Every time I write a new blog, it engenders a lot of conversation. Indeed, it seems that lately there are more and more people responding to my stuff and, honestly, my head starts spinning as I try to keep up with the threads and the incessant questioning. You see, for the most part we have one anti-abortion person who is gutsy enough to put himself out there and to respond as well as he can to the numerous questions posed by those who support abortion rights. But over the last week or so, a question has been posed that I want to highlight today.
It seems that this anti-abortion activist spends a lot of time protesting at various clinics in the Allentown/Reading area of Pennsylvania. He also, however, spends every third Sunday of the month standing in front of the house of a young woman who is the Director of the Allentown Women’s Center. I don’t know exactly what this guy does outside the house, but I picture him holding some kind of sign designed to bring attention to her neighbors that she works in an abortion clinic. Now, let’s think about this…
First, there is a very good chance that her neighbors already know that she works at a clinic. Indeed, in my experience most abortion clinic workers, owners and doctors usually tell their neighbors about their work, especially if they are expecting some kind of protest. Generally, the neighbors react very well, no matter what their position on abortion. While they may not support abortion rights, they also do not want their neighborhood disrupted, especially if someone is holding up an ugly or graphic sign.
Second, and perhaps most important to me, is the question of what does this anti-abortion activist expect to accomplish? His ultimate goal, his lifelong dream, is to stop “the American Holocaust,” to “save babies.” Fair enough. That’s his right and, indeed, I defend his right to be outside someone’s house in protest.
But let’s take this scenario a step further. Let’s say that this person succeeds and one morning the young woman announces that she cannot take it anymore and that she is leaving the clinic. Praise Jesus! The protestor has succeeded!
Upon hearing the news, the owner of the clinic gets very upset. After all, the young woman has been at the Allentown Women’s Center for many years, has done a lot of good work, has helped thousands of women in need. She has been a voice not just for the clinic but for national abortion rights groups as well. She will be sorely missed. The going away party will be a sad occasion.
And minutes after the clinic owner gets the word, he or she will put the word out that the Allentown Women’s Center is looking for a new Director. Within a month or so (perhaps shorter in this economic climate), the owner will find a new person to run the clinic. During this time, however, the assistant director will take up much of the load or the owner might even come in and help out. Meanwhile, the patients will have no idea that the young woman has left. They really don’t care, to tell you the truth. And the number of patients that use the clinic in a regular basis will not be affected at all. In other words, NO BABIES WILL BE SAVED. The protestor will not be one step closer to his goal.
So, exactly why is this person standing outside of this young woman’s house?


June 27, 2010 at 2:29 pm
He wants to be a hero; he needs to be a hero. Why he grandstands instead of grubbing away at nurturing children is the clue to investigate the existence, cause and etiology of the “pro-life” syndrome. If you know someone who says he or she is a “pro-lifer,” you have reason to feel sorry him or her.
LikeLike
June 27, 2010 at 6:25 pm
These kind of protesters are cowards.
Stalking about someone’s home?
What a creep.
Scaring a young lady, harassing her, stalking her.
Who is this person? Is this a real story?
Or is this an amalgam of pro lifers?
I challenge any pro Lifer that does such a heinous thing to stand up for themselves the miserable excrement that they are.
You should spend your time doing good, stop being so bad.
Irene
LikeLike
June 27, 2010 at 7:47 pm
If I could write as well as you, Pat, I’d tell you. If you decide to publish, could I be like your promoter, or something, at say 2%. Well, that last phrase is kidding, but not the rest.
LikeLike
June 28, 2010 at 10:38 am
Dont understand, John. What would you tell me? And thanks for the compliment, not sure what I would write about. But if I write about abortion and you get your buddies to buy the book, I’ll give you a kickback!!
LikeLike
June 27, 2010 at 10:05 pm
Irene, if you read old posts and replies you will find out who this person might be…
I agree with Irene, this “person” is a coward trying to intimidate a person who is only surviving…
Pat, you can’t ever stop writing, we need this posts about abortion, so we can, maybe, one day stop with so much hypocrisy from this “pro-lifers”…
LikeLike
June 28, 2010 at 10:40 am
Thanks, Sonia. I will continue writing. But, to be fair, there is hypocrisy on both sides of the issue. Neither side is perfect, neither side answers all of the tough questions. So, most of my writing cuts right down the middle because that is where the truth usually lies.
