It goes without saying that the abortion issue is probably the most controversial issue of our time. Beginning in earnest after the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Roe v Wade, the “pro-life” and “pro-choice” forces have been going at for years – and there is no light at the end of the tunnel. And if you read the polls, it’s really had to say what side is actually “winning.” Indeed, I’m not even sure how you determine who is winning. The bottom line is I know abortion is still legal in this country but they are harder to get. You decide.
Some even go so far to say we are in a “war” over abortion, although I wouldn’t go that far because to me a “war” is when two sides are engaging in violence and, as far as I can tell, the only violent acts have come from the pro-life side (and please, if you are pro-life, do not bore me with the “violence in the womb” argument). But, for the moment let’s say we are engaged in a war. The question now is how far are you willing to go to win this war? In the world of international relations, somewhere along the line we came up with the rules of the Geneva Convention which set some boundaries for conduct that warring parties are supposed to adhere to (although not everyone complies). In this abortion “war”, I think there should be boundaries as well. And recently, one pro-life group crossed a boundary that makes my head spin.
By now, everyone involved in this issue knows that Doctor Lee Carhart, a physician from Nebraska, has decided to carry on the work of the late Doctor George Tillerby performing later abortions and he
has established a practice in Germantown, Maryland. He has been there for several months and has been so open about what he is doing that he even gave a front page interview to the Washington Post a short while ago. I’ve written in the past about how I wish my friend Lee would just “shut up” and do his work quietly (out of fear for his safety), but Lee is not built that way. He is an advocate as well as a physician.
Not surprisingly, there have been protests at the Germantown clinic. That’s okay, that’s the First Amendment in action. I don’t like it but I support their right to be out there on a Saturday yelling and screaming and parading around with their gross signs. But now here comes a pro-life splinter group with a new tactic that boggles my mind. It seems these folks found out who owns the office complex where the abortion clinic is located. Yes, they had enough negative energy stored up that they probably combed the real estate records in the county for his name. I have no doubt that they probably tried to find out where he lives but have not yet been successful. But, after discovering the name of the landlord, they found out where his CHILDREN go to SCHOOL. And, once they discovered that his children went to an elementary school in Maryland, they came up with the idea of picketing the kids’ school! Yep, they went out there just a few weeks ago during the day and stood in front of the school with their ugly signs and blaring the name of the landlord (and, by reference, his children).
Just think for a second about not just his children, but all of the children as they jumped off the bus, already thinking about their lunch period or recess and then they see this sick group of people holding signs. When they look closer, they may see the pictures of a dismembered fetus, they may see lots of blood, they might see the word “abortion” in big red letters. Of course, they are probably too young to even comprehend what is going on but – as this group would say – THEY NEED TO LEARN ABOUT THE HORRORS OF ABORTION!
Who are these nut balls who believe it is up to them to introduce these young children to this difficult issue? Aren’t they the same ones who scream about parental control? The thing is I know who they are, they are the ones whose own children will be forced at a very early age to stand outside of an abortion clinic on a beautiful Saturday, be forced to hold a disgusting sign, chant a slogan, scream at the women. And they’ll say their six year old told them they’d rather be out there than playing soccer with their friends.
I have always encouraged a healthy, honest debate on this issue. But a line has to be drawn somewhere. Again, I would support their right to do this, but do these folks have no shame? Besides, from a strategic point of view it’s a pretty stupid thing to do because they are pissing off a lot of parents, even those who are pro-life.
I wonder how these folks would feel if we went to their kid’s school and held up signs of women lying in a pool of blood after a botched abortion? We could easily do it, we’ve got the pictures.
The difference is we’re too civilized.



September 19, 2011 at 10:36 am
I agree that what this splinter group has done crosses the line, just like the protester who told young, innocent children biking on street north of the clinic that they murder babies inside there. Just what every mother wants her children to hear. Send them out to play and some nasty broad wants to shame some escorts at the expense of the children. She has no shame.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 3:10 pm
I’d like to think that most pro-lifers would condemn this kind of behavior. John, would you approve of the kind of conduct that Kate is referring to? Are kids fair game in this war? (PLEASE dont respond with the “kids” that are being killed blah, blah)
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 5:30 pm
Sure, I go after the kids every chance I get. We adults have been brainwashed; the kids haven’t been yet. When daddy asks me to hide my picture of the bloody baby corpse so his kid doesn’t see him, I say, “It’s for your kid. I want him to ask you, ‘Daddy, who pulled apart that baby? Why didn’t you try to stop him?’ “
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 6:19 am
so, John, did you brainwash your kids to be pro-life? My reaction to your post is that it is sad, very sad, that you would try to influence a little 8 year old kid. Wow…
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 8:29 am
figures
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 12:14 pm
Now Pat, I have to take exception to that. What I saw him as saying is that he gives kids the “bloody” truth, so to speak. If you taught your kids abortion was okay, was that brainwashing them? If you teach your kids that education is vital to their lives, is that brainwashing them?
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 12:32 pm
Well here it goes making me anonymous again. This is Nunya
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 12:35 pm
Now I’m anonymous again. This is Nunya.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 10:56 am
“1984” for sure — the killers and their helpers are civilized and the protectors and defenders are barbarians.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 3:12 pm
I guess what I wanted to say was that our conduct, the way we carried out this “battle” was more “civilized.” As I’ve said before, the pro-choice movement for years had arguments about using the graphic pictures of women in blood after a botched abortion. Kate: what do you think of using those pictures??
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 5:56 pm
You might have a point here, Pat. Suppose, though, baby killing were again made illegal. You killers’ helpers, then, would have to make yourselves obnoxious, and we prolifers would be able to sit back and enjoy watching your agitation.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 12:56 pm
This is why it’s important to get the message through to the general public– “So-called ‘pro-lifers’ are fixated on abortion to the exclusion of care for human life.”
Any group that insensitive to the need to keep children out of the line of fire deserves to be regarded as desperately in need of therapy.
It is known that a schoolyeard bully is acting out on family problems. The bullying thiese people display indicates the same for them.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 3:13 pm
Well, Charles, then go for it: you hereby have “permission” to do a totally self serving advertisement for your website, etc!!!
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 4:18 pm
The website doesn’t aggrandize me, unfortunately. No picture of me standing next to Dunkle with a sign saying, “I’m with Stupid,” no bio information, no Facebook or Twitter links; just information that might serve to blunt a dysfunctional self-help movement that is harmful to women and families. Nor does it earn me any money or gaggles of rabid supporters. It’s just there. And few than 1000 people have checked in on it in three years, so it’s not much anyway… Sometimes you’re spitting into the wind.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 11:10 pm
Don’t encourage him Pat. I’m starting to believe he’s a Narcissist. He certainly doesn’t care about the cause, or his every comment wouldn’t promote HIS theory. It’s not even rational to believe that every single lifer would fit it even if it was valid. Do you really buy this stuff?
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 6:22 am
I’m not sure if I “buy” his stuff, Nunya. I do believe that it is a little hypocritical for a pro-lifer to basically insist that a woman give birth if that pro-lifer has not adopted. But Charles extends that thought to insist that they adopt as many kids as they have “saved.” I hear what he is saying but…
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 12:25 pm
No disrespect here Pat, but why do you guys need to twist words to say it in a way that sounds better to you? When we say “baby killers” we are telling the absolute truth, at least for a large portion of abortions. Why do you say that we insist a woman give birth, rather than telling the truth, which is that we insist that a woman not kill her unborn? There are plenty of people out there that shouldn’t be parents, I just think the solution isn’t to kill their offspring.
As far as adoption, have you read, and I ask this sincerely, any of my replies to Chuck? I know they are long, but they do make my point quite clearly that adoption really has nothing to do with this issue. If there were droves, or even some, women out there birthing rather than aborting their babies BECAUSE OF OUR INFLUENCE, and we were then refusing to help THOSE babies and women, then yes, it would apply. As it is, most of the children in the system are born to women who never considered an abortion, are on drugs, even using the sheer number of her children as a way to live off Welfare. I’ve worked in the system, I know.
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 12:37 pm
The no disrespect comment is Nunya…
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 10:53 am
The gist of aborticentrism is that self-proclaimed “pro-lifers” by and large (there are a few exceptions) are passionate about making a woman do what they will not– care for a child they don’t want to raise. Americans have always been skeptical of the “do as I say, not as I do” crowd, and somebody ought to be pointing this out.
Their expressed concern for the fetus is just window-dressing for something quite different. Notice how there is not a one so far who will let me have their dog, but would force me to have a child.
