Abortion is legal – if you don’t like it, amend the Constitution.
Abortion is not wrong.
Abortion can be sad.
Abortion can be a difficult choice – but not always.
Abortion is a form of killing in that there is something alive in her body and after the abortion it is not alive.
Abortion doctors go to their office every day thinking they are helping women and knowing that they could be killed in an instant. Worse, they may think they are safe going to a church or a social function, but they are not.
Abortions in this country are decreasing.
Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures in the world but, because it is surgery, there is always the possibility that a woman could be harmed or even die.
Abortions cost almost the same as they did when abortion was legalized in 1973.
Abortion doctors are not getting rich and many clinics are closing because the number of patients is decreasing.
Abortion doctors have their personal limits in terms of how far in the pregnancy they will perform the abortion.
Abortion clinic staff believe they are helping woman and they also can be killed or maimed in an instant.
Abortion protestors mean well in that they truly believe they are “saving a life” and they have a right to express those views publicly.
Abortion clinics are for the most part clean and safe but there are some abortion clinics that should be shut down. There are also some abortion doctors who should have their licenses revoked.
Abortion protestors can be particularly ugly to women who are entering clinics but many of them just stand outside of a clinic and pray quietly.
Abortion can be prevented by abstinence, birth control and adoption.
Abortion advocates need to be more candid about the abortion procedure and anti-abortion advocates need to stop exaggerating the facts.
Abortion clinic counselors have different approaches to how much counseling a woman should get.
Abortion - Abortion Clinics, Abortion Pill, Abortion Information 
August 26, 2014 at 10:23 am
Abortion is legal – if you don’t like it, amend the Constitution. [I’m trying.]
Abortion is not wrong. [Wrong.]
Abortion can be sad. [Yes.]
Abortion can be a difficult choice – but not always. [Yes.]
Abortion is a form of killing in that there is something alive in her body and after the abortion it is not alive. [True.]
Abortion doctors go to their office every day thinking they are helping women and knowing that they could be killed in an instant. Worse, they may think they are safe going to a church or a social function, but they are not. [Sometimes, possibly, but usually it’s the $ that makes them go there.]
Abortions in this country are decreasing. [Hope so.]
Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures in the world but, because it is surgery, there is always the possibility that a woman could be harmed or even die. [Absolutely incorrect — more than half of everyone involved in every “procedure” dies, horribly.]
Abortions cost almost the same as they did when abortion was legalized in 1973. [Lots less if you take in the value of the dollar back then.]
Abortion doctors are not getting rich and many clinics are closing because the number of patients is decreasing. [a. some are; b. hope so.]
Abortion doctors have their personal limits in terms of how far in the pregnancy they will perform the abortion. [I doubt that.]
Abortion clinic staff believe they are helping woman and they also can be killed or maimed in an instant. [a. some are; b. some do but sidewalk counselors have the same, but more realistic, fear.]
Abortion protestors mean well in that they truly believe they are “saving a life” and they have a right to express those views publicly. [That covers most of us.]
Abortion clinics are for the most part clean and safe but there are some abortion clinics that should be shut down. [a. not safe for the young guys; b.all should be shut down.] There are also some abortion doctors who should have their licenses revoked. [True.]
Abortion protestors can be particularly ugly to women who are entering clinics but many of them just stand outside of a clinic and pray quietly. [Change “ugly” to “honest” and I’d agree.]
Abortion can be prevented by abstinence, birth control and adoption. [True, so long as by “birth control” you mean self control.]
Abortion advocates need to be more candid about the abortion procedure and anti-abortion advocates need to stop exaggerating the facts. [You’d have to spell out what you mean by “exaggerating the facts” before I’d agree to this one.]
Abortion clinic counselors have different approaches to how much counseling a woman should get. [Sure.]
LikeLike
August 26, 2014 at 12:55 pm
Abortion can be prevented by abstinence, birth control and adoption. [Duinkle replied: True, so long as by “birth control” you mean self control.]
So he remains on his idiotic path.
Near the end of the tread for the Aug 3, 2014 Memo to My friends (look for my post, Aug 10, 3:19 pm and read the five items), Dunkle admitted that killing sperm by masturbation is not murder. By extension, it is obvious he must agree that barrier contraceptives and measures that keep an egg from being released are also not murder in spite of the title of his blog, “Contraception is Murder.” John also wrote he’d heard “that IUDs and poisons form a large part of the contraception universe. You heard different?” Good question, so I did some on-line research. In order not to taint the data, I avoided sites that seemed clearly either pro choice or anti choice. I also excluded tubal sterilization and vasectomy from the statistics. I confess I do not know what he means by poisons (if he believes hormones are poisons, he probably believes dihydrogen monoxide is a poison – that’s water, John).