LikeLike
June 28, 2010 at 10:44 am
“Hypocrisy on both sides of the issue”? There are “pro-choicers” who refuse to have an abortion???? The mind boggles….
LikeLike
June 28, 2010 at 10:48 am
What I’m saying, CG, is that the pro-choice movement gets tongue tied when asked about the actual abortion. And they have been caught in lies, e.g., when they said that the partial birth abortion procedure was done in only those rare circumstances when the woman’s life was endangered or when there was a fetal abnormality. Maybe there is a different word than “hypocrisy” (haven’t had my coffee yet).
LikeLike
July 2, 2010 at 8:12 am
What is ACOG’s committee opinion on the term Partial Birth Abortion. What do the consensus of experts define it as.
Experts, not the lay public.
LikeLike
June 28, 2010 at 10:50 am
As long as they agree with the false premise of so-called “pro-lifers” that fetal life is human and not merely humanoid, “pro-choicers” will continue to fudge, obfuscate and/or lie. They really need to understand about aborticentrism and its interference with one’s care for human life….
LikeLike
June 28, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Isn’t fetal life in some ways “human”?
LikeLike
July 2, 2010 at 8:15 am
Reptilian life is in some way human. The core of our brainstem, quite similar.
Single cell bacteria share a lot with humans, in fact they may have turned into our mitochondria.
Clay, yes clay, may have been the first templatable and complimentary reproduction machinery quite like DNA, like a human.
LikeLike
June 28, 2010 at 12:49 pm
To post #6: By all anthropological measurements, no! Be mindful that there is a difference in meaning between “anthropological” and “anthropometric;” by the latter, a fetus can be seen to have human characteristics. By the former, it is clear that the only link to real humanity that the fetus has is potential– it does not socialize, play, share, communicate, rear, reproduce, laugh, use tools and so on.
These behaviors differentiate the various species– they put Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal in one species and gorillas in another– and they are learned. If you read up on feral children (I don’t mind that you won’t, even though it’s summer), you will see how non-human they are, and how what humanity they have is granted them only through the wishes, protection and advocacy provided them by their rescuers.
Without being taught how to be human, children would all grow up like the Ceausescu orphans of Romania (but that’s another read).
This is one of the major points on which so-called “pro-lifers” would be driven into insignifcance.
LikeLike
June 29, 2010 at 9:18 am
I dont have your brain, Charles, so a lot of this stuff is over my head. And, frankly, I dont think the scientific arguments make much difference. The bottom line is that when this thing, whatever you wanna call it, is conceived, it is some kind of “life”, living organism, embryo, whatever. Or at least it is a potential life and baby. And we’re killing/aborting that life. That’s what gives John his purpose.
LikeLike
June 29, 2010 at 3:42 pm
Pat, you’re absolutely right about the “scientific arguments” making much difference. The only way the so-called “pro-lifers” can continue to remain a political force is to rely on an appeal to the emotions, to get our limbic systems engaged in their behalf. the fetus is indeed living, but in order for them to win the contest (and it is a very serious contest for them), they have to sell you on the idea that it is more than just a life form, that it is a human being– and as soon as they have you half way to believing that, they have established the terms of the argument.
Unless you can set the terms differently, you lose!
The term you have to establish in order to prevail is that the humanity of the fetus is only endowed by the primary caregiver. Who is that? The one who is caring for it: the pregnant woman or the pregnant surrogate (who can, by the way, be a man).
LikeLike
July 5, 2010 at 8:06 pm
Humanity is endowed by the primary caregiver??? That is such an insane statement, think about it. Since when can one person, caregiver or not, decide who’s human and who’s not?
46 chromosomes equals human. Like it or not
LikeLike
July 6, 2010 at 6:04 am
Se my response at #34, Commander. . .
LikeLike
July 6, 2010 at 6:11 am
#34? Only 33 so far…
LikeLike
June 29, 2010 at 3:48 pm
Hey! I replied to this, and it didn’t show up. Try again: Pat, you are right to say that “scientific arguments” don’t make much difference. the so-called “pro-lifers” have to argue from an emotional perspective in order to remain a powerful force. They cannot afford to grant that it is other humans who endow post-fetal life with humanity– or deprive it of humanity (e.g., Ted Bundy).