That bizarre valuation– putting the welfare of a dog above that of a child– points at the reality of the movement: there’s something that they value more than a child or even the child’s life. Aborticentrism points people toward an avenue worth exploring.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 5:35 pm
What I like most about Chuck is his uncanny ability to nail himself: “Any person that insensitive to the need to keep young people out of the line of fire deserves to be regarded as desperately in need of therapy.”
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 8:12 pm
“This is why it’s important to get the message through to the general public.” This will get through to the general public when roses are pumpkins.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 1:33 pm
Drew Halmann and Michael P. Young (2010) found that grotesque images and harsh words can be counterproductive for activists. They can cause readers or viewers to turn away in disgust and their use can taint activists as prurient, irrational, uncivil or manipulative. The data that I’ve gathered confirms their findings. While a small percentage may find their images and behaviors emotionally disturbing, the majority view the protesters with disdain.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 1:33 pm
Correction: The should be Drew Halfmann
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 8:17 pm
Correction: Look at how smart we are! We spent five years and lots of you all’s tax money to conclude the obvious: “Drew Halmann and Michael P. Young (2010) found that grotesque images and harsh words can be counterproductive for activists.”
You’re smarter than these phonies, Kate. Leave them to oblivion.. Stand on your own two feet.
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 6:24 am
This study was done with tax dollars? Not sure about that, John….
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 8:32 am
All those types of studies are done by tax dollars, Pat. Otherwise, they wouldn’t get done.
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 2:49 pm
BS
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 6:04 pm
Brother’s Studiedthematter.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 3:15 pm
Wow, that’s interesting. Are/were these two very objective or pro-choicers? Now, if they were pro-lifers that would really be interesting! I wonder, though…many pro-lifers may turn away in disgust, but they probably remain pro-life. I would imagine these image issues would be a problem with the political independents…
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 5:24 pm
Drew Halfmann is at UC Davis in sociology. His research interests include Health and Social Policy, Political Sociology, Comparative and Historical Sociology, Social Movements. The piece that I was quoting compared the grotesque imagery in war movements of black lynchings and abortion. It’s really great article that doesn’t strike me as prolife or prochoice. I would add that he and his colleague found that the images reinforce prolifers beliefs about the abortion images, that they are persuasive…like singing to the choir (my words)… another interesting element to the article.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 4:18 pm
But those who peddle it live by it. It says something about them.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 3:03 pm
Those prolife protesters are disgusting.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 3:24 pm
The pictures of the dead babies are disgusting. In all of the disgust at the pictures let us not forget that they represent real humans who are slaughtered everyday for money. If the pictures are disgusting then the act of abortion is disgusting. One is simply an image of the other. I have never understood why abortion proponents hate those pictures so and try to discredit them by pretending as if they aren’t real. They want to keep abortion tied up in a nice little package with a nice little ribbon so that it seems not so bad. But the reality IS those pictures! I don’t agree with showing them to children who could be traumatized by them (I know mine would be) but if you hate the pictures then by extension you must be compelled to hate abortion. They are the same. If people are going to be card carrying abortion proponents then they need to look at and admit exactly what it is that they advocate for. What would it be like if every single time the word “abortion” was written there was a thumbnail pic of an aborted baby in the place of the word? I wonder then would we throw the word around so carelessly as we advocate for it? Or would it force us to see what we really are which is a bunch of cruel Barbarians?
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 4:08 pm
Did you read the Post?
What part don’t you get?
Those protesters are disgusting.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 4:54 pm
Why are they disgusting? Because they hold pictures of dead babies! There is a connection there.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 4:20 pm
Voice, do an essay on the pictures of the 3 to 5 dozen young women who were Ted Bundy’s victims.
And, why won’t you let me have your dog when you insist I have a baby?
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 4:49 pm
“Voice, do an essay on the pictures of the 3 to 5 dozen young women who were Ted Bundy’s victims.”
No!
“And, why won’t you let me have your dog when you insist I have a baby?”
O.k. dang it! You can have him! He pees on the rug though FYI!
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 5:39 pm
hahahahahaha
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 10:56 am
How can you claim to care for human life when you can’t even care about what I will do to your dog?
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 11:21 am
Look I folded under pressure. You have been begging me for him for a long time now so to get you to shut up you can have him k.
Here’s the scoop. He weighs about 80 lbs and costs about 20 bucks a week to feed, drools everywhere, is not fully housebroken and WILL eat your furniture. He hasn’t been “fixed” so he likes to get romantically involved with the nearest leg. He chases the neighbors and “retrieves” anything laying around their garages that he can carry home.It’s ok though. He once brought me a gallon jug of windshield washer detergent and a box of Tide. He insists on sleeping in the bed with you on the pillow and will not take no for an answer.
Still want him?
Oh and by the way, if you take him you have to take his best friend Lucy. She’s a one-legged hairless cat that weighs 8 lbs. I really think she is anorexic, most likely retarded, and has feline aids. I will send her litter box although she refuses to use it. Maybe you can work on that.
I just don’t want them anymore, can’t afford to feed them or provide veterinary care and frankly don’t care what happens to them. I was going to take them to the pound so they could be adopted but then decided to just have them put down. You know, it’s easier that way. I was thinking I wouldn’t have to always wonder what happened to them if I just killed them. But then you asked for them so sure you can have them. Or do you think they would be better off dead like you do human babies?
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 11:52 am
So Chuck, even though dogs and cats aren’t “aware” in the sense that humans are, would you tell Voice to kill hers because they are too much trouble, and expensive? Is it okay to abuse and or kill animals just because we can? If she were being serious, I’d call her a bad pet mom, and offer to find the cat and dog a good home, and the cat and dog would live out happy lives with a good pet parent, even though they would never have been “aware” of any danger or pending doom. Isn’t that the very essence of protecting the helpless? Of morality? Of the sanctity of life? ALL life?
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 12:43 pm
That comment was Nunya, starting with “So Chuck”. Sheesh, isn’t there a way to log in again when you change devices?
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 12:54 pm
I just read v’s “look I folded . . .” to my wife who’s barely prolife and extremely critical. She laughed at almost every sentence and then pronounced it brilliant. And sometimes you get worried about the value of this blog, Pat? It’s more than worth your every effort.
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 3:47 pm
So, you care for fetuses as much as you care for your dog– making women have the former and strangers have the latter– and you don’t really like your dog.
That says a lot about your care for human life and explains why you refuse to undertake the task that you seek to impose on pregnant women– raising the child you don’t want to. So, where does this behavior come from?
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 6:06 pm
holy shoot
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 9:46 pm
Seriously Chuck? Do you really, really believe Voice has those animals? Do you really, truly think she was being serious? You and Kate need to take lessons in recognizing sarcasm. Voice, do you actually have this dog and cat or were you being facetious?
LikeLike
September 21, 2011 at 8:59 am
I have neither! But I do have a little fluffy Bichon Frise. You can’t have him Chuck:)
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 5:35 pm
You can’t assume you know what abortion advocates hate or not, particularly with the mass produced images of the same few images that proliferate the prolife industry’s propaganda machinery.
As far as your logic about hating the images should be extended to hating abortion is flawed on many levels. I don’t like watching a mastectomy for cancer but it doesn’t mean I hate the surgery or that the surgery should be outlawed or that every time the word mastectomy is used we should insert a thumbnail sketch. The barbarian comes from those who really want to rub everyone’s face in an image of an aborted fetus, a fetus who prolifers never regard as sacred, only as a cheap tool for the circus of the absurd.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 6:42 pm
“The barbarian comes from those who really want to rub everyone’s face in an image of an aborted fetus, a fetus who prolifers never regard as sacred, only as a cheap tool for the circus of the absurd.”
Yeah, we barbarians are out on the sidewalk showing pictures of dead babies while you guys are inside the building slaughtering those babies in those pics all peaceful like. They come out all dressed an perfect too, right Kate?
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 8:19 pm
Oof!
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 10:22 pm
You know Kate, your can settle this easily. I gather you have an “in” with your local abortion clinic from what I’ve read. Just get permission to go inside and watch abortions for a week or two, and take pictures of the “products of conception” before they are disposed of and post them. You can silence us once and for all. Make sure to get one at 11 weeks, when fingerprints are there. Those fingerprints are attached to something, I’d guess fingers. And Pat, you said you are friends with a late term abortionist, Get him to give you pictures of his abortions. Shut the pro-life movement and it’s “fake,” “photoshopped” and best of all, “OLD” gross pictures up once and for all. Shut us up. It is easy. It would have been easy all these years. Show the “blob” at every stage of development. Show us the “real” pictures Kate. You should have no problem posting them since it’s just unrecognizable blobs at all stages of development, right? The pics are faked you said, right? Go ahead Kate, I dare you.