Condoms, withdrawal, and the pill account for more than 77% of contraceptives! IUDs are less than 9%, and here’s an interesting characteristic of IUDs that I did not know: the copper ones kill sperm and the hormonal ones stop egg release. While they aren’t as effective at this as spermicides or the pill, it is clear they often don’t meet John’s definition of murder.
As to the remaining 14%, these are mostly injectable, vaginal ring, the patch, and implant, none of which act post conception (except the ring which, in rare cases, does).
Even the morning after pill (is this your “poisons,” John?), which is not part of the above data, is only used by about 10% of women. But, John, you can’t even use that 10%, because the morning after pill is a contraception in ways other than stopping implantation. Even you must know that sperm can live up to five days inside a woman, but the fertilization window and the attachment window are only about one day. So a woman who has sex without using a contraceptive and then uses the morning after pill could end up taking the drug too soon! Opps, failure. But, no, it turns out the morning after pill, like an IUD, also kills sperm and also stops egg release, so only a portion of the morning after pills act after fertilization.
It seems that less than 10% of “contraception” meets your definition of murder, John. You’ve really got to change the title (again).
LikeLike
August 26, 2014 at 4:05 pm
Half-way through stuff like this I get a headache. Look, guys, a while back Pat asked another long-winder to send it in as an entry. Then we can all comment on it. But don’t use this valuable commenting area to write speeches.
Still, I’ll give it another try later. So don’t run, D.
LikeLike
August 26, 2014 at 5:14 pm
OK, paragraph 3 — I put quotation marks around Contraception in the title of my newsletter because lots of people call abortifacients contraceptives. Google contraceptives and you’ll see the difference.
And poisons can be anything. Water taken in sufficient quantity can be a poison. For the victim whatever a woman takes to kill her (OK, or him) is poison.
LikeLike
August 26, 2014 at 6:05 pm
The remainder of you speech seems to say this, D: only 10% of the sexual perversions we engage in result in people. So what if that 10% adds up to well over a million murders yearly. Heck, 90% of them don’t kill anybody. That means we can keep carrying on as we’ve done since 1973.
Did I get it right?
LikeLike
August 27, 2014 at 10:18 am
Contraceptives prevent pregnancy; abortifacients terminate a pregnancy. Big difference, as you know. Putting in quotation marks in doesn’t fix your error. You need a different title.
LikeLike
August 27, 2014 at 3:18 pm
I went from skyp (stop killing young people) to aim (abortion is murder) to cim (“contraception” is murder). I’m tuckered out.
LikeLike
August 26, 2014 at 1:03 pm
Abortion clinic staff believe they are helping woman and they also can be killed or maimed in an instant. [Dunkle replied: a. some are; b. some do but sidewalk counselors have the same, but more realistic, fear.]
Where do you get the idea that protestors have a “more realistic fear” of being maimed or killed? Please cite me some cases when a protester has been maimed or killed. There are many doctors and staff at clinics where this has happened. You know this because you have let many of their killers write on your old blog. You know this because you have celebrated their actions. Your are proud that you stood before a prison in FL when one of your heros was executed. I’ll bet you have even visited some in jail.
LikeLike
August 26, 2014 at 4:11 pm
I think you got me here, D. It’s just that I hang out with sidewalk counselors and some of them are scared.
But hey, the old blog’s the new blog and killers of the serial killers still write for it.
LikeLike
August 27, 2014 at 10:32 am
Hmmm …. Given the lies they throw out and the way they treat women entering clinics, they will have a lot to answer for on judgement day. Their God will punish them for it, so they do have that to fear.
LikeLike
August 26, 2014 at 8:19 pm
Pat –
“Abortion advocates need to be more candid about the abortion procedure and anti-abortion advocates need to stop exaggerating the facts.” is certainly a valid statement.
I would add that those who support abortion rights should not even touch on the medical facets of abortion unless they actually have knowledge. And, on the part of the anti-abortion activists, “exaggerating the facts” is what many do, but outright lying is, unfortunately, just as common.
LikeLike
August 27, 2014 at 4:15 am
I only lie when I really have to.
LikeLike
August 27, 2014 at 5:40 am
Exaggerating? Maybe when they claim that Abby Johnson bailed on her job at a clinic. But the facts that she was a poor performer about to lose her job and that she was offered a deal of a lifetime as a convert celebrity in the sleazy world of pro life advocacy, don’t matter much, do they? There’s a bit of humor in their business. They worry about money doctors earn while ignoring the enormous outlay of money they spend for information secreted from former employees, for the efforts to make bogus research look legitimate, for the publications of glossy propaganda materials, for the establishment and maintenance of CPCs, and for lobbying legislators for laws designed to make abortion access impossible, laws wrecking the K-12 curriculum (think abstinence propaganda, creationism, and such) and laws impacting birth control.