As soon as you grant the fetus is more than a merely humanoid life form, you accede to the terms they set for the argument– and they win! Don’t kid yourself that people like Dunkle post here because they don’t want (and need) to win. This is not merely a swapping of ideas for them; it is literally eternal life vs. death.
Just as some alcoholics need to be faced with a group confrontation to realize the horror of their condition, so-called “pro-lifers” need to be confronted with the fact that they have a grave problem– so you can’t allow them to think they don’t have a responsibility to make a fetus human if they want it to be born.
LikeLike
July 2, 2010 at 8:19 am
CG,
come on,
your bio was incredible,
but how many books did you read after the gas station,
You know too much. And it is accurate as far as I can tell, you must have snuck some degrees in there (the bio) or read more books than were ever stored in the Library of Ephysis . . .
LikeLike
July 2, 2010 at 12:45 pm
The Diana was in Ephesus; the library was in Alexandria…
LikeLike
June 29, 2010 at 9:24 am
John, I might have missed it but I have yet to hear what you think you really accomplish by standing out front of Jen’s house? After all, you’ve been doing it for years, right? And she is still at the clinic, right?
LikeLike
June 29, 2010 at 4:10 pm
I did answer this a while ago and I can remember my words: “For one thing I learned back on Long Island that a pro-life presence on the enemy’s turf discourages would-be killers. I can remember a woman, “Sammy, don’t go abortion. The crazies will haunt you.” Or something like that. What I have to do (and of course I think other pro-lifers should too) is try to prevent child killing from becoming so accepted that it is just like tonsil removal. I’m losing the battle but I won’t stop trying.
LikeLike
July 2, 2010 at 8:22 am
No, you are not losing the battle, you lost it a long time ago. Why not pick up a new hobby?
Just listening to you makes me want to go get pregnant to have an abortion!
LikeLike
July 6, 2010 at 10:44 am
Yeah, and there are probably a few others like you, Bea — women filled with such anger that they will kill someone just because they hate so much the person telling them not to.
As far as the battle goes, if it’s over why are you still fighting?
LikeLike
June 29, 2010 at 4:11 pm
I did answer this a while ago and I can remember my words: “For one thing I learned back on Long Island that a pro-life presence on the enemy’s turf discourages would-be killers. I can remember a woman, “Sammy, don’t go abortion. The crazies will haunt you.” Or something like that. What I have to do (and of course I think other pro-lifers should too) is try to prevent child killing from becoming so accepted that it is just like tonsil removal. I’m losing the battle but I won’t stop trying.
LikeLike
June 30, 2010 at 8:29 am
Interesting point, John, that you hope to discourage others and, in that regard, you might be succeeding to some extent. There are docs out there who will not perform abortions because of the potential for violence, even though I would not consider you violent.
Meanwhile, are you from Long Island? I’m from Brooklyn, then moved out to the Islips when I was three…
LikeLike
June 30, 2010 at 9:54 am
I grew up in New Jersey, raced my motor scooter through Manhattan during my salad days, and raised my children in Freeport. I moved to Reading when my older daughter started having children.
LikeLike
June 29, 2010 at 4:11 pm
sorry, I get mixed up, at my age
LikeLike
June 30, 2010 at 5:19 am
See? So-called “pro-lifers” have to call it “child-killing.” If they were to admit the six-week-old fetus has the cognitive capabilities of an earthworm, they’d have to call abortion “earthworm killing.”
LikeLike
June 30, 2010 at 8:31 am
I think that is a good PR move on their part, calling it child killing. And, I also believe that is what they really believe although it’s hard to defend on a scientific basis.
LikeLike
June 30, 2010 at 9:58 am
Charles, the cognitive capabilities of a six-week-old are far greater than yours. After all, she will have maybe eighty years of cognition as compared to your ten or so.
LikeLike
June 30, 2010 at 10:41 am
You surely dont mean that, John, right? Let’s get real here.
LikeLike
June 30, 2010 at 11:38 am
Why wouldn’t I mean it? I never lie, less I really have to.
