On this National Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers let's spotlight 1 of their finest, Planned Parenthood of Roanoke, VA.
The church has assembled the 3-ft crosses into the shape of a larger cross on a grassy knoll the church owns next to Highway US 460 and plans to keep the display up until Easter.
"They wanted it to be a memorial and a message of redemption and peace for each woman who had an abortion," says Roanoke Times.
But PP, the apparent authority on redemption, is complaining the crosses send the wrong message:
But David Nova, the vice president for PP in Roanoke, said that to him the 729 crosses represent a political message, not one of redemption.
"The display is a mock cemetery," he said. "It likens abortions to killing. In many respects, it is mean-spirited and not redemptive."
Well, duh on the "mock cemetery" and double duh on "likens abortions to killing."
And of course it makes total sense for the abortion profiteer making money off of killing babies to call those wanting to stop the killing "mean-spirited."
[HT: Susie Allen of Pro Life in TN; photo via Roanoke Times]
Wait, abortion is "like" killing? No way! I thought it was just removing some magical tissue that may one day turn into something that may or may not be a person.
I'm shocked! All this time I thought that the personhood fairy came at birth.Posted by: Lauren at March 10, 2010 11:17 AM
This, unfortunately, is entirely unsurprising.
And so is the same sort of behavior from our political leaders.Posted by: Andrew Haines at March 10, 2010 11:19 AM
No way... abortion is like... killing? Really? Well, no sh*t, Sherlock! (Wow, is PP seriously brain dead, or what???)Posted by: Elisabeth at March 10, 2010 11:21 AM
NO, Lauren. You still have it wrong...the Stork brings the baby...PP just removes a bunch of unwanted cells from the mothers womb
Dang..and Pro-lifers are the non-scientific ones in this battle???
And women (and men), in this day and age, believe this???Posted by: RSD at March 10, 2010 11:22 AM
Hello, Planned Parenthood of Roanoke! Welcome to the Land of People Who Get the Point!Posted by: Keli Hu at March 10, 2010 11:23 AM
PP loves, loves, loves, the blood of babies, not to mention destroying the women left behind so they make more "mistakes," creating more blood, blood, blood, for PP to consume.Posted by: mlizzy at March 10, 2010 11:25 AM
The Cross drives Satan mad.
PP wouldn't say a word if we erected little stars instead.
It's the CROSS that's at issue. Very revealing PP. Keep talking. We're paying close attention.Posted by: Gerard Nadal at March 10, 2010 11:36 AM
Talk about schizophrenic...One minute they acknowledge that yes, abortion is the killing of a live human but it's ok because the woman's right to bodily autonomy is paramount...then they say no, abortion is not actually killing...blah blah blah.Posted by: xalisae at March 10, 2010 11:42 AM
Wow, Fred, that's a pretty huge strawman. I think you might be going for the world record.
And yet you keep building higher and adding more straw. Amazing.Posted by: Lauren at March 10, 2010 12:14 PM
so a picture of someone's baby (Their first ultrasound) proudly displayed in a baby book would be porn? HARDLY.
They just can't handle the truth (pictures of the unborn that shown their HUMANITY).
Abortion kills a living human being!
Posted by: LizFromNebraska
at March 10, 2010 12:20 PM
What a great church!
Way to go Pastor Mike!
He should put up a sign that says:
"Come and BE HEALED & RESTORED!
No Condemnation - JUST LOVE!"
(I got a little carried away with the exclamation points, but it's good to get excited about Jesus
!"Posted by: Ed at March 10, 2010 12:24 PM
i don't keep aborted baby pictures in my house. And I don't think anyone here does, either.
Does this mean we should close down the holocaust museum? After all, it may have disturbing images!
America won't reject abortion until America SEES ABORTION!
Posted by: LizFromNebraska
at March 10, 2010 12:48 PM
It took an amendment to the Constitution to end slavery. What will it take to end the destruction of human life at its earliest stages?