Do you all understand the irony of calling people uncivilized for holding pictures of “beings” that were killed, while calling the ones who produced the subject matter civilized? At least be rational. Puppy mills are shown in prime time all the time, we have whole shows devoted to the abuse of animals. I think it’s safe to say that children love animals much more than babies, right? Yet we don’t see all of you choicers up in arms about these shows showing severely abused puppies and kittens, some dead, laying in their own blood and fecal matter, to children. We may as well stick knives in their teddy bears for them to wake up to. No, THEN we are okay with it, hoping it will change little hearts that might grow up to be animal abusers themselves. I’m not for singling out children, and I find that practice abhorrent. His children can’t help what their father does. I agree that there should be boundaries. A better. more effective method would be to offer more rent money and begin to grab up these properties and put ministries in them to educate the public about abortion, or let them sit empty. Go to schools and churches that will have you and educate the children. There are many ways to fight this battle that don’t single out or harm children. But babies ARE getting killed, or we wouldn’t have those
pictures.
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 4:47 am
another for the newsletter
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 9:47 pm
Ignored as usual.
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 6:28 am
I’m glad, Voice, that you agree that these pictures should not be shown to children. And, yes, the results of a later abortion are very difficult to look at. It’s very sad but, as always, I have to defer to the woman who felt she had to make that very difficult decision. I trust women to make this very difficult decision.
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Pat, this isn’t a “difficult” issue, it’s a moral issue. What happens in a few years when the next generation doesn’t find it difficult? Then they start their arguments for euthanasia? Then the next generation, having lost all sense of morality and the sanctity of all life, starts pushing for infanticide? After all, that mother hasn’t the means to care for that child. She realizes she made a mistake in not aborting it, and she shouldn’t have to pay her whole life for it.Things have changed since it’s birth. The father hasn’t been heard of since, she’s lost her job. The infant isn’t aware anyway, it isn’t cognizant at all. And we have developed such humane ways of ending lives. A little prick and it’s done. We’ll even let you hold it mom, and wrap it in that blanket you got from Goodwill. You can write it a letter of apology, and thank it for making this sacrifice for you. Do you really believe there is no slippery slope here?
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 12:57 pm
Crap! I keep forgetting. That was Nunya
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 1:00 pm
And the Catholic diocese in Allentown, Pennsylvania, will celebrate a Mass for you and for those whose children have died from natural causes so you can commiserate together.
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 1:01 pm
Crap, the “slippery slope” comment was Nunya
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 1:03 pm
I’m sorry for all the duplicate posts, for some reason my comments aren’t showing up, even after refreshing, so I repost, and when I do, there BOTH are. ~ Nunya
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 1:10 pm
“The father hasn’t been heard of since she’s lost her job.” This is not an exaggeration but a perceptive observation. I did not start out being against “women’s liberation,” but the perversity of the movement has become so overwhelming that if I live to see legal baby killing’s demise, I’ll begin working to overturn women’s suffrage.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 5:38 pm
Gloria is disgusting.
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 6:31 am
C’mon, Johnny, you can be more clever than that!
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 8:34 am
You don’t know me.
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 12:19 pm
Gloria is correct.
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 12:36 pm
Uh Oh! It’s not 3:00 yet. Why are the school children arriving so early?
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 3:10 pm
While I agree with you that young(elementary age) children should not be subjected to graphic pictures of any kind without parental consent the reaction when children do see the abortion signs is very telling. When my daughter was about seven she saw something on tv about abortion and asked me what it meant. I explained to her that sometimes mommies don’t want the babies that are growing inside them so they pay a doctor to take the baby out. She asked what happened to the baby then and I explained as gently as I could that the baby died as a result. She was VERY offended at the thought of that and got angry at the doctors and the mothers and carried on about it for days. She is still offended by it 4 years later and she has never seen a picture of an aborted fetus. I have intentionally kept that from her. The point is that children instinctively know that it is wrong. They do not have to be told or persuaded that it is wrong. They just know. Somehow in all of our adult wisdom and in the growing up process we loose the innocence that makes us see things in black and white. A child does not know how to rationalize things away the way that we adults do. It’s a black and white issue to children summed up in two words….don’t kill! It’s a shame that we adults have the ability to rationalize killing our own offspring when tiny children know better.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 3:20 pm
They instinctively know abortion is wrong? C’mon, Voice, aint that stretching it a bit? Of course, when you tell a seven year old that a baby is being killed that seven year old is gonna react. I wonder what would have happened if you had shown your seven year old how women stuck coathangers up their uterus and started bleeding (sometimes to death)? On the other hand, I do appreciate that you have not shown your child a picture of an aborted fetus. Interesting, my two boys, when they were young and I was with NCAP, saw protestors with the signs all the time and somehow they are pro-choice! They are somehow also Yankee fans and Democrats! Now, how did that work out???
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 3:34 pm
“They instinctively know abortion is wrong? C’mon, Voice, aint that stretching it a bit?”
I don’t think so. She knew without me telling her anything that the baby shouldn’t die. Everyone knows that up until a certain age when the “choose” what they will know.
“I wonder what would have happened if you had shown your seven year old how women stuck coathangers up their uterus and started bleeding (sometimes to death)?”
I think her reaction would have been the same.
“Mommy what happened to that lady?”
“She was trying to get her baby out.”
“Why”?
“She didn’t want it.”
“What happened to the baby?”.
“It died and the lady died. ”
She would have still been offended and confused and would have had no understanding of why that lady would kill her baby at the risk of her own life ending. As I said, it’s only we adults who rationalize these things.
“are pro-choice! They are somehow also Yankee fans and Democrats! Now, how did that work out???”
They grew up in a home full of democrat yankee fans who rationalized killing so they learned to rationalize it also. My kids who are growing up in a home that values all life will most likely grow up to value all life. They are what we teach them.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 7:16 pm
Pat,
I want that post of Kate’s taken off this blog. I did not tell any young children the things she said I did. It is a complete lie.
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 6:34 am
I’m sorry, Kathleen, but which post are you referring to? It’s hard on my end to follow the threads. Unless Kate has a response?
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 2:54 pm
Kathleen,
I was not referring to you. My comment was about your sidekick. And has Doug has confirmed, she told the children that babies were being killed inside the clinic.
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 3:02 pm
“she told the children that babies were being killed inside the clinic.”
Well aren’t they?
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 6:24 pm
no, just fetuses.
besides, the focus of this post, which you seem to ignore so you can rant ad nauseum, is on protesters using graphic images and harmful words in front of innocent children—shameful behavior…
LikeLike
September 21, 2011 at 9:02 am
Kate did you forget your special pill that calms you down? You seem to be especially snippy today.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 11:15 pm
So Pat, did you ever have to explain what abortion is to any of your children, or did they just kind of “get” it as they grew up in your household, the way I was a democrat because my parents were? If so, how did you tell them, and at what age?
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 6:36 am
Glad to hear you’re a Democrat, Nunya! Or have you changed since then? I can’t remember how old they were when I totally explained to them what abortion is. I wanna say about 11 or so, maybe a little earlier. I just sat them down, told them what I did for a living and explained what abortion was. And, believe me, I didn’t sugarcoat it…
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 11:44 am
Do you think they were okay with it because it’s Daddy’s job and they trusted you? When voice’s daughter found out the exact same thing, WITH sugarcoating, she instinctively knew it was wrong.
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 12:55 pm
That was Nunya
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 4:25 pm
Good training for your kid! Use your position of authority to establish a fiction in her mind, to let her find out years later that you weren’t the all-wise parent she thought you were.
You would have done better to bring home a Baby Thinkaboutit and say,
“The woman didn’t kill her baby! She’s giving it to you to take care of for the next 18 years,” and then let her care for it until she killed it. Babythinkabout reports when abuse or neglect has killed it. How long do you think she would have managed it on her own at age seven or even age 14? One of my 13-yar-old relatives made it as far as six weeks with her kid….
