Why Does Yet Another Form of Homegrown Terror Go Ignored By This Administration?
By Susie Madrak Monday Sep 28, 2009 10:00am
I wasn't planning to write about this today, but reading this really got to me. Despite the fact that this country was founded on the idea of freedom of religion, there's a substantial bloc of citizens who seem to believe their religious beliefs trump everyone else's, even to the inclusion of institutionalized terror tactics.
I wonder when our constitutional-law president is going to use the extensive anti-terror powers at his command to protect women's legal rights?
For a nation that claims to cherish its freedoms, America is pretty damned complacent about the harassment that goes on outside abortion clinics. Imagine this circus outside of dentist's offices instead. Imagine what it would feel like, having to endure being called a whore and a killer on your way in to have a bad tooth pulled. Maybe they'd throw little plastic teeth at you; maybe they'd even take your photograph on the way in. People wouldn't stand for it: I have the right to choose my own dental care, they'd say. Who do these people think they are? And even if I were the smallest bit unsure about the choice I'd made, even if some part of me wanted to be talked into a filling and not an extraction--why in god's name would some hostile, red-faced, screaming stranger get a vote?
Maybe there's an element of trolling to that analogy. I could write the outraged top-text for an email forward of this blog myself. "Can you believe it! A LIVING, ALMOST-BREATHING CHILD who will PROBABLY CURE CANCER SOMDAY is nothing more than a ROTTED MOLAR to this BARREN GODLESS WHORE!!!"
Feel free to copy/paste--but if you do, you're missing the point. Bullying never won any hearts or minds, and harassment or intimidation of private citizens going about their private lives is never, never, never a tool for good. There is no place for such tactics of fear in civil discourse, and no one who employs them can be truly called a warrior for good, no matter what they tell themselves while they're packing their bullhorn and their gore posters into the car every morning.
I can't make the protesters who camp out in front of my clinic in the mornings go away. I can't even make them behave like rational, responsible citizens. But I can make sure that the women (and men, and children) who walk into my clinic don't have to run that obstacle course alone, and I believe I can assuage some of their fear. I can shield them physically from shouts and eyes and cameras. I can assure by my presence as a witness that the protesters don't "forget" where the property line is. And I can be one voice of supportive reason, quiet but strong, in opposition to the shouting about the blastocyst deep conditioning cabal:
"I'm a volunteer with the clinic. We have some protesters out front who will try to shout at you. They don't know why you're here, but they're going to shout at you anyway. You don't have to listen to them. I can just walk alongside and keep myself between them and you. I'm sorry you have to deal with this today."
Their fear is why I escort. Their gratitude is why I keep coming back.
Login or Register to post comments.
and they just wanna save the wittle baaaaabies.
So they can grow up to be cannon fodder for jebus.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxdt_f0hwUg
that's not indoctrination is it? Only if the President has a pigmentation issue, right?
/snark
a pigment of your imagination.
uuuh...gah that was lame...but I had to say it before someone else did.
Brought a smile to my lips.
Just as lively and twice as smart
I was in an abortion clinic one time and there was a sign on the wall that said:
"No fetus ever beat us!"
I thought that was a little inappropriate.
That ringtone ad where you lift the skirt doesn't lift it far enough.
I never get the ad for the bagpipe ringtone with the kilt clad Scotsman like ys does.
I hate that kind of stuff too, but on the same note if they aren't allowed to protest, what about the things we want to protest? I'm not willing to give that all up just to shut up these ignorant lunatics.
"I wonder when our constitutional-law president is going to use the extensive anti-terror powers at his command to protect women's legal rights?"
Yeah Ricky, I kinda did. As long as these protesters can't do anything physical to prevent the women fron entering the clinic and as long as no one is hurt, I'm afraid I have to say they have that right and I don't see anything in the constitution that would prevent them from protesting plus I don't see this as "terror". Yes, they go to extremes and it is awful that the women have to run the gantlet of harrassment and humiliation of their protests, but for now, it is their right and one the rest of us defend when we are trying to make our own voices heard.