LikeLike
June 30, 2010 at 1:12 pm
John mistakes capacity for potential: while the fetus’ potential for cognitive abilities might be greater than mine, its capacity for cognitive abilities is pretty close to zero up until about a month after it’s born. Real cognitive abilities do not start to kick in until about age 2.
So-called “pro-lifers” who demonstrate as passionate an interest in real human life as they all do in fetal life wouldn’t have made that mistake.
LikeLike
June 30, 2010 at 3:08 pm
Have you ever been pregnant and carried that baby to term? I have and they were all human. They kicked, moved, got the hiccups, slept, woke up, responded to noise, music and familiar voices. And when they were each born–they were human. I did not give birth to a monkey, rabbit or grapefruit, but a baby! A baby that could recognize my voice almost immediately. She reacted to light, pain, hunger. She had arms, legs, eyes, ears and a head that held a human brain. She was very much human!
You are mistaking levels of cognitive ability with whether someone is human or not–That is such a poor argument for abortion. A human baby may be allowed or taught to be animal-like, but they are still, nevertheless, human.
LikeLike
June 30, 2010 at 3:16 pm
Thank God for Susan. She says it so much better than I can.
LikeLike
June 30, 2010 at 3:38 pm
Susan, see my response around #13. Too tiny here to write.
LikeLike
July 2, 2010 at 8:24 am
Idiotic statement John.
Totally off the topic.
LikeLike
July 7, 2010 at 6:26 am
Which one, Bea, of my many brilliant statements are you calling idiotic?
LikeLike
June 30, 2010 at 11:02 am
Sometimes i wonder, are this people real???
Do they work for a living? Or they survive of the people donations???
This John seems OUT OF THIS WORLD!!! Come dude, grow up……… Man if all your pro-life peeps are like you i would never take you serious……..
Abortion is something that has being done for many many years and if by now nobody could stop do you really think it will now??? LOL
LikeLike
June 30, 2010 at 11:07 am
I got to admit that Kim’s question is somehow intriguing!
Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a FETUS OR EMBRYO, resulting in or caused by its death. An abortion can occur spontaneously due to complications during pregnancy or can be induced, in humans and other species.
LikeLike
June 30, 2010 at 4:35 pm
Yeah I was intrigued too, by the tripling of the exclamation points and questions marks. What intrigued you?
LikeLike
July 2, 2010 at 8:27 am
John you are just too old, you are culturally detached from the majority of society.
That is what people do on the web,
As was seen, Strunk and White never saw the internet.
LikeLike
July 2, 2010 at 12:58 pm
So, because John may be old he should have no opinion? How old is too old to have an opinion?
LikeLike
July 6, 2010 at 10:46 am
My wife says last year.
LikeLike
June 30, 2010 at 3:45 pm
Susan~~ OF COURSE they were human! They were YOURS! Even if they’d been born with spina bifida (caused by your binge drinking before you even knew you were pregnant) and doomed to live all their life in a wheelchair; even if they’d been born with racial traits a redneck family would despise; even if they’d been born anencephalic, looking like a frog and totally without a chance at cognitive function; even if they’d grown up to become winos, spouse abusers, serial killers or with a fetish involving goats, they would have been human from the moment of conception!
Why? Because YOU decided they were YOUR BABIES! You and you alone can decree that, because you and you alone can nurture them and give them a chance to become fully human. Dunkle can’t make any woman stop smoking, drinking or drugging; he can’t make any woman eat, sleep and exercise properly; he can’t make any woman make good choices about lifestyle options during pregnancy, although he and all the other so-called “pro-lifers” can put a lot of pressure on them.
The pregnant woman is the only one who has the power to determine if her blastocyst/embryo/fetus is human– and you exercised the power which is rightfully and solely YOURS! Congratulations!
Now, if you want somebody else’s fetus to be considered human, you have the right to pursue surrogate pregnancy. The choice is yours.
LikeLike
July 6, 2010 at 6:32 am
Again, humanity is not determined by anyone, it is inherent. 46 chromosomes of human DNA? Congratulations! You’re a human, no matter what anyone says or thinks.
