A recent article in the British publication, “The Guardian,” has generated some interesting conversations on the Internet lately.
In that article, long time abortion doctor Curtis Boyd is quoted as saying “Am I killing? Yes, I am. I know that.” Apparently, he later said he was taken out of context but many in the anti-abortion movement are crowing to the rooftops, declaring victory, citing how this doctor has finally blown the whistle.
What a bunch of hooey!
Curtis Boyd is just one in a long line of doctors and activists who have “admitted” the same. Indeed, in 1997, when I was the Executive Director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, I was quoted in the New York Times – a rather well known paper – as saying that “abortion is a form of killing.” The next day I did get a number of calls from my pro-choice colleagues who were not too happy, but when I asked them if I had said anything inaccurate, they stumbled.
So, let’s get this straight. A woman comes into an abortion clinic with a fetus/a baby or whatever the heck you wanna call it and it is a living organism. She goes to the clinic because she does not want it to grow which is what would normally happen left unattended. She wants to stop the growth and start with a clean slate, both physically and mentally. Her goal is simple: when she leaves the clinic, she does not want to be carrying that fetus/baby.
So, what word would you use to describe exactly what the doctor does? When the doctor took the affirmative medical steps to prevent the pregnancy from growing, did he/she “terminate” the organism or did he “kill” it? Obviously, the word “kill” is a bit harsher that then more acceptable “terminate.” In the end, I’m not sure if there is a right or wrong answer.
But to me, there is a bigger issue here. And that is that whatever Doctor Boyd, the anti-abortion movement or I call the procedure, it probably makes no difference to the woman. I’ve been in a clinic where I’ve heard women use many different words to describe what they are doing of their own volition and, yes, I’ve heard women use the word “kill.” As an aside, they also use the word “baby”.
The battle over what we call this medical procedure doesn’t mean diddly squat to the average women. When I made my rather public admission in 1997, I can guarantee you that there was not one woman in this country who was shocked to hear how I described the procedure. Women who have abortions know exactly what they are doing, they know what they want/need to accomplish and the terminology is just something that those with an investment in the “abortion wars” love to perpetuate for PR reasons.
What a waste of time.

December 2, 2014 at 12:37 pm
Adam Gopnik’s November 28, 2014 article, Arguing Abortion, in the New Yorker sums the argument rather succinctly. “The choice—the only actual choice, in the world as it really is—is between safe, legal abortion and dangerous, illegal abortion. Everything else is just misogyny, cruelty, and superstition.”
Arguing about killing, murder, genocide are sordid tactics that have no place in discussions about reproductive rights of women.
LikeLike
December 2, 2014 at 4:12 pm
“Arguing about killing, murder, genocide are sordid tactics that have no place in discussions about the sovereign rights of national self-determination.”
Did you write that, Alice, or was that a Nazi.
LikeLike
December 3, 2014 at 2:37 pm
Hmmm, I’m not so sure, Alice. When we discuss the reproductive rights of women that of course can mean we are going to discuss abortion. And abortion is a form of killing. I think the public does have a right to argue whether or not women should be allowed to “kill” their “babies.” But, of course, I was also arguing that the words themselves don’t matter to most of the women who have abortions.
LikeLike
December 2, 2014 at 1:24 pm
To the so-called “pro-lifer,” it’s good to call abortion “killing,” but it’s even better to call it “murder.” Anglers kill worms when they put them on a fishhook, so to be against abortion because it’s the equivalent of putting a worm on a fishhook is reasonably powerful. BUT when one is against an act which involves murder– and only a cruel child or a sociopath would murder an earthworm– then one is likely to be regarded by society as a hero.
Since so-called “pro-lifers” seek to be heroes, being against killing is good, but not nearly as self-serving as being against murder. However, they’ll settle for what they can get.
LikeLike
December 2, 2014 at 4:17 pm
This one, Chuck, I almost understand.
The young person is obviously murdered, but who is the murderer? There are those who say I am because I did not follow Paul Hill or Scott Roeder when they did what has to be done to serial killers.
LikeLike
December 3, 2014 at 5:08 am
Dunkle…did you just say doctor’s that perform abortions “have”
to be murdered?