Outright lying is more their norm. Anti abortion activists lie in person and on web sites and in all their tracts they euphemistically call “literature” about scientific and medical facts. No qualms do they have about misinformation or harmful information. None at all.
In fact, if you pay close attention, all the complaints from anti abortion activists seem to be psychological projections of themselves.
LikeLike
August 27, 2014 at 8:20 am
Oh blah blah blah and you got this wrong, Ali: “she was offered a deal of a lifetime as a convert celebrity in the sleazy world of pro life advocacy,”
The dozen or so pro-life professional groups have nowhere near the money to do that. They barely meet their employee payrolls.
I’ll tell you, though, where the money is — speaking fees.
You guys are probably too young to remember Bill Baird but he’s your St. Francis of Assisi. When the contraception/abortion ship was mired on a seemingly permanent sand bar, Bill floated it and built it into the Titanic it is today. Then the feminists cut him loose because Bill was no feminist.
When I met him, Bill was trying to live on peanuts, and I made my move.
I said, “Bill, if you join us, you’ll make millions” (Bernard Nathanson was just then cashing in on his switch).
Believe me, this was his response, “Don’t think I haven’t thought about it.” He never did do prolife though and we lost contact.
LikeLike
August 27, 2014 at 8:40 am
Yes Alice – comment for comment, if counted, outright lying would probably be more the norm than exaggerations. This is particularly evident on the websites.
LikeLike
August 27, 2014 at 10:44 am
Is your average protestor “lying” or are they just buying what their leaders tell them?
LikeLike
August 27, 2014 at 10:42 am
John says he “doubts” my post which said each doctor has their personal limits. Actually, John, you are totally wrong to doubt this. Do you think that every doctor can do a third trimester abortion? No. In fact, few do. Part of the reason why they set a limit is because the abortions become more complicated as the pregnancy advances. But also, there are doctors who are just not comfortable aborting the fetus at a more developed stage. Yes, they realize that it is growing and looking more like a “baby.” Indeed, as you well know, every clinic goes only so far and that’s basically because of the doctor.
LikeLike
August 27, 2014 at 11:54 am
You’re right about doctors not wanting to become killers but the money is too hard to resist. Once he kills one young person, he finds it easier to kill more. And if you offered him enough money to kill older people, he’d find a way to do it.
LikeLike
August 28, 2014 at 12:35 pm
John, you know that I am pretty candid. I can tell you for a fact that a doctor who goes up to, say, 14 weeks is not gonna do a 21 week abortion just to make money. HE would not be set up to do it, his staff might object and he just does not want to push the envelope.
LikeLike
August 28, 2014 at 1:32 pm
I’m still not convinced, Pat. If he’s making it doing in the younger ones, he won’t. But if he finds he needs a little more . . . no . . . I wouldn’t trust him.
LikeLike
September 6, 2014 at 10:40 am
So, you don’t trust me?
LikeLike
September 8, 2014 at 11:09 am
Sure I trust you. That doesn’t mean I agree with everything you say.
LikeLike
August 28, 2014 at 6:01 am
More about anti choice folks and money . . . from the state of Texas and court hearings, where their defense of the rules [that shut down clinics across the state] was a bizarre and unconvincing show. Four of its five witnesses denied, and then conceded (when confronted with incriminating emails) that their written testimony was crafted by Vincent Rue, an opponent of women’s reproductive freedom best known for promoting kooky claims, like the existence of an abortion-related mental illness he calls “post-abortive syndrome.”
Mr. Rue does brisk business these days orchestrating testimony from pliable witnesses willing to supply “expert” support for state abortion restrictions, a task for which he has been paid $42,000, so far, by Texas. That his guidance is relied upon is incredible given that his own past court testimony and theories have been discredited by judges and others.
Rue joins others like David Reardon, Joel Brind, Anne Speckhard, Phillip G. Ney and Priscilla Coleman—all complicit with B.A.D. (biased, agenda driven) science. That they benefit financially from misinformation and outright lying discredits them and the pro life machinery.
LikeLike
August 28, 2014 at 7:10 am
This interests me, Ali: “Mr. Rue does brisk business these days orchestrating testimony from pliable witnesses willing to supply ‘expert’ support for state abortion restrictions, a task for which he has been paid $42,000, so far, by Texas.”
Forty-two large! Wooo! What does Vinnie know that I don’t. Could you elaborate?
