In a recent etiquette advice column, Judith Martin was asked if it was polite to ask how a person lost his hand. Her response was an emphatic “It would be hideously impolite.” She explained that she failed to see what business of Mr. Rude it could be, and hoped that he did not go around asking to peek at other people’s medical records.
In a civil society, there are social customs that distinguish private from public. Scars on one’s face, a missing thumb or a burned arm are visible to the general public. How these effects happened to us remains private information. We also have social customs designed to enlighten the uninformed against remarks that pigeonhole individuals with racially insensitive intentions. For example, it is completely inexcusable, as a white person and a stranger, to assume that every person with mocha brown skin is African American. It demonstrates racial insensitivity and a clear lack of civility. Social customs also discriminate between deviance and conformity according to context. Yelling “fire” in a theater would be considered a deviant act while calling a volunteer at an abortion clinic a murderer would be considered ignorant, hateful and appallingly rude but with the legal limits of the law. As P.M. Forni wrote in Choosing Civility, most of us would agree that thoughtful behavior and common decency are in short supply, particularly in the last decade.
This lack of civility is distressingly apparent amongst the anti abortion tribes who haunt the perimeters of abortion clinics. Driven by the belief of their moral superiority, these trolls are prolific in damnation, degraded by their racial insensitivities, corrupted by their aggressive religious bigotry and homophobia.
These self-proclaimed pro-life warriors are the antithesis of civility even though they would likely counter that it is the entire world who is uncivil. Ms. Martin would likely faint at their dreadfully loutish comments directed toward innocent women. In fact, as a social encounter, the anti abortion activists normalize their identity while they stigmatize the woman entering an abortion clinic and stigmatize the volunteers and clinic staff, thereby marking everyone (but themselves) as morally flawed. Beginning to see a pathology here?
For example, one protester named Katie said to a young Hispanic woman, a woman with whom she has no prior contact and no permission to address, “If you are going in for an abortion, please don’t. They’ll cut you up really bad.” Or to a young man, this vulgar protester said, “The sex was great. Now do the right thing and take care of her and the baby.” The presumptuousness was astounding. This off assumed that the male companion was the sperm donor and that he was shirking his responsibility. In truth there are many occasions when the companion is a brother or friend who accompanies her to the appointment. Further, some women choose to abort regardless of what the men want. But facts and truth seldom bother the protesters. In fact, they have so much respect for the truth they seldom use it.
From the creep-factor corner, comes a deeply disgusting comment from the lecherous old man named Don who lurked around the clinic doorway like the godfather of Keats Street. He watched as a young woman, sporting a snug, cleavage-revealing camisole, walked into the clinic. This horny old pervert blurted out “Looks like you’re all set up for breastfeeding.” I could just hear Ms. Manners gasping in disbelief and saying “How appalling.”
Several years back, one of the clinic’s employees was dropped off at the clinic door. She quickly opened the car door and went inside but not before the venomous Gerry started yelling at her and then took a shot at her two innocent, wide-eyed children sitting in their car seats in the back. Aimed right at the little one closest to him, he lowered his face to the child’s level and yelled “Your mommy is a baby killer.” So much for loving children.
But as inexcusable as these examples are, they pale in comparison to the grossly invasive demands from judges and lawyers who subpoena women’s medical records during the discovery phase of frivolous lawsuits. Worse yet are the uncivil, immoral legislative actions that essentially reduce women to second class citizens by depriving them of reasonable access to abortion care and by subjecting them to demeaning wait periods, unsolicited counseling using state-mandated misinformation and forced ultrasounds. There is no area in healthcare where legislators regard women as incapable of making decisions for themselves. Likewise, there is no area in healthcare where legislators regard doctors as incapable of making sound medical decisions with their patients.
In fact, there is no area in healthcare where it would be considered remotely acceptable to be rude to female patients except outside abortion clinics. There, self-proclaimed Christian perverts attempt to talk to strangers about the content of their uterus, their breasts, or their sex partners. There, depraved men and women demand their free speech rights to tell a mother that it was God’s will that her raped daughter got pregnant and that she has no right to abort the pregnancy. It’s therefore all the more unfortunate that American citizens are ignorant of, or hostile to, our social customs when visiting perimeters of healthcare clinics that provide abortion care and when, as Ms. Manners might say, are hideously impolite to innocent strangers.

June 14, 2012 at 4:41 am
Actually it is hideously inappropriate to pile lie upon lie in an attempt to bury any attempt to peruse beneath a pile of trash. Random example: “some women choose to abort regardless of what the men want.”
Anyone without blinders near a mill will see it is the men who choose to abort regardless of what the women want.
LikeLike
June 14, 2012 at 2:31 pm
How can men abort?