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 4:53 pm
“The woman didn’t kill her baby! She’s giving it to you to take care of for the next 18 years,”
Why would I lie to her ? You see, that’s the difference in you and me. You live in a fantasy world of your own creation deciding to take it upon yourself to declare the unborn humanoid earthworms so that you can justify killing them. Meanwhile, I am over here in reality knowing full well that the unborn are human beings, developing babies, and that the mother pays to have it killed. I won’t lie to her to pacify the pro-choice agenda. I told her the truth as gently as I could.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 7:00 pm
I’ve never seen a protester tell the truth gently. What a bunch a hooey.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 8:22 pm
It’s easy to see that, Kate. Come to Reading. I don’t agree with telling the truth gently, but I back down every time.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 10:10 pm
Pay attention Kate! We weren’t talking about protesters. We were talking about my seven year old daughter.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 10:34 pm
You’d think someone of your intelligence wouldn’t be so quick to stereotype. So every single pro-lifer on the planet is exactly the same Kate? If I read this blog and had a child in your class, I’d warn him to check out everything you say, as you have no ability to seek truth, you only seek to prove your own judgments with your stereotyping. You don’t know voice, and you have no idea how she raises her child. It’s funny, but lifers don’t think you choicers train your children to pull the wings off flies. Your comments are silly and beneath a college professor.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 3:57 pm
John, Kate is referring me. I had a problem with my car and asked Doug if he could help me. I needed to know where my spare was and didn’t know how to find it. He ignored me but a police officer was on the corner and I asked for his assistance. He helped me with everything. Those young girls were circling us all the while and asked what where we doing. I said we are helping babies. I thought just for once couldn’t Doug put aside our differences and help a person in distress. Never said a word about murdering babies, they would not even of understood that. Is someone making this stuff up?
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 4:10 pm
It happens a lot Kathleen. The nice clinic escorts accuse the protesters of all kinds of ugly that never happened. Mostly out and out lies that get rumored around. There are stories out there that you wouldn’t believe that were all made up and imagined. I think it’s the documentary maker in her. She has to create drama to document drama. No drama…no documentary…no job…no money…..no house…no car……no recognition……no title. You know how it goes.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 4:17 pm
Over the years I have seen hundreds of very horrible protesters first hand.
Laws like FACE have been passed to help protect from some of these devious. Activities.
I have seen many a pro lifer Acting violently toward women, demeaning them, etc., with my own eyes.
Anyone who would deny the reality of the pro life protest movement and their many evil ways is just does not know anything obviously, or just wants to lie. Either way, they don’t even deserve to be read they lack all credibility.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 4:40 pm
Jose, powerless people go “over the top” to get what they want, because they know in their bones that acting normally gets them nowhere. You never saw the Godfather in his elder years throwing himself about the room or screaming his lungs out at an enemy; he’d just pass a quiet word to a lieutenant, and the problem would be solved.
there’s a large element of powerlessness to the movement. It’s not the only motivator, but it’s a deep one. Since their whole crusade is an allegory, they need to achieve power.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 4:47 pm
sure!
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 5:50 pm
Over the years I have seen Jose first hand.
Laws like perjury have been passed to help protect us from someone devious like him.
I have seen Jose acting violently toward women, demeaning them, etc., with my own eyes.
Anyone who would deny the reality of the Jose’s activities and his many evil ways just does not know anything, obviously, or just wants to lie. Either way, he doesn’t even deserve to be read. He also lacks all credibility.
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 12:22 pm
Jose,
I have seen the same disgusting behavior.
Many Pro Lifers routinely harm women.
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 12:50 pm
Jon,
I have seen the same disgusting behavior.
Many abortion advocates routinely kill babies.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 5:19 pm
I was not told who it was that said the bit of murdering babies likely because the escort isn’t familiar with all the protesters. I doubt that anyone made it up.
To say that the police helped you with everything is a bit of a stretch since he didn’t tow your car or change your tire, now did he?
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 7:00 pm
Seems like you know everything that went on there now don’t you Kate. So you know the escort knew what was said and it is a lie. I did not tell any young children babies are being murdered. Take that back and I still say the officer did help with everything unlike Doug who sauntered off like a snake. How did you know I needed a tire change???
Seems you know everything except the TRUTH.
Kathleen
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 7:02 pm
Doug does not owe you or any of your crazy friends anything. Perhaps what you need to do is to learn how to change your own tire, to have a jack in the car, and to use it. Or stay home. That’s another option.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 7:15 pm
I would expect that from you Kate, letting a 78 year old woman change her tire.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 7:19 pm
Are we joking? Kathleen is 78 years old and Doug wouldn’t help her with a flat tire because she is pro-life? And Kate agrees with that and tells her to learn to change her own tire or stay at home? Did I read that right?
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 8:24 pm
Yeah, you’d have to be there.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 8:41 pm
You never know John where I might show up. Maybe I will do a documentary about how pro-choice escorts spew hate at pro-life protesters while they accuse the pro-lifers of doing the same thing. If you see a stranger with a camera then you will know. Or maybe I will send my reporter friend down with a camera and a notepad to get it all down. You just never know…….
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 8:44 pm
I’m not “letting” you change your tire. I’m from the school that says if you want to drive a car, learn to change a flat, pump your own gas, change your own oil. Otherwise, stay in the kitchen or get a AAA card and quite whining. My own 81 year old mother can do better than whine and blame her enemies.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 9:02 pm
Your “school” taught you some bad crap Kate.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 10:44 pm
So Kate, if your 81 year old mother had a flat, and no man would help her change it, you would be okay with that?
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 6:40 am
What about AAA??
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 12:03 pm
Not everyone can afford AAA and even if she had it Kate and Doug are not excused from giving a crap about a 78 year old woman just because she is pro-life.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 10:42 pm
Thank you for proving the point of my previous comment Kate. You were not even there, yet you post it here with authority, as if you saw it yourself, without so much as a “this was told to me, I didn’t see it.” Again, no one can believe a word you say, you are not credible. When someone blatantly stereotypes the way you and Chuck do, it shows a severe lack of judgment, knowledge and rationality usually found among the uneducated. Surprising.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 11:49 pm
“To say that the police helped you with everything is a bit of a stretch since he didn’t tow your car or change your tire, now did he?”
What in the world does that matter Kate? If a policeman didn’t help a 78 year old he needs to be reported.
(When you said “now did he” I swear I heard “I’ll get you my pretty.”)
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 8:34 am
Bahhaahahaha! Me too!
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 11:33 pm
You know, we are all missing one important element to Kathleen’s story: she asked a pro choicer to help her, when there where others around, and I assume she had a cell phone. She obviously sees him as an enemy in this battle, but not as sub human or evil, or she never would have even thought to ask him for help. She protests often, from what I gather, she had to know that someone, even the police, would come by. It’s not like she was in the Bronx at midnight. I think the fact that she assumed a fellow human being would help someone in need, even a pro choice human being, says it all. I also think that the fact that he wouldn’t help her, and that Kate condones it, says it all too. Kate, it’s getting to be a habit of yours to accuse us of something and then prove that you are the guilty one.
Honestly, if I knew you and lived in your town, ran out of gas, and saw you pass by, I would automatically expect you to help me without so much as a thought process behind that expectation. I would also help you in the same situation. I’m sure Kathleen’s thoughts were the same. I ask, who are the uncivilized barbarians with no thought for others, who condone hurting people just because they are on the other side of their issue? I am starting to wonder if any choicer on this blog really wants the truth, or if you all just want to keep lying to yourselves about us like you lie to yourselves about those unrecognizable, unaware blogs being killed. I would respect you if you at least admitted, as Pat does, that it’s about the rights of the woman to you, and the sanctity of all life to us, not about vilifying the entire pro-life movement.
Somebody do this math for me: How many pro-lifers would you say there are in the world? And how many of them have resorted to violence, as in bombings and murder? I’m not talking about the screaming matches on the street corners, I’ve seen those TV spots too, and I’ve NEVER seen one where the choicers were standing quietly by being abused. They are behaving just as forcefully as the other side. Just as loud. Just as offensively to any little kids passing by. Oh, and they have their kids with them too. You guys train your kids to believe it’s okay to kill the unborn. We train ours it’s not. You are going to try to make us believe it’s rational to call us the barbarians because we rail against it? If you are so sure of your stand, why the need to get petty, as Kate continually does. Why the need to brand us as ___ fill in the blank. Me thinks you doth protest too much.
