I looked President Clinton directly in the eye and, shaking his hand, said “Thank you Mr. President for helping to protect our clinics.”
In the last week, I’ve been reading with great interest how President Obama’s Department of Justice has been aggressively using the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (“FACE”), a law passed in 1994 designed to protect abortion clinics, abortion patients and the clinic staff from certain anti-abortion activity.
As a staff person for the National Coalition of Abortion Providers , in the early 1990’s I attended a number of meetings with the Clinton Administration’s staff about the need for federal protection from anti-abortion zealots. At that point, any prosecution of such activity was carried out generally by the state and, well, there were a number of states that did not give a crap about protecting abortion clinics. But the Clinton folks were in a quandary because, as they told us, they had no jurisdiction in these cases because there was no federal law protecting clinics. So, they urged us to try to pass the “FACE” Act, which had been introduced a while ago but was languishing in the Congress. Our meetings were very frustrating because we knew – we just knew – that one day the violence would escalate. And on March 10, 1994, it did go to a new level when Doctor David Gunn was murdered as he entered his clinic.
Doctor Gunn’s death and the incredible amount of publicity it generated gave pro-choicer groups more ammunition to pass the FACE Act and to give the Department of Justice jurisdiction over these crimes. Congressional hearings were held, the pro-choice lobbyists worked hard to get support for the bill and ultimately the bill passed both houses of Congress.
By this time, I had become good friends with David Gunn, Jr. and his sister, Wendy. In fact, after a while David basically became the national spokesman for NCAP, going so far as to pose for a picture that was used in a full page New York Times ad to help us raise money. We were both on “The Donahue Show” together and on various other shows as well.
After the Congress passed the FACE Act, I got a call a call from one of Clinton’s staff people inviting me to attend the signing of the bill in the White House. Needless to say, I was totally thrilled, having never been to the White House except for that crappy little public tour. Then, that night I got a call from David, Jr. and he told me that he and Wendy had been invited to the White House as well and he asked me if I could pick them up that morning and drive over with them. They were both very nervous and what they didn’t know was I was probably just as nervous.
So, I picked them up at their hotel that morning and we drove over. I actually found a parking space pretty close to the White House so we had just a short walk. We entered through the North Gate and were escorted to the West Wing to a room with about 75 chairs and a podium. I was standing next to David and Wendy, trying to soak it all in when an official came over and said to us “Excuse me, but the President would like a few words with you.” They started to follow him and David looked back and waved me to follow him. But I was stopped at the door and when it opened, I caught a glimpse of the President standing behind his desk in the Oval Office. I mean, that was pretty cool…
After about 10 minutes, the three of them came out and the audience sat down. I was in the front row, sitting next to California Senator Barbara Boxer. The President spoke about the need for this bill, about how his administration would protect the clinics (while guaranteeing the first amendment rights of the protestors) and that was that. He actually didn’t have the bill in front of him to sign, so I didn’t get one of those pens for a souvenir. Then he was done, and we all started to mingle.
At one point, I took a step backwards and bumped into somebody. When I turned around to apologize, I was face to face with the President. Shaking, I stuck out my hand and thanked him for his help. I will never forget how he looked at you straight in the eye, as if he was clinging to your every word, just you and him in the White House. It was mesmerizing and I guess that is what made him such a great politician.
It took a while for the Clinton Administration to get its feet wet enforcing the new law and, of course, when the Bush crew came in not much happened. I am now happy to see that the Obama Administration is going to aggressively enforce the law. But it’s sad to think that after all of this time, it is a law that still needs to be enforced.
Related articles
- Using “FACE” Again (abortion.ws)
- Obama’s abortion absolutism and the 1st Amendment (pprnnews.wordpress.com)
- White House may take bigger role in vetting costly regulations ahead of 2012 (thehill.com)
- Obama Administration Cracks Down On Abortion Clinic Protesters [Roe V World] (jezebel.com)




September 5, 2011 at 12:21 pm
Now, folks, before we get into our usual bantering, I would be very interested in hearing from the pro-lifers about whether the FACE law has had any impact on their activities? Some have been around long enough to remember if there was a change in behavior when it became law…Thanks!
LikeLike
September 6, 2011 at 5:54 am
It is nice to see the executive branch of government enforcing the law finally.
LikeLike
September 6, 2011 at 10:08 am
It is, indeed Sherry. For too many years, the Dept of Justice totally ignored it…
LikeLike
September 5, 2011 at 2:39 pm
“I will never forget how he looked at you straight in the eye, as if he was clinging to your every word, just you and him in the White House. It was mesmerizing and I guess that is what made him such a great politician.” Before I answer your question, Pat, I have to say, “I guess that’s what makes him a serial adulterer too and the fact that you fell for it disappoints me. Also, if you were a woman and he was employing his powers of mesmerization for a different purpose and you didn’t succumb to them, he’d rape you.”
Now, to answer the question: FACE or maybe RICO or probably the combination damaged the pro-life movement profoundly. The pro-force anti-abortion movement, “Rescue,” the only logical way to end legal baby-killing, ended abruptly. Sure, every five years or so somebody like Jim Kopp comes along to carry on the fight by himself, but for all intents and purposes any chance of stopping the slaughter of the innocents ended. I myself stopped fighting forcefully out of cowardice.
LikeLike
September 6, 2011 at 5:53 am
Don’t you consider intimidation of women forceful?