LikeLike
June 14, 2012 at 3:58 pm
They drag, push, cajole, threaten — lots of ways, AB.
LikeLike
June 15, 2012 at 10:43 am
You’re wrong. Men don’t get pregnant. Therefore, they don’t choose to abort.
LikeLike
June 14, 2012 at 4:56 pm
The term is French, literally translated to “mouth amuser”. Wondered what your handle meant!
LikeLike
June 14, 2012 at 7:35 pm
?
LikeLike
June 15, 2012 at 5:48 am
In upscale dining, an amuse bouche is a gift from the chef, usually a whimsical bite. In common parlance it is used as a synonym for an amusement or whimsy
LikeLike
June 15, 2012 at 7:44 am
AB, are you Rog? Rog does stuff like this.
LikeLike
June 15, 2012 at 11:03 am
What the hell is AmuseBouche talking about?
LikeLike
June 15, 2012 at 11:02 am
Are you saying, John, that you know that it is the men who are pushing the women to abort? That all women are in effect being forced to abort by the man involved?
LikeLike
June 15, 2012 at 11:59 am
I don’t know but I think that from what I’ve observed, and I’ve been around a long time. And not all, but most.
LikeLike
June 16, 2012 at 4:18 pm
pat, you know that i generally dismiss anything that dunkle says.
i haven’t responded to him in over a year on this board, and i have no intentions of doing so anytime soon.
but he does have a point about the influence that man have on a woman seeking an abortion.
my current roomie was coerced into an abortion when she was in high school by her father, and when she and i met, the same thing was going on.
my last roommate was coerced into an abortion that she didn’t want by her husband.
of course dunkle didn’t admit that most choicers consider coerced abortions to be anti-choice. but in his defense, i seriously doubt that he is capable of understanding the concept.
in a past thread, i was speaking of those that i have met that were coerced into abortions and chuckles pointed out that so many clinics aren’t equipped to deal with so many of the life situations that those seeking abortions face.
this issue isn’t as simple as those on either side of the fence wants to admit.
i really wish that more people would remember that it is people that matter and that is the only reason that our “cause” matters.
LikeLike
June 14, 2012 at 5:19 am
Dear Readers,
I want to provide an example of the hideously inapppriate:
Gloria Steinem spoke at a Women’s Leadership Conference at Cedar Crest College recently. In protest to her presence, to feminism and, of course, to abortion, this rag tag bunch re-purposed their abortion clinic signs in a pitiful display, all captured and narrated for your viewing pleasure.
LikeLike
June 15, 2012 at 11:04 am
Bad manners but totally legal….
LikeLike
June 16, 2012 at 4:32 am
Nah, too low key to be bad manners. Wanna see those hang around with me. Low key but devastatingly accurate –“feminists” promoting a policy that results in the murders of more girls than boys!
LikeLike
June 14, 2012 at 5:38 am
Kurt Vonnegut famously said he would trade 10% of the love in the world for a 100% increase in courtesy. The performances of anti-choicers outside clinics would likely not be tolerated by the public at large in any other setting. The irony of the local bozos “protesting” the Steinham event is lost on them: she is inside, being honored and applauded for the good she has done for women and men; they are literally and figuratively outside, displaying their usual horrid graphics and being, at best, ignored. Ah, martyrdom, sure they’ll all be worshiped as saints after they (finally) shed their mortal coil.
LikeLike
June 14, 2012 at 8:15 am
Marty,
Worshiped as saints?? Funny you say that! That’s what Christ calls ALL of us to do – strive to be saints. You pro-deathers are good at being saints. That’s what we strive to be, just like you.
Unlike Gloria, real saints (and those striving to be one) will get their applause in Heaven.
LikeLike
June 14, 2012 at 2:32 pm
Prodeathers good at being saints? Surely you jest?
LikeLike
June 14, 2012 at 7:06 pm
Pitiful yet so predictable – the pro-baby killers are so insecure you changed my post to totally distort it’s meaning. I guess it’s because if the pro-death side didn’t lie and distort truth, you’d have nothing to hang your hat on. The original post read: “Worshiped as saints? Funny you say that! That’s what Christ calls ALL of us to do – strive to be saints. YOU PRO-DEATHERS SHOULD TRY IT FOR A CHANGE OF PACE.”
And then it finishes with the Unlike Gloria, real saints ( and those striving to be) will get their applause in Heaven.
Kind’ve gives it a totally different meaning now doesn’t it?
Shame, shame. Kate or Pat you’re nose is growing.
LikeLike
June 15, 2012 at 5:39 am
I find it ironic that the post beginning with “pitiful yet so predictable” is a note about being saintly yet is full of condemnation, lies about people being proactively baby killers and for death and shaming.
Further, based on the transparency of the author, I’d opine that the author is from the local antiabortion cartel that stalks the Lehigh Valley.