"president use..extensive...power..command."
Thought we had eight years too much of such recently.
Yeah well, and there's that too.
hint, hint.
You're easy and I mean that in a good way. :)
the "homegrown terrorist" language should be taken off the table not to mention the desire to have anti-terrorist measures implemented and enforced within this country. it is too dangerous to expand this terminology and enforcement when it is not even purposefully defined for use with the clear and present danger of al qaeda.
are not victims of this terror?
what about those who follow women to their homes or places of work?
free speech and all..I remember seeing their signs for months on my drive into the office...They were in your face and despicable!
they are victims of harassment, followed less frequently by criminal and felonious acts covered by state and federal law. but to start calling these despicable actions as "homegrown terrorism" is asking for trouble. considering the dubious questions surrounding role of the federal government and the current use and nature of the patriot act, do you really want to have it expanded? especially since once it is out there, it will be more difficult to take back? how about just some simple law changes regarding what is considered appropriate behavior around a clinic?
is not protected by the Constitution. Neither is threats of violence.
so what's the deal with wanting to expand it into the nebulous field of how to combat terrorism, one that is already a controversial hot-button issue fraught with civil rights concerns?
We're not talking about some guy who gets up one morning and thinks, "Gosh, I'll go hang out downtown and share my point of view with folks."
We're talking about organized groups, who plan these 'protests,' and sometimes encourage violence. They're trying to frighten people away into behaving in the fashion that they've decided is appropriate. And they're doing it to promote their own particular set of ideology.
How is that NOT terrorism?
I could stand outside a business and yell at a business' customers before the police were called to have me removed...
If I stood outside and yelled at people going into a Walmart for example or perhaps a tire store or a cigarette shop? I know that I could stand and picket, but yell at people and intimidate them or block their path? I'm not so sure...
They are mostly trying to self-righteously manipulate by laying on a guilt trip. Their assumption is that their particular brand of religious or moral beliefs give them the right. Fine, as long as they keep it to words or signs. That is their right. For myself, I would also feel that it was my right to address each one individually as I passed through the gauntlet, just to fuck with their heads just a little bit. The temptation would be irresistable.
Wasn't there a ruling last year that banned protesters from funerals? (as a result of the wacko Church group protesting funerals of soldiers)
Maybe we could extend that to abortion clinics since...
Uh oh. Now I'm in trouble.
can keep them at a safe distance.
I thought a law was passed two or three years ago that said they couldnt get within so many feet of the clinic? Was that just a local law somewhere?
I think the thing that irritates me most about these people is they will protest ANY clinic that does abortions even if its not the only proceedure they do. Anyone that enters is yelled at. when I was around 20 I didnt have a good job so I had very little money. No insurance and in order to get my annual exams and birth control I used planned parenthood clinics. I never had an abortion I was just going for routine care. I got yelled at a couple of times.
outside the same clinic by the same people be considered harassment, beyond protest.
There comes a point where the same people protesting the same thing at the same location daily becomes stalking.
they're not herded into "free speech zones" a couple blocks away from the clinic. That's what they like to do with us progressives... .
Everyone of these morality hypocrites surely had abortions and now they're sick repentence is to harrass, terrorize and spread their dark inner hatred to others.
they all look alike.
It's one thing when women protest against abortions but when a man starts telling me what I can do with my body that's about the time I want to tell him what he can do with part of his.
I don't care whether the protester is male or female. It's not up to any other person to make that sort of decision for me.
Once the woman decides to go to a clinic, it's too late. Protesting outside a clinic is like trying to end capital punishment by harassing the people carrying out the execution (something which > 70% of pro-lifers support, oddly enough). Of course, in that case the protestors would be carted off by law enforcement.
they just mount one of them sound cannon dealie jobbers out front on the wall and give it a toot every once in a while?
a new form of birth control
It worked for me, my old lady has a sound cannon under her nose
Her abortion-protesting mom couldn't get her to the clinic fast enough.
