Truth be told, I love watching some of those religious stations. I just can’t help it. When I’m cruising on my remote control through my nine thousand channels, something compels me to stop when I see some sweaty, screaming preacher type railing about the horrors of abortion, homosexuality, unbalanced budgets and whatever else they want to throw in the mix. Of course, I do get a kick out of how they manage every few minutes to remind their mesmerized audience that they need a gazillion dollars for that new church that God has ordered them to build.
So, this past weekend there I was again, listening to another sermon. This one was on the role of the father of the “unborn baby” who was facing imminent “execution at the hands of the blood-sucking abortionist.” We’ve heard it all before. Does not the father, who has put so much effort into the creation of this precious little baby, have a say in whether or not that precious little baby will be EXECUTED?
“Yes! The father has rights too!” shouts the preacher to a chorus of Amens and Praise the Lords. Why shouldn’t that man who got lucky have something to say about whether the fetus lives or dies?
Scotty, beam me up.
First of all, years ago the U.S. Supreme Court declared that all spousal consent laws were unconstitutional. In the case of Planned Parenthood v Casey the Court said, well, I’m not going to waste my blogging space to review the case. You can do that. Suffice it to say the Supremes said it’s ultimately up to the woman.
But, contrary to popular belief, Supreme Court decisions are not always etched in stone. If that were the case, Plessy v Ferguson would still be the law of the land and black Americans would still be sitting in a separate section of Wendy’s. Times change. So I do not fault this preacher for advocating to change the current law.
Here’s the thing, however. The pro-life movement is very adept at arguing around the edges to suit their goals. So, for example, they will rant and rave about those later term abortions, as if they are a very common occurrence when the fact is that out of the one millions or so abortions performed every year, they constitute a small percentage of the total. Still, the pro-lifers love to show those pictures of that big beautiful baby with semi-developed extremities who is about to be aborted. That is more shocking than showing a picture of an inch long fetus. Kudos to their PR department.
The same goes for the issue of spousal consent The facts are that the vast, vast majority of men who have helped conceive a child are always involved in the decision whether or not to bring the baby to term. The baby was created out of an act of love and a couple in love will generally seek a consensus. Indeed, when a woman learns she is pregnant, the first person she usually informs is the father. In some cases, they will both rejoice knowing they are going to have a child. But if there are doubts about whether or not to have the baby, they are BOTH going to discuss it. If a couple cannot talk about that decision – one of the toughest of their lives – then that relationship is doomed to begin with.
So, let’s all keep our perspective if possible. Spousal consent for an abortion is already practiced in the vast majority of cases.
But lest there be any misunderstanding – when there is a disagreement between the husband and wife, well, it’s the WOMAN’s body, my friends. That’s the bottom line for me.

June 3, 2014 at 10:25 am
The bottom line for me, Pat, is the third person involved, the one with the most at stake.
LikeLike
June 3, 2014 at 1:21 pm
What third person?
LikeLike
June 3, 2014 at 4:36 pm
Somebody just like you, Andy.
LikeLike
June 3, 2014 at 2:00 pm
I just clicked on your site John Dunkle. You’re a sick man a new Rodger Elliot ready to explode, a domestic terrorist. I shall report you to the FBI.
LikeLike
June 3, 2014 at 4:36 pm
You’ll have to wait in line.
LikeLike
June 4, 2014 at 2:25 am
The FBI, if they are doing, their job should be watching him already.
The problem is the FBI knew about Roeder before he assassinated Dr. Tiller and they did not protect them.
Christian terrorists do not get properly watched before they commit murder.
At least they often get locked up like barbarians after they perpetrate their crimes of murder in the name of their mythical god.
John has admitted that he admires some murderers.
JD is powerless to do anything – he just likes to stalk and harrass women at their homes, and brags about it. He accomplishes nothing in this endeavor, that part is laughable.
He usually just writes stupid comments, is a liar in general, and occasionally writes something funny.
If he were intelligent it would be more entertaining.
Typically he will write a really dumb comment to a comment like this, just watch . . .