LikeLike
December 3, 2014 at 3:53 pm
Serial killers have to be stopped. Since we barbarians have not stopped them, or have not been able to stop them, heroism is called for. Do you know how many heroes are out there?
LikeLike
December 4, 2014 at 10:57 pm
John Dunkle’s threat concerns me. Perhaps it is time to report this thread to the proper authorities.
LikeLike
December 5, 2014 at 10:35 am
Line up,
LikeLike
December 5, 2014 at 4:43 pm
No, he won’t go that far. His wife was too embarrassed by his most overt attempt.
LikeLike
December 3, 2014 at 11:45 am
It is NOT a “young person,” John, any more than a cup of water is a “young ice cube.”
LikeLike
December 3, 2014 at 3:54 pm
apples and oranges
LikeLike
December 4, 2014 at 8:15 am
I forgot: you taught in a parochial school. You just flunked a basic test in logic.
LikeLike
December 4, 2014 at 10:02 am
?
LikeLike
December 3, 2014 at 2:39 pm
Isn’t the “murderer” the doctor and the woman is an “accomplice?” Isn’t that how the pro-lifers look at this?
LikeLike
December 3, 2014 at 3:56 pm
I think most do, but not I. I let Jesus Christ determine guilt.
LikeLike
December 14, 2014 at 5:16 am
That’s one of “MANY….MANY….LIES ” you tell on this site, Mr. John Dunkle!! If you “let” Jesus Christ determine guilt…then why do you persecute doctor’s everyday for performing abortions?? You SCREAM @ women entering clinic’s or doctor’s office’s calling them MURDERER’S!! It is very clear to me that you are judging these women and the doctor’s….I think the “SHAME IS ON YOU”……DUNKLE AND ALL OF THE OTHER LITTLE FLUNKIES around the world that follow you and people like you!! Professing to speak for Jesus!!
LikeLike
December 14, 2014 at 7:31 am
No, no, LDM, Jesus speaks for me. And for you too.
LikeLike
December 14, 2014 at 11:31 am
Lorraine, I have yet to have Jesus show up at the clinic I escort at. Not sure how Jesus speaks for ME since I have not even met the dude and you would think by now I would of met him at least once, but it is interesting that Jesus speaks for me when he has not actually met me right? I mean how can you speak for someone you have never actually met? I kinda get a bit miffed when people speak for me without even have met me, you know what I mean? So I really hope Jesus does not speak for me.
Lorraine have you ever met Jesus, maybe you did but you forgot because according to John he speaks for you..LOL
But I guess John has met Jesus because Jesus speaks for him, so John when did you meet this Jesus person? Can you describe the meeting?
LikeLike
December 14, 2014 at 3:40 pm
I read the Bible through last year when I was 78 for the first time in my life and Jesus spoke to me a lot in that book. Also Jesus’s voice on earth now is the Catholic Church and he speaks to me there too.
LikeLike
December 16, 2014 at 1:19 pm
John, you say you read the Bible through for the first time last year. Did you read it in English (4th translation) or did you read it in the original language? I have read it cover to cover over 10 times, and now I’m reading it in Hebrew and Greek. NOWHERE does God forbid abortion. He forbids murder, The word translated kill in Hebrew in the 10 Commandments is actually murder. And God distinguishes between murder and killing. And in Exodus 21: 22-23, God says killing a pre-born human is punishable by a loss of property fine, but killing a post-born human is murder. So for you to murder an abortion doctor is punishable by a life for a life, but for an abortion doctor to kill a fetus is a monitory fine. You need to rethink your theology.
LikeLike
December 16, 2014 at 2:04 pm
English.
You want me to discard the new theology for the old? Jesus set the record straight. Remember his saying that Moses permitted divorce because of the hardness of their hearts? And then going on to say what God has joined together let no man pull apart?
Lots of horrors besides baby-killing are not mentioned in the Bible — pederasty or one, rape for another.
God sent you to this blog, CLM, so that I could get you up to date.
LikeLike
December 2, 2014 at 3:09 pm
What is never mentioned in these debates is the First Amendment. Traced to their origins, the anti-abortion arguments are based in conservative religious tenets. However, not all religions and not even all Christian denominations teach that the loss of fetal life is murder. In denying abortion services to a woman who does not hold your religious beliefs, are you violating her First Amendment rights?