LikeLike
August 28, 2014 at 7:13 am
Doesn’t “discredit” make “pro life machinery” redundant?
LikeLike
August 28, 2014 at 8:23 am
David, so-called “pro-lifers” who protest at clinics DO fear for their lives! They just don’t fear for them exclusively while protesting.
They are afraid of their own death, because despite their tenaciously held religiosity, at bottom they cannot believe God will grant them eternal life. And as human beings they are fully aware of the nothingness that would ensue when they die if there is not a God to keep his (not her) promise.
So, by being so-called “pro-lifers” they engage in an allegory– the struggle of human mortality against the gaping chasm of oblivion that Death brings. They seek to “rescue” the fetus because it reassures them that they will be immortal, rescued by God. The fetus in this allegory is them. And they in this mummery play the role of God.
LikeLike
August 28, 2014 at 11:06 am
You believe this crap, D?
LikeLike
August 28, 2014 at 12:37 pm
Sounds a little too deep for me, CG. John, do you fear for your death and, if so, is that why you do the things you do?
LikeLike
August 28, 2014 at 1:38 pm
Realizing the reality of death knocked me for a loop at 9 or so. But I recovered — long before I became pro-lifer. Those psychology courses knocked Chuck for a loop, and he still hasn’t recovered.
LikeLike
August 29, 2014 at 7:41 am
John Dunkle wrote, “Realizing the reality of death knocked me for a loop at 9 or so. But I recovered . . .”
Ernest Becker was one of the GI’s who entered the first concentration camp American troops discovered. He was not only horrified by what he saw, but for years afterward he wondered why anybody would even try to continue living under such conditions. He became a philosopher and a professor and eventually wrote a book about the human compulsion to live under whatever horror life entailed.
In “Denial of Death” Becker wrote that as far as is known, we are the only animals conscious of our inevitable mortality and will do whatever it takes to avoid facing it. Dunkle, as we all do, claims to have recovered from his realization.
But none of us do, Becker says. We repress it. Many of us use a psychological tool like religion (e.g., the reward of a Heaven or the achievement of nirvana) or a philosophy (e.g., merging after death into a noosphere) to help us set it aside. We have to repress it, says Becker, because if we don’t we would be paralyzed by the inevitability of vanishing into a void we cannot accept.
Becker wondered why people would, on the other hand, choose to sacrifice their life despite their knowledge of the terror of death, and he posited that heroism is a proven form of immortality: If one is going to die, it is possible to live on almost forever, in human memory– Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Ghandi, Martin Luther King, etc.– and that one becomes a hero when one meets the price specified by society. Thus, the soldier mans the machine gun while his platoon retreats, secure in the knowledge they will never forget him or the college student earns the praise of society for dashing into a burning dormitory to save a student.
So-called “pro-lifers” just like the rest of us haven’t “gotten over it,” but use a different tool to repress their consciousness of death– they seek the status of heroes. Unlike others, however, they do not want to meet the price society specifies, but to set the price themselves. No risking of their life (it’s what they fear to lose above all), no sacrifice of money, time, wealth, talent, or physical well-being.
To set this price, they have to sell society on the idea that what they do is worthy of the status, so they create a flawless victim, one on whom they can impose any virtue whatsoever without contradiction– and what fetus is going to argue with them when they speak of it as being angelic, cognitive, sentient, beautiful, divine, etc.? And having done that, they can then argue that abortion is the prime evil.
A lot of society buys into their beggared question.
And how can we tell that they are acting out an allegory, with the fetus representing them and themselves representing God granting them life? Simply by this: Their actions belie their words.
They do not and cannot care for real children to the extent they proclaim to care for fetuses or “the sanctity of life.”
Dunkle is an example. He has stated that he has either two or seven children, but he clearly has never adopted, nor has he ever taken on a child he hasn’t wanted to. In fact, the only pet he has (according to what he told me) isn’t even allowed to live in the house; it’s a “barn cat.”
You would think that the so-called “pro-lifers” would be adopting at a rate far above the national average, but they don’t. Neither do they have an above-average grasp of the needs of child development, which would make them far more sensitive to the needs of real children and cause pangs of conscience every time they walked away from a baby whose birth they insisted on.
Unable to face the horror of their own death, they cannot face the need to save real children from the lurking horrors of life.
They have successfully hidden this gap between word and action from society.
This dissonance between word and deed is the irredeemable stain at the heart of the movement and reveals it as a dysfunctional self-help program for people who aren’t as successful as the rest of us in coping with their fear of death.
LikeLike
August 29, 2014 at 11:01 am
Still crap but not so odoriferous as #8.