Injun? Isn't that what cars have under the hood to make them run? Seems kind of a stretch that an injun could get a chick pregnant.
and by chance decide to visit the local clinic...
I wish I could be an escort.
A local bumpersticker:
"You can't trust me with a choice but you can trust me with a baby?"
The idea that a woman shouldn't be free to make her own choices is un-American and gender bias. As if "How can she possibly make such an important decision, you know homormones and all"
If someone is against abortion I always tell them not to have one. Kinda like gay marriage - if you don't like it don't marry a gay person.
Their beliefs stop at themselves. Who cares what they think - they just can't impose what they think on anybody else.
You really get exposed to how much the protestors fundamentally lack respect for anyone who disagrees with them.
I escorted women to and from clinics in San Fran almost 20 years ago, when the laws on anti-abortion protests were looser. I got spat on, punched, had paint and (on two occasions) gasoline thrown on me. The number of screaming death threats I received was literally beyond counting.
For a bunch that claims to be "pro-life", many of them sure have a lot of hate.
"Pro-life" means "Anti-woman"
I'm sorry that you had to go through all of that. It's one thing to disagree with someone. But to go the lengths that those protesters did, that's just disgusting.
Ya know, the whole odious anti-abortion bullshit outside clinics is "free speech," and I agree that they're allowed to do it. The other shit these assholes do is nasty though.
Personally, I figure if these "Christians" were really so anti-abortion they'd be willing to put up the money every time a woman didn't abort - after all, what's a couple of million dollars for the baby that will cure cancer?
But, as always with these pukes, it's not actually about what they say it is.
GEORGE CARLIN!!!
When I was 19, I was actually going to the hospital to have teeth pulled (very stubborn wisdom teeth) and got accosted by these people in front of the hospital.
It was the first time I had ever had to have surgery where I was to be put out and I was already very nervous, then I was beset by these crazy people, surrounding me and yelling at me, because I was going into the hospital.
It was a terrifying experience and something they should never have had the right to do, whether I was there to have my teeth pulled or whether I was there for anything else.
Having people scream at me and tell me not to "kill my baby" sure as hell wouldn't have changed my mind, especially not as it was teeth I was having pulled but I remember walking into the hospital (I still had to get in the doors, past all the people in the waiting room, the doctors, the nurses, the people waiting for cabs etc)and feeling every eye on me. I started to feel ashamed and embarrassed and then I got very angry because NO ONE has the right to make me feel that way.
No one has any right to make someone go through that and no one should have to damned near get an armed escort into a hospital just to get past these loonies.
FWIW, because of this experience, I HAVE escorted people to the hospital, past these crazies, when it's been needed by friends, because while no one should ever have to experience what I went through, I can at least make an effort to make sure no one I know has to go through it alone. I'll never forget how that felt.
. . . characteristics of these hypocrites is that they tend to be against health care reform. America's infant mortality rate is a national disgrace--you'd figure they'd be addressing that issue at least as much as they do abortion. And making sure every neonate and its mother are getting what they need medically would be a minimum requirement to fix those numbers.
But it'll never happen with this crew because (a) American infants who die in the first year or so are overwhelmingly black (and less whelmingly, Native American) and the anti-choicers aren't, shall we say, all that interested in their well-being; (b) losing a child is absolutely gut-wrenching, and since making other women miserable is the main motive for the anti-abortion crowd, they're actually okay with dead babies (especially Black ones); and (c) health care reform is work, whereas standing around--racking up literal Jesus-approved brownie points in Heaven!--while smugly catcalling women who are going through a tough time is a blast.
Thanks for escorting, Susie.
Suise you rock for doing that!!!
I only brought it to C&L readers' attention.
Law enforcement largely ingnores Christofacists because they are white, conservative, and God-fearing 'Murcins, unlike those pagan Black Panthers or those American Indian Movement (AIM) terrorists of the 1970s.
Law enforcement also doesn't like far left-wing terrorists like ELF (Earth Liberation Front) and ALF (Animal Liberation Front), nevermind that neither group kills other people like the militant right-wingers.
→ http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/denver...