LikeLike
December 2, 2014 at 4:22 pm
“. . . not even all Christian denominations teach that the loss of fetal life is murder.” Whew, talk about an understatement.
Love your name. Could you spell that last word phonetically?
LikeLike
December 2, 2014 at 8:28 pm
Clearly Pictish-Egyptian….
LikeLike
December 3, 2014 at 2:41 pm
Cheryel, I’ve never heard this debate in the context of the First Amendment which generally protects free speech. Can you elaborate?
LikeLike
December 3, 2014 at 4:09 pm
Gladly, Pat. There are three convictions on when life occurs. Anti-abortionists believe that when sperm meets egg, life begins. Some people debate on the side of when pain can be felt or viability; when life can be sustained outside the womb. This, of course is variable, and cannot be accurately determined, and therefore, legislated. Then there are those who believe that God in Scripture has determined when life starts. They point to Exodus 21: 22-23, where God mandates a loss of property fine to anyone who causes a miscarriage. In verse 23 He then mandates a life for a life punishment if the mother is killed. Jews and many Christian denominations believe that when a baby is born and take the Breath of Life, nishmat chayyim, then he is a nefesh chayyah, a living soul. And then and only then is he a human being. And a murder verdict can only apply to a nefesh chayyah in which is the nishmat chayyim. So for anyone to impose their religious beliefs through legislation on anyone who does not hold them is in violation of the First Amendment. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, that is legislating one religious belief over another.
LikeLike
December 4, 2014 at 4:23 am
We all have our beliefs, don’t we CLM. Yours says life begins when one becomes a nefesh chayyah. Sounds to me as if “that is legislating one religious belief over another.”
Try again.
LikeLike
December 2, 2014 at 4:08 pm
I don’t have to submit anything now, Pat. You just wrote my article for me.
I remember arguing with someone about “terminating a pregnancy,” but she objected when I asked if I might then call the man she was helping (the “abortionist”) a terminator.
LikeLike
December 2, 2014 at 5:35 pm
Well then perhaps we should define when life begins, and what alive really means, is a blob of tissue “alive”? Could that blob of tissue survive on it’s own?
To me I don’t see it as killing because the “fetus” and or baby to be is not alive until it can breath and survive on its own.
Chuck is right we “kill” alive things all the time, a fetus is not alive so how can it be killed? I never think of it as killing because to me you can’t kill something that is not alive and a fetus is not alive, living yes, but not alive. There is a big difference.
In denying abortion services to a woman who does not hold your religious beliefs, are you violating her First Amendment rights?…Yes you are because once again you are forcing your choice upon her. And last time I checked it was my body and my choice and no one has the right to force their beliefs onto my body.
LikeLike
December 2, 2014 at 8:27 pm
getitdone, actually a fetus IS alive; but it is not a human being UNLESS the primary caretaker so endows it. She,and she alone during pregnancy, can ensure the likelihood of its reaching the stage where it can start fulfilling a human potential.
John Dunkle does really great riffs on murder, killing, the Holocaust, etc., but NOBODY ever notices that he does what every other so-called “pro-lifer” does– avoids the responsibility implicit in coercing somebody to bear a real child.
This is a strong argument that the so-called “pro-life” movement is not at all about human life (care for which is a tremendously complex responsibility), but about their feelings about death (which is simply an either-or situation: for them, if it’s alive, it’s good, but if it’s dead it’s bad).
Talk to them about coercing the birth of another Ted Bundy (whose abortion would have saved the lives of three to five dozen women), and their response is, “So YOU think he should have been aborted?” and not,
“Well, tell me what I can do to raise the next child so he won’t become another Ted Bundy.”
As John Dunkle will admit, I insist his people are sick. If he’d been a single father, he’d understand what it takes to make a life human. Instead, he left it all to his wife, as most of us men do.
LikeLike
December 2, 2014 at 9:21 pm
John Dunkle admits nothing, and he never lies unless he really has to.
LikeLike
December 4, 2014 at 8:03 am
He only has to when it’s convenient.
LikeLike
December 4, 2014 at 10:06 am
Now you’re making sense, Chuck. I knew I could do it.
