Sometimes one person can make a difference.
Her name was Shannon Locke. In 1991, she was living in Arkansas when she discovered she was pregnant. She decided to have an abortion. So, she picked up her Yellow Page book and under the “Abortion” category she saw an ad for the “Central Arkansas Crisis Pregnancy Center.” What attracted her attention was that they offered “free pregnancy tests.” She called the clinic and, when she asked how much the abortion cost, the receptionist said she wasn’t at her desk and couldn’t check the price. Still, Shannon made the appointment.
When she arrived at the facility, Shannon was greeted by several people wearing white lab coats. She filled out some paperwork and was escorted to a waiting room where she was told she had to watch a tape about abortion. Shannon sat there for about ten minutes, watching a film replete with pictures of mangled fetuses. At some point, Shannon realized she was not in an abortion clinic and left in an almost traumatized state. Ultimately, she obtained her abortion in Little Rock.
Months later, in my capacity as a staff person for the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, I met Kim Farrell, the administrator of Little Rock Family Planning Services. At one point, Kim told me about Shannon Locke’s story (without revealing her real name). I had no idea there were such things as “phony abortion clinics” but Kim gave me a good education. The next day, I started calling random clinics and discovered that these facilities were all over the country. We soon discovered an actual manual published by the Pearson Foundation, an anti-abortion group, which gave instructions on how to set up a “crisis pregnancy center.” Among some of the tips were: adopt a name similar to the real abortion clinic, get a building as close as you can to the real clinic, wear clothing that makes your office look like a medical facility.
About a week later, Congressman Ron Wyden of Oregon told me he had just become the chairman of a committee that had jurisdiction over consumer protection issues. I immediately thought about how “consumers,” i.e., patients, were being defrauded by these anti-abortion clinics. I told him about this national problem and we devised a plan to hold a congressional hearing to expose the existence of these facilities. And, to get us as much national exposure as possible, I knew we needed a “star witness.” That’s when I thought of the young woman in Little Rock.
Working with Kim, we convinced Shannon, who was 19 at the time, to fly to Washington to testify. I met her at her hotel that morning and she was understandably very nervous. I have to admit I felt like I was using her, but I kept thinking of the greater good. That morning she was the lead witness at a packed hearing. This is an excerpt from her testimony:
I thought it was an abortion clinic because the ad said “free pregnancy testing, abortion information.”…I was taken to a small room and the lady explained to me that I was about to watch a film on abortion and I would enjoy it. I felt forced to view the film in order to know the result of my pregnancy test. The film showed very pregnant women entering clinics and showed abortions in the late stages of pregnancy. The film said the abortions were on women who were 8 to 10 weeks pregnant, but all of the women had cantaloupe-size bellies. The films said that abortion caused women to bleed to death, never have children again, and many women had hysterectomies….the lady started telling me I was killing a life that is God-given and that a fetus is a baby at the time of conception. . .One week after I received my abortion, a person from the Central Arkansas Crisis Pregnancy Center called my mom’s home. I had listed her number as an emergency contact on the medical form (Shannon did not want her mother to know about her abortion). I advocate against the businesses existing because women like me will continue to look in the Yellow Pages and be fooled.. .Women who look in the Yellow Pages for abortion want an abortion and not harassment.
There was not a dry eye in the house.
The hearings made national news. Shannon Locke had told millions of women of the existence of these phony abortion clinics. On a side note, she had also told the world that she had had an abortion and when she got back to Arkansas, being a national “celebrity,” she faced incessant harassment from the local anti-abortion movement. It was an unbelievably courageous act.
A few days later, I got a call from the lobbyist who represented the Yellow Pages. He said that they had no idea that these facilities were not real clinics and that they wanted to correct the situation. About a month later, the Yellow Pages established a new category for these anti-abortion centers called “Abortion Alternatives.” Under the heading, they put in language warning consumers that the facilities listed in that category did not perform abortions.