As such, it is another point of irony that Anonymous projects lies on to others.
You see many of the antis abortion folks, (like Joyce, Mary, Gerry, Joe)
• Use religion to harass and stigmatize women or
• Demonize medical professionals with pseudoscience (or frivolous lawsuits) or
• Flaunt grotesque images and use violent language
Unlike compassionate advocacy based on integrity, honesty and human dignity, far too many of these self-proclaimed Christians’ war-like efforts are far too often more like an attack against Innocent non-combatants called women.
Fortunately, the saints in abortion clinics continue their valiant work to show compassion, integrity, honesty and human dignity to women regardless of their choices to end or continue their pregnancies.
LikeLike
June 15, 2012 at 11:07 am
Wait a second here. As I have said in the past – and John will back me up – I do not administer this page. Furthermore, if I did, I would never engage in any form of censorship. As far as I am concerned, you can say whatever you want. Indeed, it makes these pages more entertaining!!
LikeLike
June 15, 2012 at 12:02 pm
I don’t mind anyone calling herself anything she wants, except for “anonymous.” So many of them I can’t tell who’s talking. However, I think that anonymous, Pat, was blaming another, not this blog, for distorting what she said.
LikeLike
June 14, 2012 at 11:14 am
Self-proclaimed “pro-lifers” say they strive to be saints. It is very curious how they define saintliness to fit their peculiarities.
JD, the elderly man who writes here doesn’t care for animals, much less children; his only pet is a barn cat, not even allowed in his house. His interest in the general welfare of children diminishes, as he himself has admitted, in inverse relation to their distance from his house. He is no more interested in child abuse happening a mile from his house than he is in it happening across the country. Like the rest of them, his interest is in defending a concept– an imaginary child (always a female in his case), fully cognizant, at risk for getting “her arms and legs pulled off.” His hobby is to repeat this imagery ad infinitum in hopes of burning it into the public consciousness, employing the Big Lie technique well known to historians of WWII.
As with him, so with his ilk– they need to hate abortion, even if it means not loving children. They cannot bring themselves to look at the needs of children, but can only focus on the fearsomeness of Death. They are the very “pro-death” people they hate.
The day he sacrifices his reputation as a self-proclaimed “pro-life” warrior to raise even one child he does not want to (and his wife, not he, cared daily for their autistic child) is the day I will go to Hell.
LikeLike
June 14, 2012 at 12:05 pm
As they say, the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about. My responses in brackets:
JD, the elderly man who writes here doesn’t care for animals, much less children; [I love animals. I love children much more.]
his only pet is a barn cat, not even allowed in his house. [Meadow died. My wife is allergic.]
His interest in the general welfare of children diminishes, as he himself has admitted, in inverse relation to their distance from his house. [I didn’t “admit” anything. I just stated the obvious.]
He is no more interested in child abuse happening a mile from his house than he is in it happening across the country. [Are you kidding? I protest child killing; Chuck supports it.]
Like the rest of them, his interest is in defending a concept– an imaginary child (always a female in his case), fully cognizant, at risk for getting “her arms and legs pulled off.” [If that is a concept, Chuckles is a concept.]
His hobby is to repeat this imagery ad infinitum in hopes of burning it into the public consciousness, employing the Big Lie technique well known to historians of WWII. [?]
As with him, so with his ilk– they need to hate abortion, even if it means not loving children. [Crazy — abortion is child-killing!]
They cannot bring themselves to look at the needs of children, but can only focus on the fearsomeness of Death. [Their first need is to stay alive.]
They are the very “pro-death” people they hate. [Do you mean,”They are very pro-death people. They hate” or “They hate us very pro-death people.”
The day he sacrifices his reputation as a self-proclaimed “pro-life” warrior to raise even one child he does not want to (and his wife, not he, cared daily for their autistic child) is the day I will go to Hell. [Rog, I need you. What’s that other sound you make besides jajajajajajajajaja?]
warrior to raise even one child he does not want to (and his wife, not he, cared daily for their autistic child) is the day I will go to Hell.
LikeLike
June 14, 2012 at 12:20 pm
If you’re explaining, you’re losing….
LikeLike
June 14, 2012 at 1:46 pm
The Observer, Only in your eyes!
LikeLike
June 15, 2012 at 4:54 am
Oops, I misread this one: “They are the very “pro-death” people they hate” — missed “the very.” But I don’t hate pro-death people! Some I like (Bill Baird, Pat, Kate, Chuckles himself) and one I love. But I guess you could extend this: all of us prolifers outside of prison and therefore paying taxes that help kill the young are pro-death. And if we do hate prodeath people we might have to start with ourselves.