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 1:13 pm
Nunya, I will explain what happened. I had to get home because I was going to a wedding and didn’t want to be late. I had a cell phone in my hand as my husband was in Coopersburg and not close by. Doug was at the gate taking pics of Joyce’s car and trying to get her license number. I just wanted him to show me where and how to get to my tire. The police officer happened by because the escorts had called them for some mythical incident. I never gave it a thought the he wouldn’t help me as I was starting to panic because I needed to get home. I just reached out to him as he was the nearest to me. Kate said we would never help them, how wrong she is. Some of them delibertely aim their cars at us on the way in. Nice people. Joyce stayed as long as she could because she had to be home also.Kate can throw whatever she wants at me as I have been involved in this issue for longer than she can imagine. The one issue is that she was not at the gate so she could not have heard the converstion with the children. I told them we saved babies so they could grow up to be beautiful young girls like they were. If we were so horrible why did they stay with us for so long. So Kate I am not going away until God comes for me. He is in charge of my destiny not YOU. Don’t like our signs do what you have been telling us to do. STAY HOME
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 1:25 pm
Thank you for setting the record straight Kathleen. I just hate it when people pass on rumors. It’s so juvenile. I think you handled the girls wonderfully. I’m sure no one will believe you on the “other” side, since we prolifers are the devil, and EXACTLY alike you know.
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 1:28 pm
Sorry, that was Nunya
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 1:33 pm
That was Nunya. This may show up three times, but I can’t get it to show up so I keep trying. The actual comments show up right away, but when I try to go back and state my name, it won’t show up. How weird is that?
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 2:14 pm
Kathleen, who describes herself like a poor damsel in distress abandoned by Doug, was parked in front of a house she has visited many times; had her cell phone, had her friend Joyce in a separate car with her own cell phone, and was unable to find her spare tire? She was obviously incapable of changing her tire (let alone finding it) and, interestingly, the little girls circling around on their bikes were looking in horror into the women’s center lot. Kathleen may have said she was “helping babies”, but that wouldn’t account for the girls’ expressions. The activist antis who protest at women’s clinics know no boundaries when it comes to furthering their effort to control women to suit their religious/moral agenda.
LikeLike
September 21, 2011 at 9:10 am
Marty, You are making assumptions based on little girls expressions. UNFAIR!
Maybe they were trying to figure out why Kate dances in the streets and jumps up and down like a schoolgirl herself when someone goes in to kill their baby. That confuses everyone.
LikeLike
September 21, 2011 at 12:54 pm
Marty, Give me a break. Spoken like an escort, since you were down at the door how could you percieve what the girls looks meant. Unbelivable!!!!! In horror indeed. Next time be brave enough to say who you are, at least kate, doug , john and i are secure enough to show who we are. How bout you?
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 2:55 pm
No Kate is referring to Kathleen’s sidekick. It was Kathleen’s Jdog who did the dirty deed to innocent children.
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 3:05 pm
I would like to hear her side of the story.You have proven that you have no character and will lie if it suits you so you will have to excuse me for not taking your word for it.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 5:20 pm
Pat said:
The difference is we’re too civilized.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
OMG!! CIVILIZED?? CANNIBALIZED is more like it!
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 8:28 pm
Who is cannibalized? How does this make sense?
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 1:16 pm
We kill other people to nourish ourselves.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 5:52 pm
Graphic, disgusting, horrific, appalling, yet very real and truthful abortion photos save lives. PERIOD. There are children alive today thanks to these photos. That must be why you are all so threatened by them. The abortion mills lose money when they are displayed because upon seeing them many women have changed their minds about killing their children.
You can sugar coat your killing tactics all you want (you will only feel slight cramping – it’s just a blob of tissue, etc.) but a picture speaks a thousand words now doesn’t it? And, hey, thanks for the reminder. We’ve been very remiss with our photos.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 8:26 pm
All we gotta do is see what upsets them. It couldn’t be easier.
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 2:56 pm
Put up all the signs you want. You’ll only make yourselves look like monsters.
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 3:06 pm
The pro-lifers may look like monsters but the people a few feet away killing babies and arguing for that “right” are the real monsters.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 6:20 pm
Kate Says:
September 19, 2011 at 5:35 pm
You can’t assume you know what abortion advocates hate or not, particularly with the mass produced images of the same few images that proliferate the prolife industry’s propaganda machinery.
As far as your logic about hating the images should be extended to hating abortion is flawed on many levels. I don’t like watching a mastectomy for cancer but it doesn’t mean I hate the surgery or that the surgery should be outlawed or that every time the word mastectomy is used we should insert a thumbnail sketch. The barbarian comes from those who really want to rub everyone’s face in an image of an aborted fetus, a fetus who prolifers never regard as sacred, only as a cheap tool for the circus of the absurd.
____________
You can’t assume you know what pro-life advocates hate, regard as sacred, or only as a cheap tool to save the lives of the pre-born.
These photos are instruments used to SAVE LIVES not the cheap tool you so callously dismiss. They have SAVED LIVES KATE. Doesn’t that mean ANYTHING to you?? There are actual human beings that are alive today because these photos were used at abortion mills. Would you truly deny these children their lives and the parents that chose life their families? My God, how heartless ARE you??
I think you’d prefer the mastectomy photos over the dead baby photos because subconsciously the dead baby pictures really and truly put you over the edge. One could even say they enrage you. They are hard for you to dismiss and try as you might to rationalize them away with all your research mumbo jumbo you just can’t get them out of the back of your head can you?
Just who is the barbarian?? Are the barbarians the ones who dismember pre-born children for money and toss them away as infectious waste (that is unless they $ell them to universities or hospitals) or are the barbarians the ones who use these graphic photos in the hopes a women will not kill her pre-born baby?
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 8:26 pm
Just who is the barbarian?? SINGULAR? REALLY?
Are the barbarians the ones who dismember pre-born children for money and toss them away as infectious waste (that is unless they $ell them to universities or hospitals) NO
or are the barbarians the ones who use these graphic photos in the hopes a women will not kill her pre-born baby? YES
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 8:28 pm
Yup, 1984
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 10:47 pm
I think it’s very telling that comparing an unborn baby to a cancerous tumor sprang to mind Kate. You reveal yourself.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 6:26 pm
Kate Says:
September 19, 2011 at 10:36 am
I agree that what this splinter group has done crosses the line, just like the protester who told young, innocent children biking on street north of the clinic that they murder babies inside there. Just what every mother wants her children to hear. Send them out to play and some nasty broad wants to shame some escorts at the expense of the children. She has no shame.
+ + + + +
Hysterical. Kate you are too funny!! This from the killing side that besmirches pro-life advocates presence at killing mills to prospective mothers at every possible opportunity.
Kate your pot is calling your kettle black again.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 7:06 pm
Pat, you’ve obviously hit a nerve with street walkers, the crazies, the circus of the absurd. Way to go. Let the bantering continue—-
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 7:27 pm
Pro-lifers are “streetwalkers”, “crazies”, and the “circus of the absurd” because we try to convince you that killing babies is wrong.
Meanwhile……..you are outside walking women in to kill their baby. How is that not crazy and absurd?
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 7:28 pm
Now Kate you really shouldn’t talk about the escorts that way, it might get back to them.
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 6:44 am
Yeah, this is getting very interesting!
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 7:24 pm
To Voice,
Yes you read that right. Kathleen
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 7:35 pm
Well, that takes Kate’s character issues to a whole new level. Not to mention Doug’s. It just shows what is really on the inside of them. Coldness, pure and simple! What kind of a sick twisted self-centered narcissistic person does that to a 78 year old woman? Disagreeing on the issue of abortion is absolutely not an excuse to release oneself from all common decency. Shame on you Kate! What if that was your grandmother that someone did that to? What if someone told your grandmother to learn to change her own tire or stay at home? What would you think of that persons character? You need to reevaluate your mindset
because you are sick.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 8:18 pm
Ah, yes. Let’s talk about common decency, shall we? Let’s talk about telliing lies about breast cancer, about how abortion wrecks relationships, about telling clients that their “baby” (that thing that’s about 0.8 inches in length) is going to look like road kill, about shouting that ALL women regret their abortion, and about the lies about the fabricated post abortion stress disorder. This sort of banter that is in the repertoire of the character known as J-dog is what is really pathological.
As far as age or gender, if you can’t take the heat, get out of kitchen. Quite your whining. You folks lack the stones or spine to stand up on your own. You find fault with everyone. If you’re upset, you resort to lawsuits, lies and ad hominems. You whine about your rights then bash the rights of others. You treat people like garbage then expect them to do for your because you’re an old broad. Do try to get over yourself. You’d never, ever help anyone on the prochoice side. Dont’ be so delusional. You’re vulnerable. You’re losing. You’re totally ineffective. I’m sure it makes you sad. But reality bites. Be a big girl. Grow up. Take responsibility for your actions. Real women do.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 8:38 pm
“Ah, yes. Let’s talk about common decency, shall we? Let’s talk about telliing lies about breast cancer, about how abortion wrecks relationships, about telling clients that their “baby” (that thing that’s about 0.8 inches in length) is going to look like road kill, about shouting that ALL women regret their abortion, and about the lies about the fabricated post abortion stress disorder.”