LGF and parts of the right are starting to hate Beck and his Teabagger types. Remember Beck is from the Xtain fringe. Mormon etc.
There seems to be a general consensus that the religious wackos have brought America down to its knees.
Strange times indeed.
http://www.adherents.com/ ... is an Internet initiative and is not affiliated with any religious, political, or educational organization.
With over 4,200 religions, churches, denominations, religious bodies, faith groups, tribes, cultures, movements, ultimate concerns, etc. The religions of the world are enumerated here.
Someone is bound to see things in a different light. Who needs it... not me.
Then I would escort women in also
I've never done it but I would imagine you just concentrate on the person you are escorting and try to tune out all the bs.
You keep your head down, position yourself between the mob and the person you're escorting to the clinic and march towards the doors without making eye contact. If your way is blocked, you wait until the police are called. If you are surrounded, you say nothing, hold the woman's hand (or, if necessary, turn her face into your chest and away from the protesters) and again wait for the police.
I recall being told that if one of them punches me, I should just suck it up. If I punch one of them, I may get arrested, I may get beaten up by the mob and I'm certainly putting the woman I'm with in danger.
Maybe it's better now. My experiences are 20 years' out of date...
I don't think so Bob...
I would venture to guess that it's a lot worse.
if someone threw a punch at me.
But the average abortion means taking something out of a woman's body about the size of the period at the end of this sentence.
How about these dill holes make some time for something that's actually living??
What also pisses me off is that these fucks are the first ones to be against birth control.
Idiots.
We have to get permits to protest and demonstrate and parade so why shouldn't they ..
The protesting has not exactly worked out the way they had intended for the past year or two, in fact it is having the opposite effect, one would think they would rethink their battle plan....
Anti-choice-rs spew nonsense. After all, they don't deal in facts, they deal in religious nonsense, as well as outdated, but very much alive misogyny. After all, you have to have a real hatred of women to ignore their plight when they become pregnant. Forced birth is NOT an option, and interferes with not only a woman's autonomy, but a woman's Constitutional right to freedom and the pursuit of happiness.
WHERES AN OVER ZEALOUS HEAD KICKIN A*SHOLE COP WHEN YA REALLY NEED HIM?
Appeasers are enablers.
accused you, didn't you Mr. Pres?
I want to stand outside their churches and scream "GOD'S NOT REAL, GOT TEACHES HATE, RELIGION STARTS WARS"!!! See how comfortable they are as they try to live THEIR life only to have someone attack them because of different beliefs.
They'd only play the victim card and cry that they're being persecuted. And of course the media would run to their side, and denounce those dirty atheistic librulz.
Actually funny thing is a lot of states make it illegal to make a disturbance outside a church, so even driving down the road with your Einstürzende Neubauten too loud will get you in trouble.
where having your Einstürzende Neubauten too loud would get you in trouble besides near a church. Unless it rains.
Non denominational interfaith affair.
Then call the police when the protesters gather outside...
Two can play their game.
all clinics should play piped einsturzende neubauten in their walkways to deter people from loitering. 7-11 has done it successfully with elevator music, but that is for deterring the teenagers; we are talking christocrats here, and elevator music just doesn't repel that kind of human the way it does a teenager. for that, you need the steel wool scrubbing power that annoys all walks of life--einsturzende neubauten.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOErZuzZpS8
i am the god of hell fire!!!!!!
my eyes!!!!
my ears!!!!!
my eyes!!!!!
hey man, if you are going to gouge someone's eyes out, at least give them a courtesy warning. for your penance, you must watch "sudden birth" on youtube 50x, or until i get this infernal song out of my head. fire, i'll take you to burn. fire, i'll take you to learn. fire...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOErZuzZpS8
without thinking back to my pediatric rotation during nursing school back in 1977.
Children who have been horribly beaten were all to common - the huge black/purple bruises surrounded by brownish bruises on a background of yellowish bruises -
seriously, no exaggeration; the multicolored bruises are in various stages of resolution: the black/purple ones are fresh and the yellow ones are fairly well resolved. Presentation of this kind of bruising reflects a regular occurrence of beatings.