Of all of the pathetic excuses to oppose equal rights...Fred's has to take the cake...Posted by: Vannah at March 10, 2010 12:54 PM
@Fred: Assuming you are not a troll (which I highly doubt), and assuming that your ludicrous assertion is correct, I would imagine that most pro-lifers would be fine with running that risk if it meant getting abortion outlawed.Posted by: Keli Hu at March 10, 2010 1:09 PM
Abortion is "killing".
This was probably before your time, but in an October 1952 PP brochure promoting birth control, Planned Parenthood explains abortion:
" An abortion requires an operation. It kills the life of the baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that when you want a child you cannot have it."Posted by: Janet at March 10, 2010 1:30 PM
Wow, "Duh" really does sum it up.Posted by: bethany at March 10, 2010 1:58 PM
"It's the CROSS that's at issue"
Funny this was mentioned. When we put our white crosses on the Church lawn for the first time with a large sign that says "In memory of the unborn killed by Abortion every year"...we were told that the pastor got flack from a handful of parishioners stating it was inappropriate for toddlers/kids to see the display/crosses.
The assistant parish priest at that time did tell us, though, that the "quality" of confessions during that month increased due to our display and he was very thankful to the group.
It's Spiritual warfare folks!Posted by: RSD at March 10, 2010 2:02 PM
Liz, to even make that comparison demeans the Holocaust. And I doubt that anyone has any purient interests concerning photos at the Holocaust Museum.Posted by: Fred at March 10, 2010 4:17 PM
Gerard, I disagree. It doesn't necessarily have to be a cross. ANY medium which acknowledges that abortion is killing will anger those who benefit financially from that killing. It can be a cross, a photograph, a pamphlet, whatever.
On a related note, Stanford Students for Life uses roses for their memorial instead of crosses, to emphasize that abortion impacts people of all religions. http://stanfordreview.org/article/the-pro-life-argument-does-not-depend-on-religionPosted by: Kelsey at March 10, 2010 4:50 PM
Oh Fred, Fred..you totally MISSED MY POINT.
Abortion is a violent crime that takes the life of a child before birth. A HUMAN CHILD that is alive. A HUMAN child who is innocent of ANY wrongdoing.
Kelsey: that's a great idea what Stanford students do. Roses are also a symbol of Life.
Posted by: LizFromNebraska
at March 10, 2010 5:09 PM
RSD: Why would it be bad for children to see the crosses? Did those same parents cover the eyes of their children during Mass so they wouldn't see the Crucifix?
" And I doubt that anyone has any purient interests..."
First of all, it's "prurient" not "purient". If you're going to pretend to be some condescending snot, make sure you at the very least spell your words correctly, or else you come off looking like a moron.
Secondly, why does EVERYTHING have to be about sex with you guys? You want free, no-strings sex, and you're willing to literally kill to get it, so you assume EVERYONE is motivated by sex? Sorry, Fred, but some people think there's more to life than sex, like...oh...living itself for starters.Posted by: xalisae at March 10, 2010 5:31 PM
Good God, Xalisae, you speak as though cooking, eating and doing the dishes were an important part of life or something. You must be some kind of pervert.
How many fetuses died at Sodom and Gomorrah? It's Ok for God to abort, of course. It would be OK for God to allow adults to have sex with minors if thats what God wants.
What a deep question. Fred, I'm sure you realise that in this episode, God killed not only foetuses, but babies and toddlers and adults etc. But then - and mark this b/c it's very important - God is God, you know? That is, He is the Creator and sometimes He has to act in severe ways to redress severe problems. It's one thing for God to destroy what He created in the first place and altogether another thing for one human to kill another, okay?Posted by: Louise at March 10, 2010 6:21 PM
A post from Live Action Films the other day shows that back in 1952, before Planned Parenthood became an abortion provider, PP gave out a pamphlet about contraception that said this (asking about birth control):
"Is it an abortion?
"Definitely not. An abortion requires an operation. It kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that when you want a child you cannot have it. Birth control merely postpones the beginning of life."
It's amazing that almost 60 years ago they admitted that abortion is killing, but now they do not.