Over the years, these crisis pregnancy centers have continued to ply their trade (as evidence by the recent HBO documentary). But, after all the publicity generated by this congressional hearing, the number of women who unwittingly went to the anti-abortion centers dropped dramatically. Hundreds of thousands of women were now educated about these facilities.
Go pick up your Yellow Page book and see the “Abortion Alternatives” category.
Then, take a moment to thank Shannon Locke.


August 22, 2010 at 4:14 pm
Pat, what do you expect? Suppose you were a sane person in Germany when they were killing innocent people by the trainload. You’d try to save whomever you could, right? Would you tell the authorities (then the Nazis) what you were trying to do? Would you tell them how you were going to go about it? I can’t tell if your naivete is feigned or real.
LikeLike
August 22, 2010 at 5:15 pm
John Dunkle,
Your metaphor is the stupidest I ever heard.
Talk about the facts, stupid metaphors are not good tools of logic.
Abortion is a topic that can be discussed quite easily without crazy allusions to events that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.
Using that metaphor shows a complete lack of a genuine ability to discuss the topic of Abortion at all.
Do you understand?
I do not know what your mental capacity is.
If you understand, it would be nice to discuss with you.
LikeLike
August 22, 2010 at 8:16 pm
Dear Arthur Remming, are you new? You sound like so many other adolescents on this blog that I bet you’re not. I bet that’s a cognomen.
LikeLike
August 22, 2010 at 10:36 pm
Typical Dunkle stupid reply,
Arthur just ignore him, John is irrelevant, and harms women and stalks them, and intimidates them, this is the kind of person you are talking to.
John is an idiot, he is not worth talking to as he never answers a question, says stupid things constantly, and does nothing of importance in his life, utterly worthless.
LikeLike
August 23, 2010 at 4:51 am
I can flush ’em quick, can’t I. Arthur = Elena
LikeLike
August 22, 2010 at 5:48 pm
The Nazi’s?
What are you talking about?
It is incoherent!
Who are you?
You don’t appear to be able to make a reasonable response to this post?
Those people at the CPCs are criminals,
I feel bad for the women that get stuck in the CPC mills and the brainwashing they are subjected to.
You shouldn’t post if you cannot post intelligent statements.
LikeLike
August 22, 2010 at 8:18 pm
Kenny K is Arthur Remming is … As my son guessed, this is high school blog.
LikeLike
August 22, 2010 at 10:39 pm
Again, incoherent,
John you are a failure,
Focus on the question,
Your stupid replies actually are identifiable by adolescents,
Are you teaching your son to murder innocent people too? Or to celebrate murder’s and terrorists?
Are you a good father teaching your son to spew hate, to stalk, to scream in a women’s ear.
What a lousy role model and failure as a father you must be!
You are the Fool.
LikeLike
August 23, 2010 at 4:55 am
I am trying to teach my son, and you, Elena, to combat and face up to, in any way you both can, the killers of innocent people and those who aid and abet the killers.
LikeLike
August 23, 2010 at 6:41 am
Kenny K and Arthur– John Dunkle is your typical so-called “pro-lifer. He cannot envision the needs of life beyond getting one to the delivery room. He wouldn’t let a stranger have his dog, but he’ll make her have a baby. He has this fixation about fetal dismemberment which is so obsessive he can’t think about what born children need to be protected from. He is representative of his ilk.
LikeLike
August 23, 2010 at 7:50 am
The above is a good example of Charles’s first absurd reason, of four, that baby killing should remain legal: “John Dunkle and my father are sickos.”
LikeLike
August 24, 2010 at 5:30 pm
I don’t know if anyone brought this up but you should see the results you get when you type “abortion facts” into Google. The first 10 or so sites appear to be non-biased and just want to present the facts. Until you explore the sites and realize the lies and misrepresentations are their real message. There are no true abortion facts on these sites.