LikeLike
June 4, 2014 at 4:58 am
and they did not protect him, not them so there
LikeLike
June 4, 2014 at 6:25 am
The FBI “knew” about Roeder? What does that mean? Are you saying they knew Roeder was going to kill Doctor Tiller???
LikeLike
June 4, 2014 at 8:32 am
They didn’t know that. They did know he believed we’re in a civil war and wars have to be fought on the front lines as well as on the home-front.
LikeLike
June 5, 2014 at 6:23 am
He was probably on their radar like many others (Dunkle included). But law enforcement can only do so much and, as much as I dont like it, civil activists have rights as well.
LikeLike
June 4, 2014 at 6:24 am
I know, John. What I dont get is when you say “it” has “the most at stake.” Here’s a couple facing a decision that will affect their entire lives and you defer instead to that little fetus that has absolutely NO IDEA what is going on until a certain point and you’re saying that little fetus trumps the born, living, existing couple. Yikes.
LikeLike
June 4, 2014 at 8:37 am
I try not to use “fetus” because you guys have turned it into a curse word, same as the Nazis did with “Jew.” Other than that, yup.
LikeLike
June 5, 2014 at 6:24 am
Actually, “fetus” is the preferred word of the pro-choice movement. “Baby” is the touchy one. Hmmm, might be an interesting blog….
LikeLike
June 3, 2014 at 1:43 pm
I stooped regularly reading this site when the anti-choice crowd, esp John Dunkle, mostly went away. Imagine my surprise… He’s back!
I just finished scanning the last few threads. I noticed:
Dunkle never did give his home address.
Dunkle actually has gotten one abortion provider doctor to stop practicing. He allowed threats onto his web site and she (I believe the doc was a woman) was so fearful she stopped. In a Federal Court case Dunkle was found responsible, and he was ordered to remove the treats from his site. The FBI was given his passcodes. I don’t know if the doc ever resumed practice.
Dunkle claimed he is not pro-death, but before he bailed on this site, he admitted that he was pro-capital punishment, until the Pope said capital punishment is wrong.
Paul’s May 11, 2014 8:33 pm post asked Dunkle six questions. As far as I could determine, Dunkle did not answer any of them.
Dunkle is a misogynist (a person who hates, dislikes, mistrusts, or mistreats women), I have not read any attempt by him to deny it. The “mistreats” is beyond even his ability to den. Also, he has admitted to few if any saves but has declared his assaults on and harassment of women entering clinics is to make them feel this is the worst day of their lives.
Dunkle, and anti-choicers in general, do not accept that until viability (the ability of a fetus to survive outside a womb without massive medical intervention) the fetus is no different from any other growth in or on the woman’s body, which I suspect even Dunkle would agree she is free to have removed or allow to grow. The medical intervention limitation is necessary unless one accepts that cloning is OK (modern science isn’t there yet, but it can get there within the next couple of decades), against Catholic desires.
LikeLike
June 4, 2014 at 2:27 am
Antis are just generally morons.
LikeLike
June 4, 2014 at 6:27 am
David, welcome back. How do you know that Dunkle was responsible for getting an abortion doctor to quit?
LikeLike
June 3, 2014 at 6:13 pm
I stooped regularly reading this site when the anti-choice crowd, esp John Dunkle, mostly went away. Imagine my surprise… He’s back! [Don’t blame you, D. I left too when I couldn’t read me. Why’d I leave? Will only tell you privately ‘cause otherwise I’m afraid it’d happen again.]
I just finished scanning the last few threads. I noticed:
Dunkle never did give his home address. [ [You’re not a thorough reader, D. Here’s the fifth time: 204 S. 4th St., Reading, PA 19602.]
Dunkle actually has gotten one abortion provider doctor to stop practicing. He allowed threats onto his web site and she (I believe the doc was a woman) was so fearful she stopped. In a Federal Court case Dunkle was found responsible, and he was ordered to remove the treats from his site. The FBI was given his pass-codes. I don’t know if the doc ever resumed practice. [The only mistake you made here is “The FBI was given his pass-codes” ’cause they had ‘em long before that.]