It is the common use of fire and flame for the purpose of "punishing" children which surprised me. Cigarette burns were pretty common and cases of care-givers holding small hands to hot red electric coils were not rare.
I saw two "lobster" cases in my month of pediatrics. In these cases, a two-year-old and a three year old were involved because they have to be small enough to be dipped into a large kettle of boiling water while being dangled butt-first.
It was my assignment to help debride the three year old girl. Though sedated with morphine she was able to scream desparately as we vigorously scrubbed off the eschar (scar tissue)down to the red and bleeding skin. Because of the antibiotics and terror, she was usually incontinent of liguid stool which had to be kept away from the skin.
These children live in hell. Their abusers do not care that they are baaa-a-abies.
And these "right-to-control-everybody-elses' lifers" want to force women to bear children under ANY circumstances.
They ought to be FORCED to work in these pediatric wards and FORCED to care for unwanted children. But, no, given their religion of their petty, wrathful, idiot "god" they would only become abusers themselves.
Force women to bear children? Believe me, there are some people who should never be ALLOWED to have children.
Yes, I'd like to see these people forced to care for abused children as well, but I suspect it's only the idea of children they like. Real children, like real adults--not so much. Kinda like, "They love humanity but hate people."
I escorted for 5-6 years back in the 1980's until the clinic moved to a new building and won convictions against the worst offenders. My favorite tactic we used was to get the bar across the street to let us put a video camera in their window to show that the protesters were breaking the law. (Good Christians, they all lied under oath about their behavior.) Next time we went to court, they lied, we hauled out the video tapes and they were in deep trouble.
Over the years some truly bizarre things happened.
I remember the woman we called "Amazing Grace" standing behind me yelling, 'Oh, when the lord comes I wouldn't want to be in your shoes.' Couldn't help it, I looked down and we were both wearing the same style of Nikes. I said, 'Looks like you already are.' Suddenly Grace was my pal, telling me how much she loved those shoes and how they supported he feet all day long, and asking me if I didn't love them, too. I was at a loss for words.
Another time there was a big demonstration, about 300 people. One of whom was a mother with 4 kids, 3 adorable tow-headed boys who were completely confused and scared, and a baby girl in a stroller. She kept yelling about how we were murders and how we would never understand how much she loved her children because she was a good Christian mother. Aside from the fact that she was exposing her kids to potential violence by bringing them with her, most of us escorts were mothers who felt this was our cause, and our small children had no place there.
When the demonstration ran down, the woman's husband (I presume) pulled up to the curb. She shooed the little boys into the back, folded the stroller and put it in the back seat and then settled into the front passenger seat with her baby in her arms and the 3 boys standing up in the back seat and poking each other with the stroller. Good Christian mother, indeed.
I am an athiest and I too see abortion as the ending of a human life. This aurthor assumes that its ONLY religious people who oppose abortion. People should always go where the logic takes them and the facts are that the fetus is the stage that all humans are in at that point in their life.
-Doug
...oddly I feel your being disingenuous, hey to each their own.
PS. Doug... Don't have an abortion if that is how you feel.
Good one, T_C!
My sentiments exactly.
. . . that couldn't be said about every sperm in your gonads.
So stop playing with yourself, you murderer, you.
Um, if I wanted to save their little lives, how could I do it? No photos, please.
it's only women who have to make the decisions and take responsibility for the growing tissue that will become a 'human life'.....
And, since your name is Doug which is generally indicates a male, I assume that you will never have to even think about acting on your logic.
Logic compels me to ask you where you find the right to use your mother's reproductive organs when she objects.
I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby.
--Barack Obama
...but some of the arguments the pro-abortion rights folks come up with are so spectacularly stupid there are times when I want to make like Oedipus and pull my eyeballs out, no thanks to Mom.