One to three are not lies but truths. Number four is a lie; some perverts don’t regret killing other people. Number five is true: we do deny fabricated post abortion stress disorder. We say that’s the truth.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 9:00 pm
“Let’s talk about telliing lies about breast cancer,”
tell that to the 300,000 women who have been diagnosed with breast cancer as a result of having an abortion.
“about how abortion wrecks relationships,”
Tell that to the thousands of women whose relationships were wrecked post abortion because they couldn’t deal with the guilt.
” about telling clients that their “baby” (that thing that’s about 0.8 inches in length) is going to look like road kill,”
The pictures do a good job of showing the truth of that matter. Do you think that we are so ignorant to think that all abortions are done on 5 week fetus’? You forget that we know the truth. Most abortions occur at 8 weeks. At that point the BABY has a heartbeat and a formed body. Guess what? If you smash it it will look like roadkill.
“about shouting that ALL women regret their abortion,and about the lies about the fabricated post abortion stress disorder”
Tell that to the thousands upon thousands who have gone through drug abuse, suicide attempts, mental torment and counseling as a result of regretting their abortions. Every time you say those things you undermine every single one of those women’s feelings. “Trust women!” Unless they don’t line up with Kate’s imaginary abortion is beautiful world.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 10:53 pm
“about telling clients that their “baby” (that thing that’s about 0.8 inches in length)”
So all abortions are performed at only at this stage of the pregnancy Kate? Again, take the pics to prove it. It’s easy enough.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 8:22 pm
And here’s a post script for all those who are basking in their sense of moral superiority:
Let’s recall the many times you have bashed the grandmothers, shamed them with your righteous indignation. I mean let’s respond to your question:
“What kind of a sick twisted self-centered narcissistic person does that to a 78 year old woman?”
And the answer is Joyce, Linebacker, Katie, Mark, Gerry, Joe, John.
Does that about cover it?
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 8:36 pm
Don’t try to turn the tables Kate. You were mean to a 78 year old woman. What anyone else does or does not do excuses that. They can stand out there all day long chanting whatever comes to their minds and it wouldn’t compare to the hatefulness that you displayed. You cannot turn it around and make it be about them Kate. NOTHING excuses what you said, at least not to anyone with compassion.
Remember what we have said all along…..it’s a slippery slope. If you decide that one group of people are less than, well, it’s only a matter of time until you decide that another group is less than. I think you have arrived. You are now at the “elderly are less than me” stage. Better watch out Kate. You aren’t that far off yourself. Give it another 10-15 years and it will be you that gets disregarded and ignored or maybe worse. You are creating the perfect environment to insure your own neglect, abuse and demise as an elderly woman.
Trust women! All of them that is except elderly pro-life women who don’t agree with Kate. Those ones are scum of the earth to be stomped on at will. Nice going Kate!
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 8:41 pm
Ah, v, you forget. Kate has two beautiful and independent daughters. They will probably take care of her no matter what. Let’s hope.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 8:43 pm
Oh I forgot. What about their partners?
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 8:47 pm
And didn’t you promise a while back, Kate, that you would no longer get personal? ” Linebacker.” Careful, I might have to start up.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 9:04 pm
I do not expect to be taken care of by either of my daughters. That’s a rather archaic mindset. Dunkle, darling, you are dating yourself. People don’t have children with the expectation that they will care for them in their old age, do they? Is that what you expect? How pedestrian. I didn’t realize that prolifers have children so they can create slaves for their old age. Is that what this movement is all about?
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 10:57 pm
“I didn’t realize that prolifers have children so they can create slaves for their old age. Is that what this movement is all about?”
The only thing “pedestrian” and “shocking” is that you are a college professor.
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 8:42 am
However, “Dunkle, darling, you are dating yourself.” Now I’ll forgive you anything.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 8:50 pm
I think it is ironic that the title of this article is about crossing a line. Pat discussed pro-lifers crossing lines by doing things that are not socially acceptable. Kate has proven very well that pro-choice advocates cross lines of what is socially acceptable as well. What’s worse? Showing kids graphic pictures or being nasty to the elderly? Thanks Kate for that educational lesson in how nasty abortion advocates can be. Kudos!
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 9:00 pm
“Don’t try to turn the tables Kate. You were mean to a 78 year old woman. What anyone else does or does not do excuses that.”
What we have here is: Simply finely-honed batshittery.
If we humans are to show compassion for the elderly, why not begin with all the grandmothers you dump on. Don’t give any one on this blog that crap about turning tables. YOU are turning tables, you simpleton. You harass grandmothers all the time with impunity. Dear Mommy Mondak has the embarassing situation to have her dumpy van disappoint her. Then Joycee provides no help in her super coupe. All she can do is dish out ignorant taunts to escorts and tell fables to the children on the street.
You’d best be careful about your proclamations because like most of your whackadoodle stories, it’s obvious to disinterested outsiders that you all are a bunch of cranky loons.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 9:14 pm
But Kate…..there are two sides to every story. I’m sure that the whackadoodle stories about you jumping up and down in the road and clapping when women go into the clinic are false, aren’t they? Or the profanity? Is that false? The hateful looks? The middle fingers strategically pointed ? Hmm? So, lets see….all the pro-lifers are bizarre animals while you are Ms. Mary Poppins being all socially appropriate. Let me think about that for a minute……hmmm….nope….sorry…don’t buy it! I believe you are a mean hateful nasty cold woman with something to prove to no one but yourself and you don’t care who dies in the process…or which 78 year old woman you have to spit on to get the job done. You really do need help Kate.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 11:01 pm
So doing the exact same thing as those you accuse is the way you handle life Kate? Sinking to the same level as those you accuse. I don’t agree with lifers screaming and acting a fool, mainly because it doesn’t work and only hurts the cause, just like your childish tantrums, like the comment above, hurt your credibility. If you have done the things voice mentioned, and I have no idea and certainly wouldn’t believe it just because you are a choicer, then you are no better than those you oppose. Do you deny it?
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 6:36 am
Kate Ranieri of Saucon Valley, Guess there is just no pleasing you.
You make remarks about the new cars people drive, now you are making fun of my vintage car, which by the way is all I can afford. It serves me well. So should we be well off as you are or poor as I am. Never thought you would look down on the poor folk!!!!
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 10:01 pm
Kate, you’ve called voice a simpleton, and you always manage to say something about your intelligence in one way or the other. Is it because you are insecure? And you never took me up on my challenge for you to produce the “real” pictures to shut us barbarians up.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 11:38 pm
I have never, ever done that, nor would I. But you just did here to Kathleen and voice. Again, it seems to be your goal to accuse us and then prove your own guilt.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 11:54 pm
“And here’s a post script for all those who are basking in their sense of moral superiority:
Let’s recall the many times you have bashed the grandmothers, shamed them with your righteous indignation. I mean let’s respond to your question:
“What kind of a sick twisted self-centered narcissistic person does that to a 78 year old woman?”
And the answer is Joyce, Linebacker, Katie, Mark, Gerry, Joe, John.
Does that about cover it?”
No. You left off Kate.
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 5:08 am
Ouch!
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 10:13 am
Kate, you forgot, Doug, Ellen, Sharon, Bill, Lucy, bunny, Jim, Matt, Jesse, Mark, Maria, Diane, Now that covers most of it, and of course YOU. Hope I didn’t leave anyone out, wouldn’t want to have hurt feelings.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 9:34 pm
It is so obvious how vulnerable you feel as a minority, fringe group. When one of your own feels slighted, your cohorts bustle round with personal attacks, the very attacks that you feign as immoral, selfish and heartless. When a revelation demonstrates a defect in the fabric of your self-presentation, you not only project that flaw onto someone else, you fail miserably to account for your own lacking because it diminishes the presumed importance of your little after-school mom activities.
I guess reality is a heartless bitch.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 9:36 pm
I don’t think her name is “reality.”
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 9:56 pm
True that her name may not be reality. But you can recognize the heartless bith with her arrogance, her string of rosary beads, her silly canvas aprons, her juvenile responses, her mean-spirited comments to innocent women, her proclamations of righteous anger, her nasty comments to female escorts who are in their 80s plus (all the while pissing about disrespect to their 78 y.o. Mondak). Yep, that’s who we’re dealing with.