LikeLike
September 6, 2011 at 9:21 am
no
LikeLike
September 6, 2011 at 10:11 am
As always, John, I appreciate your candor. I always thought that your movement did itself a disservice by arguing that if the law passed, you would not even be able to pray in front of a clinic. We kept saying that was not true, that we respected your rights to protest and in fact there was language in the bill saying that. But I think your side kept saying it enough that, when it became law, the average protestor probably thought it was illegal to quietly pray in front of the clinic and then they just disappeared for fear of getting arrested. Do ya think that is true?
LikeLike
September 6, 2011 at 10:55 am
I think some stopped because they thought it was illegal but most stopped because they took that as an excuse to stop doing little and do nothing.
And you’re forgetting bubble zones. Their purpose is to stop us from protesting near the mills. If Kate Ranieri, for one, had her way, a bubble zone would surround Southeastern Pennsylvania, and every area has a Kate.
LikeLike
September 7, 2011 at 10:29 am
The bubble zones are interesting, especially for us civil libertarians. I totally support the right to protest (having done so against the Vietnam War) but I also think women should have unhampered access to a clinic or any place of business for that matter. How and where you draw that line has always been a touchy one. But if Kate were to suggest what you suggest she would suggest, I would have to oppose her….
LikeLike
September 7, 2011 at 10:57 am
And why would Kate make such an outrageous proposal? Most clinics would be happy with 12-14 feet on either side of the crosswalk or the actual client. Pretty straightforward.
But any buffer zone is contested on the grounds of rights, as in their rights vs the rights of women.
LikeLike
September 12, 2011 at 5:48 am
“And why would Kate make such an outrageous proposal?” Kate’s being political here, (though it’s possible she’s lying even to herself).
It’s as if someone asked me, “Dunkle, do you want to stop all abortions?” And I answered, “Course not, I just want them stopped after twenty weeks.”
We take what we can get, and then we go for more.
LikeLike
September 6, 2011 at 7:33 am
F.A.C.E. gave our local police the “back-up” to feel like they could make the arrest and with the protesters…they could put the blame on the “feds”!! What ever the reason…I think most police depts stepped up to the plate and did their jobs…at least for a while!!
Some have backed off for instance in Charlotte,, NC my friend their is having a hard time!! I know that I liked working with the FBI when I had problems and some of the time Chief Greenburg felt like I was stepping on his toes going to them…but it did seem to get things accomplished! There were also meetings between the two and that always made things easier!!
So to all that helped F.A.C.E. become law thank you!!
LikeLike
September 6, 2011 at 9:14 am
I support FACE 100%.
It is the most minimal way to defend against Anti Abortion terrorists.
LikeLike
September 6, 2011 at 9:15 am
We need even stronger laws to protect the rights of women!
LikeLike
September 6, 2011 at 10:13 am
If you were the President, Sherry, what other laws would you want to enact to protect the rights of women?
LikeLike
September 9, 2011 at 3:28 pm
I would want to enact laws to protect unborn women.
LikeLike
September 6, 2011 at 10:14 am
The unfortunate thing is that it took the murder of David Gunn to help us enact FACE. Until then, not too many people were listening to us. I guess you often need a public tragedy to bring attention to the cause your espousing.
LikeLike
September 6, 2011 at 10:58 am
No way, Pat! The cause you’re espousing had been rolling along for twenty years before someone terminated Gunn.
LikeLike
September 6, 2011 at 8:33 pm
I’m gonna say Frankly, Dunkle that was REALLY OFFENSIVE, “terminated Gunn.” think about that from the perspective of a colleague.
Any way, thank you Pat for bringing this to the light on the Blog, it is sad that he had to die to get this passed and thank you Bill, You oh, So graciously Sinning, Adulterous pervert , you brought a great plan and action for resources and entities of the state. And for women’s (& doctors alike) Rights it only makes sense to implement such an act.
LikeLike
September 7, 2011 at 4:31 am
Kate, what was that one is not supposed to get into a wad? Anyway, a, avoid doing that. But you’d be OK with “terminate a pregnancy,” wouldn’t you? So squeamish, to avoid saying what you’re really killing. Next time do what I do and make the direct object a live person.
LikeLike
September 7, 2011 at 10:35 am
I am still trying to figure out in my head why John’s comment about “terminating” David is so offensive to me. Let me work on that…Kate?
LikeLike
September 7, 2011 at 10:59 am
Pat,
The word that Dunkle chose to use when describing the act of killing Dr. Gunn was, no doubt, intentional. The word, terminated, has propagandistic value. It’s a term that helps him frame what he believes we should be against. Like other prolifers, their rhetoric frames their worldview in absolutes of their versions of good and evil.
LikeLike
September 8, 2011 at 5:27 am
Well that clears it up. Not
LikeLike
September 7, 2011 at 10:31 am
What I was referring to, John, when I said the “cause” was the particular effort to stop the violence that was running rampant in those days. Of course, the general pro-choice “cause” has been going on for a while.
LikeLike
September 7, 2011 at 11:44 am
Yeah, gotcha.
LikeLike
September 7, 2011 at 3:16 pm
Dr. Gunn was murdered. He was not terminated.
The best word to describe what happened is ‘Murder.’
Does anyone disagree?
LikeLike
September 7, 2011 at 4:36 pm
termination, murder, abortion…they are all synonyms of one another.
LikeLike
September 7, 2011 at 4:57 pm
Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being which is not a synonym for abortion.
But, Bill, I’d agree that Dr. David Gunn was murdered.
LikeLike
September 8, 2011 at 5:30 am
If you’re the baby, it’s a synonym. The man don’t come into your room and begin pulling you apart by accident!
LikeLike
September 8, 2011 at 2:47 pm
No, they are not.