Comparing getting an abortion to going to the dentist is one such case. Look, the reason an overwhelming majority of Americans don't like aboriton (about 27% support abortion on demand, about 4% have no opinion and everybody else either wants some significant restriction or to make it completely illegal) is because they see the fetus as having some sort of human status. This is screamingly obvious, but trying to get a liberal or a feminists to acknowledge this is like pulling a psychotic's tooth w/o novacaine or straightjacket. And evanglicals sincerely believe that a fetus ranks as a whole person at conception. I think that's daffy but they believe it. It therefore follows that they sincerely think abortion is murder. And since a clear majority of Americans are at least in part in some sympathy with their view, the argument Madrick's making isn't going to make it with anyone not already in her corner. Now please excuse me while I get an early start on the cocktial hour.
It's pro choice. Don't be an asshat.
Beat me to it.
Your angry attempt to enforce intellectual conformity is a symptom of the small-mindedness of so many people who dare call themselves liberal. "Pro choice" is a flagrant euphamism. As a general rule, I do not respect euphamisms.
Here's why in this case: In a late-term abortion or, if you prefer, partial-birth abortions (which I support because overwhelmingly the women who want them are dealing with some sort of catastrphic medical issue for either them, the fetus or both)the fetus is at a stage where it could potentially survive outside the womb, which many regard as good enough to endow it with full human status; not just fundamentalist xtaians. This raises the question: Whose choice? Maybe the fetus would still want to be born, you know? Calling it "pro-abortion rights" more clearly covers the situation. In any case, I do hope you'll pardon me for thinking for myself; a habit I have found difficult to break.
As I have pointed out on many, many occassions, the abortion-on-demand position is very much a minority one as an overwhelming majority want either some significant restriction or a complete ban on the procedures. Trying to bully or insult people doesn't do your side one damn bit of good. There's a reason why feminists have the reputation that they do and it's got nothing to do with some right-wing smear campaign.
whatever.
Nice condescension w/ the 'my dear' bullshit. pretty much blows you patronising lecture all to hell.
And if you insist on referring to me as angry, remember the vile filth you typed out to me under the same heading, which was deleted, as it was a gross disgusting personal attack.
It's Pro choice.
Oedipus didn't pull out his eyes, he popped them with a broach of his wife/mother, and then for the rest of his life his daughter/sister had to guide him around.
And your blurred your distinction. The larger percentage want abortion legal but with restrictions, the one's who want to make it illegal, are a small percentage of those polled.
OK, Oedipus popped his eyeballs out. You got me there, Sparky. I don't see what difference it makes as the end result is the same, but consider yourself victorious on that nicely trivial point.
As with the so-called blurred distinction it looks to me as if your thinking here is typically under-cooked. If you don't think a fetus enjoys some sort of human status, then you're not going to support any sort of restriction on abortion, because what would be the point? There is a range of opinions as to what sort of rights a woman should have but my assertion, that a vast majority dislikes it and wants some sort of restriction, holds firm. You have written nothing to shake that, not that you would notice.
If, on the other hand, you do think that a fetus does have some sort of human status that is bound to be respected, hearing an argument which compares getting an abortion to going to the dentist is going to be pretty unpursuasive.
One of the things I've noticed about feminists is that, while they constantly bitch about how their views are being misunderstood and misrepresented, they nevertheless passionately misunderstand and misrepresent the views of others. I believe the expression for this in liberal circles is "fighting prejudice."
There's about a hundred different ways I could dismantle your posts, but let's start with this: "some sort of human status." Want to clarify that one? I know fuzzy thinking is a specialty for those not "on our side," but this one's really egregious. Egregious means 'bad,' by the way. You anti-choice folks seem willing to give full rights to a potential human being, but once that being is born--assuming it survives the health care system you anti-choice folks seem to favor--your definition of 'human' seems to become so much more limited.
Why is that, Mr. Logical?
I see we're off to a bad start. As I have repeatedly stated in this thread, I support a woman's right to an abortion. I am, therefore, what you call "pro-choice." I really don't know how you missed that. My working theory is that you're something of an idiot.