Do as I say. Not as I do. I know reality is a heartless bitch because I see them in the street all the time.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 10:09 pm
Now come on Kate, 80+ year old clinic escorts? Someone please tell me she’s lying? That mental image is almost humorous. An 80+ year old is going to protect the women going in for an abortion from the 78 year old and her rosary beads? Yeah…I’m sure that happens daily.
I suppose you are right. All those “nasty” comments of “please don’t kill your baby” makes one a heartless bitch and like I said, the one who tells the elderly woman to change her own tire or go home is Mary Poppins. Sure Kate. O.k.
You have a lot of problems Kate. The 78 year old lady with the rosary beads is not one of them. The fact that my Rottweiler has more compassion than you is your largest one.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 11:04 pm
And I see one on this blog who behaves just the same. I haven’t seen them. I see you Kate. Calm down Kate, you are frothing.
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 6:18 pm
“I guess reality is a heartless bitch. I don’t think her name is ‘reality.’ ”
Ouch again. How can Kate stand it?
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 11:57 pm
Frothing.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 11:21 pm
If there was only some way I could be the virtual pied piper, I’d draw out all the trolls who are obviously missing from the commentary or when I’m the subject beyond their intellectual grasp.
As it stands, this current post has fueled the fires of the ogres who have set their sights on their target. While I can surely withstand the arrows of their myopic hatred, it’s obvious that their larded fit of fury will soon wither like a cheap fat stick struck with little effort. And like a sour note plucked from the heart of a tart donning a crucifix, her comments fail to nourish the soul.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 11:41 pm
Oh PUH-LEESE Kate. How long did it take you to come up with that pointless drivel meant to silence the ignorant masses?
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 5:23 am
” . . . it’s obvious that their larded fit of fury will soon wither like a cheap fat stick struck with little effort. And like a sour note plucked from the heart of a tart donning a crucifix . . .”!
Holy smokes, Kate! Is that what you “education” people think something literate looks like?
Say something like that again and you’ll wrest the “silly trophy” away from Chuckles.
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 8:51 am
I think the “silly trophy” walked itself over to her after that display. My goodness! That sounded like a cross between something out of a Greek Mythology book and a Shakespeare play.
Actually this would have fit better:
“Thou tart who doth stand with flaming arrows of truth which pierceth my soul and causeth me to wail with fury lest I collapse under the heaviness. I will sing “Whoa is me” while swimming in the depths of my poor fortune. “
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 1:17 pm
Dang, that was good…
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 1:18 pm
THAT WAS NUNYA! I will not go quietly into that dark night!!!
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 6:53 am
Well, well, well. Good morning, folks! Are we having fun yet? I guess all of you folks know each other pretty well, sounds like you go way back.
So, I guess you folks have never gotten together for a “common ground” meeting, huh? It’s interesting watching what is going on here (or, rather, up there), I can feel the venom and it’s very sad. And the fact is that the “truth” is always somewhere in the middle of any argument. Now, kids, let’s try to have a good, fact based discussion today, okay??
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 10:23 pm
Well Pat, that is exactly what we do until Kate shows up, then every single time it gets nasty. I have never met the woman, but her comments, which start out rational enough, usually progress to frothing, gnashing, and name calling, conjuring up images of every cartoon witch I have ever seen. I am not trying to be nasty myself, it just does. This has nothing to do with her politics. I don’t have this issue with anyone else here. Have you never noticed the nosedive this blog takes every time she shows up? It is absolutely ludicrous that she accuses people on the street of bad behavior.
LikeLike
September 21, 2011 at 9:19 am
It’s called antagonizing. We say the sky is blue and she pops up with, “Oh hell no, the sky is pink and purple polka dot with an orange hue and green swirls. You must be stupid idiots for not realizing that. Here is a study by the Blithering Brothers that confirms what I am saying. I’m a college professor so I know these things You stupid idiot pro-lifers. You are all going into my documentary”
It just goes downhill from there.
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 7:21 am
Fact-based discussion about the use of images and words that cross the line—hmmm. Yes, let’s try it, kiddos.
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 12:29 pm
But Kate, doesn’t that comment make you a hypocrite since comment number 1 on this article was written by you where you lied about an elderly woman and then later stated that you didn’t really hear her say it? Your character is showing again. You might want to cover it up. It’s embarrassing.
“I agree that what this splinter group has done crosses the line, just like the protester who told young, innocent children biking on street north of the clinic that they murder babies inside there. Just what every mother wants her children to hear. Send them out to play and some nasty broad wants to shame some escorts at the expense of the children. She has no shame.”
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 3:02 pm
In Comment #1, I was talking about Joyce. And, thankfully, Doug confirmed her telling young innocent girls riding their bikes that they kill babies in there [the clinic]. So, i’m not sure where you went awry with your logic and sense of the evident…..
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 10:11 pm
“Sense of the evident”…oh never mind.
Kate, where did these girls come from, just out of curiosity? Did they move to the neighborhood this week, or have they lived there awhile, and what were their ages, in your best guestimate? This is the former reporter in me, wanting actual facts before making a determination.
LikeLike
September 21, 2011 at 9:22 am
A reporter? Well well well…we need one of those to slink on down to Allentown Pa. and get the real facts about what goes on outside that clinic. I get the feeling that we don’t hear the whole story. Interested?
LikeLike
September 22, 2011 at 12:03 am
I said “former” voice.
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 7:35 am
More from researchers . . .
According to research by Halfmann and Young (2010), only those who were already concerned with antiabortion movements were persuaded with the grotesque images. Even participants who watched the much-touted Silent Scream and initially declined their abortion support, eventually supported abortion rights. They also found that while graphic imagery failed to recruit new activists, it could motivate the committed to act.
What I found particularly intriguing was how Halfmann and Young’s research applies to the local protesters. They [researchers] claim that grotesque “images can also be used as weapons: to shock, harass, discomfort, and stigmatize opponents without necessarily changing their minds” (p. 2). Three protesters, in particular, demonstrate their prurient desire to provoke with graphic imagery. In their pamphlets, banners and signs, they capitalize on the grotesque to disorient women and their companions through images of horror of death and dismemberment, of distorted bodies, and of human anomalies. Regardless of the egregious misrepresentations they tout, their grotesque imagery aids them in their activism to compel all to see how they view abortion as a threat to their moral order, how abortion shows a world gone horribly wrong. “It is a moment in which the real world appears monstrous” (p. 3). But it is the protesters, using these images, who appear monstrous, their imagery producing intense responses of disgust, repulsion, and fear.
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 8:49 am
I warned you, Kate. Now you got the trophy.
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 8:57 am
“Regardless of the egregious misrepresentations they tout, their grotesque imagery aids them in their activism to compel all to see how they view abortion as a threat to their moral order, ”
Sorry Kate but abortion is not a threat to our ‘moral” order. It is a threat to the baby that’s about too get mutilated. Try again!
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 9:49 am
So it’s not a moral issue for you?
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 10:28 am
Why try and twist words Kate?
Of course it’s a moral issue but that doesn’t mean it “threatens our moral order.”
“their imagery producing intense responses of disgust, repulsion, and fear.”
Good! That’s exactly what should happen when someone sees a mutilated baby that was INTENTIONALLY mutilated for money. It should cause them disgust, repulsion, and fear. As a matter of fact any person with any kind of human compassion whatsoever would look at that and be repulsed. But then there are those who look at them and continue to chant that it’s their right to do it. What should repulse you Kate is that you are one of them,
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 10:51 am
I’m not twisting your words as much as you’re failing to be succinct. How can you deny that abortion doesn’t threaten your moral order? For those who believe that women make moral decisions about pregnancy and abortion, their sense of moral order cries for them to think about what is right for their lives and the lives of their family. Abortion doesn’t threaten their moral order but it certainly does seem to threaten your sense about right and wrong in your moral world.
As I’ve said before and in keeping with others who believe abortion can be a compassionate and good decision, morality is contextual. Weighing the options, it is often the best solution for the circumstances. You don’t believe that and that’s fine. But what I do find immoral are those who demand the right to impose their worldview, their religion, their sense of morality on others.
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 12:30 pm
“abortion can be a compassionate and good decision”
For everyone except the dead baby. No compassion left for it huh? All compassioned out?
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 10:30 pm
“egregious misrepresentations”
All you have to do is present the “real” pictures Kate. If you won’t do that we are left to assume the pictures are true, and therefore YOU the egregious misrepresentation.