LikeLike
August 25, 2010 at 11:33 am
You’re absolutely right, Debra. Indeed, more often than not both sides dont know what they are talking about. That’s because they dont spend time in the actual clinics where the actual abortions are taking place on actual women……
LikeLike
August 25, 2010 at 9:50 pm
sometimes, there are lifers who want to force their religious views on the world, but refuse to offer real solutions to the scared desperate women who are seeking abortions. it is too important to them to maintain a sense of moral superiority.
and sometimes there are choicers who are so caught up in the politics and are more concerned about abortion rights than they are about what is in the best interest of any particular mothers or babies.
LikeLike
August 26, 2010 at 10:54 am
there may be “choicers,” Rogie, who are caught up in politics, but at least they are not forcing their views on any expectant mothers.
LikeLike
August 26, 2010 at 1:24 pm
you missed the last part of the sentence, pattypoo.
those particular choicers are more concerned about the politics than the women or the babies.
they don’t promote choice, they simply promote abortion.
so in that aspect, they do indeed force their views upon expectant mothers.
LikeLike
August 22, 2010 at 5:10 pm
Pat this is an inspiring story.
This was a fabulous read,
It is so important that the uneducated hear the truth,
Even if they are resistant to hearing it.
It is important for all the moderates to hear the truth as it helps make R v W persist.
LikeLike
August 23, 2010 at 11:17 am
Thanks, Jennry, for your kind words. Meanwhile, it looks like the boys up top have once again gotten off the subject….
LikeLike
August 22, 2010 at 5:42 pm
Abortion rights are so important,
I had tears hearing about Shannon’s story
LikeLike
August 23, 2010 at 10:17 am
I was thinking about Shannon the other day (although for someone so important I could not recall her name) thank-you Pat for bringing her important story to the site so others can marvel at what this courageous young woman did for ALL woman!! The reason I was thinking abt her was because of some of the chatter on AB.com….and how CPC’s were exposed to all as criminals….To everyone else on here that is new…just pay attention to what John Dunkle has to say …Because he is the “face of the nutty anti-choice protestor”….he will go to any length necessary to “spew his hatred of women” ….I myself..to quote Dr. George Tiller….”I trust women”…to make their own decision on whether or not to continue a pregnancy!!!
LikeLike
August 23, 2010 at 11:21 am
And I dont know if you did it, Lorraine, but I remember that while the hearing was going on in D.C., clinics all across the country were holding press conferences in front of their local CPCs. Then, a week later, there was a “Prime Time” undercover expose that we helped them out with. We did a lot of good work that month!
LikeLike
August 23, 2010 at 11:15 am
I was excited to comment on this post until I saw John Dunkle’s responses.
John are you serious? Already teaching your son how to be a hateful person and get into business that is not his.
Let the women make their choices, it is legal after all, worry about your life and your family and enjoy the little time you have left in this earth, because by the pics of you, you don’t look like a spring chicken any more.
LikeLike
August 23, 2010 at 11:19 am
He is serious, Madelene. Basically, John is saying it’s okay to like and trick unsuspecting women. How’s that for morals? And, like you said, imagine teaching the same morals to your kid. I’d love to know more about his kid, wonder what kind of grades he gets, is he social, does he do volunteer work, etc.?
LikeLike
August 23, 2010 at 11:28 am
I, and you probably, would be interested in talking about my family, Pat, but why bore the others. I’d tell you everything by email.
LikeLike
August 23, 2010 at 11:29 am
Pat,
Really good story. What is your academic background by the way?
LikeLike
August 24, 2010 at 9:51 am
Academically, I am a graduate of the State University of New York at Stonybook. Majored in political science.
LikeLike
August 25, 2010 at 10:52 am
That is exactly what I thought, this is the path I also want to follow on. Even though I am not a spring chicken anymore
LikeLike
August 25, 2010 at 11:31 am
Well, Madalene, I’m not sure how old you are but if you have the energy, why not go for it? We only come through this way once, right?
