4:33 PM


Lifting Jim's family up in prayer, that the Lord may comfort them and give them His peace. Also praying that the Holy Spirit descend with might upon brothers and sisters in Christ who will prophesy loudly and clearly the gospel, calling for repentance and an outpouring of love and forgiveness.

May God be glorified through Jesus Christ.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at September 11, 2009 4:33 PM


As a pro-choice person, I certainly disagree with an innocent person being murdered, even if I don't share his beliefs, but it's hard to think of this man as totally blameless for getting himself shot. When you draw attention to yourself in a controversial way like this, you put yourself at a greater risk of harm. Holding up disgusting signs, yelling, and generally making a nuisance of oneself, while legal, just might draw the wrong kind of attention.

Posted by: Atta at September 11, 2009 4:35 PM


Here's an example.

www.truecrimereport.com/2009/09/was_pro-life_activist_james_l.php

Posted by: Lauren at September 11, 2009 4:37 PM


"Poor Rachel Madcow will have her work cut out for her. The trouble she went through to 'prove' a connection between Tiller's killer and Operation Rescue."

"Work cut out for her"? I think she'll do a great job of ignoring this story entirely.

Posted by: bmmg39 at September 11, 2009 4:37 PM


Atta. This is the same sort of thinking that the left denounces all the time. Would you claim that a woman wearing a short skirt and a low cut shirt was "asking" to get raped? Of course not.


Same thing with Mr. Pouillon. He was peacefully protesting. That is a constitutionally protected right. He should NOT be killed for doing so, nor should we blame him for his death.

Posted by: Lauren at September 11, 2009 4:41 PM


Atta 4:35PM

The same argument could be made concerning Tiller, who certainly did plenty to draw attention to himself.

Posted by: Mary at September 11, 2009 4:42 PM


bmmg 39,

You have a point there. If she does bring it up, which she may have to do, I just wonder what semantic gymnastics she will have to resort to.

Posted by: Mary at September 11, 2009 4:45 PM


it's hard to think of this man as totally blameless for getting himself shot. When you draw attention to yourself in a controversial way like this, you put yourself at a greater risk of harm.

yup in the same manner that women who wear short skirts and low tops are just asking to be raped. They get what they deserve.

Is this what you mean Atta?

Posted by: angel at September 11, 2009 4:45 PM


didn't see your comment Lauren! But we sure are thinking alike! ;)

Posted by: angel at September 11, 2009 4:47 PM


Haha, that we are, Angel.

Posted by: Lauren at September 11, 2009 4:57 PM


Unbelievable! Now RH Reality Check is trying to claim that the murder had nothign to do with Mr. Pouillon's abortion beliefs.

I could scream! They're the only ones on the pc side who have even mentioned his death. When Tiller was murdered EVERYONE in the pro-life movement had condemned his death within an hour of hearing about it.

This case? Crickets.

Posted by: Lauren at September 11, 2009 5:06 PM


Bringing the truth to those who hate the TRUTH, will put you in their "cross hairs" every time.
Sometimes words, sometimes physical violence. They will know he TRUTH some time in their future......either Judge or Savior.

Posted by: John at September 11, 2009 5:19 PM


Can I make a musical recommendation to you, Lauren? Whenever I get frustrated and down and feel like saying to the world, "What's wrong with you?" always listen to Sigur Ros and things feel better. Listen to a song called "Glosoli." It's so soothing, especially the Planet Earth video.

Hopefully it will clear your head the way that it does for me (that is, if you listen; you don't have to; it's just a suggestion).

I'm upset to. Right at this moment, I'm kind of in shock more than not, but I'm sure that that will thin out and I'll be a wreck for this poor man's family, those children who witnessed this, and the safety of pro-life activists who, apparently, don't even need to be standing in front of a clinic to be targeted. I agree that it probably wasn't the best idea to go out in front of a school- I'm not sure why he did that- but there is absolutely no excuse for killing him- in front of a SCHOOL no less.

Period.

Posted by: Vannah at September 11, 2009 5:22 PM


"yup in the same manner that women who wear short skirts and low tops are just asking to be raped. They get what they deserve."

RIGHT?

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 11, 2009 5:23 PM


Oops, sorry, I meant to say "I'm upset, too." Bad grammar, Vannah, bad!

And I actually saw the MSNBC picture of him yelling. I thought that that was crappy, but I assumed that it was because they didn't have another picture...apparently there are other pictures, though. He's deceased. Can we give him five minutes where his work on behalf of equal rights aren't hissed at and booed? He probably got that enough in his lifetime...

Posted by: Vannah at September 11, 2009 5:26 PM


Well Atta,

We're waiting...

Posted by: Mary at September 11, 2009 5:27 PM


Yeah, you know, can I just expound upon the idea that protestors deserve their civil and human rights taken away? Sheesh! Okay, here goes:

Come on, guys. Don't you know that the protestors who were brutalized and shot while contesting the Iranian election had it coming to them? They should have known better! In fact, by the manner with which they so publicly got out there and raised their voices, I would say that they were asking for it!

And don't even get me started on Tibet...

Dear heavens, Atta...

Posted by: Vannah at September 11, 2009 5:31 PM


Mr. Bergers comments are typical of the pc movement. When an abortionist is killed for his beliefs, it's the pro-lifers' fault. When a pro-lifer is killed for his beliefs, it's the pro-lifers' fault.

Let's face it: both deaths were tragic. Both deaths occurred because someone decided to 'play God' and decide who deserves to live. We know for certain that Tiller's murderer was a fringe lunatic, and I'd be inclined to believe that Pouillon's murderer was also a fringe lunatic.

The individuals responsible for the deaths aren't Jill Stanek, or Operation Rescue, or anyone in MSM, or anyone in Planned Parenthood. The individuals responsible for the murders are the murderers.

And you won't see Fr. Frank Pavone condemning Keith Olbermann for this death. You won't see Jill Stanek typing on her blog that it's all MSM's fault.

The shoe is on the other foot, for all of us, and I pray that Mr. Pouillon's death enlightens the American public as to who is concerned with the individuals involved versus who is concerned with the votes involved.

My sincere sympathies and prayers go out to the family of Jim Pouillon. I also pray for his murderer, that he might find Christ.