LikeLike
August 29, 2014 at 4:32 pm
That’s what a lot of patients say when they begin therapy. Denial is a form of survival, but not as good a form as accepting what the truth of one’s situation is in order to be cured of a problem.
LikeLike
August 29, 2014 at 7:10 pm
You think patients say “odoriferous”?
LikeLike
August 29, 2014 at 8:25 am
I’ve been thinking about JD’s claim that he knows some protesters are in fear. What could they fear (other than as Charles suggests, their own mortality or the possibility that they have doubts about god and these doubts needs a counterbalance in case there really is a god)?
My best guess is that they fear one day pushing a patient or support too far. Given the proliferation of guns and the ease of getting a concealed gun permit in PA, I suppose they really could have something to fear, even if their own actions are what bring on the fear.
But why speculate? John, tell us, what do they fear? If they haven’t said, ask them.
LikeLike
August 29, 2014 at 11:02 am
I’ve herd lots but nothing as good as your paragraph 2.
LikeLike
August 29, 2014 at 11:03 am
heard
LikeLike
August 29, 2014 at 12:04 pm
Nope, you got it right with “herd.” I believe thats called a Freudian slip
LikeLike
August 29, 2014 at 2:24 pm
David, I’m guessing it’s just JD’s fear. He doesn’t want to talk about his own fears when it’s so much easier to label anonymous people as fearful. In fact, he likely works by himself and has no other friends–just make-believe friends upon which he can project his own fears and foibles.
I’d agree that pushing patients or their companions raises the potential for a blood bath. Just add mental health problems and/or substance abuse with gun-packing, hot headedness to the vitriol of protesters and, odds are, there will be some serious damage done.
I guess we’ll read about it in the NY Times.
LikeLike
August 29, 2014 at 4:32 pm
What they fear most is being ignored. It’s like being dead.
LikeLike
August 29, 2014 at 7:13 pm
You’re so much better, Chuck, when you’re pithy. Forget that phony psychology stuff. You got me here good. I think you missed on the others.
LikeLike
August 29, 2014 at 2:12 pm
Charles
I love your nod to allegory. Your comment about the “chasm of oblivion that Death brings” suggests the work of Satan in the anti choice advocates. Let me try to explain. I wonder if the anti choice advocates aren’t really minions for the Devil himself. As you have suggested elsewhere, they care not for women’s agency or women’s feelings, care not a whit for the fetus after it’s born, care not about pain and suffering of malformed fetuses, care not about the suffering of the parents who must watch their newborn die a slow death, care less about the pain a woman endures during pregnancy. These are all traits of individuals who have succumbed to the lust for the wicked power of Lucifer.
But let me return to your notion of the mummery play. Those who “advocate” carrying a pregnancy to term may appear to have resurrected the medieval, broadly comic, form of performance known as mummery. With their underlying theme of a battle between killing and restoring to life, the protesters see themselves as good fighting evil. However, like many mummery plays, the performances of many protesters evoke the quackery of the good doctor character, found in mummeries, who used magic potions. But rather than magic potions, today’s protesters conjure fantastical stories about the horrors of abortion which are truly horrors of their own creation and not fact. Today’s protesters believe they are able to resurrect abortion-minded (dead) women with their supernatural chants, their enchanted hexes, magical papers and their fetishes (like rosaries, signs, crucifixes, framed images of dead madonnas). The reality is that while they may see themselves as Aslan (as the good guy in the allegory of Narnia), they more closely resemble the White Witch who is merciless, cruel, sadistic and power-hungry. People hate and fear the White Witch, aka the protesters, because they see no goodness in them. In other words, the mummery play gets turned on its multi-headed bestial head.
LikeLike
August 29, 2014 at 2:50 pm
You penny psychologists are driving me crazy! And all because of this: “carrying a pregnancy to term.” No one carries a pregnancy to term! She carries a person to term, a human being, a female, a male.
Why can’t you accept that obvious fact?
LikeLike
August 29, 2014 at 3:25 pm
Notice how Mr. Dunkle illustrates my point about caring less about women when he rants: “No one carries a pregnancy to term!”
He can’t even admit that a woman carries. Instead, he uses the Luciferian term, “no one”
But also notice how he marginalizes all that must occur for a fetus to develop enough to live outside the womb. A woman carries HER pregnancy to term. The contents of the pregnancy are not just a human fetus but also associated bodily structural, chemical, emotional, physiological changes. Without that pregnancy that Dunkle summarily dismisses, there would be little chance for any “person” to be born.
Dunkle insists on symbolically annihilating the woman. Tell me that isn’t the work of Lucifer’s own minion.