LikeLike
December 3, 2014 at 2:43 pm
We can get into the blobs of tissue debate but let’s be frank: at some point (which can be argued), the fetus is really developing, you can see it on the ultrasound. Let’s say fifteen weeks or so. That being the case, is that fetus being “killed?”
LikeLike
December 3, 2014 at 3:58 pm
Nope, she and those lots younger than she are being murdered.
LikeLike
December 4, 2014 at 6:00 am
Cheryl beat me to it..this is where I was going with that:
Jews and many Christian denominations believe that when a baby is born and take the Breath of Life, nishmat chayyim, then he is a nefesh chayyah, a living soul. And then and only then is he a human being.
I am not going along with these beliefs I am going along with the science
Viability of the fetus: when can the fetus survive outside of the womb? A fetus in a womb is not “alive” until it is born and drawn it’s first breath.
Life does not begin at the moment of conception, life begins at the stage when the fetus could survive outside the womb. Even then we need to define what we mean by “survive”. Is being born with a horrible birth defect “surviving”, possibly costing millions of dollars in medical bills surviving, would these pro-lifers who want every baby born no matter what really be willing to pay for all these deformed babies to be kept alive, you know they would not be?
It’s all fine and dandy to to jump on soap box and declare you are “pro-life” but when it comes right down to it and if it costs them anything at all to support a life they will turn their backs in a heartbeat on a life in need.
These Anti’s are the ones that want food-stamps and WIC cut, these Anti’s are the ones that did not vote on Violence against Women Act. These anti’s want life but unwilling to do one single to support life. They sure as crap will not be willing to support children that are “surviving”.
A parent should have that choice as to whether they want to see their baby be born and suffer or be born and then suffer and then die, not people like John Dunkle.
Although it’s uncomfortable to be so imprecise, the right answer may lie in accepting that there are degrees of right to life, and the fetus gets a stronger right to life as it develops. This answer has the value of reflecting the way many people feel about things when they consider abortion: the more developed the fetus, the more unhappy they are about aborting it, and the more weight they give the rights of the fetus in comparison with the rights of the mother.
What does the science say, when does life begin? Then again that is really irrelevant isn’t it?
LikeLike
December 4, 2014 at 8:12 am
Until you have tried help someone shop for a confirmation card for a dog, you cannot understand that the power of making a life human resides only in the will of another person: If that person ACTS to promote that fetus’ welfare, then and only then does it deserve the respect and protection due any human being, just as a dog that has been baptized and confirmed deserves the respect and attention of any person who has been, in accordance with the wishes of the primary caretaker.
So-called “pro-lifers” CAN act to promote the welfare of a fetus, but only if they undertake a surrogate pregnancy for the reluctantly pregnant woman. (In fact, given their average income level, they could probably double their income by developing a surrogate pregnancy industry.) Anything they do at a remove is just PR for their self-rescue.
LikeLike
December 4, 2014 at 10:09 am
Dang, Chuck, get back to me. I’m the only one who can get people to understand what you’re saying.
LikeLike
December 4, 2014 at 10:11 am
“Life does not begin at the moment of conception.” Look up conception, Carrie. You folks are going to have to change more word meanings.
LikeLike
December 2, 2014 at 5:37 pm
That last comment was from me Carrie
LikeLike
December 2, 2014 at 9:22 pm
You’re getitdone?
LikeLike
December 4, 2014 at 11:01 am
I saw the protestors outside the local 7-11, waving their signs and imploring people not to go in. I asked one of them what was going on.
“They’re destroying snowflakes in there!” he raged. “See for yourself!”
I looked through the window and saw an employee pouring water from a coffeepot into the utility sink. “Killing snowflakes?” I asked. I couldn’t see any.
He glared at me. “Each one of those drops of water is a beautiful snowflake– and that employee is murdering them! Have you seen the picture of the inside of a sewer line? Those poor, innocent unborn snowflakes are being subjected to a Holocaust!” He showed me a picture of lacy, delicate snowflakes showering into a fetid sewer. It was revolting but, if you ignored the underlying cognitive dissonance, effective propaganda.
I tried to point out that water wasn’t a snowflake, that it had to be cultured through freezing and delicate crystallization in order to become one, and that if he really valued snowflakes that much, he could buy a refrigeration plant and a snow making machine, but just because he said water was snowflakes didn’t make it snowflakes.