Posted by: MaryRose at September 11, 2009 5:44 PM


Thank you, MaryRose. That's an excellent and honest post. :)

Posted by: Vannah at September 11, 2009 5:46 PM


If you want to ban me from this website, go ahead. I don't mind . But remember; you can call abortion murder all you want, make ridiculous comparisons of it to slavery, you can protest till the cows come home. You can show all the photos of aborted fetuese you want. You can try to bar women from entering abortion facilities,
you can scream at them not to"murder" their
fetusus until you are blue in the face and
get sore throats. You can write letters to the editor demanding that abortion be made illegal again.
You can repeat lies about the supposed dangers of abortion to women, the discredited link to breast cancer, the supposed depression and suicidal tendencies it supposedly causes,
and you can make the ridiculous claim that there is no risk of overpopulation, and that everything will be hunky dory for the world if every married couple has a huge family, and make the ridiculous claim that private charities can provide for all poor pregnant women, and that it's perfecty okay to bring children into the world who will have little or no chance of ever getting decent food,shelter,clothing, education and medical care . And you can make the ridiculous claim that contraceptives are automatically dangerous,
make people more promiscuous and that it's wrong to have sex for anything but procreation.
All bunk. Heck, you can even go out and shoot
more doctors who perform abortions.
But neither you or any one else on this earth will ever be able to stop abortions.
And your misguided actions will probably only
cause a rise in them. Have fun, folks.

Posted by: Robert Berger at September 11, 2009 5:52 PM


Other comments i've seen:

“It’s a pity that once again the misguided people who would turn women into chattel and force them to bear monsters and dead fetuses and the products of rape and incest to term have now caused the death of two of their own. Let’s think on the loss of these two lives and not be diverted by the confused anti-choice minions into making this a political issue.”

“people complain about paying for healthcare yet they want a pregnant woman to bring another disease bag into the world.”

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 11, 2009 5:54 PM


Regarding the comments that Pretty in Pink has seen:

I'm off to go bury my head in the sand, peeps. :(

Posted by: Vannah at September 11, 2009 6:15 PM


Robert. YOU LIE.

PIP, I've seen some really terrible comments too. What is wrong with people?

Posted by: Lauren at September 11, 2009 6:17 PM


Death brings out the worst of people. The smelly and moldy part of their souls that they forgot to clean starts opening its stench up to the world.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 11, 2009 6:29 PM


Hmmm..Mr. Berger sure likes to use the word 'misguided' alot... Oh, the Irony! :)

Posted by: Pamela at September 11, 2009 7:18 PM


I visited MSNBC. I didn't really believe that there weren't PCers out there posting sympathy for the families involved.

I didn't see ONE post that used the word sympathy in regards to the deaths. I saw a bunch of posts claiming it was all PLers fault, that we're all gun-toting, pro-death-penalty, pro-war, mass slaughtering crazies who bomb clinics and scream at pregnant women. I saw comments defaming the good name of Jim Pouillon. I saw comments saying that he painted a target on his chest, that he went to "extreme lengths" by printing out signs of aborted fetuses, that he really had to dig up these photos. I saw arguments that PLers aren't really PL, just anti-choice. I saw arguments that Mr. Pouillon was just a "stupid man" who deserves to burn in Hell.

I believed I would mostly see compassion. I expected the occasional rude reaction, but nothing like this. Where is the outrage amongst the PCers? Where is the condemnation?

Oddly enough, they only seem interested in condemning us. And somehow, in trying to connect this to the health plan initiative.

For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, Have mercy on us, and on the whole world!

Posted by: MaryRose at September 11, 2009 7:52 PM


"And the vast majority of pro-choicers would never commit violence or murder in the name of their pro-choice beliefs, including me.

Posted by: Robert Berger at September 11, 2009 1:34 PM"

Excuse me Mr. Berger BUT, what is the hell do you think and abortion is if not a viloent act of murder? You pro-aborts really don't understand what you condone do you?

Is it because of a lack of intelligence or are you just that twisted?

Posted by: Phil Schembri is HisMan at September 11, 2009 8:00 PM


This is such a tragic story.

I'm at a total loss for words to write, but not at a loss for prayers.

My how the prayers keep flowing these days.

:(

Posted by: Marie at September 11, 2009 8:20 PM


But neither you or any one else on this earth will ever be able to stop abortions.

Maybe not. But Christ the Lord can and will. In the end, God triumphs. Good triumphs. You will lose and we will win. And that's all that really matters.
You make your choice Robert for all eternity.

Posted by: angel at September 11, 2009 8:37 PM


HisMan,

It's willful ignorance. Purposely ignoring or avoiding learning the facts of the matter.

Also, Mr. Berger has repeatedly demonstrated that he is a pawn for PP and other prodeath organizations. He has their propaganda down by rote.

Let us all not give in to despair. We are winning the war! The story of the end-of-times is a story of TRIUMPH! God wins! :)

Posted by: MaryRose at September 11, 2009 8:41 PM


Posted by: Mary at September 11, 2009 4:42 PM

The difference being that what made Dr. Tiller controversial was directly related to his line of work. He was not being intentionally controversial for the sake of a political cause; he was peacefully operating his clinic, which just happens to bother a lot of people.

Posted by: angel at September 11, 2009 4:45 PM
Posted by: prettyinpink at September 11, 2009 5:23 PM

I did not say that Pouillon got what he deserved. I said that his own actions placed him at higher risk, which is true, and he therefore shares some of the blame for his unfortunate demise.

Posted by: Atta at September 11, 2009 8:42 PM


Posted by: angel at September 11, 2009 8:37 PM

Did you ever stop to consider that maybe Christ the Lord actually doesn't look at abortion the same way you do? This isn't a cut-and-dry issue; some people think abortion is wrong, and they're welcome to their opinion, and most people don't think abortion is wrong. Asserting that God considers abortion evil is an act of speculation.

Posted by: Atta at September 11, 2009 8:49 PM


I did not say that Pouillon got what he deserved. I said that his own actions placed him at higher risk, which is true, and he therefore shares some of the blame for his unfortunate demise.
Posted by: Atta at September 11, 2009 8:42 PM

exactly my point Atta.
The woman wearing the short skirt and the low cut top was engaging in risky behaviour. Therefore she shares some of the blame for her unfortunate rape.

Likewise, the gay man who engages in anal sex also engages in risky behaviour but I wonder how many liberals like you would say that he shares the some of the blame for getting AIDS?

Please apply your logic to all situations not just selectively to prolifers. ;)

Posted by: angel at September 11, 2009 8:49 PM


The difference being that what made Dr. Tiller controversial was directly related to his line of work. He was not being intentionally controversial for the sake of a political cause; he was peacefully operating his clinic, which just happens to bother a lot of people.
Posted by: Atta at September 11, 2009 8:42 PM

He was "peacefully" ripping babies apart limb-from-limb. He was "peacefully" giving false ultrasound information so that he could "peacefully" cause heart attacks and death in unborn humans.

Dr. Tiller had airport-like security. There's a reason for that.

Yes, he was killed by a fringe lunatic. To indicate that what he did was actually LESS intentionally controversial is illogical and WRONG.