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 9:48 am
Sticking to the facts and , here’s a bit more food for thought for those who fetishize the fetus and symbolically annihilate the woman:
These images are a mixture of anxiety and spiritual superiority and are attempts to terrify and disorient. Protesters use imagery to “subdue the demonic by invoking it in the representational imagery of social protest. The horror targeted is meant to be overcome by making the viewer partake in it or experience it” (.p. 3).
At abortion clinics and on traveling trucks, anti abortion activists use the imagery of a mutilated fetus to intentionally show the public what abortion is all about. The acontextualized imagery of Malachi, a dismembered and mutilated fetus, offers only an image. The image never tells the whole story, never offers evidence of accuracy and never offers statistics that tell the public about the fact that 99% of abortions are completed in the first trimester where the fetus is barely recognizable.
“Activists can also use grotesque images to simplify issues. Such images usually do not articulate an explicit argument. Instead, they condense a complicated moral message” (p. 5) and “rely on these types of images to privilege gut reactions and to simply the distinction between right and wrong, while passing over how to go about . . . balancing the rights of fetuses and women, or addressing fetal abnormalities or pregnancies resulting from incest” (p. 6). In fact, quantitatively speaking, the overwhelming concern of anti abortion activists is the fetus.
Activists who work to capture and render this terrifying power for readers or viewers draw themselves close to it. The attraction of the grotesque, the seduction of the monstrous, threatens to impeach their good motives. They may be viewed as having an unwholesome, voyeuristic attraction to the images they promulgate. Users of grotesque images are often accused of indecency as they deliver ‘obscene’ images that children or ‘good’ people should not see. This taint of the grotesque not only threatens activists, but also those they seek to aid.
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 10:19 am
No Kate, you and Mr. whoever wrote that study are missing the point. You are complicating a simple thing. Our reasons for using the pictures can be summed up in one sentence….and FYI it works.
We use the photos of dead babies because many people don’t realize the reality of what abortion is and the pictures show them the truth.
That’s all!
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 10:45 am
Well, statistically speaking they don’t work. One Saturday morning protester drags a large image of a 21 week fetus and pushes it in the face of clients, to absolutely no impact of their decision about abortion. None. The poster only makes him (and others) look like monsters who want to threaten women.
And when we more carefully consider the iconic Malachi, the poster boy for the prolife industry, we see a symbol of all this is wrong with their ethics and morality. The concept of misrepresentation is lost on them. So one might ask why not, instead, show images of the 5-12 week fetus? While these earlier images are used in some instances, the answer is that it’s simply not macabre enough. The atomized 8 week fetus simply looks like bloody tissue. You don’t get the same sensationalization as you do with a 21 week fetus. And it’s even better when digital enhancements are used to put in details where there are none.
As far as not realizing the reality of abortion, you obviously have a low degree of respect for the intellectual capabilities of others, especially in this online era where images, truthful and deceptive, are readily available.
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 11:04 am
“Well, statistically speaking they don’t work.”
Statistics don’t mean that much to the children walking around alive today that would have been dead if someone had not shown their mother the pictures.
” So one might ask why not, instead, show images of the 5-12 week fetus?”
Many people do. Malachi is just one of many that are used.
“As far as not realizing the reality of abortion, you obviously have a low degree of respect for the intellectual capabilities of others, especially in this online era where images, truthful and deceptive, are readily available.”
It has very little do with intellectual capabilities. People tend to dismiss what they don’t want to think about. So a woman contemplating abortion will not normally think about the way the fetus will look post abortion. She will dismiss that image from her mind as do abortion advocates. The pictures are a reminder of what they are really going into that building to do. In an abortion a human dies. That needs to be looked at for what it is and faced head on. If you are planning to kill something then the least you can do for it is admit what you are doing. The pictures prevent people from playing mind games with themselves. And in a few cases prevent women from being victims of pro-choice propaganda. Like your “barely recognizable as a fetus” comment earlier. You know full well that most abortions are done at around 8 weeks and that an 8 week fetus is recognizable. You just threw that little bone of propaganda out there hoping someone would pick it up and believe it. The pictures make sure that women know the truth. I wish they would use more 8-18 week pictures since those are closer to when the abortions are really being done and save Malachi for Drs. Boyd and Carhart since they kill Malachi’s everyday.
But the real story is that abortion kills babies at different gestational ages and since we are fighting against abortion then all gestational age photos are appropriate.
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 11:12 pm
“The horror targeted is meant to be overcome by making the viewer partake in it or experience it”
Now there’s an interesting concept. I wonder what would happen if they just started letting women watch the abortion before their own? Would these women see it as commonplace, or run screaming from the clinics? Or what about just televising abortions, products of conception and all, the way they do other surgeries. People facing surgery look up pictures and videos of that surgery all the time. Then the “truth” would be out there to shut up the lifers once and for all, right? Now that I think about it, I wonder why abortion, just another surgery like a mastectomy, is kept so secret from the general public?
“Activists who work to capture and render this terrifying power for readers or viewers draw themselves close to it. The attraction of the grotesque, the seduction of the monstrous, threatens to impeach their good motives. They may be viewed as having an unwholesome, voyeuristic attraction to the images they promulgate. Users of grotesque images are often accused of indecency as they deliver ‘obscene’ images that children or ‘good’ people should not see. This taint of the grotesque not only threatens activists, but also those they seek to aid.”
Sadly, this is true. If someone would just let the women in to watch the abortion before theirs, it would clear up all the confusion and let all the lifers off the hook. As long as a single random woman responds to those signs by not killing her fetus, those signs, which are a necessary evil, will stay in use. That is unless Pat or Kate produce the “real” pictures.
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 11:04 am
The story about the elderly self-proclaimed “pro-lifer” who hoped to get help from a “pro-choicer” for her flat tire is interesting, in that she behaved as though she had just stepped away from a play in which she had a part and expected someone to deal with her as a human being.
One would normally expect in such a situation that one has not been play-acting and that one therefore should not expect compassionate treatment from those whom one has been reviling.
I think it argues for her lack of commitment to the cause that she reverted to a more convivial persona rather than think, “My tire’s flat; I’m not gonna get help from any of these f*kers.”
On the other hand, me mum, who considered herself “pro-life” got dissed by the first group she protested with, after she went across the street to the counter-protestors and commented, “You must really be dedicated, to be out here in the rain.” I’ve never met a pro-choicer who got yelled at by his own side for talking to people on the other side of the street and the issue.
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 12:09 pm
“expected someone to deal with her as a human being”
Bingo! She assumed that by virtue of them being human they would act human and help an elderly woman with a flat tire. Unfortunately, what she discovered is that some humans neither act human or have compassion for others, that is unless you call helping someone kill their offspring compassionate.
“I think it argues for her lack of commitment to the cause”
No it argues that in her innocence she gave a couple of cold heartless abortion advocates way too much credit in assuming they would act humane.
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 12:52 pm
OMG, you still on the subject of the flat tire? you’d think it was a major event instead of a minor inconvenience.
mountains out a mole hill
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 1:09 pm
Its not a mole hill Kate. Here’s why.
You lied about an elderly woman in order to hurt her character (comment #1)
You were mean and cruel to an elderly woman.
You got all huffy when more women called you on it.
You refused to apologize to her both for lying and being cruel.
You turned the tables, got defensive and made it about everything EXCEPT your need to apologize.
You demand that you have compassion for women.
This proves that the only women you have compassion for are those who agree with you.
You should take your “Trust Women” sign down because it is a lie. Not only do you not trust women, you don’t even respect them.
That makes it a mountain.
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 2:20 pm
You made a mountain out of a molehill and lied about it….
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 2:58 pm
I lied? Sure I did Kate! Sure I did! Anyone with a second grade education that can read can see who lied, who was mean, and who was nasty. You are some more piece of work? Exactly how does a person get to be as manipulative as you are? Born that way? Raised by Satan himself? I mean really, how does that happen?
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 1:36 pm
And before you collapse, Kate, I will respond, for the fourth time, to the accusation that in our posters we do not depict the actual size of the young person you’re helping to kill: one does talk in a normal voice to the deaf, and one does not show snapshots to the blind.
And by the way, Chuckles brought up again that flat tire story.
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 2:17 pm
two wrongs don’t make one right
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 11:18 pm
“On the other hand, me mum, who considered herself “pro-life” got dissed by the first group she protested with, after she went across the street to the counter-protestors and commented, “You must really be dedicated, to be out here in the rain.” I’ve never met a pro-choicer who got yelled at by his own side for talking to people on the other side of the street and the issue.”
You trying to steal the “prove the other side’s point” standing from Kate, Chuck?
LikeLike