LikeLike
August 29, 2014 at 3:51 pm
I give up. No I don’t.
LikeLike
August 29, 2014 at 4:36 pm
Alice, years ago I commented about Randall Terry, one of the truly great grifters of the religious right, dying and finding himself at the gates of Hell.
He protests, “But I co-founded Operation Rescue! I deserve to go to Heaven!” And Satan leers, “Ah, but thanks to you, I’m getting millions more souls!”
LikeLike
August 29, 2014 at 7:15 pm
Well, OKI.
LikeLike
September 4, 2014 at 7:59 am
David said, “’ve been thinking about JD’s claim that he knows some protesters are in fear.”
Dunkle can probably count them all on one finger. So-called “pro-life” protestors know that they can operate with impunity. In Milwaukee they went so far as to use a junk car as a battering ram against a clinic, because they knew the District Attorney was of their ilk. As long as there are cops who like to dump on people they consider “undeserving,” e.g., the poor, the black and the reluctantly pregnant, so-called “pro-lifers” have nothing to fear from them. As long as they can successfully maintain their campaign to be seen as “heroes,” they will have the preponderance of political opinion on their side. And as long as they can maintain a fictional moral distance from the likes of Erick Rudolph and Dominic Salvi, they will have the complacency of an uncritical public as their haven.
LikeLike
September 4, 2014 at 5:02 pm
Huh?
LikeLike
September 5, 2014 at 12:56 pm
You heard me, and you understand quite well. . . the so-called “pro-life” movement demands nothing of its members outside of lip service to its cause: no sacrifice of money, time or talent, no threat to life or limb, commitment only insofar as the participant wishes, never a call to surrender to the least inconvenience.
LikeLike
September 5, 2014 at 4:43 pm
This would make sense if you said “pro-life” organization. A movement doesn’t have members.
What you meant to say is “pro-life” people give only lip service to the cause, no sacrifice of money . . .” And mainly you’re right. There are thirteen million prolifers and only thirteen who’ve given everything. That’s why we’ve been losing the war for forty-one years.
LikeLike
September 5, 2014 at 5:38 pm
You flunk sociology. A movement has members, leaders, detractors, radicals, and lunatics (which you are one).
LikeLike
September 5, 2014 at 8:28 pm
Sociology is for folks who have trouble with English.
LikeLike
September 6, 2014 at 10:42 am
Hey, DrK8! Where you been???
LikeLike
September 6, 2014 at 10:26 am
From Merriam-Webster:
move·ment
ˈmo͞ovmənt/Submit
noun
1.
an act of changing physical location or position or of having this changed.
“a slight movement of the upper body”
synonyms: motion, move; More
an arrival or departure of an aircraft.
an act of defecation.
noun: bowel movement; plural noun: bowel movements
the activities and whereabouts of someone, especially during a particular period of time.
“your movements and telephone conversations are recorded”
the general activity or bustle of people or things in a particular place.
“the scene was almost devoid of movement”
the progressive development of a poem or story.
“the novel shows minimal concern for narrative movement”
a change or development in something.
“movements in the underlying financial markets”
synonyms: development, change, fluctuation, variation More
2.
a group of people working together to advance their shared political, social, or artistic ideas.
“the labor movement”
synonyms: political group, party, faction, wing, lobby, camp
“the labor movement”
Dunkle provided a clear example of how the so-called “pro-life” movement seeks to establish its own definitions in order to control the terms of engagement. So also do they falsely define the fetus as fully human.
LikeLike
September 7, 2014 at 11:24 am
Well, what you meant to say is still right.
LikeLike
September 5, 2014 at 7:09 am
OK, let’s just take one: As long as there are cops who like to dump on people they consider “undeserving,” e.g., the poor, the black and the reluctantly pregnant, so-called “pro-lifers” have nothing to fear from them.
That’s standard for pro-deathers like Chuck who sit on their couches and imagine what’s going on.
I, on the other hand, am out on the streets, and I see what’s going on. Here’s what when on last week at the Allentown Women’s Center:
Here are two versions of what happened today:
my version, Two women and a man walked from Commerce down Courtney where Tony offered them pamphlets. The guy responded with a string of f words, and the women threatened him with tasers (google taser to see what they are).
Tony dialed 911 and the Colonial police soon arrived. First, one told Tony he shouldn’t have approached the attackers. Later he said he couldn’t recognize them in the waiting room. So much for justice.
Tony’s version, Two tall, thin black women and a black man walked from Commerce down Courtney and Tony began to approach them. Before he even got to offer them pamphlets, both women threatened him with their tasers, repeatedly pressing the triggers to cause large and visible sparks. Tony never got the opportunity to get close, as they cut across the grassy area to go toward the mill. They continued pressing the triggers, with one of them saying, “Feel that.” The man yelled “F— you” to Tony.