LikeLike
June 15, 2012 at 5:01 am
Oops again, I’m thinking now and realize just how many pro-deathers I’ve liked — Bill, Matt, Sharon, Pastor Bahmann, Ed Koch.
LikeLike
June 14, 2012 at 1:43 pm
Chuck, If you get a chance let me know how HOT it really is there?
LikeLike
June 14, 2012 at 3:12 pm
“Why, this is Hell, nor am I out of it.”
–Mephistopheles’ reply when Faust asked to see Hell.
Which is a way of saying that so-called “pro-lifers” fail completely to recognize the needs of real children. That old man refuses to learn anything about why feral children exist and why they are forever prevented from leading a normal life. For them it is far better that child be subjected to a horrible life of suffering, ended with an agonizing death, than a woman have the power to determine for herself how to care for the children she chooses to have.
It is their battle against their own death that they fight, not the battle for children to be nurtured. They want to be seen as heroes, but they want to do it on the cheap.
LikeLike
June 14, 2012 at 4:02 pm
Is Chuck on feral children again. I think that’s what I saw when I glanced. I can’t take it. Next he’ll be back on parking lot dogs.
LikeLike
June 14, 2012 at 1:38 pm
According to Saint Bernard it is the person who keeps silent and says nothing when things go wrong who is really humble. It is very virtuous, he says, to keep silent when people are talking about our true faults; but more perfect when we are slighted or accused without having committed any fault or sin. And though it is virtuous indeed to bear this in silence, it is more perfect still to want to be despised and thought mad and good-for-nothing, and to go on, as our Lord Jesus Christ did, wholeheartedly loving those who despise us.
LikeLike
June 14, 2012 at 1:46 pm
So why not remain silent?
LikeLike
June 14, 2012 at 4:57 pm
What is your religious order Sr. Margaret?
LikeLike
June 14, 2012 at 7:37 pm
Sr. Mary Margaret, doops.
LikeLike
June 14, 2012 at 9:00 pm
Who said I was religious?
LikeLike
June 15, 2012 at 10:58 am
You a member of the LCWR?
LikeLike
June 16, 2012 at 5:06 pm
ARE you a woman religious?
my spiritual adviser is a nun and the insight she offers me has value that words can’t convey.
LikeLike
June 16, 2012 at 7:51 pm
She a member of the LCWR, Rog?
LikeLike
June 15, 2012 at 5:41 am
Early Morning Buddhist Inspiration
“No one saves us but ourselves. No one can and no one may. We ourselves must walk the path.”
~The Buddha
LikeLike
June 15, 2012 at 7:48 am
Typical Buddha — fat, sedentary, eyes closed. Contrast him with St. Francis — emaciated, wide-eyed, startled.
LikeLike
June 15, 2012 at 8:13 am
Contrast St. Francis with St. Joan of Arc—remarkably intelligent, keen sense of subtlety. slender of build, full of humility demonstrated when asked if she knew she was in God’s grace, she answered: ‘If I am not, may God put me there; and if I am, may God so keep me.”
LikeLike
June 15, 2012 at 10:50 am
beautifull
LikeLike
June 15, 2012 at 10:58 am
beautiful
LikeLike
June 16, 2012 at 5:07 pm
what a wonderful insight!
we can help or hinder others ( and of course, vice versa), but ultimately, only we can walk our walk.
LikeLike
June 15, 2012 at 9:15 am
Dedicated to the self-absorbed “prolife” protesters who stalk women in the Lehigh Valley:
Self-absorption in all its forms kills empathy,
let alone compassion.
When we focus on ourselves, our world contracts
as our problems and preoccupations loom large.
But when we focus on others, our world expands.
Our own problems drift to the periphery of the mind
and so seem smaller,
and we increase our capacity for connection
– or compassionate action.
― Daniel Goleman from his book “Social Intelligence: The New Science of Human Relationships”
LikeLike
June 15, 2012 at 10:59 am
There you go again.
LikeLike
June 15, 2012 at 11:07 am
It’s good for you. It’s what God wants you to read. Turn away from your self-absorption.
LikeLike
June 15, 2012 at 1:51 pm
So Kate, is God talking to you now about what others should or should not do?
LikeLike
June 15, 2012 at 2:04 pm
God talking to me? Which god?
LikeLike
June 15, 2012 at 6:37 pm
Kate, The one you referred to when you said “It’s what God want’s you to read”. That one.
LikeLike
June 15, 2012 at 8:09 pm
Oof,right in the gut.
LikeLike
June 16, 2012 at 5:40 am
Talk about stuff going over people’s heads! Phew! Fly right by.
LikeLike
June 16, 2012 at 6:30 am
GOTCHA
LikeLike
June 15, 2012 at 9:36 am
How many have noticed that when a self-proclaimed “pro-lifer” is challenged about her credentials for actually caring for human life, she always deflects the question and simply trots out one of her “pro-death” tropes?