LikeLike
September 8, 2011 at 2:49 pm
Voice – seriously – do you know anything before you write?
Are you really that absolutely clueless?
LikeLike
September 8, 2011 at 4:27 pm
Bill – seriously – do you know anything before you write?
Are you really that absolutely clueless?
LikeLike
September 8, 2011 at 9:10 am
You’ll get no disagreement from me! Indeed, Michael Griffin was found guilty of murder…not of terminating someone
LikeLike
September 8, 2011 at 5:51 pm
thank you, Bill.
LikeLike
September 7, 2011 at 4:13 am
Pat…I wonder why none of the “anti-choice” crowd has chimed?? Well…besides “Dunkle” of course?? Could it be that they don’t know what F.A.C.E. is all about?? or could it be that they don’t care?? or could it be that they don’t understand?? (in some cities that seems to be the case…look at CLT…)
LikeLike
September 7, 2011 at 10:38 am
Well, Lorraine, it looks like Handmaiden has chimed in below but generally speaking it is interesting how the pro-life folks come and go, besides John. On the other hand, there are pro-choicers who do the same. I guess it depends on energy levels. As for the substance of FACE, it’s been so long since we passed it, I wonder how many of the younger pro-lifers even know about it??
LikeLike
September 7, 2011 at 1:35 pm
What is
CLT?
LikeLike
September 8, 2011 at 5:12 am
I’m guessing that CLT is the airport code for Charlotte. Like PHL is Philadelphia, ORD for Chicago, EWR for Newark, LAX for Los Angeles, etc
LikeLike
September 8, 2011 at 9:12 am
It might be Charleston, Kate, cause Lorraine used to run a clinic in Charleston. Indeed, there are not many abortion providers out there who suffered as much as Lorraine did. The anti-abortion crowd was terrorizing her for years – and she prevailed…
LikeLike
September 8, 2011 at 2:57 pm
Good call….Sorry about the terrorists, Lorraine.
LikeLike
September 7, 2011 at 10:30 am
Pat said:
I will never forget how he looked at you straight in the eye, as if he was clinging to your every word, just you and him in the White House. It was mesmerizing and I guess that is what made him such a great politician.
* * * * * * * *
One wonders how he will look into the Lord’s eyes on his day of judgment as a pro-abortion President of the U.S. As our Lord says, To those who have been given much – much will be expected. I wonder if this is how the Lord wanted him to lead our country. Prosecuting those who are trying to offer that last thread of help to women about to kill their pre-born children.
Yeah, he’ll be clinging to something alright but it won’t be your every word Pat. Nah, he’ll be clinging on to salvation and not eternal damnation.
LikeLike
September 7, 2011 at 10:40 am
Maybe, Handmaiden, maybe. But the thing that always gets to me is how absolutely certain you are about life/death/god/religion/etc. It must be nice to be soooo “right” all the time. And then all of us, all of those folks who do not subscribe to your religious views are soooo wrong. That’s a little pompous, dont ya think?
LikeLike
September 7, 2011 at 11:47 am
I would rather believe in God and be thankful that I have faith and His Truth in my life than have the void that so many of you seem to have and fill this void with your ‘own truths’ (it’s not really a baby, abortion is a right, etc.) thereby making yourselves into your own little ‘gods.’ Standing up for life and warning other children of God (this is you, Pat, and all those in the abortion industry) that they are offending Him by defending abortion is far from pompous. It is critical to being a Christian. God calls us to speak the truth to those around us that we see in sin. To not do so, would be to ignore God’s word and suffer His wrath upon ourselves.
If you think it’s pompous, perhaps you should try and look through the eyes of God and see if He thinks it’s pompous to believe in Him. Also please consider if you have ever made statements that could be construed as pompous. Those without sin should cast the first stone.
In certain respects you are right Pat. IT IS very nice to be so ‘right’ all the time (in the matters of faith, values/morals, and God.) Wouldn’t you just LOVE to be so certain that you were “right” all the time in this regard? It’s called faith and everyone is gifted with it. Some choose to accept this gift and embrace it to the fullest; others toss the gift of faith away in the trash (as they do their babies) and instead embrace man-made truths and the lies of the evil one. Sounds like you envy those of us who believe in absolutes such as right and wrong, good versus evil, and are not afraid to profess our faith and live it.
If you’re not sure, wouldn’t you rather err on the side of caution and get to know the Trinity of God before you meet him someday? As I said above, Pat, and the rest of you pro-aborts, you are ALL children of God. He does not ever stop loving you – even when you don’t love him back. He is offended by what you are doing. Please, please listen to Him.
LikeLike
September 7, 2011 at 1:53 pm
There are some who are deeply religious but are not of your faith. They know their faith guides them in their moral obligations to themselves, to others and to Allah. They call on those who are lost, to share in their faith. So, Handmaiden, your words are troubling because of their absolutism. Do you believe that a Muslim is evil or are wrong because he or she doesn’t share your faith, your Trinity of God? Do you deny that he or she will go to heaven?
LikeLike
September 7, 2011 at 1:59 pm
Sayeed please take no offense to my question – it is my lack of knowledge of Islam.
Is it true that Muslims believe that Abraham was ordered by God to kill a son different than the one we Christians believe? If that is true, how did that difference happen if we all use the same texts to understand the literal events of Abraham?
LikeLike
September 7, 2011 at 4:04 pm
You need a history lesson, Maria. I’ll provide it below.
LikeLike
February 8, 2014 at 2:01 pm
You can always tell an expert! Thanks for cotiirbuntng.