Now, I happilly concede that "some sort of human status" is a fuzzy term that implies a lot of fuzzy thinking. That should not surprise us as deciding when a someone qualifies as being really and truly human is not the type of issue that one normally resolves over a beer. No conest there. But, even so, we are stuck with the fact that that's how a lot of people feel. If that's not so then you explain to me why so many people seem to have a problem with abortion.
I tell you what: Why don't you explain to me how comparing abortion to dentistry should stike anyone who isn't on board with abortion on demand as compellingn argument? You may not realize it, but calling that assumption into question was my original point.
I didn't write the article, Mr Condescension.
You try to fault her for the dental analogy
Mon, 09/28/2009 - 19:18 — Hieronymus Braintree
Not the author of the article.
Both are medical procedures.
How many other medical procedures do you want government bureaucrats inserting themselves between doctor and patient?
And it's advisable not to use mythology if one doesn't understand them.
People have been trying to figure out what the moral of Oedipus is, and too argue their relative stands for over two thousand years, Freud notwithstanding. He misused the myth, since the hero acted out of ignorance not willfullness until his eye mutilation, which you seemed to have mixed up with Matthew 5:29 (KJV):
And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
http://arealplusfancydress.co.uk/2009/compone...
a pro-choicer drives down the protesting line with an AK47 and gives them really something to protest.
If men where the gender getting pregnant, you'd be able to get one in Home Depot and it would be a federal hate crime to protest the abortion sites.
should pose as pharmaceutical company reps and pass out bogus business cards to the protesters on the way out.
Ones that explode. Just a teeny little charge.
Enough to make a hole in their pocket.
Since few people smoke cigars anymore.
The dental surgery analogy is a good one. When I was a child growing up in a fundamentalist church, I was always confused by the anti-abortion propaganda that was sometimes displayed in our church. After looking at the stomach-turningly bloody abortion pictures, I'd always wonder if these people were against all forms of surgery, since blood is what was most prominent in their layouts.
Nothing.
That's like accusing someone of destroying a house
When it's still boards and buckets of nails askew on the ground awaiting construction.
Ergot aborts fetuses.
Therefore, GOD wants aborted fetuses.
There are no abortions a minute before one is born unless the life of the mother is at stake.
What do you have against motherhood?
are alive.
But Thanks for registering in effort to argue against womens'
freedom of choice.
And none have THAT freedom of choice.
That is why.
The idea that YOU, a human being, should make the choice for others is arrogant.
Do you object to a right to use deadly force against intruders in your home? Intruders who are causing physical harm to you?
if I rape a woman and she becomes pregnant,
she should be forced to carry that fetus until it becomes a breathing human.
You are a true believer, and I do not have the time to waste.
Buh - bye.
A person does not have the right to use a woman's reproductive organs when the woman objects to such use. To civilly discuss abortion, one needs to remember that women are people with rights of their own.
between the parties involved.
Not me. Not you. Nor Brainfood.
There is a woman, who has sovereignty over her own body.
And there is a collection of cells within her body, which she may or may not want.
If not, the cells are removed. If the omnipotent GOD wants it to live, okay. Let it find a way.
If you are a female, you should choose to have those cells embedded in yor own uterus if you feel that strongly about it. Then you should raise it until such time as it can live on it's own.
If you are a male, you are in luck! Scientists have found a way to embed a fetus in the abdominal cavity of a male and to keep it nourished.
Expensive as hell, but you should do the right thing.
For some reason, no males have elected to bring a fetus to term.
Well said!
According to the BuyBull, nothing lives until it breathes on it's own.
According to the Greek and Roman translations.
A tumor is a collection of cells.
A cow is a collection of cells.
My dinner is a collection of cells.
Maybe a life term.
Conjoined twins often undergo separation surgery. Some die in the process. It's not murder.
Are you aware that women exist prior to any z/e/f in her body? Women have primacy in that situation. Kind of like your rectum belongs to only you now, so if someone happens along and wants to use that space but you object, then you should get to stop or remove them by whatever force is necessary. Do you oppose the right to remove others body or body parts from your rectum should the need arise? Should there be a period of time involved, say several months, that you have to wait before you can remove another person or another person's body part from your rectum should you object to such use?