LikeLike
August 25, 2010 at 9:44 pm
i have seen cpc’s that will be sneaky and i have seen some that are upfront and tell women that they will not perform abortions.
interestingly enough, the ones who are upfront are able to offer more resources than those who aren’t.
LikeLike
August 26, 2010 at 10:56 am
That’s an excellent point, Rogelio! Indeed, I wrote a post a while back about Guy Condon, who ran the Carenet CPC’s and he taught me how they were pretty up front about what they do. Heck, as long as they’re up front about it and a woman wants to go to them, I got no problem with that. Indeed, there are some abortion clinics that are not “up front” about things like prices, i.e., they dont tell the woman about the “additional charges” until they get into the clinic…
LikeLike
August 26, 2010 at 1:31 pm
i am friends with a woman who runs a chain of centers and she prefers that they be referred to as pregnancy resource centers.
she states that sometimes the circumstances that a woman is facing might be a crisis, but no pregnancy in and of itself is a crisis.
and incidentally, this chain is adamant about being upfront about not performing abortions.
this chain also receives no state or federal funding whatsoever, and runs strictly on donations.
they prefer that the funds go to the women who are their clients for future prenatal care, etc.
upon reading the article again, i guess we must remember that even though they were listed as a cpc, many people might not know what a cpc actually is.
LikeLike
August 26, 2010 at 2:27 pm
Rogelio, let me know when that woman is pregnant with one more child than she can care for. “Crisis” is not in the eye of the disinterested observer.
LikeLike
August 27, 2010 at 12:54 am
>>>Rogelio, let me know when that woman is pregnant with one more child than she can care for<<>>“Crisis” is not in the eye of the disinterested observer.<<<
*yawn*
LikeLike
August 26, 2010 at 2:34 pm
Rogelio, to quote you: “those particular choicers are more concerned about the politics than the women or the babies.
“they don’t promote choice, they simply promote abortion.
“so in that aspect, they do indeed force their views upon expectant mothers.”
Can you name me even one “pro-choicer” known to you who has forced someone else to have an abortion?” Please include all the details.
I don’t think you can find on the “pro-choice” side the level of bullying, coercion (both direct and indirect) and even violence of the so-called “pro-life” movement.
Your comparison is simply a dodge used by so-called “pro-lifers” to continue to justify their tactics and philosophy. If I were you, I wouldn’t accept it so blindly.
LikeLike
August 27, 2010 at 12:49 am
saludos, cg.
>>>Can you name me even one “pro-choicer” known to you who has forced someone else to have an abortion?” Please include all the details.<<>>I don’t think you can find on the “pro-choice” side the level of bullying, coercion (both direct and indirect) and even violence of the so-called “pro-life” movement.<<>>Your comparison<<>> is simply a dodge<<>> used by so-called “pro-lifers” to continue to justify their tactics and philosophy.<<>> If I were you,<<>> I wouldn’t accept it so blindly.<<<
i am hardly blind to the flaws of many pro-lifers, or anti-choicers if you prefer that term.
i also know of how pro-lifers could effectively reduce the number of abortions in manners that would harm nobody and actually be walking the talk.
those ways are part of my tactics and philosophy. 🙂
just as not all choicers have the same tactics and philosophy, neither do all lifers.
LikeLike
August 27, 2010 at 1:06 am
sorry cg, my complete reply to you didn’t show up for some reason
>>>Can you name me even one “pro-choicer” known to you who has forced someone else to have an abortion?” Please include all the details.<<
if you notice, i actually said that THOSE PARTICULAR choicers, not all, force their VIEWS ( not abortions )on expectant mothers.
a "choicer" who would force abortion is not truly promoting choice.
quite a difference, isn't it?
of course that often happens when one party tries to put words into the mouth of another party. 🙂
but since you asked, you want just one case?
jajajaja
i know several personally.
there were two women at a retreat i was at whose parents forced them into abortions when they were teens.
they were browbeaten, psychologically broken, threatened with being kicked onto the streets and forced to abort.
i have a friend whose father raped her on a regular basis, and when she got pregnant, drugged her and took her to have a back alley abortion ( which so many were at that time )
i have taken in young women through the years who had no place to go because they were given the ultimatum of aborting or being put on the streets.
two of them stayed with me until after their babies were walking.