Mr. Pouillon was a protester. He sat in a chair, with his oxygen tank, and PEACEFULLY protested the murder of thousands of babies daily. He did not encounter blood on a daily basis as a result of his behaviors. He did not lie to women for money. He did not stop lives.

Neither man deserved murder. Both murderers were wrong and will be held accountable when the Lord asks what they did "for the least of these." Neither man asked for his death. Neither murder was justified.

Let's not sugar coat the facts, though. Tiller was an extremist abortionist. He wasn't peaceful. Pouillon was a vehement protester. While he was controversial, he WAS, in fact, peaceful.

Posted by: MaryRose at September 11, 2009 8:51 PM


Atta,

I don't care what made Tiller controversial. He was. One could argue just as effectively that doing something as controversial as what he did placed him at higher risk, so Tiller shares some of the blame for his own demise.
I'm just using your argument Atta.

Posted by: Mary at September 11, 2009 8:54 PM


Posted by: angel at September 11, 2009 8:37 PM

Did you ever stop to consider that maybe Christ the Lord actually doesn't look at abortion the same way you do? This isn't a cut-and-dry issue; some people think abortion is wrong, and they're welcome to their opinion, and most people don't think abortion is wrong. Asserting that God considers abortion evil is an act of speculation.
Posted by: Atta at September 11, 2009 8:49 PM


hahaha!! too funny!

Posted by: angel at September 11, 2009 8:55 PM


Posted by: angel at September 11, 2009 8:49 PM

Of course the victims in your two other examples share some of the blame (I would especially encourage all people engaging in sex of any sort, gay or not, to wear proper protection and practice safe sex). I don't see what that has to do with this, though.

Posted by: MaryRose at September 11, 2009 8:51 PM

"Mr. Pouillon was a protester. He sat in a chair, with his oxygen tank, and PEACEFULLY protested the murder of thousands of babies daily. He did not encounter blood on a daily basis as a result of his behaviors. He did not lie to women for money. He did not stop lives."

You're really whitewashing what it was that he was doing by describing him as such. He was sitting in front of a high school at 7:30 in the morning yelling at people and holding up grotesque signs. A perfectly legal form of political speech, but then so is holding a white power parade in Harlem. Just because you can do it legally doesn't make it a good idea or mean you're blameless if you face retaliation as a result.

Posted by: Atta at September 11, 2009 8:59 PM


Hmm, Atta seems to remind me of a certain older poster here who has been banned repeatedly.

Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at September 11, 2009 8:59 PM


I was gonna say that Miss Bethany! ;)

Your moronic reasoning is quite amazing Atta. Try again. (Maybe with a previous moniker?)

Posted by: angel at September 11, 2009 9:05 PM


oh and btw, what Mr. Pouillon was doing was protected by free speech. In a democratic society he has the right to make his views peaceably known which he was doing.

so what are you saying, that if you say something people don't like, you share the blame for being shot? (more stupid prochoice logic? - you and Robert should get together.)

Posted by: angel at September 11, 2009 9:09 PM


He was sitting in front of a high school at 7:30 in the morning yelling at people and holding up grotesque signs.

your opinion

Funny thing, most pictures I've seen of Mr. Pouillon show him sitting holding a sign, quite peaceably, with his mouth SHUT!

yet another dose of prochoice intellectual honesty.

Posted by: angel at September 11, 2009 9:12 PM


Asserting that God considers abortion evil is an act of speculation.
Posted by: Atta at September 11, 2009 8:49 PM

Scientifically speaking, the fetus has life and human DNA. So it's a living human being. The issue of abortion comes when we consider whether or not the unborn human is a person.

Religiously speaking, though, it is very apparent that God expects us to treat the unborn human with respect.

"You shalt not kill" (Ex 20:13)
"When men have a fight and hurt a pregnant woman, so that she suffers a miscarriage, but no further injury, the guilty one shall be fined as much as the woman's husband demands of him, and he shall pay in the presence of the judges.
But if injury ensues, you shall give life for life" (Ex 21:22-23)
"You formed my inmost being; you knit me in my mother's womb." (Psalms 139:13)
"But the angel said to him, "Do not be afraid, Zechariah, because your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall name him John. And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth, for he will be great in the sight of (the) Lord. He will drink neither wine nor strong drink. He will be filled with the holy Spirit even from his mother's womb, and he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God." (Luke 1:13-16)
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I dedicated you" (Jeremiah 1:5)

It should also be noted that the term "Brephos" is used throughout the Bible to describe both the infant and the preborn child. In other words, the Lord makes no clarification, sees no difference, between a born and an unborn infant.

So, no, I don't accept the possibility that God supports abortion. Because He's already clearly told us that He doesn't.

Posted by: MaryRose at September 11, 2009 9:13 PM


Posted by: angel at September 11, 2009 9:05 PM

But rather than explain why you feel my reasoning is "moronic" you'd rather just take personal shots at me and accuse me of being somebody else.

Posted by: angel at September 11, 2009 9:09 PM

Didn't I say as much? That what he was doing was completely legal? That's not even the issue here. He was using his free speech rights to say incendiary things and he got shot for it. Yes, he shares in the blame.

Posted by: Atta at September 11, 2009 9:15 PM


Atta,

Why should the signs be considered grotesque? If abortion isn't the murder of an innocent child, why should it be any more troublesome than a sign with a picture of a tonsillectomy?

Admittedly, a little bloody, but otherwise harmless. Hardly something to consider grotesque. Hardly something to be worked up about.

I don't know whether or not Mr. Pouillon yelled at people. So far, the arguments I've heard to that effect have all come from PCers. Regardless, yes, I admitted he was vehement.

I also don't argue that anti-war protesters who show gruesome photos of war are asking to be shot. Or that animal rights activists who throw red corn syrup on people who wear fur coats are asking for it by making a scene.

Because the argument is totally inane.

Posted by: MaryRose at September 11, 2009 9:19 PM


He was using his free speech rights to say incendiary things and he got shot for it. Yes, he shares in the blame.
Posted by: Atta at September 11, 2009 9:15 PM

once again, YOUR opinion.

what you are saying is that he has the right to free speech but because it was "incendiary" in your opinion, he actually doesn't have that right.

Because he was not doing anything wrong, merely exercising his freedom of speech, he is still to blame.
Your position is untenable. Either a person has the freedom to free speech or they don't. Unless of course, you believe that showing the truth about abortion is hate.

Posted by: angel at September 11, 2009 9:22 PM


"Why should the signs be considered grotesque?"

MaryRose (love that name!) it's because proaborts consider these signs to be hate speech.

Posted by: angel at September 11, 2009 9:24 PM


Angel,

Thanks!
Oh, I know why it is. But it's illogical. A picture of a reality is just that. If the reality itself is grotesque, then why WOULDN'T we want to protest it?