Dunkle claimed he is not pro-death, but before he bailed on this site, he admitted that he was pro-capital punishment, until the Pope said capital punishment is wrong. [Got that right too, D! Hey, you’re good. Yup, after reading Romeo and Juliet and seeing Dead Man Walking I became pro capital punishment. Then the pope said no.]
The remainder of your post, D, is just too hard for a dummy like me to respond to. Can’t you break it down?
LikeLike
June 3, 2014 at 6:20 pm
Hey, wait a minute. I answered all of Paul’s questions. Told you you weren’t thorough.
No comment on your paragraph #7.
Break paragraph #8 into four sections. Then maybe a dummy like me will be able to understand it.
LikeLike
June 4, 2014 at 2:30 am
No.
JD ignored good questions and evaded them as he always does.
The ignorant do this all the time.
It was not a surprise when JD could not answer a single question.
So instead he just played 3rd grade transparent games to try and hide his illiteracy on the issue.
It is nice to reveal to the world the truth about anti life people.
LikeLike
June 4, 2014 at 5:02 am
Yes, and the world is hanging on your every word, Paulie.
LikeLike
June 4, 2014 at 3:22 pm
Pat – re JD getting the Dr to quit. I believe it was either in the on-line reports of the court trial or in a blog post about the case from someone who was well positioned to know.
Still no address from JD. I note he consistently avoids this question.
Its OK with me if JD can’t understand my Par #8.
I have observed that most (but not all) anti-choicers base there opposition on religious beliefs. Typically, these beliefs are instilled in them almost from birth when parents carry them into churches (or mosques or temples or whatever) and then send them off to some form of religious training as soon as they can walk. As a result of this very early indoctrination, these beliefs essentially are as much a part of them as their own language. Sometimes, as people grow up, they question those teachings, and may realize that there is no verifiable basis for them. They still might decide to live by those beliefs (we call that choice). Anti-choicers sometimes realize this and try to interject science into their arguments, but eventually they can’t get past the “soul” basis, which is a belief. I suspect Dunkle spent considerable time in his youth being indoctrinated, maybe he was even an alter boy. At his 70+ age, he is immune to logic when it differs from his beliefs.
I read an editorial by Leonard Pitts (Tribune) regarding a Sundan woman who is under a death sentence primarily for converting from Islam to Christianity. This led him to present some general thoughts: “The Bible defines faith as ‘confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.’ … How … does … any nation … believe it can require ‘faith’ if it is imposed by … law or threat of violence? … [U]nfortunately ,,, faith’s most zealous defenders … have no confidence that its appeal is strong enough that people will come to it … by free movement of their hearts…. What they model is not faith but fear .. [Theirs is] the loud shrill cry of cowards whose belief is so fragile as to totter at contradiction.”
Dunkle and others whose protests at abortion facilities are filled with anger, hate and lies should reflect that Pitts sees them for who they are. The true peaceful protesters get it; Dunkle does not.
LikeLike
June 4, 2014 at 5:26 pm
Glad this one’s addressed to you, Pat.
LikeLike
June 5, 2014 at 6:26 am
I believe Dunkle has in fact given us his address. Why do you keep saying he hasn’t? Lets deal with facts, folks.
LikeLike
June 5, 2014 at 6:53 am
They’re trying to return the “piss-off.”
LikeLike
June 6, 2014 at 1:18 pm
Sorry, Pat. I didn’t realize he buried his address in the copy of my post.
Dunkle – Only the first paragraph was specifically intended for Pat.
LikeLike
June 6, 2014 at 3:24 pm
D, am I wasting my time answering you if you’re not going to read the answers?
LikeLike
June 4, 2014 at 6:33 pm
It is true that most women who have abortions discuss their decision with their husband/partner/boyfriend. Pat, you are indeed correct – when there is disagreement about whether to carry a pregnancy to term or abort, it is ultimately and entirely the woman’s choice. That some consider it unfair that a woman can get an abortion without spousal/male consent is a tired argument. Law has settled what biology has established in that regard. Those who continue to argue that men have a right to determine the fate of a zygote/embryo/fetus seek control of women and their reproduction.
LikeLike
June 6, 2014 at 1:20 pm
I have a question for you John. Did you attend Catholic schools? What grades?