Tony called 911. CRPD Officer Mihalick responded. When he arrived, he asked Tony what happened. Tony described the people and what they had done. Off. Mihalick immediately told Tony that he shouldn’t approach people. Tony told the officer that he had the right, but had not gotten close to the people. Off. Mihalick pulled away, went and spoke to “Dougie,” then entered the mill. He came out a few minutes later. Another officer had also arrived. Off. Mihalick and the other officer went to the Courtney driveway and Off. Mihalick asked Tony for his id and permit, which Tony produced. Off. Mihalick said that he didn’t see any people in the waiting room who matched that description. Tony told him that they were the only group that matched the description who had entered the AWC that day. Off. Mihalick said that he saw staff and other people, and maybe they went to the back. Tony explained that three people would not go into a room for a procedure for one. He asked Off. Mihalick if he had asked in the waiting room if anyone had just had a confrontation outside. Off. Mihalick responded that he had not. He again told Tony not to approach people; Tony again responded that he had the right to do just that.
If the AWC calls the CRPD with a complaint that one Pro-Lifer had gone a foot over their purported ten-foot boundary line, five police cars would have responded and an investigation would have been initiated. However, when a Pro-Lifer is threatened with physical harm, CRPD officials like Off. Mihalick put their heads in the sand and make little effort to identify the perpetrators. So much for justice.
My version is second hand. Notice how much better Tony’s first-hand version is: Officer Mihalick is named, “string of f words” is corrected, “color” is noted to underscore the absurdity of the officer’s claim that he was not able to identify the perps among the ten or so white clients waiting inside, “tasers” come alive, Officer Mihalick’s refusal to recognize (twice) what the law allows is also noted, the complainant is ID’d and the perpetrators are not, and “so much for justice” is spelled out.
LikeLike
September 5, 2014 at 5:34 pm
So, thanks to Dunkle for providing evidence of Anthony Sulpizio’s cowardice despite his obnoxious bravado. And, I might add, what we have observed all along, his overt racism.
So much for the BS line he loves to parrot: “God loves you and so do we”
LikeLike
September 5, 2014 at 8:26 pm
Why are you sometimes Drk8, and sometimes Kate, and sometimes Alice?
Is it because we can’t tell who you are when you say something stupid?
LikeLike
September 6, 2014 at 10:44 am
Yikes, Kate is Alice? I am so out of it.
LikeLike
September 6, 2014 at 4:46 pm
Right, Dunkle. I’m also John Dunkle.
LikeLike
September 7, 2014 at 8:53 am
Not really, even though we do resemble each other.
LikeLike
September 6, 2014 at 9:58 am
And Kate, you work for the demise of African-Americans and Tony works for their survival, and he’s the racist? Well I suppose if your boss is the
Father of Lies, you’ll come up with one or two whoppers yourself,
LikeLike
September 6, 2014 at 4:57 pm
Next thing you know, you’ll be saying Tony walks on water.
LikeLike
September 7, 2014 at 4:27 am
Tony’s not a priest!
LikeLike
September 7, 2014 at 5:25 am
Let’s be frank. Tony’s work is sadism, sanctimoniously disguised as mercy.
LikeLike
September 7, 2014 at 8:51 am
I can see into nobody’s heart, not even yours or Efy’s or mine.
LikeLike
September 8, 2014 at 12:00 pm
So, John, tell me how many hours a week Tony spends working in the ghetto’s social programs for the African-Americans he purports to “save.”
LikeLike
September 8, 2014 at 12:21 pm
six or seven
LikeLike
September 9, 2014 at 6:29 am
John, you’ve also told us you escaped the Holocaust, so I expect you to provide proof that Mr. Tony actually spends six or seven hours a week working one-on-one with African-American children not of his church, social class or kin. Otherwise, I will continue to think you’ve committed a sin;.
LikeLike
September 8, 2014 at 7:44 am
I recently ran into an old acquaintance, Merrilee, whom I hadn’t seen in about fifteen years. She and her husband lost their three kids after neighbors reported them toddling around in diapers filled with 2-3 days of poop while Merrilee and Jason (not their real names) peddled drugs for sex in their apartment. She had grown up in a household headed by a father who seemed to be a decent, sociable man, but as she told me at our re-connection, he was a monster who beat all the kids mercilessly. It was clear that to Merrilee, Jason’s behavior was better than her father’s was; never mind that he had served prison time in a Midwestern state for ripping out a baby’s tongue–
Their apartment was the anchor point for the town’s annual “Chain of Life” demonstration by so-called “pro-lifers.” More to follow.