Fred, it does not demean the holocaust. A couple months ago, the Chief Rabbis in Israel, the ones basically in charge of the Jewish religion, said that abortion is "a real epidemic, as tens of thousands of Jewish souls are being lost each year ... In addition to the enormity of the transgression, it is also delaying redemption." They said it delays redemption because it delays the coming of the Messiah.
Not to mention that abortion is a holocaust of children. They are killed because of their size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency. They are killed because they are not wanted by someone (whether it be the mother, father, family, doctor, boss, etc.), and that reason very often is inconvenience/liability, not health.
Furthermore, if you're going to bring God into this, I get argue with religion too, so you don't get to complain: God can end life when He sees fit, because He is God. He gets to decide when it's time to go home, not us. Furthermore, the Bible SPECIFICALLY condemns abortion. In those days there was a place called Gehenna, or the Valley of Ben Hinnom/Ammon, which was right outside the walls of Jerusalem, and it was a horrid place with the stench of death. At Gehenna was a garbage heap with the burnt, dead bodies of children - born and unborn. The pagans sacrificed these children to Molech/Baal/Zeus and Ashteroth/Asmodeus/Aphrodite through blood and fire. They ripped open pregnant women on an altar and sacrificed the unborn, as well as slaughtered children who were already born. The Lord called this an abomination.
Leviticus 18:21, 24-25 "You shall not give any of your seed to be consecrated to the idol Moloch, nor defile the name of your God. I am the Lord... Defile not yourselves with any of these things with which all the nations have been defiled, which I will cast out before you, and with which the land is defiled: the abominations of which I will visit, that it may vomit out its inhabitants."
Amos 1:13-15 "Thus says the Lord: For three crimes of the children of Ammon, and for four I will not convert him: because he has ripped up the women with child of Galaad to enlarge his border. And I will kindle a fire in the wall of Rabba: and it shall devour the houses thereof with shouting in the day of battle, and with a whirlwind in the day of trouble. And Melchom shall go into captivity, both he, and his princes together, says the Lord."
(to "enlarge his border" means both to extend land and to extend acceptability of practice)
Jeremiah 19:1-6 "Thus says the Lord: Go, and take a potter's earthen bottle, and take of the ancients of the people, and of the ancients of the priests: And go forth into the valley of the son of Ennom, which is by the entry of the earthen gate: and there you shall proclaim the words that I shall tell you. And you shall say: Hear the word of the Lord, O you kings of Juda, and you inhabitants of Jerusalem: Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Behold I will bring an affliction upon this place: so that whosoever shall hear it, his ears shall tingle: Because they have forsaken me, and have profaned this place: and have sacrificed therein to strange gods, whom neither they nor their fathers knew, nor the kings of Juda: and they have filled this place with the blood of innocents. And they have built the high places of Baalim, to burn their children with fire for a holocaust to Baalim: which I did not command, nor speak of, neither did it once come into my mind. Therefore behold the days come, says the Lord, that this place shall no more be called Topheth, nor the valley of the son of Ennom, but the valley of slaughter."
Jeremiah 32:35, in which the Lord speaks of the evils that the children of Israel and Judah have done while under the king of Babylon: "And they have built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Ennom, to consecrate their sons and their daughters to Moloch: which I commanded them not, neither entered it into my heart, that they should do this abomination, and cause Juda to sin."
The Lord then goes on to say that he will take them from that place and make them secure, and they will be His people.
God also specifically condemned those who have sex with minors:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 "Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: Neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers: Nor the effeminate nor liers with mankind nor thieves nor covetous nor drunkards nor railers nor extortioners shall possess the kingdom of God."
In speaking of those lying with mankind, they are talking about the fact that boys were sold as sex slaves to the men at the temples, and those who were sleeping with these boys were pedophiles, and they were an abomination to the Lord.Posted by: Amy at March 10, 2010 8:42 PM
Your comments about pictures of fetuses being child porn are completely foolish. If you claim they will become child porn, then by your standards all the pictures parents have of their kids (in the tub etc.) are also child porn. Is this really your position, or were you just saying something you clearly hadn't thought through to try and win a point?Posted by: Matt at March 10, 2010 9:35 PM
The statement from the PP guy was just bizarre - I wonder what he would suggest as it seems to be that he wants something "redemptive"? I, quite frankly, can't think of anything more redemptive than a cross. I don't think it is meant to taunt people - it is quite a symbol of remembrance and redemption.