LikeLike
August 29, 2010 at 7:12 am
And these were committed “pro-choicers”? Sort of the way Sarah Palin would be….
LikeLike
August 31, 2010 at 7:34 pm
>>>And these were committed “pro-choicers”?<<<
yes.
although the couple later switched to the other camp.
LikeLike
August 27, 2010 at 1:15 am
>>>I don’t think you can find on the “pro-choice” side the level of bullying, coercion (both direct and indirect) and even violence of the so-called “pro-life” movement.<<
i think you're wrong.
i see bullying and coercion on both sides, directed at the other side on a regular basis.
as far as the violence, the difference is to whom it is directed.
when a so-called pro-lifer inflicts violence it is inflicted on an abortion doctor or a staffer.
when a so-called pro-choicer inflicts violence, it is dircted at the expecctant mother.
the highest cause of death of pregnant women in the us is homicide, which is often by a a spouse or bf, etc, upon a woman who refuses to abort.
but those women are anonymous.
before their deaths, they are not the topic of bill o'reilly's rants on national television as the subject of his scorn, putting them in danger, as dr tiller was.
their deaths do not increase television ratings and sell magazines and newspapers for months on end.
but their deaths are just as tragic as his was aren't they?
LikeLike
August 27, 2010 at 1:20 am
>> I wouldn’t accept it so blindly.<<<
i am hardly blind to the flaws of many pro-lifers, or anti-choicers if you prefer that term.
i also know of how pro-lifers could effectively reduce the number of abortions in manners that would harm nobody and actually be walking the talk.
those ways are part of my tactics and philosophy.
just as not all choicers have the same tactics and philosophy, neither do all lifers.
LikeLike
August 27, 2010 at 1:19 am
>>>>>Your comparison<>> is simply a dodge<
how so?
>>> used by so-called “pro-lifers” to continue to justify their tactics and philosophy.<> If I were you,<<
awww, but you're not. 🙂
LikeLike
August 27, 2010 at 6:25 am
So, were their parents known as “pro-choice”? What were their credentials in the movement? And did they force other, non-relatives, into abortions as well? What you describe is behavior of abusive parents, but not of “pro-choicers.”
My comment was made to check your own footing at the abyss of aborticentrism. You personally might not use your observation as a dodge, but be assured there are tens of thousands of so-called “pro-lifers” who will. Be careful you don’t get tarred by association.
LikeLike
August 27, 2010 at 7:26 pm
btw, would you prefer for me to address you as charles or cg, or chuck, chuckles?
i have seen you addressed in several different manners, but i am unsure of what you prefer.
LikeLike
August 27, 2010 at 11:54 pm
for some reason, when i look back at my replies to you, my entire post often does not show up.
i have no clue why.
forgive me.
i am trying to address all of the questions you ask.
the questions you are posing are perfectly sensible and you are asking in a civil manner.
so if some of the answers don’t show up, please don’t hesitate to point it out to me.
>>So, were their parents known as “pro-choice”?<>What were their credentials in the movement?<>And did they force other, non-relatives, into abortions as well?<<
frankly, i don't know.
i know that at the time, they did not understand that they were forcing their daughter into an abortion.
LikeLike
August 27, 2010 at 11:57 pm
grrrrrr
it’s still doing it.
i’m sorry
>>>>So, were their parents known as “pro-choice”?<<
yes.
there was a single mom, who remains pro-choice, and a married couple who is now pro-life.