LikeLike
September 8, 2014 at 9:28 am
This is crazy. There’d better be.
LikeLike
September 8, 2014 at 11:57 am
The so-called “pro-lifers” didn’t pay any attention to the needs of real children; in fact, they moaned about the high taxes, even when it came to funding child protective services. Of the 160 present the year I forced them to shut down, only two families had adopted. One of them had adopted five kids, but they an income of over $250,000 a year, and one family had adopted one.
I subsequently visited the pastors of all the churches– Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist (two sects), United, etc.– plus the ones that hadn’t– Methodist, Episcopalian and UU– and invited them to recruit volunteers to invest (as I was doing at the time) 8 percent of their annual gross income and 600 hours a year working as a volunteer for children not of their church, kinship or social class.
Nobody volunteered.
Meanwhile, of course, Merrilee divorced Jason, somehow got a life and got out of her own dysfunction. None of the three kids, now all adults, have ever recovered from the severe trauma of those early years. And one of them, despite her own dysfunctionality, is now a mother of her own child and just as likely as Merrilee was to let the man in her life perpetuate the cycle of evil, simply because in her heart she knows it to be “normal.”
You aren’t going to find any so-called “pro-lifers” rallying to save Merrilee’s grandchild(ten).
LikeLike
September 8, 2014 at 12:20 pm
or understand what this is all about
LikeLike
September 9, 2014 at 6:34 am
t means so called “pro-lifers” do nothing to protect real children from the evil that humans do unto them.
Why this bizarre focus on ensuring that children be born into a life that is nothing but suffering or inflicting suffering? I would rather be aborted than suffer the fate of any of Merrilee’s children, but you would insist that I spend my entire life in pain and ignorance.
That is a very self-centered attitude– to make yourself feel good, you would condemn a child to such a life, nor even try to rescue the child fom it. It’s the cancer at the heart of the so-called “pro-life” movement.
LikeLike
September 10, 2014 at 7:43 am
Oh Chuck get off it. I know enough about you to see the pain and suffering is really your own, raised in a broken family, enduring unhappy relationships as an adult, and so on.
But if you had been aborted, my life, for one (and I’ll bet there are others’ too) would have been diminished. And I don’t say that to be ironic or “cute.”
Stop obsessing about your pain. Stop and, as they say, smell the roses.
LikeLike
September 11, 2014 at 8:53 am
Good to know you can see other people’s pain, Mr. Dunkle. Bad to know you don’t do anything constructive about it except prolong or intensify it where you feel compelled to.
LikeLike
September 11, 2014 at 11:05 am
oh shoot
LikeLike
September 8, 2014 at 1:44 pm
I have to say that I don’t listen very closely when someone starts recounting a personal anectode (is that how you spell it?). When Reagan talked about that “welfare lady who bought vodka with food stamps” I totally tuned out. There will always be stories like that, both sides of every debate us them. And I’m sorry but I just don’t think they mean much.
LikeLike
September 11, 2014 at 8:55 am
That wasn’t a personal anecdote; that was a malicious and untruthful fabrication.
LikeLike
September 11, 2014 at 11:09 am
I think Pat is referring to my story about the three African-Americans at the mill, Chuck. Why do you say it is malicious and untruthful (“fabrication” is redundant)?
LikeLike
September 11, 2014 at 12:32 pm
I was talking about Reagan’s “personal anecdote.” I’m still waiting for you to provide proof that your assertion that Tony spends “six or seven” hours a week working unpaid with children not of his kin, church or social class.
LikeLike
September 11, 2014 at 1:29 pm
Too much trouble. Look, if a guy tries to save people from being murdered, actually tortured to death, I don’t care what else he does: forge checks, cheat on his boyfriend, jaywalk, pee in public; or does not do: say the rosary, go to Mass, work unpaid with children not of his kin, show you or me no respect.
He’s my guy anyway.
LikeLike
September 12, 2014 at 6:18 am
So, you don’t care how many children are abused, neglected or killed because your ally Tony is an effective so-called “pro-lifer.” And you’re quite willing to toss off a lie or two in his behalf. It doesn’t sound to me like you have a very firm grasp of a need for ethical principles– which is a common trait in the so-called “pro-life” movement.
LikeLike
September 12, 2014 at 8:15 am
First things first, Chuck. Stop the murdering first. Then concentrate on stopping the lesser forms of abuse.
LikeLike
September 21, 2014 at 1:20 am
cheap price pfister 3
Some Simple Thoughts | Abortion – Abortion Clinics, Abortion Pill, Abortion Information
LikeLike