It is really sad that they are so absorbed in trying to cope with their own inescapable death that they cannot help real children in life.
I spent decades working with offenders of all sorts, and it was always discouraging to try re-orient the ones who could never see a reality that was bigger than they were aware of. Really bad things happened to them, usually involving jail or self-destruction.
LikeLike
June 15, 2012 at 9:50 am
Charles,
Pro-death is such a trivial trope. Like big fish in a small pond, the trolls who use these tropes believe that fertilized eggs are the moral and physical equivalent to a full term infant. But they fail to see a much bigger picture. These hypocrites who proclaim their love of life outside abortion clinics ignore the horrendous life realities for born children in the United States. They cry crocodile tears for fetal tissue the size of a dime then go back home to their comfortable life, conveniently ignoring the homeless and hungry children, the abused children, the undereducated and the racially-targeted children. You see, Charles, as you have said, to really care for children would require a much larger commitment than to throw a buck at a women who needs help or to throw her a cheap baby shower. It would require a commitment to reduce all the structural inequities that exist in our nation that make caring for children difficult, that reduce the opportunities for children in schools and that diminish the emotional and physical health of children.
LikeLike
June 15, 2012 at 11:11 am
I didn’t read past this : “Like big fish in a small pond, the trolls who use these tropes believe that niggers are the moral and physical equivalent to full blooded white babies.” Nonsense followed, I’m sure.
LikeLike
June 15, 2012 at 1:31 pm
Mr. Dunkle, that’s not what was written. I think you just suffered a mini-stroke. Consult your physician, stat.
LikeLike
June 16, 2012 at 5:14 pm
elena and pat,
are racial slurs considered acceptable free speech here?
quotation marks surrounding an actual quote are indicative of something that someone else actually said, however, not only did kate not use that term, despite the implication by dunkle that she did, but he used it in comparison of racial equality.
LikeLike
June 16, 2012 at 7:53 pm
Somebody translate! I’m getting scared!
LikeLike
June 17, 2012 at 6:23 am
“DUNKLE” is really trying to push the ADMIN to see just how far they will let him go…The last couple of weeks he has really held hostage any civil discussion on here!! He is basically saying “nanny..nanny…boo…boo” he has kept most of the discussion going on how he is being “deleted” which I doubt is true…because if he has been “deleted”…he must really be a busy boy because most of the comments on here are him…just taking up space!! Someone needs to stop this guy and get him back on track!!! (Ahh! I know that would be a full time job!! Perhaps an impossible task!?!?)
But he can NOT get away with the “racial slurs”…we all know what he is doing but…AB.com has to put their foot down on that…because it can be a very slippery slope and WE all know that given an inch…”Dunkle” will take 10 miles….
LikeLike
June 17, 2012 at 7:09 am
I vote against racial slurs, particularly the N word!!!
LikeLike
June 16, 2012 at 9:55 pm
Surely you are aware of your blatant racism, John?
LikeLike
June 17, 2012 at 4:36 am
Oh, Rog’s saying I’m a racist? All I did was substitute a former curse word, “nigger,” for a current one Kate used, “fertilized egg.” Killers and their helpers use curse words instead of accurate ones — young man, little girl, human being, and so on.
LikeLike
June 15, 2012 at 1:33 pm
They are cruel people, bloggingfem, either unintentionally or intentionally, but they are cruel.
LikeLike
June 15, 2012 at 11:06 am
Don’t fall for this, “self-proclaimed ‘pro-lifer’.” Chuck is determined to turn you into the self-absorbed guy he is. Chuck keeps asking us to list all the great stuff we do. I told him several times that Jesus said not even to let your left hand know what good stuff your right has done. But Chuck keeps asking anyway, and listing his own virtues (see paragraph three).
LikeLike
June 15, 2012 at 4:44 pm
In the previous thread, JD responded to a question from me. BUT he did not answer the question.
John implied he showed his 5-6 year old children (or grandchildren – he did not say who) graphic pictures. Pictures of what? I suspect, as part of his efforts to brainwash them to follow his beliefs, it was that Malichia [?] photo (the origin of which is in dispute). John, of course you would do that!
John, I asked how you would feel about someone in front of your house with a poster showing dismembered bloody bodies from a terrorist attack with a “Terrorist Lives Here” wording.
I did not ask, but now will, how your wife would feel (assuming you are still married and she still lives with you). You are in your mid-70s, according to my line search, and you have sons in their late 40’s. So now the child could be a great grandchild whose grandmother is your daughter in-law. She and that child’s parent)s) may not have been brainwashed. Perhaps you would have disowned someone like that, so the scenario I painted couldn’t happen. But if it could and the parent of the child objected to you, John, would you feel any pangs of concern? No? Not surprising. Ask your daughter in law, grand daughter-in law and your wife how they would feel. I’ll be more interested in their responses than in yours. Then, of course, what about your neighbors?