LikeLike
September 7, 2011 at 2:00 pm
Also,
Muslims Love the baby Jesus also, don’t they?
Please excuse my ignorance. 🙂
LikeLike
February 8, 2014 at 10:16 pm
We need a lot more inhgists like this!
LikeLike
February 10, 2014 at 9:24 pm
Susrriping to think of something like that
LikeLike
September 7, 2011 at 1:54 pm
HandMaiden understands our beloved Lord.
God works in ways that we cannot understand. God is omnipotent, we cannot expect to understand his glorious ways.
Praise the baby Jesus!
LikeLike
September 7, 2011 at 4:37 pm
Did anyone ever tell you that Jesus grew up? He isn’t a baby anymore.
LikeLike
September 7, 2011 at 8:16 pm
And, so, the prophet grows up to be a man . . . and the Christian story continues . . . a story in the Abramic traditon where Abraham is the father figure….
LikeLike
September 8, 2011 at 3:09 pm
Jesus is eternal. As a baby and as a grown up. Don’t you read your scripture.
And God, our dear lord, ordered infanticide and massive genocide. No one should doubt his intentions as he works in very mysterious ways!
Do any Christians here doubt the way of God, the Christian almighty ruler of the universe?
LikeLike
September 8, 2011 at 6:19 pm
That’s right, Voice. He isn’t a baby. He isn’t.
He’s DEAD.
LikeLike
September 8, 2011 at 7:30 pm
How do you know?
LikeLike
September 12, 2011 at 5:51 am
Ooof!
LikeLike
September 8, 2011 at 9:14 am
If God loves me, Handmaiden and he is generally a good guy, when I die will I go to heaven or hell?
LikeLike
September 8, 2011 at 3:10 pm
You are going to hell.
LikeLike
September 9, 2011 at 12:27 pm
Pat, that would be your choice, not God’s. If you accept that love, you’ll go to heaven. If not, you’ll be eternally separated from him. God did not create it for you, but for your enemy who is behind all the sin, disease and evil in the world. If you choose, even by the default of rejecting God, to be in alliance with him, then you don’t get to spend eternity with God, who loves you and wants that more than anything.
LikeLike
September 8, 2011 at 10:07 pm
>>>Those without sin should cast the first stone.<<<
that's not what jesus said
LikeLike
September 7, 2011 at 4:13 pm
For Maria:
History
God (Jehovah, G_d, Yahweh, The Word, the Creator, etc.) created the universe probably a long time before he created the first people, Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve lived happily with one caveat: they had to obey God. They did not, and they and we, their descendants, were plunged into this “vale of tears,” with pain, death, treachery, and ignorance part of our lot.
God chose one of Adam’s descendants, Abram (changed to Abraham), to begin a line of people through whom he would reveal himself again to humanity. This line is therefore known as “The Chosen People.” They are also called Israelites after Abraham’s grandson Jacob whose name was changed to Israel. God said that from this Chosen People he would send a savior who would return to us the power to regain what had been lost through the actions of Adam and Eve; i.e., eternal life with him in heaven. And he did send a savior, Jesus Christ, his only son. Many Israelites accepted this savior. At first they were called “The Way.” (from “the way, the truth, and the life”). Later, most Israelites accepted him and then became known as Christians, followers of Christ. Non-Israelites were invited to become Christians and many of them did too. That is why The Chosen People were called Christians rather than Israelites.
Christians increased in number because Christ had told them to gather in everyone. To do this, early Christians traveled all over the world and then also became known as Catholics – “catholic” means universal, or everywhere. The “Catholic/Christian/Israelite” Church is located everywhere.
Right from the beginning people believed different things about Jesus. Some said he was a phony, even a devil; others said he was a good man but not God, or that he was God but not a real man. They also believed different things about what he did. Some said he established a Church to carry on his work and chose Peter to lead it; others denied this. Some said he made his mother, Mary, a special human being; others said she was just like you and me. There were arguments over Peter’s successors, Baptism, consecration, the Holy Spirit, celibacy, One God and the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), and on and on.
Gradually the truth was, and is, proclaimed. False beliefs are called heresies. During the first six or seven hundred years of the Church’s existence, every heresy you can think of was examined and rejected. Only the truth was retained. Who rejected error and retained truth? The Holy Spirit did. When Christ established his Church, he said the Holy Spirit would protect it from error.
Although most heresies attract few people and soon die, some lead to schisms. That means they pervert large numbers of people and are still around today.
The first schism was Talmudic or Rabbinic Judaism. Some Israelites did not accept Christ. They said he was a fake. These people are called Jews and are still awaiting the messiah.
The next was started a little after 500 AD by a man from the Middle East named Muhammad. Although Muhammad did not believe Jesus was a fake, he did not believe he was God, either, but just another in the long line of prophets starting with Abraham. (Muhammad borrowed the belief that Jesus was not God from the Arians, heretics but not schismatics.) Muhammad called himself God’s greatest prophet. His followers are called Muslims.
Around 1000 AD came Orthodoxy. This schism started because some Catholics rejected the successors of Peter as Christ’s voice on earth. The Orthodox retain most other Church teachings.
Number four on our list is Protestantism, which Fr. Luther started about 1500 AD. The first Protestants were also Catholics who rejected Peter’s successors. Over the years they have rejected many other Church teachings.
The 2000 AD schism is modernism. Some modernists reject this or that truth, or these and those, and some reject everything, even the reality of God/G_d/Yahweh. I have heard modernism called the worst schism because it’s a mix of every heresy that’s ever existed.