The reality is, abortion is gruesome and horrific. This is why the photos of aborted babies are so offensive. It's a sad truth that we NEED protesters like Jim Pouillon to sit outside of high schools and show our young adults the gruesome reality of what our society, our legal system, and our President advocate.

Actually, I think the high school idea was rather intelligent. He chose a venue where people were forming ideas and making connections, and an age group that was nearing voting age.

Posted by: MaryRose at September 11, 2009 9:27 PM


Posted by: MaryRose at September 11, 2009 9:19 PM

Holding up bloody signs is grotesque. It doesn't meet the standards of public interaction in polite society. I wouldn't be any more impressed with people holding up pictures of tonsillectomies either, though I think a better comparison would be pictures of bloody tampons or STD's.

And, for the thousandth time, I didn't say that Pouillon was "asking for it". That's different than saying that he shares in some of the blame. He is not faultless here.

Posted by: angel at September 11, 2009 9:22 PM

I'm just not getting through to you am I? Yes, he has the right to say incendiary things. But because something is legal does not automatically mean it is also a good idea, and it does not mean you're totally without fault if something bad happens as a result of your perfectly legal behavior.

Posted by: Atta at September 11, 2009 9:30 PM


Posted by: MaryRose at September 11, 2009 9:27 PM

Or maybe he chose that particular "venue" instead because he knew he wouldn't face any formidable dissent or argument from teenagers? Had he chosen to protest in front of a college or actual abortion clinic or hospital he just might have had someone take him to task on his viewpoints. Instead he sits in front of a school and yells at clueless high school kids who are less interested in what some ranting lunatic has to say and more interested in text messaging their friends anyway. Maybe he would still be alive if he had picked his targets a little more carefully.

Posted by: Atta at September 11, 2009 9:36 PM


Atta, you have no idea what you're talking about. Please stop.

Mr. Pouillon protested in front of clinics and other venues daily. He also did not yell at the highschool students. He sat respectfully with his sign. His granddaugther went to the school, and a student stopped to help when he was shot.

Posted by: Lauren at September 11, 2009 9:41 PM


"Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured."

The Rev. MLK, Jr. Letter from Birmingham Jail

Atta, visit abortionNO.org and inform yourself. The photos are grotesque because they are of dismembered human beings. Do you oppose depictions of other holocaust victims? If they serve the purpose of informing to keep the same errors from being repeated?

Posted by: klynn73 at September 11, 2009 9:45 PM


Atta,

Tampons and STDs aren't what comes out of your body after a surgical procedure. Bloody tonsils and aborted children are.

I'd say grotesque is an awfully strong word, if the fetus isn't a baby. I'd say moderately offensive, more like.

So now when we exercise our right to free speech we share in the blame if we are murdered?

Yeah, that follows.

Why the "" around venue? That's what it is. A venue. You might not agree on his choice, but yeah, it's a venue. Either you don't know the definition, or you're just being willful.

And some of the loudest and most annoying arguments I've heard have come from high schoolers. Also, some of the best and least clueless. Don't discount our children.

If he were outside an elementary school, your logic might follow. As is, high schoolers in my experience actually often have all of the excitement for the political process with far less of the cynicism... and are far more pushy about debating and far less concerned about when it is and isn't appropriate to talk politics.

Posted by: MaryRose at September 11, 2009 9:50 PM


Posted by: klynn73 at September 11, 2009 9:45 PM

The pictures are grotesque because they fail to meet commonly-accepted standards of social decorum. I don't "oppose" depictions of anything, but there is a right place and time to show these things and a wrong place and time as well. An anti-abortion site is an appropriate place to show such pictures because nobody who doesn't want to be subjected to them will be that way. A school or other public place, on the other hand, is not: the people in the immediate vicinity of the "protest" are a captive audience for the duration of time that they are present, which may be a matter beyond their control.

Posted by: MaryRose at September 11, 2009 9:50 PM

The common thread between all of these things is that they are not considered appropriate to show or depict in polite company or a public context. I think "grotesque" is a reasonable word to describe medical waste. Yes, there are some very bright high school students. I don't dispute that, but the majority are as I described.

Posted by: Atta at September 11, 2009 10:05 PM


Atta,

So you think photos of war are too grotesque to have at an anti-war protest?

Please, let's not be crass.

Posted by: MaryRose at September 11, 2009 10:13 PM


Oh, also Atta, the majority are simply untapped. I've found that most HS students have a great deal of interest in the political process, once you start talking to them about it. Unfortunately, folks like you underestimate them as a whole and figure they don't care.

Of course, Lauren has already revealed to us how inaccurate you really are. And it fits, really.

I notice you have no response to my argument that God has made His position on abortion clear. Cat got your tongue?

Posted by: MaryRose at September 11, 2009 10:19 PM


Atta,

So, if someone got offended enough by your comments on a public forum to track you down and kill you, would you share in the blame for your own death at all?

I mean, you've gone to a pro-life site and claimed that a pro-lifer who was murdered just today was responsible in part for his death. If I were offended by that grotesquely inaccurate statement, found your IP address, went to your house and killed you, would I be fully accountable, or would you also share in the blame?

That's the sort of logic you're using.

Posted by: MaryRose at September 11, 2009 10:28 PM


Posted by: MaryRose at September 11, 2009 10:13 PM

No. I didn't even say that abortion pictures are "too grotesque" which suggests that some line has been crossed and sanctions are warranted. I said that they are grotesque. Whether or not such pictures are appropriate for use in a public forum is a question of tact, not law.

Posted by: MaryRose at September 11, 2009 10:19 PM

I can't say that I'm very interested in turning this into a full-blown theological debate. I will say, though, that you're really reaching to cite a small handful of Bible verses as "proof" that God disapproves of abortion when the actual issue of abortion is never directly addressed in those verses.

Posted by: MaryRose at September 11, 2009 10:28 PM

That's an unreasonable analogy. Whether it is theoretically possible or not for what you described to happen (it actually isn't, since an actual physical address can only be gleaned from an IP address by directly requesting the information from your Internet Service Provider, who would require a court order or subpoena to turn over such confidential information), the differences between posting something on an Internet message board and directly holding a "protest" in a public place are blatantly profound. I run no risk of physical violence whatsoever with the former; there is an obvious, tacit risk associated with the latter. Knowingly taking that risk is the reason why Pouisson partially shares in the blame of his death.

Posted by: Atta at September 11, 2009 10:47 PM


Atta,

Research your guy.

Pouillon.

Also, if you honestly believe that you're truly anonymous online, you're fooled. A good hacker could find your location. I'm not a good hacker, so it's not really possible, but you came onto a site to stir up some trouble, and you therefore run risks associated with so doing.