LikeLike
June 16, 2012 at 4:24 am
You bury your question in rhetoric and then you accuse me of not answering it. I wish you folks would just ask an unembellished question. Oh, I see one! Paragraph 3: “. . .how you would feel about someone in front of your house with a poster showing dismembered bloody bodies from a terrorist attack with a “Terrorist Lives Here” wording.”
I’ve answered questions like this before but probably , D, you were too young to be able to read them. My actions will tell you how I feel — in summer I’d offer the protester iced tea and in winter hot chocolate. Then we’d sit down and talk.
I’ll tackle paragraph 4 later.
LikeLike
June 15, 2012 at 4:54 pm
Anti abortion folks claiming feminism caused abortion….how dumb can you be?
LikeLike
June 16, 2012 at 4:25 am
a glutton for punishment, I guess
LikeLike
June 16, 2012 at 5:35 am
Yes…I would say all of the comments that have followed this article:
“Hideously Impolite” written by: Posted by bloggingfem on June 13, 2012
have definitely proved the point!!!
LikeLike
June 16, 2012 at 10:32 am
OK, now let’s go to D’s paragraph 4 and I’ll do the best I can [in brackets[:
I did not ask, but now will, how your wife would feel (assuming you are still married and she still lives with you). [O Boy, would she hate that at first. She’d be mortified. But then she’d come around. I can always bring her around.]
You are in your mid-70s, according to my line search, and you have sons in their late 40′s. So now the child could be a great grandchild whose grandmother is your daughter in-law. She and that child’s parent)s) may not have been brainwashed. Perhaps you would have disowned someone like that, so the scenario I painted couldn’t happen. But if it could and the parent of the child objected to you, John, would you feel any pangs of concern? [no]
No? Not surprising. Ask your daughter in law, grand daughter-in law and your wife how they would feel. I’ll be more interested in their responses than in yours. [How would they feel if someone visited me with an A TERRORIST LIVES HERE sign? I think they’d be amused — Granddaddy asked for it, ha, ha.]
Then, of course, what about your neighbors? [I don’t think they’d be amused.]
LikeLike
June 16, 2012 at 1:11 pm
One evening an old Cherokee told his grandson about a battle that goes on inside people. He said, “My son, the battle is between 2 “wolves” inside us all.
One is Evil. It is anger, envy, jealousy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego.
The other is Good. It is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith.”
The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather: “Which wolf wins?”
The old Cherokee simply replied, “The one you feed.”
The moral to the story: Those Evil protesters feed their anger, jealousy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego.
LikeLike
June 16, 2012 at 3:30 pm
bloggingfem…what a great story…and so true!! The more “Dunkle” is fed the more outrageous he becomes!! He fills most of the comments up with repeating what others say…at least he tried to give you some “smarta_ _ ” answers… But he adds so much you loose what the blog was about in the first place….
LikeLike
June 16, 2012 at 3:58 pm
another thought provoking entry by kate.
this article affirms my recent re-evaluation of my stance on protesting outside abortion clinics,
i think that the motivation of those protesting holds a great deal of credibility.
our friend chuckles asks if those outside the clinics would be willing to adopt the baby.
i ask if those outside the clinics would be willing to adopt the woman, and do so regardless of the choice she makes.
i will not go into further details at this point for the simple reason that i prefer to share with kate on a personal basis my conclusion.
kate has always been a good friend to me, and shown love and respect for me regardless of whether she agreed with me on any specific topic or not. and i hope that feeling is mutual.
but i prefer to share with her the difference in my stance, before i post it for just any stranger to see.
i am not at all afraid to re-evaluate my stance on any matter, nor to admit when i believe i have been wrong.
LikeLike
June 16, 2012 at 5:25 pm
Rogelio,
The idea that compassion should have no boundaries seems to be applicable for those who are prolife or prochoice. I know where you have stood in the past–making decisions to help women holistically, not just provide a free ultrasound or plan a baby shower. As well, there are many prochoicers who provide transportation to women, and some provide overnight accommodations for women who must travel long distances and/or who are having abortions that require for later term abortions. But when I suggested opening our homes to women in need to those in our area, there was some trepidation. Some feared that their own personal safety would be at risk, others knew that their roommates or spouses wouldn’t agree.
What I think is happening, and it is just a possibility, is that on both sides, people don’t want to commit beyond what can be done “out there” on the sidewalk or at a doctor’s office or at a bus station. I believe it would be interesting to learn just how many prolifers and prochoicers really “put their money where their mouths are” by opening their homes to others. They clearly have few issues with driving folks to their appointments but opening their homes? I’ve never heard any story about a prolifer, except for you, who shared their home with a person in need. It’s a scary proposition for some, for sure.