LikeLike
August 28, 2010 at 12:02 am
>>>What were their credentials in the movement? <<<
jajajaja
i know that you used the term "credentials" for lack of a better term, but it still sounds funny.
the single mom was a staffer in an abortion clinic, and the married couple stated that they used to volunteer as escorts at clinics back in the 90's ( when they forced their daughter to abort ) in the days before it was illegal to block access to abortion clinics.
LikeLike
August 28, 2010 at 12:06 am
ok, all of the answers to the questions that you posed to me are showing up, although in some posts only the quote of the questions show along with the answer to the final question quoted.
once again, forgive me for what appears to be a reckless order in the posts.
perhaps i need to find another way to quote your questions when i reply to you, or i need to quote one question at a time and reply to it and make a new post for each question?
LikeLike
August 27, 2010 at 6:41 pm
>>>So, were their parents known as “pro-choice”? What were their credentials in the movement?<<>>And did they force other, non-relatives, into abortions as well? <<>>What you describe is behavior of abusive parents, but not of “pro-choicers.”<<<
i understand what you are saying, although that is somewhat like when a christian will dismiss a choicer pointing out that scott roeder is christian with a statement of "oh, but he's not a REAL christian."
but please don't take that as an attack, as that is not how it is intended.
however, regarding them being abusive parents, while their act was wrong, they appeared to be loving caring parents and grandparents ( at this point )
at the time, they thought that what they were doing was in the best interest of their daughter.
they wanted her to finish high school and go to college and have a fruitful life. they honestly thought that an abortion was in her best interests.
they made a terrible mistake and once they realized it, they were devastated.
the other woman stated that her mother offered the same reasons when she later tried to approach her about the ordeal. unfortunately, that mother never admitted that her act was wrong. so the daughter had a much more difficult time regaining peace in her heart because outside of that, her mother was never abusive, despite that isolated act.
LikeLike
August 27, 2010 at 6:49 pm
>>>My comment was made to check your own footing at the abyss of aborticentrism.<<>> You personally might not use your observation as a dodge, but be assured there are tens of thousands of so-called “pro-lifers” who will.<<<
yes, there sure are. there are those in both camps who will do that. i tend to avoid dialogue with people when they do that. what would be the point?
LikeLike
August 27, 2010 at 6:55 pm
>>>Be careful you don’t get tarred by association.<<<
unfortunately, there are people who are very quick to tar another because of the label they choose to carry.
there are some choicers who are quick to paint me with the same brush as they would paint eric rudolph, fred phelps, or scott roeder.
interestingly enough, i have met several lifers who paint me with the same brush as they would mengele because i am capable of being civil to people who are pro-choice or are gay, etc.
and it is all because of association.
i think it simply can't be avoided with some people. some people are unable to refrain from defining another person by anything other than specific acts performed by those people.
LikeLike
August 27, 2010 at 7:57 pm
Who’s Fred Phelps?
LikeLike
August 28, 2010 at 12:08 am
is that question serious or are you being facetious?
LikeLike
August 28, 2010 at 4:38 am
serious
LikeLike
August 28, 2010 at 11:44 am
if you google the term “god hates fags”, you will get 115,000 ressults, the first of which is the homepage for his church, westboro baptist in topeka.
his church regularly pickets churches for not preaching what he does.
last year, i saw his people un front of immaculate conception catholic church in downtown jacksonville, as they screamed that “priests rape boys”.
they also regularly picket the funerals of fallen soldiers for dying for a nation of what he insists are “fag-enablers”.
they teach that “god hates jews”, and they “thank god for dead soldiers”.
they target not just the people whose actions they oppose, but also those who love those people.
LikeLike
August 28, 2010 at 2:41 pm
Thanks, Rog, I shoulda known.
LikeLike
August 29, 2010 at 7:29 am
Rogelio, check out aborticentrism to get a fairly comprehensive overview of where the so-called “pro-life” movement is coming from, and let me know what you think about it. I think you’ll find it explains a lot about them that you never before considered. You can use my “name” to link to it. It’s a pretty crudely developed site, but that’s all my doing.