My point is, it doesn't make you at all culpable for the reactions that people have. You're not to blame for someone else's poor decision. Neither is Mr. Pouillon.

As for the theological debate that you really asked for, I'm not surprised you couldn't really respond. Yes, I took passages from the Bible. Although I'd be interested in seeing how you could possibly argue the opposite using Bible passages. I also made reference to the word used THROUGHOUT the Bible to refer to children both in and out of their mothers' wombs. That's a fairly binding thread. God doesn't make any clarification between fetus and born child. These things aren't accidental. Nothing in the Bible IS accidental. The wording, the timing, the location of everything is purposeful and divine. Furthermore, the usage of the same term (brephos) for infants both in and out of the womb is intentional and pointed.

Posted by: MaryRose at September 11, 2009 11:05 PM


Now Mr. Berger, why would I EVER want to ban you? Today is Sept. 11. It's been a rough day. Comic relief is in order. Therefore, you.

So kindly amuse me with the following:


"You can repeat lies about the supposed dangers of abortion to women"

Prove that there are none.

"the discredited link to breast cancer"

Prove it.

"the supposed depression and suicidal tendencies it supposedly causes"

Prove it.

"and you can make the ridiculous claim that there is no risk of overpopulation"

Prove it.

"and that everything will be hunky dory for the world if every married couple has a huge family"

Don't take my word for it. Russia and Japan seem to think so.

"and make the ridiculous claim that private charities can provide for all poor pregnant women"

Prove the opposite.

"and that it's perfecty okay to bring children into the world who will have little or no chance of ever getting decent food,shelter,clothing, education and medical care."

Now that's a little hard to quantify, I'll give you that, but for every sob story you give, any of us can provide an equally appalling circumstance and arrive at a happy ending. I guess I could start with my father, but I'll spare you the details.

"And you can make the ridiculous claim that contraceptives are automatically dangerous"

Ever read the side-effects warning on any of them? The ones provided by the pharmaceutical companies???


"make people more promiscuous"

Prove that it hasn't.

"and that it's wrong to have sex for anything but procreation"

That has never been authentic church teaching, but nice try.


I'll say this gently: back up your assumptions with credible evidence, and then maybe you might get some decent play. Until then, you have proven nothing except that you can give a good rant.

Posted by: carder at September 11, 2009 11:10 PM


Posted by: MaryRose at September 11, 2009 11:05 PM

No, a "good hacker" could not find my location. I speak with a working knowledge of advanced Internet security concepts and I can safely say that you're wrong here. I can also categorically say that there is exactly a 0% risk associated with what I'm doing here.

I agree, Mr. Pouillon is not to blame for someone else's poor decision. He is, however, to blame for his own poor decisions, one of which resulted in him being in a dangerous place and paying the ultimate price for it.

You're biting off a lot more than you can chew if you're going to claim that every single aspect of the Bible, right down to the wording, is "purposeful and divine." How many times has the Bible been translated now? Unless you're reading from the original Hebrew and Greek texts, whatever version you use has its share of both omissions and additions simply as a result of the translation process. The smallest change of wording or grammar can have a profound impact on the meaning of a sentence or verse.

Posted by: Atta at September 11, 2009 11:25 PM


Except that the word I used WAS from the original text.

And I didn't say OUR translation captured the whole purpose and import of the Bible. But the word I quoted was the original text.

And as for the IP address bit, it is most certainly possible to find your address but it is beyond reasonable expectations. I understand that. My husband is trained as a computer technician, worked for years with computer networking.

That aside, I've protested at abortion clinics. I've walked in peaceful protests through the city. I've participated in marathons for life. In none of these instances did I even consider the possibility of getting shot. I had no more expectation of being targeted for my protestations than you have of being targeted for the offensive statements you've made about Mr. Pouillon.

You can't put the blame or the responsibility for an individual's death on their own hands in this case. If Mr. Pouillon was running around and threatening individuals, you Might have a case.

As is, you're talking about infringement of a basic right. We have a right, as granted us by the first amendment, to speak freely. We have a right to peaceful protest. When you say that those who protest should expect this sort of reaction, you're saying that we shouldn't expect our legal system to protect that right.

Posted by: MaryRose at September 11, 2009 11:43 PM


Atta, if an anti-war protester was shot and killed by a war vet, to whom would you assign blame?

If during the writers strike someone came out and popped out 5 people peacefully sitting on the street with their sign, would the strikers also share some blame, since they are putting their causes out in the open?

Wearing "White Power" in Harlem is not a good analogy; it suggests that all these high school kids are all opposed to his views and that be both intends to provoke a reaction or is to a point naive.

Instead, think of someone who faithfully protests the war and holds vigils in front of the white house. (There is a group that does this, btw). Imagine someone felt this provoked them enough to shoot that person. Would that person be partially to blame?

But, the rape analogy is also pretty good and relevant..

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 12, 2009 1:49 AM


Maryrose, you made some excellent points last night.

Posted by: Bethany at September 12, 2009 7:08 AM


Holding up bloody signs is grotesque. It doesn't meet the standards of public interaction in polite society. I wouldn't be any more impressed with people holding up pictures of tonsillectomies either, though I think a better comparison would be pictures of bloody tampons or STD's.

really? And what exactly is polite society, Atta? Jim was not in someone's house. He was in the public domain in a passive position.

But I do see your point. It's not comfortable nor polite for adult men and women to see what their abortion did to their babies.

It's not comfortable nor polite for school children to see how abortion affected their brothers and sisters, their parents and teachers. (Of course, in polite society, we can show them pictures of erect penises, condoms, dental dams, and couples in various sex positions. But I digress.)

It's not polite to show the public what their tax money is used for and how 1.5 million American children die what is often a grotesquely painful death each year.

How is then that no one faults PETA for doing exactly this?
Is it because they show pictures of poor baby animals instead of poor baby humans?
Would you then say that a butcher who has pictures of the various cuts of meat in his shop window is in part to blame for the violence against his shop by PETA?
Just how far are you prepared to stretch this ridiculous reasoning. Are their decisions also poor ones? Perhaps the woman wearing the short skirt made a poor decision and paid for it by rape?

I just don't accept your premise that a person participating in a nonviolent protest is partly responsible for their death. Legally, I doubt very much that Mr Drake will use successfully this line of defense against the premeditated crime committed.
Your reasoning also violates ethics for one cannot use an evil means to achieve what they may perceive as a good end. Although, the proabortion movement has certainly done this to advance their cause.

And you are quite mistaken about the internet Atta. I too have an excellent understanding of Internet security and it's not the security that is the problem it's your "footprint". Have a nice day.

Posted by: angel at September 12, 2009 7:36 AM


way to go Jill!