But this conundrum of who to help and how much to help reminds me of what Henri Nouwen wrote about compassion. He said compassion asks us to go where it hurts, to enter into the places of pain, to share in brokenness, fear, confusion, and anguish. Compassion challenges us to cry out with those in misery, to mourn with those who are lonely, to weep with those in tears. Compassion requires us to be weak with the weak, vulnerable with the vulnerable, and powerless with the powerless. Compassion means full immersion in the condition of being human.
Isn’t that what we should be doing?
LikeLike
June 17, 2012 at 8:56 am
Trust protesters to:
Invade your privacy
Use fear mongering
Harass and bully
Invoke their beliefs
Tell women false information
Disrespect women and their decisions
LikeLike
June 16, 2012 at 5:05 pm
Have to share a funny thing that happened at the clinic today. The clinic’s next door neighbor (Ziggy’s Construction) provided a super long extension cord for the escorts to play a boombox to drown out the terrorists and their megaphones. What makes this story funny, at least to me, is that our old pal and prolife protester Joyce had the nerve to ask Ziggy for a key to his place so she could use his restroom. The clinic is located quite a ways from any public facilities. So, ole Joycey, knowing Ziggy was one of her husband’s clients, thought he would oblige her bodily needs while she works so hard on her little save-the-baby-terrorize-women campaign. Too bad that Ziggy has no use for the anti abortion zealots. He said no back then and said yes to the escorts and the clinic today.
LikeLike
June 16, 2012 at 8:02 pm
You learn so much more from your enemies than you do from your allies.
LikeLike
June 19, 2012 at 6:52 am
“If the love within your mind is lost and you see other beings as enemies, then no matter how much knowledge or education or material comfort you have, only suffering and confusion will ensue.”
~His Holiness the Dalai Lama
LikeLike
June 19, 2012 at 9:28 am
You believe in Dalaianity, Kate. I believe in Christianity.. Christ said, “Love your enemies.”
LikeLike
June 17, 2012 at 7:05 am
Another hideously impolite example from a few years back:
Gerry McWilliams was physically in my face, finger pointing, shrieking with a high pitch, about being a baby killer, killing women in the womb, disrepecting women in the womb—this tirade went on for quite some time all because I suggested that he didn’t respect women. He began with a feigned hurt expression, hand to heart, “Me disrespect women? Why I love my mother and Mother Teresa is a saint to me. But you kill women in the womb.”
In other words, he could never say he respected any woman who entered the clinic. Because to do so would be a lie.
LikeLike
June 17, 2012 at 8:35 am
Respect is not what’s needed for someone who’s carrying someone else to her torturous death. At that point what’s needed for the older female is forceful and legitimate obstruction. In this day of legal child killing, that kind of force is illegal, and I, for one, do not have the courage to break the law. So, horrible violence soon explodes. May God have mercy on my soul.
LikeLike
June 17, 2012 at 12:31 pm
I disagree. You will not win any woman’s heart or mind with disrespect, rudeness or hate or, in the case of you Loser Cruisers, violent shouting.
Neither you nor your cohorts have love or respect for any woman who enters a clinic. None.
LikeLike
June 18, 2012 at 4:52 am
For once I agree WITH “Dunkle”…”May God have mercy on his soul”…Because as a “Christian”!?!? he has NOT treated the women that he has come into contact with in a very “Christian” way!?!
LikeLike
June 19, 2012 at 9:32 am
Give me a little break, LDM. Those young women are separated from me by someone else’s flesh, and, nowadays at the AWC, by fifty yards.
LikeLike
June 17, 2012 at 8:33 am
In December 2010, I was reading excerpts from When Christians Get It Wrong (Hamilton) when one section really grabbed my attention. The author claimed that “scientists act as God’s docents, whether they believe in God or not. By helping us understand God’s handiwork, they add to the majesty and glory of creation that, as a believer, leaves me with a greater sense of awe about the One who created all things” (p. 24). And later, he wrote that as an amateur astronomer, looking at the stars at night, how small he felt and that he realized “how truly big God is. Astronomy leads me to say with the psalmists, ‘The heavens are telling the glory of God’(Psalm 19:1). As I observe the protesters, I have to say that they are not doing a very good job of telling the glory of God, not doing a good job at all sharing the majesty of human beings. In fact, it’s quite the opposite.