By the way, “pro-choice” and so-called “pro-life” tags oughtn’t be blithely ladled out to excuse malicious or ciminally neglectful behavior. Just as the “pro-choice” movement does not encourage a policy of mandatory abortion, neither does the Democratic Party encourage child neglect. Yet it was a very actively involved Democratic couple who raised two boys, one of whom chose to live in a ditch when he was a teenager– and he was the emotionally healthy one– the other was Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber. Another couple was involved in Republican politics at the highest levels in California. Their son was John Hinckley, who attempted to kill Reagan.
So, imagine what it would look like if you were to say, “Sometimes there are Democrats who are such poor parents their children grow up to be killers.” It’s true, but irrelevant, and the comment will be used as the basis for argument by idiots.
You can use any name you want in addressing me.
LikeLike
August 31, 2010 at 7:52 pm
>>>By the way, “pro-choice” and so-called “pro-life” tags oughtn’t be blithely ladled out to excuse malicious or ciminally neglectful behavior.<<<
i agree, and that was not the intent.
i did choose to use those people as examples, as none of them intended to harm their children with forcing abortion.
they thought at the time that they were doing what was best for their daughters.
they were thinking of their daughters' futures and they never would have imagined in a million years that they were hurting them.
we never really know what we will do until we are in a certain situation.
we also really never know how a certain act will affect us until after we have committed that act.
but i think that both sides tend to demonize because of the side they are on.
i have had men throw things at me and call me nasty things, etc, as they drove by and i peacefully prayed.
but shortly after dr tiller was murdered, a young woman pulled into a parking lot, walked over to me and spit in my face and screamed that i was a murderer for being pro-life and that he would still be alive were it not for me.
that is the only time a female has ever shown that type of hostility towards me.
in the FB group, i was repeatedly warned that i was not to use foul language or make threats ( which i never did ) because other pro-lifers have done so. yet when one person informed me that i am an asswipe and instructed me to return to whatever country i came from, and another threatened to punch me in the face, the moderators refused to even acknowledge it, although it was brought to their attention by choicers as well as lifers.
i was in yet another group where i was attacked by the lifers for being civil to the choicers, and informed that i am not really pro-life because of who i speak with.
jajajajaja
some people are simply so intolerant that they attack whatev er is different.
what some of those lifers don't see is the kindness that someone like lorraine showed me when she found of the deep wounds that i had from that day in 1984.
they don't see the sweet kid that my friend amit is ( you guys call him sugar ) and how he put his life on hold to take care of his grandfather when he was dying.
but when you look for the bad in a person, that is what you are going to find.
LikeLike
September 1, 2010 at 6:08 am
Well and sincerely written, Rogelio.
One thing that runs through your whole account is the subjective nature on which all those actions were based; that is, people doing things because they measured another by standards based on their own feelings.
I try to point out to people that there is one objective standard by which all people in this can be measured, and that standard is care for real human life. I’m sure you read the stories in the abortcentrism blog about the Abortion Store and the Baby Store, so you know how much a real human needs during childhood.
I think that in your future consideration of both sides of the issue to remind yourself from time to time of which side takes better care of the children it wants to see born. Objectively, the so-called “pro-life” movement has a real problem in this regard.
Not merely “real;” think, “massive.”
LikeLike
September 2, 2010 at 9:26 pm
i have indeed been reading your site, chuckles. ( you said i could address you any way i please. 😛 )
you make some excellent points, some of which i agree with. i believe that it is good to admit to our flaws.
of course there are some things that i don’t agree with, or at least don’t feel that i can relate it to myself, but then i don’t think you expect me to agree with everything you say. and that’s not the point anyway. the point is that we often don’t see ourselves as others see us, and what you write is how you see lifers in general.
regarding lifers having a problem with taking proper care of the children they want to see born, you once again make a valid point.
but by the same token, lifers see killing of the unborn as worse than neglect.
so who is right and who is wrong in that particular aspect?
still, your point is valid and should be noted by lifers, that they remember to truly nurture and cherish all lives that are brought into the world.