Notice that these schisms occur about every five hundred years. By allowing false beliefs to become entrenched God is showing us again, as he did with Adam and Eve and others before Christ, how easily we Catholics, The Chosen People, can lose sight of him. He demands recognition. When we fail to recognize him adequately, horror, including sometimes schism, follows.
LikeLike
September 8, 2011 at 3:05 pm
Well, John, no, you are incorrect.
The Bible is very clear. The entire Universe was created in a time scal very close to all the rest of creation.
It is right there is literal terms. Do YOU deny the word of OUR dear Lord?
LikeLike
September 8, 2011 at 4:32 pm
I do not, Maria, but you do. But that’s a distraction. Both of us want to stop today’s holocaust. Let’s stick to that.
LikeLike
September 7, 2011 at 5:07 pm
Abrahamic religions are the monotheistic faiths emphasizing and tracing their common origin to Abraham or recognizing a spiritual tradition identified with him. They are one of the three major divisions in comparative religion. The three major Abrahamic religions are, in chronological order of founding, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
Islam is the monotheistic religion articulated by the Qur’an, a text considered by its adherents to be the verbatim word of God and by the teachings and normative example of Muhammad, considered by them to be the last prophet of God. An adherent of Islam is called a Muslim.
Muslims believe that God is one and incomparable and the purpose of existence is to worship God. Muslims also believe that Islam is the complete and universal version of a primordial faith that was revealed at many times and places before, including through Abraham, Moses and Jesus, whom they consider prophets. Muslims maintain that previous messages and revelations have been partially changed or corrupted over time, but consider the Qur’an to be both the unaltered and the final revelation of God. Religious concepts and practices include the five pillars of Islam, which are basic concepts and obligatory acts of worship, and following Islamic law, which touches on virtually every aspect of life and society, providing guidance on multifarious topics from banking and welfare, to warfare and the environment.
LikeLike
September 7, 2011 at 6:44 pm
” . . . Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, whom they consider prophets . . .” Yup, lucky Arianists, that’s who they are, lucky because they’re still around, or should that be unlucky.
LikeLike
September 7, 2011 at 8:17 pm
I would be happy to read how you interpret what you have written Mr. Dunkle, especially about your idea about Arianists.
LikeLike
September 8, 2011 at 4:39 am
Long before Muhammad, Say, Arius attempted to start his own religion. And he damn near succeeded, killing more of his enemies than Muh even thought of killing. But eventually his religion, Arianism, died out. However, a few centuries later Muhammad grabbed Arias’ central heresy, that Jesus was not God, and ran with it. And his followers are still running.
LikeLike
September 8, 2011 at 2:59 pm
I am more afraid of the crazy Christians than the fanatic Muslims!
And I am a Christian!
LikeLike
September 9, 2011 at 12:50 pm
Whatever kind of Christian you are, Maria, that’s the kind I’m afraid of.
LikeLike
September 8, 2011 at 5:10 am
On September 5, Pat asked, “Now, folks, before we get into our usual bantering, I would be very interested in hearing from the pro-lifers about whether the FACE law has had any impact on their activities?”
Read the recent posts from Sept 7 and I’d say Pat has the wisdom to see into the future. The bantering has begun.
LikeLike
September 8, 2011 at 5:39 am
I resent that, Kate! Calling my profound disquisition on the nature of reality bantering! (Anyway, look at the second paragraph in #2. Is there anything more to be said?)
LikeLike
September 8, 2011 at 9:18 am
Thanks, Kate. I find this stuff so incredibly boring. My religion is better than yours, my god is better, nanny nanny poo poo. And, of course, no one can prove anything. It’s all based on their faith in that “word” that is coming down from on high. And then we die and there is nothingness. That’s the real irony. But, on the other hand, if that faith comforts people then go for it. I just dont understand why people have to get into a pissing match about different religions. Practice your religion privately and leave everyone else alone. I think that is what I was thinking when I said it was “pompous” to be so “knowing.”
LikeLike
September 8, 2011 at 10:25 am
Obnoxious too! Like two old crones at the clinic today with their public displays of religiosity but with their talk like bitter hags with snippy remarks for everyone. If that’s Christianity, no thanks.
LikeLike
September 8, 2011 at 11:27 am
Oops, those two stopped you. Right, Kate? Those two. If it hadn’t been for them, you probably be shouting the Gospel by now, wouldn’t you.
LikeLike
September 8, 2011 at 11:36 am
Pat, Pat! What you believe determines how you act. You believe it’s OK to kill kids; I don’t. You believe you can get away with stuff here because there’s no payback; I don’t. You believe there’s no mandate to try to convince others to accept your beliefs; I don’t.
See, you’re turning into Kate: there’s no right, there’s no wrong, there’s no truth, there’s no good, there’s no evil (although I think she might make an exception for me and my ilk).
LikeLike
September 8, 2011 at 3:07 pm
Moral absolutes are dead. They do not exist. It’s each to his own. Do want you want! Hurt who you want! Kill who you want! Steal if you want! Lie if you want! It’s all about what I want! Didn’t you hear Dunkle? They died!Or at least that what we are told.
LikeLike
September 8, 2011 at 3:28 pm
More banality with a dash of sarcasm . . . how delicious!
LikeLike
September 8, 2011 at 4:35 pm
Not bad, Bozo.
LikeLike
September 8, 2011 at 7:43 pm
So Bozo, do you see any moral absolutes in our society or heck, just on this blog? The pro-choicers insist that all is CHOICE, even killing, so tell me, where are the moral absolutes? I don’t see any.