I'm quite fine with people who are pro-choice and have reasonable arguments around it (and can at least agree that there should be reasonable limits). The tough people to deal with are those who don't understand at all that it is killing and that people do have the right to be offended by the act of abortion.Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at March 10, 2010 10:36 PM
a reasonable limit for what, Ex-GOP?Posted by: Jon at March 11, 2010 9:59 PM
Abortion. I'm against abortion. I can debate with somebody who says abortion should be legal in the 1st trimester and if the life of the mother is threatened. I can't debate with somebody who thinks abortion should be legal up until the birth (Jill had a post of somebody who believed that recently).
I'm of the opinion that this PP guy is more in the 2nd category than the first - seems not to grasp reality.Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at March 11, 2010 10:02 PM
Ex-GOP, I don't think doctors term as abortion any attempt to save the life of the mother when she really is in danger of dying. My cousin had an ectopic pregnancy, and I remember my mother saying that her pro-life doctor would not call the surgery abortion. The distinction between the intent to kill the child and the intent to save the mother is an important distinction.
What is the reason that you can debate with someone who will allow for abortion in the first trimester but you cannot debate with someone who will allow for abortion in the other trimesters? Then, might I not just as logically say that I can debate with someone who will allow abortion but I cannot debate with anyone who will allow infanticide? Why is your limit reasonable? It's certainly not God's limit. Perhaps we agree, and I just misunderstand you.Posted by: Jon at March 12, 2010 7:14 AM
Let me get this straight. A church puts up a whole bunch of crosses on their own property to memorialize the babies who die from abortion. Planned Parenthood doesn't like this, because it implies that abortion is killing. So they're objecting.
Well, too bad if Palnned Parenthood doesn't like it. Tough for them. We live in a country with the rights of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. So the church has the right to put up whatever it wants on it's property. If Planned Parenthood doesn't like it, they can go take a flying leap.
They do not have the right to dictate to the rest of us what is and is not acceptable to put on our own property.Posted by: Ceecee at March 12, 2010 12:25 PM
Ceecee...PP loves to kill the unborn but don't want everybody else to be reminded of the effects.Posted by: RSD at March 12, 2010 1:21 PM
Yes,Ceecee I am sure PP has lots of reasons why they don't want crosses displayed to remind women that for abortion to be succesful "reproductive healthcare" the woman has to end up with a dead baby. They are going to guarantee her the "right" to have a dialated cervix, a mutilated, dismembered and suctioned out baby. It her "right". Let see PP reasons. Oh, they get to count millions of dollars in profit, for a so-called not-for profit that is really lucrative business. Ca-Ching rings their cash register at $300-500 a pop, the largest abortion provider in the nation. Reminds me of the new Houston abortuary shaped just like a cash register.Posted by: Prolifer L at March 12, 2010 7:03 PM
Sorry for the double post Mods. Computer is acting up again.Posted by: Prolifer L at March 12, 2010 7:09 PM
Jon - I'm not very clear on my point - I'll try again.
I am not a fan of PETA or the animal rights movement. Now, if somebody from PETA came and said they think veal is bad and fur is bad and we should try to treat animals better - I think I could talk to them and debate with them. Though I would disagree on many positions, I think the person at least is sane and can make an argument. If another person from PETA came to me and said that animals are equal to people and we should all be vegans, have no pets, and elect a dog into the senate - well, that person isn't even worth talking to because they are so fringe.
People who think abortion on demand up to 40 weeks, I consider fringe and not worth even debating. This guy as well just seems too out there, even for me.Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at March 12, 2010 9:17 PM
Thanks, GOP. I guess it depends on what one is trying to achieve. When Paul spoke on Mars Hill--and the Greeks would have been pro-infanticide, wouldn't they? Maybe not in Athens--then he was going for the heart. Of course, the purpose of Jill's blog isn't first of all evangelism; at least, I don't think it is.Posted by: Jon at March 12, 2010 10:48 PM