LikeLike
September 3, 2010 at 5:57 am
Rogelio, I respond at #26.
LikeLike
August 29, 2010 at 9:11 am
Try this one, Rog: the man who uses four absurd arguments, over and over again, to keep abortion legal.
LikeLike
August 31, 2010 at 8:01 pm
john, the problem that i have with the legality of things i see as immoral is that many people equate legality and morality.
but women were having abortions long before they were legal.
i think that we lifers need to concern ourselves more with changing hearts, rather than laws.
we need to offer lasting solutions to women who seek abortions.
it is easy to say “BAD, BAD, BAD!”, but if we are sincere, we don’t do that and then walk away.
we must embrace the young women who are turned away by their families if they want to keep their babies.
we must take in the women who are in abusive marriages and can’t bear to bring another child into a violent home.
when we state that adoption is an option, we must be willing to adopt also the babies of the addicts, and the babies who will be born with birth defects.
men who are pro-life must ask themselves if they are good husbands and help their wives with running the home, or sit on their asses surfing porn and making demands on her.
pro-life men must put the children that they have ahead of their own desires.
there are a lot of things that lifers can do to prevent abortion in our day to day lives, and the fact is that if we don’t strive to do them, we bear some of the responsibility for abortion.
LikeLike
September 1, 2010 at 8:14 am
If only you were the head of a national pro-life organization, Rogie! How different things would be. I can’t say how much I appreciate your well thought out commentary and your compassion. John – are you listening?
LikeLike
September 2, 2010 at 9:28 pm
jajajajaja
patty, i don’t really see myself as a leader.
i would piss too many people off by telling the truth that they don’t want to hear.
still, thank you. you are very gracious.
LikeLike
September 3, 2010 at 6:22 am
Sure, sure, sure, Rog, but I am one of those who see the “killing of the unborn as worse than neglect” and as worse than torture and as worse than pederasty and as worse than watching porn and as worse than . . . Of course we all have to make the world a better place, but we have to start someplace, don’t we? What better place to start than where the horror is worst, where innocent people are being pulled apart by the millions?
LikeLike
September 3, 2010 at 6:37 am
I admire your ability to dismiss the long, slow death of Lisa Steinberg as nowhere near important as peddling the imagery of severed limbs. For a so-called “pro-lifer,” kids don’t count! You are really wrapped up in saving yourself, aren’t you?
LikeLike
September 3, 2010 at 11:00 pm
>>>What better place to start than where the horror is worst, where innocent people are being pulled apart by the millions?<<<
what horrors have you prevented by harassing a woman and her family at their home?
how many babies have been saved by you being in front of her home?
i listed a number of ways that lifers can help reduce the number of abortions.
i wager that they are far more effective than the ways that you are using.
i don't disagree with some of the things that you say, but the way that you say them leaves quite a bit to be desired.
LikeLike
August 29, 2010 at 12:45 pm
Speaking of association, here’s video of a man with whom John Dunkle associates and considers one of prolifers finest, out of prison.
Imagine being greeted by this man, Gerry McWilliams, and his loser cruiser cohorts, Dunkle (screaming in women’s ears) and Joe Kubich (also screaming nonsense) and Piffle, Joe’s sidekick.
LikeLike
August 29, 2010 at 1:04 pm
It’s so unfair, Kate, that you put Gerry on camera for almost two minutes. What am I, chopped liver?
Also, this shows just how far apart we really are. I think that Gerry does a magnificent job for the pro-life cause. You obviously think it supports pro-death; otherwise, you wouldn’t be spreading it around.
LikeLike
August 30, 2010 at 6:45 am
With that video, you are seeing the very soul of aborticentrism. Would anyone trust these people with the welfare of a child?
LikeLike