If someone out of the blue assumes that they can use my netherportions as they will -
will be terminated.
Why are you not answering my question in regards tobecoming a surrogate?
Male or female, YOU have that ability and YOU feel very strongly about the subject.
Or is it that you have strong feelings until YOU have to take a contributing role in accomplishing that which YOU feel others should.
(crickets)
He (she) is spamming only one question.
Parents have responsibility. When does a parent become a parent? If the cell or collection of cells becomes a human before it is born, then parenthood begins before birth. Thus, the parent has certain obligations.
If the parent assumes the risk and responsibility for a failed adoption, then your proposal might be workable.
Children don't have the right to use their mother's reproductive organs when she objects. There are consequences to doing so.
Well I should hope not:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsbLffv2y3U
(Hulu)
That reminds me of why I call these anti-choice domestic terrorists motherf#@$ers. It's a literal term.
You're presupposing on the unsupportable warrant that life begins at conception.
That is neither scriptural, as I demonstrated, nor scientific.
And therefore if not alive has no choice.
Even after an ovum mingles with spermatazoa it requires embedding itself into the uterine wall, which doesn't necessarily happen all the time. Maybe 50% of the time or less.
So if you believe in God, that would mean God killed the ovum after it was fertilized.
You're being added to my ignore list.
No sense in arguing that which is dogma for a true believer.
Do not try to teach a pig to sing.
It is a waste of your time and it annoys the hell out of the pig, a collection of cells which I have just grilled and eaten for dinner.
And where is the concern for the life that is here?
America supports the death penalty, even though they also think mistakes are being made.
They support the blasting of "collateral damage," simply because the dead were born behind an arbitrarily invisible drawn line.
They oppose health care insurance reform, so someones daughter like 17 year old Nataline Sarkisyan's who was begging her insurance company for a liver transplant who refused until right before she dies still waiting.
The Cigna insurance company CEO made $150,000,000.00 that year based on denying such care.
22 year old Kimberly Young dies because she had no life insurance to pay and see a doctor, except a clinic that gave her a few pills and sent her home.
45,000 Americans die every year primarily because they can't afford to go to doctors.
Additionally, many of these clinics, commonly called abortion clinics, provide pre-natal care, nutrition, adoption services, and other health benefits for women, whom studies have shown doctors seem to spend less time with than male patients.
[Deleted. Off topic, spamming with essentially the same question. Chattering with intent to annoy-Sitemonitor]
has one of the highest infant mortality rates of industrialized nations.
Ah - but once you're out of the womb, YOYO.
I heard somewhere HMO's force hospitals to send home new mothers and baby after only about 3 days.
but when I left the Nursing profession in 91 it was two days for normal childbirth.
I guess life is sacred, but money is money.
48 hours for cesarean
My information is probably either out of date or an average between states.
for, unless there are complications that can be justified for the mother or baby staying longer. (At least in my state). For both my children I was checked out less that 24 hours after giving birth.
And there would be less abortions if conservatives would stop interfering with the people's ability to get rubbers, RU-486, the Pill etc.
It's not about the "life" of any blastocyst, but controlling who we fuck, when we fuck, how we fuck etc (Pardon my Canadian).
Remember, the case of Griswold v Connecticut (1965) was over the rights of a married couple with a family of their own to purchase birth control.
;)
I thought CC's comments and replies were nothing more than lame and insubstantial.
Annoying, yes - but typical.
Thomas Malthus in his book An Essay on the Principles of Population (1798), would limit child birth to only those married couples who can afford a family, and all other families would have to keep it buttoned up (zippers weren't invented yet). England at the time had probably 3/4 of their population living close to the edge or even on the other side of povery.
And he wasn't advocating birth control, condoms made of sheep skin were available then, or abortions which since time immemorial could be arranged through certain herbal concoctions. He was after all, an Anglican priest. He was advocating sheer willpower.
Login or Register to post comments.