LikeLike
September 9, 2011 at 6:53 am
Moral absolutism is the ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, regardless of other contexts such as their consequences or the intentions behind them. But only a simpleton would believe that moral absolutes are embraced in everyday actions. In reality, they’re guidelines for society. But as witnessed, those guidelines are ignored. Moral absolutes, like the absolute of killing another, are situational. September 11, 2001 is a prime example. The U.S. was attacked and the warmongers in Washington wanted blood. The voices of reason and restraint were drowned out by the cacophony of those who ignored moral absolutes (if they had any) to seek revenge.
LikeLike
September 9, 2011 at 10:30 am
I don’t see self defense as being revenge although I am sure there was an element of revenge in there somewhere. Look at it this way, if someone runs you over with their car and threatens to do it on a continual basis and you go beat them and cut their tires so that they cannot come after you anymore is that revenge or is it self defense? I think it is self defense.
As far as moral absolutes go they can be relative to a person’s society, etc. But across the board from the beginning of mankind the one moral absolute that is universally known is don’t kill each other (not talking about war). Now, in our selfish society that basic moral absolute has vanished and killing is acceptable based on an arbitrary standard.
In this recent paper the KNMG Physicians’ Federation discusses the push for euthanasia in that country. They discuss the “pressure” from society for euthanasia in dementia patients among others. Can you see the slippery slope? First we loose respect for the unborn and they become expendable. Next comes the elderly as proven by this article. Who do you think will be next on that list? Maybe you?
The moral absolute of not killing each other should be non-negotiable.
LikeLike
September 9, 2011 at 11:07 am
Listen Voice,
Either its an absolute or there are exceptions. War is not an exception. 9-11 was not a reason to kill and yet our country not only went to war in Afganistan but in Iraq. And we killed intentionally, inadvertently. But killing is killing is killing. That would be an absolute that you obviously don’t favor since you favor revenge killing.
LikeLike
September 9, 2011 at 11:48 am
The moral absolute is not to kill the innocent with premeditation. To protect the helpless is another one.
LikeLike
September 9, 2011 at 12:35 pm
intentional killing, premeditation, the helpless? Heck, our military and our police don’t buy that at all. They kill to cover up, kill the helpless, kill with great planning…
sorry no absolutes
LikeLike
September 9, 2011 at 1:10 pm
They kill to protect our lives . What do you think our country would look like if we had no military or police to protect us? You are delusional if you think everyone would be all about peace and harmony. Think about that for a moment. If we had no wars and no military we would still be under England’s rule, slavery would still be legal and Hitler would rule the world. Here in the USA if we had no police chaos would rule and you would have no peace, no home and no safety because people are self centered and mean and they take what they want given the chance. Liberal military/police haters live in a fantasy world that it will all work out if we sit around the campfire singing Kumbaya together. Unfortunately humans don’t work that way. They are hateful, mean, self-centered, power hungry control freaks and they must be governed and controlled to keep them from being barbaric, sometimes by force. I have visited a foreign country with no military and no police. The police that they do have is crooked and part of the problem). It’s every man on his own. If you get raped, oh well. If your child gets stolen and sold into slavery, oh well. If you get robbed, oh well. This country has been invaded many times because they lack a military presence to protect them. Heck they don’t even have traffic laws. The biggest truck goes first because the drivers of the cars know they will get smashed if they don’t get out of the way. Trash litters the streets because they have no one to tell the people that this is unacceptable.Is that the way you want to live? An intelligent person would be thankful that we have police and military instead of dissing them.
With that said, they do what they do out of necessity. It is a form of self defense for our nation. I do not believe in killing as revenge as I clearly stated so I will thank you to not quote me wrong.
As for abortion, it is neither killing for revenge nor a necessity of self defense therefore moral absolutes should apply.
LikeLike
September 9, 2011 at 1:50 pm
Surely Bonzo, you realize that not adhering to a moral absolute doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. It’s wrong to commit murder, that is a moral absolute. If I kill you to get your wallet, that doesn’t change the moral absolute that my actions were wrong.
LikeLike
September 9, 2011 at 3:51 pm
Voice, they kill to protect our lives? BS. That’s not protection. That’s empire building. They kill so we can have oil for our greedy selves. They kill to cover up there mistakes. You need to try reading the news outside the U.S.
I did not say that we shouldn’t have police or military. Thought we were chatting about moral absolutes and I said there are none because we have evidence in the military and the police. And then you respond, with straw man arguments, ad hominem attacks and, frankly, some pretty goofball blathering or should I say bantering?
LikeLike
September 9, 2011 at 5:54 pm
Hey, I’m getting to like you, Bo. You’re literate. But this site is about baby killing. Do you believe we should continue legally to torture young people to death?
LikeLike
September 9, 2011 at 3:44 pm
I find it odd that there have been many cases of near death experiences where there was anything but “nothingness”. There are books full of accounts of these experiences, and more compelling, a world history full of stories of what happened to someone at the moment of death. Smiles, laughter, far away looks with smiles, calling the name of loved ones or Jesus with looks and tones of recognition, or screaming and yelling no, don’t take me. Looks of horror and fear, etc. None of that can be proved or disproved by science, but it is compelling, don’t you think?
LikeLike
September 9, 2011 at 5:28 am
” . . . and before we get into our usual bantering . . . “
LikeLike
September 9, 2011 at 9:22 am
Well, I’m glad we all agree that that FACE law was a good thing 🙂
LikeLike
September 9, 2011 at 10:44 am
not me, babes
LikeLike
September 9, 2011 at 11:52 am
What FACE law? I was busy bantering!
LikeLike
September 9, 2011 at 1:43 pm
yeah it has to be the best law yet.