In fact, Drake's murder of Pouillon is in fact very analogous of abortion. Pouillon was innocent and defenseless, sitting in a wheelchair with an oxygen tank (his placenta!).

I'm not surprised pro"choicers" missed the analogy. I'm betting Pouillon isn't even a person to them.

Posted by: angel at September 12, 2009 7:53 AM


What I find so unbelievable is that we have had only ONE pro-choicer on this thread (Alexandra) condemn this act of violence without adding a "but really he had it coming." One can go back to the Tiller threads and see that the majority (not all) of pro-lifers condemned the act as heinous without adding "but he was a baby killer so he deserved it."

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at September 12, 2009 7:55 AM


Jill,

Don't allow the RH Reality Check post to upset you. Did you really expect something different from them? Did you expect them to condemn Drake? Come on, they ARE the culture of death. Mr. Pouillon stood for life. They despise people like Mr. Pouillon.

None of the silence from the side of the culture of death, or their ignorant comments/posts surprise me. If anything, I'm grateful once again that this country is learning little by little what it means to be "pro-choice" and they are turning away from it. I'm sure it's a real eye-opener to people "on the fence".

Hang in there, Jill. In God's due time...

Posted by: Marie at September 12, 2009 8:16 AM


Right Marie, exactly.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at September 12, 2009 8:19 AM


Jill and Marie,

Another point is the PAs love being the martyrs. That's always the best position to be in. I AM THE VICTIM! They aren't willing or ready to give up this role. Its too valuable of a weapon.
Also, they are forced to acknowledge that deranged people do in fact exist on both sides. Wasn't it so much more politically expedient to claim they were victims of some vast PL conspiracy?

Do we hear any hysterical blathering about a PC conspiracy from the PL side? No. Do we react by hysterically hurtling baseless accusations? No.
Do PLs blather nonsense about "rhetoric" causing people to go out and kill? No.
Remember how this nonsense was spewed against PL people here and elsewhere after Tiller was killed? Inconvenient facts such as the killer's mental illness and involvement with militias and non-involvement with PL groups wasn't going to get in the way of anyone's hysterics and baseless accusations.


The PCs find themselves in a most unenviable position. Either they have to acknowledge that the PC side is as "murderous" as they claim the PL side is, or they have to admit that deranged people exist on both sides who can act on their own with no support or encouragement from PC or PL organizations and are solely responsible for their criminal behavior. Gee, isn't that the argument PL people have made all along??

So much for PC martyrdom and victimhood. So much for PL plots and conspiracies.

Posted by: Mary at September 12, 2009 8:50 AM


Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 12, 2009 7:55 AM
-----

Bobby - Alexandra is now pro-life. She's been very low-key about it.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at September 12, 2009 9:11 AM


Mary,

I sortof disagree. They (not all, but ALOT!) despise us. They don't believe that Drake was deranged. He's a hero in their eyes. When RH Reality Check wrote that Drake was "disturbed", I'll bet that they didn't mean mentally...they meant "disturbed" by Mr. Pouillon's stand for LIFE.

You know, it's kindof ironic. Jill recently posted an article on a California Planned Parenthood renovation. She mentioned in her post the cartoon ", "A superhero for choice." It was the first time I watched it, and I was disturbed. The makers of this low-budget cartoon actually thought it was humorous to kill pro-lifers. This is the mindset. They hate us and the only humans they defend are the ones that promote and stand for what they do.

They have no respect or love for the unborn, why should we expect that they have any love or respect for those who defend the unborn? I am not at all surpised at their lack of compassion.
They are filled with hate and it shows.

Posted by: Marie at September 12, 2009 9:16 AM


Marie,

I don't quite see it that way. By calling Drake "disturbed" they are pointing out that he does not represent their side, he's just a lone lunatic. However, when it was pointed out that killers of abortionists were in fact "disturbed" they didn't let this inconvenient fact get in the way of their hysterics and ridiculous accusations.
They were the martyrs and victims and relished this role. PL assassins that were part of some great "conspiracy" were out to get them yet they continued their noble work.
They don't want to give it up. Pointing out that Drake is "disturbed" exonerates their side of any responsibility.
Ironically, I agree killers like Drake and Remer ARE disturbed, but the PC side is now forced to admit these killers exist on both sides and act on their own. They are not part of a conspiracy. So much for PC martyrdom and victimhood.

I agree with you on the hate part Marie, but perception is everything. So long as these people can present themselves as victims and martyrs they will. It only helps their cause.
A deranged killer on their side does nothing to promote this false perception of victimhood that they have relished and nurtured to their advantage.


Posted by: Mary at September 12, 2009 9:35 AM


I don't know that I want to read the RH Reality Check article on this man (he's got the three name thing going for him, though). I hate victim bashing and I don't think that I could really keep my cool if those bigots were to suck up to Drake and thank him.

Is that what they did? Take a deep breath, Vannah, and go look.

Posted by: Vannah at September 12, 2009 9:35 AM


Mary,

You give their side alot more credit than I do!

I'm standing by my perception as what they meant by "disturbed".

You make very good point, though. But I've just never seen the culture of death in a martyr role, that's all. They see the women who abort their children as martyrs for their cause, but that's it.

When Tiller was brutally murdered, I didn't see them playing the vicitm, either. I saw them using it as a perfect opportunity to paint the pro-life side as dangerous...just like they keep showing the clinic bombing pics. They want us out of their way. That's their goal. They will use any propeganda possible to do so.

So again, I don't feel like they are using or ever have used the martyr/victim playbook to attempt to make our side look bad. They use the propeganda playbook. Calling out Drake like they should have done wouldn't be good PR for them. The pro-abort side is all about perception, not reality.

Posted by: Marie at September 12, 2009 9:51 AM


Vannah,

Its all par for the course. Are you old enough to remember when the women accusing Bill Clinton of everything from exposing himself to rape were reviled as "trailer trash", "bimbos", "liars" and "psychotics". Efforts were actually made to portray these women as mentally ill.
Why poor old Bill is the "real" victim here!
A woman "asks" to be raped. A philandering husband is the "victim" of some conniving female.
We can't execute that "poor" murderer (the hell with his victims).
We want to "understand" criminals, never mind their victims.
The killer of four police officers is glorified at his funeral.
There's massive hysteria of Tiller's murder, dead silence of Pouillon's.

RH Reality Check is just another example of this twisted thinking Vannah. Get used to it. Its as old as the human race.

Posted by: Mary at September 12, 2009 9:54 AM


The pro-abort side is all about perception, not reality.

Posted by: Marie at September 12, 2009 9:51 AM

...or "deception", not reality.

Posted by: Marie at September 12, 2009 9:56 AM


Jill:

I read your comment on the article. That took bravery. And, if you're wondering whether or not they are all sitting around with their tinfoil hats on thinking about conspiracy, I am, too.