LikeLike
June 6, 2014 at 3:23 pm
Catholic schools through high school. Then non-Catholic and Catholic
LikeLike
June 6, 2014 at 4:30 pm
Oops, through college.
LikeLike
June 7, 2014 at 4:40 pm
That may explain a lot. In the neighborhood where I grew up, a boy my age lived around the corner and he went to Catholic school. His building through 9th grade was boys only. In HS, boys and girls attended the same building, but classes were segregated. Bottom line: his opportunities to socialize with girls was likely near non-existent. And his Catholic college may have been male only, too (we are, after all, talking circa mid 1950s).
The boy also said if you just made spelling mistakes (elementary school), it was common for the teachers – all nuns – to rap your knuckles with a ruler. Notice how Dunkle likes to point out mistakes (e.g., “there” when the word should be “their”). The link seems strong. Also, if you misbehaved just a little, you got spanked with a paddle (abuse), again by the Nuns in front of the other boys.
So outside the home, in Dunkle’s formative years, he was likely abused by the power figures in his non-home life – the Nuns. Was he an abused alter boy, too. Maybe. Even if denied it, he could just have suppressed the memory, though the effects remain.
Often these learned abusive behaviours are subconsciously accepted as OK, and repeated in some form. Add to this his limited socialization with females and you get the abusive Dunkle of today.
One more interesting point. According to a web search, 79 yr old Dunkle’s youngest son is late 40s. So he was about 30 when he had his first – very unusual for someone who is opposed to all forms of birth control (except the rather unreliable rhythm method of Catholic school fame). Conclusion – he married late because his lack of socialization with females made it hard to find a wife.
Did he physically abuse his own children? Based on his attitude, it seems likely. Keep in mind this is a man who says he would not hesitate to tell his grandchildren the evils of abortion at a very young age, even against the wishes of their mother/his daughter. And this is a man who has protested at a clinic in Reading right by a school bus stop populated by young teen girls.
All this, of course, does not excuse his behaviour, but it does explain it.
LikeLike
June 7, 2014 at 5:05 pm
Hey, not bad, D. Some right, some wrong.
LikeLike
June 9, 2014 at 10:37 am
Hey I really enjoy your blog.
Thanks
LikeLike
June 9, 2014 at 3:28 pm
You’re welcome, CL.
LikeLike
June 9, 2014 at 3:56 pm
Not yours John Dunkle this blog that I am commenting on. Sorry I did not make that clear. I have been reading this blog for years and it inspired me to become a clinic escort, so I can help women get past people like you. Two people last week told us escorts thank you for being there.
Here is a blog post I wrote about my escort experience last week.
Take care John Dunkle.
http://www.truebluepolitics.com/2014/06/01/rock-and-rollin-at-the-clinic-today/
LikeLike
June 9, 2014 at 6:31 pm
Wow! I missed this and to think I just accused D of not reading thoroughly. Sure wish you were in Reading or Allentown, Pa., because I love deathscorts like you, ones who talk to us antis. And your blog is persuasive. Keep sending it to me and I just might turn into a killers’ helper too.
LikeLike
June 9, 2014 at 8:18 pm
I’m glad you read my blog John Dunkle. Stayed tuned for more blog posts about my clinic escort experiences. I did stumble upon your blog John and I must say it was interesting to say the least.
LikeLike
June 9, 2014 at 8:00 pm
Thanks for your kind words, Connie! And thanks for doing the work you do.
LikeLike
June 9, 2014 at 8:03 pm
Is this at the Hagerstown clinic?
LikeLike
June 9, 2014 at 8:26 pm
Your welcome Pat. Yes it is at the Hagerstown clinic.
LikeLike
June 10, 2014 at 3:43 am
Whenever I try to say clinic it comes out mill.
LikeLike
June 9, 2014 at 4:01 pm
Not your blog John Dunkle the blog I am commenting on. I posted a link to my blog about being a clinic escort, which this blog has inspired me to do become a clinic escort, but it is awaiting moderation. So if the moderator could approve it then John could read my blog. Thanks
LikeLike
June 9, 2014 at 5:03 pm
If Elena doesn’t approve it for here, send it to johndunk@ptd.net.
LikeLike