LikeLike
September 10, 2011 at 5:17 am
John Dunkle asked: But this site is about baby killing. Do you believe we should continue legally to torture young people to death?
Let’s talk about the hypocrisy of many who claim to be prolife. They talk the good talk about respecting the continuum of life and specifically about protecting the unborn and the infirmed. But most will rally in a borderline atavistic response when presidents, governors and the military talk about protection, about respecting “our way of life” or spreading democracy. Their talk is an illusion that hides their pro-death mentality. The illusion, couched in God terms like patriotism, family values, and freedom, translates into support of the death penalty even when there is substantial evidence to doubt the fairness of the process. The reality behind the illusion means they support tens of thousands of prisoners being held in barbarous conditions, prisoners who die a slow, horrible death. And when their talk is used as a rational for war, innocent women and children die from robotic drones, from faulty intelligence and from the primal fear and aggression that emerges when soldiers indiscriminately kill civilians. It’s hypocrisy to think you’re prolife if you ignore these realities.
LikeLike
September 10, 2011 at 8:54 am
Here we go again…
Bonzo, I am very thankful for your ability to express your views publicly due to the fact that some robotic drone is on the wall, protecting your right to do it. It’s a truly awesome thing that you aren’t sitting in a dark basement, under fear of death or imprisonment, trying to smuggle your thoughts out written on tiny scraps of paper sewn into the hem of your clothing. And please don’t insult your own intelligence by thinking that it wouldn’t happen here, or in this day and age.
As for tens of thousands of prisoners dying horrible deaths daily, are you talking about here, or in the third world countries we SHOULD be protecting? It ain’t happening here.
Concerning the death penalty, keep us posted, and if any of your loved ones are ever kidnapped, held for days while being raped and tortured repeatedly, then shot in the head and left naked in the woods to be discovered by a boy scout troop, we’ll all rally for the psyco perpetrator (probably unwanted by his mother) to be given a life sentence rather than the death penalty. He can rehabilitate himself, attend college, be assured of three hot meals a day, watch cable tv, and join the prison basketball team. Some of his activities may even coincide with your survivor therapy sessions, he may even be making the winning shot for his prison team as you and your family grieve at her gravesite for the 10th year in a row.
I am for the death penalty for him. I am against the killing of the helpless unborn. Yes, I see it. I’m a total hypocrite. There should be no consequences to our behavior. At least not really bad ones.
LikeLike
September 10, 2011 at 9:02 am
People take for granted what they have never lived without. He complains about the freedoms that he obviously enjoys. Bonzo go live in north Korea for a while and then come back and talk to us after the experience has made you realize what you have.
LikeLike
September 10, 2011 at 10:53 am
Sorry, the psycho hypocrite was (mis)directed to NunYa.
As for Voice, I’m not complaining. Your reading comprehension failure is noticeable.
As for both of you, open your eyes to the realities of torture and slow death within the continental united states. You’re blind to the truth.
LikeLike
September 10, 2011 at 10:50 am
Psycho hypocrite comes to mind
LikeLike
September 10, 2011 at 10:54 am
misdirected–meant for Nunya
LikeLike
September 10, 2011 at 11:26 am
A rebuttal to “It ain’t happening here.”
Yearly deaths, on average, in
Federal prisions 211
State prisions 3, 388
Deaths related to arrests 2, 0002
And of course, there are no numbers for the many U.S. prisons located around the globe.
LikeLike
September 10, 2011 at 3:39 pm
Bo dose have hang-ups but baby killing is not one of them. Find a different blog, Bo.
LikeLike
September 10, 2011 at 3:39 pm
Oops! I didn’t see #11.
LikeLike
September 10, 2011 at 3:42 pm
And the first thing I read is “Let’s talk about the hypocrisy of many who claim to be prolife.” Is Bo Chuck? Now let me read the rest of #11.
LikeLike
September 10, 2011 at 3:45 pm
My first impression was correct: “Find a different blog, Bo.”
LikeLike
September 10, 2011 at 4:31 pm
Why? Because you refuse the see the truth? You refuse to accept that you are not really prolife. You’re just pro birth.
LikeLike
September 10, 2011 at 5:13 pm
But Mr. Dunkle, I am talking about baby killing. Baby killing in other countries. Don’t you care about those babies? Or are you happy with their certain death because you choose to vote for warmongers?
Can’t see the truth. Don’t want to deal with the truth. Only your own little myopia.
LikeLike
September 10, 2011 at 8:36 pm
You weren’t talking about baby killing. You were talking about four other topics, but not baby killing. and the topic for this blog is baby killing. Even here, you’re talking about foreign wars. Next thing you’ll pull a Chuck and talk about your favorite dog.
LikeLike
September 10, 2011 at 8:34 pm
When you take into account deaths by natural causes, disease, accidents, and inmate on inmate murder, you rest my case. No “tens of thousands” here. I can’t speak for foreign countries.
As for “barbarous” conditions, did they disconnect the cable TV in the common rooms, or serve hot dogs for the third time that week?
LikeLike
September 10, 2011 at 5:35 pm
Nunya, you need to improve on your reading comprehension. You said
As for tens of thousands of prisoners dying horrible deaths daily . . .
I said tens of thousand of prisoners living in barbarous conditions…..
can you understand the difference?
LikeLike
September 10, 2011 at 8:40 pm
Bonzo said:
“The reality behind the illusion means they support tens of thousands of prisoners being held in barbarous conditions, prisoners who die a slow, horrible death.”