You are going off on a limb, more or less, of arguing characteristics attributed to humans (behavior, affection, nurturing), while ignoring the biological fact that any and all members of our species are human, even the ones not nurtured. Feral chilren are still human persons (that is, possessed of human DNA and chromosomes, as unique individuals). Behavior and upbringing are two entirely different matters.
LikeLike
June 30, 2010 at 4:21 pm
So, you are saying that if I choose to believe the children I conceived, carried in my body and gave birth to were not human, they wouldn’t be human? So I really could have decided they were all grapefruits and put them in the frig?
What planet are you from? I don’t get to decide that and neither do you! A sperm from a man fertilizes an egg from a woman resulting in a blastocyst/embryo/fetus/human baby. Not because you or I want it that way, but because of the very nature of human life–science, if you will. The baby will never be anything but human. He or she is not going to mutate into something else in the womb or in the nursery. Even if the baby’s, child’s, adult’s behavior or physical ability is not up to your standard of quality of life–it is still human.
LikeLike
July 1, 2010 at 6:18 am
Susan, to see how well children do without someone there to believe they are human and to commit to nurture them, please, please read about feral children– children who for one reason or another were abandoned to the wild. Then get back to me on this. Youir role as the arbiter of what is and isn’t human has momentous effects on your fetus’ future.
LikeLike
July 1, 2010 at 8:45 am
Yes,some human children become more productive citizens because of the their nurturing, but just as many do well in spite of their lack of nurturing. Both are still human.
You are still basing “humaness” on behavior and not biology. You’re entitled to your opinion, but that is all it is–an opinion–not fact. You may believe it, but the rest of the 6 billion people on the planet know we are human. And not because someone declared we are, but because we are!
LikeLike
July 1, 2010 at 9:42 am
susan,see my response at #17.
LikeLike
July 2, 2010 at 8:30 am
CG
she just cannot keep up with your intellect.
LikeLike
June 30, 2010 at 4:32 pm
Well, Susan, Charles is young. Otherwise he would realize that Hitler made the same argument long before he did: no one is human unless someone in power says he is.
LikeLike
July 2, 2010 at 8:31 am
Is a complete AnEncephalic human?
Anyone?
LikeLike
July 2, 2010 at 12:50 pm
Yes
LikeLike
July 6, 2010 at 10:48 am
Bea, are you another who thinks she’s a kangaroo?
LikeLike
July 1, 2010 at 6:20 am
John, as soon as you have the ability to nurture one of Susan’s fetuses, let me know. Then you will have the power to determine whether or not it is a human life. Until then, only she has that.
LikeLike
July 1, 2010 at 10:00 am
Neither you, Susan, Hitler, nor I have the power to say who is human and who is not. Of course some of us will act as if we have that power — if we don’t want him or her around any more. But that just makes us like Hitler. Right?
LikeLike
July 1, 2010 at 9:47 am
Susan, the “biologically human” argument is actually a dodge used by so-called “pro-lifers” to avoid taking on any responsbility for the outcomes likely for the babies they insist be born. If you go to the aorticentrism website and look up the comparison between the Abortion Store and the Baby Store, you’ll see face to face what pro-lifers are ducking.
Once they are born, other entities– the state, the church, so-called “pro-lifers”– can call them human and treat them according to their definition– whether by educating them, feeding them or sending them off to die in Iraq– but as long as they’re in utero, nobody has the power to treat them as human except the one pregnant with them.
So, you and your church group can have as many babies as you want, but you can’t tell some other woman she’s committing murder if she decides to have an abortion.
LikeLike
July 1, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Women have a legal right in this country to “voluntarily have their embryo or fetus removed from their womb to end the pregnancy.” We call that abortion–it is a nicer term than “taking the life of your pre-born child” or the more volitile word, “murder.” It is in the dictionary, but your made up word, aborticentrism, is not.
It is not I, but you who duck the issue. Biology is what it is. Own up to what you advocate–removing life from the womb. Don’t try to make it seem less barbaric because some people don’t make good parents–or because you somehow believe you are on a higher plane of thinking than the rest of the world. Advocate for abortion if you will, but don’t try to make it into some “good for society” agenda because some people don’t qualify for your standard of humanity. We tried that in our country…do you remember the Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court? It gave white slave owners the right to treat black people as property–to buy, sell, kill or keep as they saw fit. They were essential declared “not human.” You are declaring the same thing over pre-born life. It may be your opinion, but it is not fact.