Later, Hamilton argued that the new testament of the Bible was an attempt to correct “self-righteousness, hypocrisy, judgmentalism, spiritual pride, moral compromise and a host of other issues” (p. 107). And, as he wrote, to correct these issues, love was the answer. Citing John (1John 4:8), James (2:8) and Peter (1 Peter 4:8), Hamilton illustrates the gospel messages distilled in one word: love. He continued by telling a story about the church where Christians who acted in ways that scarcely resembled the Christ they claimed to follow. Every time I hear a protester invoke the name of Jesus, I want to laugh. There’s nothing Christ-like in that invocation, particularly because it lacks love and because it’s full of rage and contempt for any woman who enters the clinic.
To you Christians, to you who claim to be Christians, Paul writes very directly:
If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. (1 Corinthians 13:1-2).
LikeLike
June 17, 2012 at 12:49 pm
As Rachel Maddow suggested a couple of years ago, the new plan of the anti-choice movement seems to be that “If you can’t stop women from having abortions, at least make the experience as vile, invasive, and humiliating as possible.” Nowhere is this plan more evident than in Allentown. One woman, after dropping off a young woman at the door to the clinic, told one of the anti-choicers on Thursday “You’re only making a difficult situation worse.” And without batting an eye, the protester continued her humiliation. As with all the protesters, this protester knows better than the women themselves know what is best. In fact, it’s a safe bet that all those who lurk around abortion clinics, who harass and bully, believe they have the best answers for women. While they tell women they are selfish if they choose abortion, it is the anti choicers who are the living epitome of selfishness. Insisting that their voice is more important than their fellow protesters, they shout ever louder creating a cacophony. Insisting over and over that they should have things their way or that women should do as they say because of their interpretation of God’s laws, they exude selfishness. Insisting on screaming at women. Insisting on shaming and humiliating. Sounds selfish for sure. As one observer noted on Saturday, everyone is good at something and the protesters are singularly the best at making an already difficult situation worse.
Guess, Rachel Maddow is right. Make the experience vile, invasive and humiliating.
LikeLike
June 17, 2012 at 2:54 pm
They want to be heroes, bloggingfem. They want to be known as “rescuers,” as people who are so concerned about “human life” that they will define what it is and spend no more than one morning a week seeking their bubble reputation. Heroes on the cheap.
Their message is not to women seeking an abortion, but the population of America who have not thought one way or another about it; they want those people to be in the 51% of the vote.
What they don’t want is to raise the child they don’t want, to give up their TV time and late-morning sleep-ins, the vacation in Branson or the bridge club for the PTA fundraiser.They don’t want to have to take on a second job or destroy their life savings. They don’t want to be held accountable for every second of eighteen years of someone else’s life. They just want to be heroes at no cost to themselves.
LikeLike
June 19, 2012 at 2:59 pm
I would disagree. Not all anti abortion folks want to be heroes. Dunkle’s near psychopathic indifference to and coldness toward women outside clinics or toward physicians illustrate his wants and desires. He delights in behaving in unspeakably hideous ways or in demonstrating his malignant idiocy to the point of being horrifyingly amusing.
LikeLike
June 20, 2012 at 8:54 am
Rog, translate this.
LikeLike
June 20, 2012 at 7:59 am
Kate, it’s at a subconscious level; it stems from a uniquely human trait– the consciousness of our inevitable death. Ernst Becker explored this in his book, Denial of Death.
Born not knowing we are going to die– in fact, believing that the world is centered on us– we eventually learn we will not live forever. I personally think this happens about two years old and might explain in part the phase of “night terrors” that is common at that age. Becker said that
Becker wondered why if we fear death, we are willing to risk it– the sailor dogging the door of his flooding compartment, to drown while he saves the ship; the stranger rushing into the burning building to save the old man; the cop stepping into the path of the bullet meant for her partner.
He concluded that we deal with the fearful knowledge by adopting coping strategies. Religions and philosophies abound– and one philosophy is that one can become immortal by becoming a hero, much like Boadicea, Horatio, or Scott.
Apply this to the so-called “pro-life” movement, and suddenly it all becomes clear why they proclaim to be so concerned about human life while they actually do very little for it! They don’t want to care for it; they want to “rescue” it, and they want to “rescue” it so they will be known as rescuers. This is why they don’t care a fig what happens to real children; those children can’t be “rescued” in a way that will give them the fame they seek. This is why the self-proclaimed “pro-lifers” on this site always fall back on the “You want to kill them” retort– it puts them back in the center of the spotlight as “rescuers” from the worst fate they can imagine– their own death.
They wage an allegorical battle. They are not trying to save “unborn innocents,” they are trying to save themselves.
They will agree with you that they don’t want to be heroes, but only because they have not reflected on why they are trying to repress that self-knowledge.
LikeLike
June 20, 2012 at 8:56 am
Ernst Becker, eh? And I thought all this crap was yours, Chuck!
LikeLike
June 17, 2012 at 2:22 pm
“Make the experience vile, invasive and humiliating.” No one has to make it that way, Kate. It already is.
LikeLike