I'm trying to find something lighthearted to give me some hope, so for the moment I'm trying to envision them standing around a bottle of wine with the little tinfoil hats perched on their heads.

Posted by: Vannah at September 12, 2009 9:56 AM


I don't remember Clinton's woes at all because, yeah, I was too young (and most kids really couldn't care less- Pokemon was all the rage) which is a little shameful now that I think about it that something that was big in American history was shelved in the back of my mind for toys and other things (some things were mature; I wasn't entirely unfocused...). And I complain when people do that today...

Anyways, they actually blamed the women and called them that? WTF?!

Posted by: Vannah at September 12, 2009 10:04 AM


Hi Marie,

I always give credit where its due and I see the PC side using martyrdom and victimhood to their great advantage. Whether they are truly victims and martyrs is irrelevant, its the perception/deception that they can perpetrate that matters.
I'm afraid I use the martyr and victim roles interchangably.
When an abortionist is killed he becomes a great martyr for their cause. The PCs become the victims, wailing about PL assissins who are part of some great conspiracy, yet they bravely carry on. Remember how ridiculous they got on this thread? They weren't even rational. That's my point. They WANT to be victims. They want their dead to be martyrs. It only promotes the perception they want the public to have of them and what they have of themselves. The PL side looks bad. What's worse is when we go on the defensive, we play right into their hands.
Actually Marie I think its a brilliant strategy but Drake has thrown a big monkey wrench into it.

The best example I can give is Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. Remember the masterful job Clinton did of portraying himself as the REAL victim? Facts be damned. It was perception that mattered and he was a master. Same with the PCs. They have nurtured a victim image, and they want to keep it.

Posted by: Mary at September 12, 2009 10:13 AM


Honestly Vannah,

They did indeed say that. And all you heard from the feminists was a deafening silence. They loved and supported Bill so his "indiscretions" could be understood and overlooked.

I'm from the era when criminals were supposed to be "understood", not punished. Never mind the poor old woman they mugged on the street.
You'd find that those who best "understood" criminals didn't live behind double locked doors but rather gated communities with private guards.
I remember cop killers being freed as "heroes", even though the killers had police records as long as your arm.

I've just learned to live with it. It ain't gonna change.

Posted by: Mary at September 12, 2009 10:21 AM


"Remember the masterful job Clinton did of portraying himself as the REAL victim?"

Posted by: Mary at September 12, 2009 10:13 AM

Honestly, I don't remember him portraying himself as the REAL victim. Can you provide an example of something he said that supports this to job my memory?

Posted by: Marie at September 12, 2009 10:56 AM


...JOG my memory. oops.

Posted by: Marie at September 12, 2009 10:57 AM


Hi Marie,

Sure. Remember when he first lied to the American people about "that woman Miss Lewinsky" then when he finally had to own up to it he stuck out his lower lip and said he had to get back to the work of the American people? Why these nasty people are keeping me from being your servant, working to serve you! If he had been doing the work of the American people he wouldn't be in this situation but that's beside the point.
The outcry was incredible! How dare anyone pick on this poor man! You're keeping him from doing his job! Who can blame him for lying? Even clergy were analyzing whether any adultery had really occured and so what if it did?
He then put on quite a show of contriteness. Attending church with his bible in tow, having his "spiritual advisor" Jesse Jackson come to the White House, with HIS pregnant mistress in tow.

The only real victimhood I could recall was when he had to spend a week on "vacation" with Hillary. I'm sure a week with the devil in hell would have been preferable.

You've got to hand it to the guy. A master sociopath if I ever saw one. The "victim" performance was an act of genius and only a sociopath like Clinton could pull it off.

Posted by: Mary at September 12, 2009 11:09 AM


Robert---you are a liar and don't know a thing you're talking about! Are you going to look my friends, who have had abortions, in their faces and say that their pain and anguish is BUNK? They would spit in your face and at least one of my friends would probably beat you down! They GRIEVE for their babies. A blob of tissue cannot bring emotions like that. They know abortion took their BABIES from them.

I have only been blessed with one child so far and let me tell you that when I carried my son I had my first ultrasound at five weeks post conception. He had only been alive a little over a month and he already had a HEARTBEAT and a head with recognizable eyes, nose and mouth. He had arms and legs and his hands and feet were beginning to form. It was such a beautiful moment to see him for the first time. I sobbed because it was such a precious, tender moment for me. He was my BABY, not my blob. He was human!

Furthermore, I guess according to the pro-aborts, that Jim deserved his death for being a nuisance like unborn babies deserve their deaths for being a nuisance. Apparently, in America these days, being a nuisance is enough to get you killed.

Posted by: Sydney M at September 12, 2009 11:17 AM


No one read the new MSNBC article.

While I normally like MSNBC, this one wasn't a very good article.

Maybe I'm just being sensitive, but there's something truly depressing about describing Drake's family and job and then describing the victim as "in-your-face" and that Drake was never referred to as pro-choice, just upset by the place where the victim protested (never mind that he protested all over town), and forget that when Tiller was murdered the news was quick to refer to the murderer as pro-life.

Again, I could just be sensitive at the moment for the crap that the poor man has had thrown at him and he's not even in the ground yet...

Posted by: Vannah at September 12, 2009 11:38 AM


Hi Vannah,


He was upset about where Pouillon protested but had no problem with killing someone in front of high school students? He had no problem with the possiblity a student could have been struck by a stray bullet? Yeah, the guy's a real prince.

This is the same MSM that referred to an act of rape as Clinton's private life and his flashing a woman as "propositioning" and was silent when his accusers were villified.
This is the same MSM that will say nothing about the ACORN scandal.
This is the same MSM that blubbers over "awe-struck" seagulls at Obama's inaugaration and gets tingles up their legs when he talks.

This is exactly what we can expect from this bunch. I know its frustrating Vannah. Take some comfort in the fact the MSMs rating are in the toilet and conservative radio and the Fox channel reign supreme.
I remember when all we had were these MSM idiots so take heart.

Posted by: Mary at September 12, 2009 11:49 AM


I keep hearing the argument that since Drake was planning a third murder and since the other murder wasn't abortion-related, that Drake's motivations weren't abortion-related with Pouillon. Just a "grudge"... of course, when you point out that the grudge was over Mr. Pouillon's anti-abortion protests, you get deafening silence.

Also, I've noticed that the PCers commenting on threads on MSNBC and other MSM websites seem more interested in debating the term "pro-choice" and the term "pro-life" than in actually discussing the article. It's actually quasi-entertaining... in that dog-and-pony show way.