I go back to my original comment…saying life in the human womb is not human is a poor agrument for abortion.
LikeLike
July 1, 2010 at 12:55 pm
Susan, see my response at #20
LikeLike
July 2, 2010 at 8:33 am
Abortion is a well defined medical term. It came from medical textboks.
LikeLike
July 6, 2010 at 10:50 am
Fabulous comment, Susan. The blind will not see.
LikeLike
July 1, 2010 at 10:08 am
Charles is right, here. You do have to avoid, I think, telling “some other woman she’s committing murder if she decides to have an abortion.” She’s certainly not committing murder legally. And morally? God knows.
Certainly the child is murdered, but I tend to think that we pro-lifers are more guilty of the murders than even the pro-deathers like Charles. After all, we have the truth and even us activists do so little to stop these murders. Poor Charles hasn’t a clue. It’s called invincible ignorance.
LikeLike
July 2, 2010 at 8:38 am
Nice,
John, an old man voyer that stalks women and harasses them and commits hate violence upon them!
What a source.
The logic you use is fallacious from the respected logical base of personal incredulity.
LikeLike
July 6, 2010 at 10:52 am
Save your final sentence. I don’t know why, but save it.
LikeLike
July 1, 2010 at 11:13 am
John illustrates one of the themes of the so-called ‘pro-life’ movement– as strugglers against murder, tyranny, overwhelming evil– it’s a convenient way of misdirecting attention from the need for babies to be nurtured. And it distracts the public’s attention from the fact that these people don’t care for those babies they insist be born. Unfortunately, they don’t care for them because they don’t have the strength to do more than what they are already doing– trying to save themselves. You can read about it on the aborticentrism blog.
LikeLike
July 1, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Susan, you can argue as strongly as you want about abortion, but unless you argue from the whole spectrum of human life, you are doing a disservice to born children. I recommended earlier that you read the aborticentrism blog’s comparison of the tales of the Abortion Store and the Baby Store, but you apparently haven’t. Here’s the link: http://web.mac.com/charlesgregory/ABORTICENTRISM/The_Baby_Store.html
The point I make is that by arguing only about abortion, you so-called “pro-lifers” divert attention away from the need to care for human life– you expect the pregnant woman to care for a child you won’t care about. As I’m discussing with another person on this blog, you would insist a stranger have a baby when you won’t let that stranger have your dog. And that’s not saying much about your care for human life.
So-called “pro-lifers” are not into caring for human life; they’re focused on hating abortion. They hate it for some pretty psychologically signficant reasons. Adn because they hate abortion so strongly, they don’t have the energy to care for those very lives they want to “rescue.”
LikeLike
July 1, 2010 at 2:40 pm
Well, Charles, I thought we were discussing whether life in a human womb was human. If you want to discuss about how “pro life” people care for human life we can do that.
You want to lump all pro life people into some made up catagory of your own design. We are in fact very diverse people working to care for humanity each in our own way. Bruce (see #21) has adopted a child and helps homeless people, John protests at abortion clinics, I work for a pregnancy resource center with women & men who are in a pregnancy they did not plan for.
Hate abortion? How do you hate a medical procedure? I hate the fallout from abortion…the lives destroyed because of it. And not just the baby’s life, but that of the mother, father and their families. You can have the dog, give me your pregnant girlfriend and I will care for her–even if she decides to have an abortion.
LikeLike
July 1, 2010 at 3:08 pm
Susan, we were discussing just that, and I told you that it takes YOU to ensure that the life you want to “rescue” becomes human. There are 61 mothers out there who don’t have a daughter anymore because somebody like you wasn’t around to nurture Ted Bundy the child. What are you going to do to deal with the next one?
LikeLike
July 2, 2010 at 11:23 am
How could anyone know (even his mother) that Ted Bundy would become a murderer while he was still a developing embryo?
LikeLike
July 2, 2010 at 11:55 am
What would I do? What I do now. Help women who want to carry to term to learn to be the best parent they can be. Or if they understand that they can’t be or don’t want to parent to help them in the adoption process.
LikeLike