LikeLike
September 12, 2011 at 10:35 am
WE’re all hypocrites at some time. I haven’t found the perfect human being yet…Appreciate Nunya’s candor…
LikeLike
September 11, 2011 at 4:34 am
I was talking about baby killing by OUR own people. Men and women in our military killing innocent women and children. It doesn’t matter if they’re killing there (your hegemonic “foreign war”). Are you only prolife when it is American women and children? Or are you intentionally choosing to ignore the slaughter of innocent women and children, a slaughter perpetuated by the United States?
I was talking about prisoners living in barbarous conditions, dying slow deaths in the U.S. Men and women are raped, beaten, tortured in federal, state and county prisons. Pregnant women in prison have been shackled while in labor, have given birth in their cell only to have the child die later, and have been ignored by guards when they are in need of medical care.
I was talking about people being killed during arrests or while in prison. It doesn’t matter to you prolifers. Do you believe that all those arrested deserve to be treated humanely?
But here’s the thing that is the real test of your mettle, when given the opportunity to engage in a lively discussion and you find your back against the wall, you tell others to find another blog, change the subject by praising your God and eternal salvation, condemn others’ comments/faith/logic, and/or deny facts. You don’t like abortion because you believe it kills an innocent baby. Yet your prolife attitude doesn’t extend to other arenas. You make hysterical comments about abortion killing innocent babies then make a quantum leap by asking “who’s next? Are we going to start killing senior citizens or the mentally disabled?” You rail against killing. Yet you seem to be totally unable to see or care about killing in other arenas, killing even innocent born babies. Let’s be realistic. Your prolife attitude is really a ruse. You’re anti abortion. You’re not prolife. And that is hypocritical.
LikeLike
September 11, 2011 at 5:26 am
“Or are you intentionally choosing to ignore the slaughter of innocent women and children, a slaughter perpetuated by the United States?”
Yes, Bo, I am intentionally choosing to ignore that. If we switched to that topic, we’d be on the same page — I think every US military involvement since Vietnam has been an act of aggression. But, for the third time, here’s our topic: “You don’t like abortion because you believe it kills an innocent baby.” Yes, that;’s what I believe. What about you, Bo? Do you believe that?
However, if you are more concerned with our killing of innocents on foreign soil, start your own blog. I’d join you there.
LikeLike
September 11, 2011 at 5:11 pm
Regardless of all that rambling you just did Bonzo, here is the fact of this matter: you told me I needed a lesson in reading comprehension. I quoted you, thereby proving that I understood exactly what you said, in context. You responded like Chuck and Kate do, with meandering rabbit trails leading far, far away from a simple acknowledgment of the truth.
LikeLike
September 11, 2011 at 6:03 pm
Let me help you NunYa
#The reality behind the illusion means they support tens of thousands of prisoners being held in barbarous conditions [INSERT COMMA]
#The reality behind the illusion means prisoners who die a slow, horrible death
#The reality behind the illusion means people are killed during arrests
#The reality behind the illusion means pregnant incarcerated women are mistreated during labor and have lost their newborns because of failure of medical attention
There, does that help you? Whether it does or not, it does respond to your lack of reading comprehension with the bulleted list. And it does recognize that you, NunYa are hypocritcal if you cannot or will not accept the deaths of women, children and, yes, even newborns on our soil and elsewhere, at the hands of our own. This country is not prolfe and neither are you.
LikeLike
September 11, 2011 at 7:30 pm
Now how ’bout helping me, Bo.
LikeLike
September 11, 2011 at 8:11 pm
What type of help do you want Mr. Dunkle?
LikeLike
September 12, 2011 at 3:41 am
“You don’t like abortion because you believe it kills an innocent baby.” Yes, that’s what I believe. What about you, Bo? Do you believe that?
Respondez vous, s’il vous plais
LikeLike
September 12, 2011 at 4:09 am
Do I think abortion is the killing of an innocent? Yes
Sorry I could not respond in French.
LikeLike
September 12, 2011 at 6:08 am
Good, that’s the only French I know. And good. And are you doing anything to stop the killing of that innocent?
LikeLike
September 12, 2011 at 6:11 am
I like it this way better: Are you doing anything to defend that innocent?
LikeLike
September 11, 2011 at 9:16 pm
Okay I give, Uncle! I am not an English major. I was never good at diagramming a sentence. I associated “prisoners” with “who die” in your sentence, and in the context of your diatribe.
By the way…you have no idea who or what I do and don’t care about. You don’t know my favorite color, much less whether I care about the atrocities of war or not.
I don’t have the energy nor the inclination to continue this discussion with you, since it is obvious you are just another one in a long line of angry, judgmental people on this blog who are just “against” and not interested in the truth, honest dialog, or common decency.
LikeLike
September 12, 2011 at 4:07 am
Looks like a diatribe, NunYa, especially considering you claim your disinclination to continue then continue…..just hit and run when your back is against the wall.
LikeLike
September 12, 2011 at 5:35 am
” . . . and before we get into our usual bantering . . . “ (posted Sept 9)
wowee!
LikeLike
September 12, 2011 at 6:13 am
Kate, I told you I’d settled the FACE question Pat raised. Face killed us. What else is there to say other than banter?
LikeLike
September 12, 2011 at 10:38 am
Okay, okay. I think it’s time for another thought provoking, Pulitzer Prize winning column. Working on it today so for the next few hours at least folks can banter away now that John has admitted that FACE killed the anti folks….
LikeLike
December 4, 2011 at 4:07 am
army dogtags…
[…]Using “FACE” Again « Abortion – Abortion Clinics, Abortion Pill, Abortion Information[…]…
LikeLike