I keep praying that out of this whole terrible thing comes some good. I pray that intelligent pro-choicers and fence-sitting individuals see the huge double-standard set by the pro-abort camp. As I said earlier, it's possible that this tragedy might open people's eyes to who is interested in lives vs. who is interested in votes.

Bethany,
Thanks :) I have to admit, at times I feel like pulling my hair out on Jill's blog... but due to my contrary nature, those are the times I love most! ;-)

Posted by: MaryRose at September 12, 2009 2:23 PM


@ Mary & Marie re: Clinton. I've got a beautiful book of photos (Images of Greatness) of Ronald Reagan during his presidency and remember the White House Photographer Pete Souza's comment that President Reagan never removed his suit coat jacket in the Oval Office. When asked about it, RR said he thought to do so would show disrespect to the office of the presidency. Compare that with Clinton dropping trou there.

Posted by: klynn73 at September 12, 2009 2:44 PM


There are more stories swirling around that the suspect, Harlan James Drake, took no side on the abortion issue. He was not an activist in any way.

If this was really the first recorded murder of an anti-abort by a pro-abort, I'd be the first to not only condemn it, but also admit that my side had finally crossed the line 36 years after this war began.

Posted by: Dhalgren at September 12, 2009 7:42 PM


"Poor Rachel Madcow will have her work cut out for her. The trouble she went through to 'prove' a connection between Tiller's killer and Operation Rescue."

You mean the handwritten phone number on the dashboard of Scott Roeder's CAR? A faint dotted line, indeed. Only an investigative journalist could crack that one.

Posted by: Dhalgren at September 12, 2009 8:18 PM


Dhalgren,

He has admitted to having been "offended" (his word) at the anti-abortion protester. That is the motive given by the police. So I'm going to believe it.

Posted by: MaryRose at September 12, 2009 9:55 PM


Dhalgren,

Rachel Madcow made much of the phone number which proved....what? If a co-worker who embezzled money from your employer had your phone number would this be proof positive you were involved in the crime?

BTW, Tiller's killer was never involved with a PL group either. He was involved with militias and had a history of anti social and violent behavior, even threatening judges and lawyers.
However, these facts did little to deter the hysterical blatherings and accusations against PL people by the PC side.
Like Mary Rose I also understand that the police gave the reason mentioned in her post as the motive for the shooting. I don't see what the police would have to gain by lying.

However, unlike the PC side, we will not resort to hysterical blathering and baseless accusations concerning conspiracies and PC organizations supporting the killing of PL people.

Posted by: Mary at September 12, 2009 10:33 PM


Woven through the analysis of the events discussed here is the overarching and indispensible role played by a compliant and willing mainstream media. At every turn they help provide cover for the purveyors of deception.

As Mary pointed out in her reply to Marie, Clinton's accusers were mercilessly pilloried variously as "sluts", "drag a ten dollar bill through a trailer park" whores, and "bimbos" by the powers that be in the MSM. As for Monica, she was a "love crazed stalker". Little Billy was an innocent bystander (victim) as this parade of women took advantage of him.

Further, when Clinton was shown to have perjured himself and was impeached by the House, the MSM ramped up their characterization of the impeachment as a political witch hunt (Clinton was a "victim"), never mind that the president was caught in a bald face lie. Kenneth Starr, the special prosecutor appointed to the case was, thanks to the MSM, the most reviled man in Washington because he was so "unfair" to the victim Clinton.

The book "Sell Out" authored by the chief investigative counsel, David Schippers, is a study of the MSM's incestuous relationship with the president and the democrats in congress, and how media manipulation succeeded in portraying the accused as a "victim".

Of course, nothing has changed to this day. Tiller was a "victim" of the entire pro-life movement, and Mr. Pouillon may not even rate a postscript.

Posted by: Jerry at September 12, 2009 11:40 PM


Its all par for the course. Are you old enough to remember when the women accusing Bill Clinton of everything from exposing himself to rape were reviled as "trailer trash", "bimbos", "liars" and "psychotics". Efforts were actually made to portray these women as mentally ill.

Perhaps it's too strong a comparison, but innocent black men, women, and children who were lynched were said to have gotten what "they" deserved, too.

Posted by: Phillymiss at September 14, 2009 10:07 AM


I don't get it. Why do they get to say that Tiller's killer was politically motivated, and we don't get to say the same about Drake?

I love playing a game where the rules are constantly re-written over and over again by the opposing side.

Posted by: xalisae at September 15, 2009 3:33 PM


I have been reading through all the comments, and I just wanted to first say that my thoughts and prayers are with the family of James Pouillon, no one, especially not an innocent man trying to voice his beliefs should be killed ever. I hope that the man who killed him goes away for life for what he has done. However, I will say that I have been greatly offended with some of the posts that seem to attack people who are pro-choice. I do not understand how one can pass judgement on an entire group of people based on the action of one horrible man. also, I am quite offended that people keep saying that people who are pro-choice are violent people who applaud murder. Furthurmore, pro-choice, is not the same as pro-abortion... pro-abortion as the conotation that we think all women should have abortions, when really we just think women have the righ to choose. For example, I am pro-choice, but I myself would not choose to have an abortion if I became pregnant, however I do not think all women need to make the same decision as I do. Just because we are pro-choice does not mean that we are pro-violence.

Posted by: andrea at September 17, 2009 9:27 PM


Abortion is a form of murder which has been legalized. Being pro-choice means that one supports this legalization of an act which was once considered a form of murder, and give women the ability to legally choose to end the life of her growing child simply because it resides temporarily within her uterus.

I fail to see how someone who thinks that women being allowed by law to do such a thing is not supporting murder.

The fact that there was no mass and vociferous condemnation of Jim's killing by and large by legalize abortion proponents speaks volumes to the pro-choice side when it comes to their opinion of those they deem inconvenient, be it fetal or adult humans.

Posted by: xalisae at September 17, 2009 10:17 PM


"...no one, especially not an innocent man trying to voice his beliefs should be killed ever."

andrea,

An innocent baby killed by abortion never has a chance at life or a voice. Ever.

How fair is that?

Posted by: Janet at September 17, 2009 10:48 PM


xailsae, One reason that there may not have been a mass condemnation of the violent act that killed Mr. Pouillon could be due to the fact that many pro-choicers were not made aware of it. The only reason I even knew about it was because of a random link I came across when looking at a news website. And I am sure, that like me, many pro-choicers would condem the tragedy if they were to hear about it. However, I would also like to point out the fact that there are times when pro-lifers commit violent acts as well. This does not mean that all pro-lifers are violent, I am sure that you are not a violent person, and I would never disprespect a person in such a way that I would categorize them as being violent murders just because one person who share their beliefs has comitted a violent act.

Posted by: andrea at September 19, 2009 12:29 PM