Because of his fixation on snowflake rescue, I don’t think the new information turned on his lightbulb…
LikeLike
December 4, 2014 at 1:10 pm
apples and oranges
LikeLike
December 4, 2014 at 2:42 pm
Apples and oranges have nothing to do with it: potentiality vs. actuality is what it’s all about. It’s all in the eye of the beholder. My son’s birth announcement said, “Potentially, the next leader of the Free World; actually, the cutest baby you’ll ever see.”
Depending on how he was raised, he could have been the country’s youngest President– or an axe murderer. What I said he was going to be made no difference; what I actually did made a lot of the difference. Clearly I intended that he never grow up to kill three to five dozen women, and did my best to ensure it would never happen.
So-called “pro-lifers” cannot wean themselves from the fantasy that a fetus is a human being; if they had to grant that it was an almost plastic substance that could be molded into a monster, they’d have to back away from claiming to “rescue” or “protect” it. Try it at your next clinic– tell some pregnant woman that you want her to bear a real child that will kill 36 women. Doesn’t make you look that good, does it?
Learn about the difference between potency and actuality– with your present level of denial, St. Thomas Aquinas would never have let you teach in his Catholic school…
LikeLike
December 4, 2014 at 7:06 pm
goofiness and gobbledegook
LikeLike
December 5, 2014 at 4:41 pm
Your emotions won’t let you pursue the ramifications of this metaphor, will they? It’s a built-in feature of aborticentrism.
LikeLike
December 6, 2014 at 5:04 am
I wouldn’t pursue ramifications even if I knew what that meant.
LikeLike
December 4, 2014 at 10:24 pm
Asking if abortion is killing or murder is problematic because the closed-end question forces one of two possible responses, both of which move us no closer to the real issue that pro-lifers have with abortion. Asking if abortion is killing is as ignorant as asking if buying prime rib is killing a steer. Of course it is. So what? Most of us wear leather shoes but don’t tend to ask others, “Is wearing leather loafers a form of killing? The majority of Americans frankly don’t give a damn. There are those who believe that extinguishing the life of any living creature is morally wrong including cockroaches, snakes, spiders and bullies outside abortion clinics. Some even believe that there is a life force in wood and rocks, a type of life that should never be destroyed.
But asking if abortion is murder takes the question down the lane of legalese. The simple answer is abortion is not murder. In the U.S., abortion is legal. Period. Yes, in some states there are restrictions. But abortion remains legal and is, therefore, not murder.
Asking a forced choice question guarantees one of two responses. It cannot entertain context, history, personal agency, human rights or socioeconomic factors. To be obvious, asking the question of whether abortion is a type of killing or a type of murder ignores the lived experiences, agency and desires of the woman. To be even more obvious, asking the question of whether abortion is a type of killing or a type of murder ignores the fact that such a question elevates the existence of a zygote/embryo/fetus to the status of a separate and equal entity, on par with the woman in whose body the z/e/f resides. And this is where the line begins to be drawn. Some individuals, particularly those found in pro-life circles, believe the z/e/f and the woman have equal moral and legal footing while the majority of individuals use their critical faculties to arrive at more nuanced understandings that generally consider priority and value of the woman over the z/e/f.
Elevating the existence of a zygote/embryo/fetus to the status of a separate and equal entity, on par with the woman in whose body the z/e/f resides ignores the value of the woman’s life. This equalizing, in effect, reduces the life of the woman to incubator status, at best, and as inconsequential, at worst. This status is especially evident when a particularly aggressive anti abortion protester confronts a man accompanying a woman into an abortion clinic. When the protester learns of the situation, that a fetus has died en utero and the woman requires an abortion to avoid the potential complications to her own life, the protester desires no further commerce with the man or the woman. Her use value is nil. The question of whether abortion is killing or murder is no longer interesting, provocative or debatable. What’s isn’t debatable is that the question is taken directly from the pro-life playbook. And that’s troublesome because pro-life is a problematic adjective. Let me explain.
Arguing about killing or murdering ignores the deeply disturbing number of deaths that our government inflicts on people—men, women (and even pregnant women) and children—across the globe calling it by different euphemisms like collateral damage, unfortunate accident or, even more insidious, justifiable protectionism. Yet, the pro-life crowd seems unfazed. Thousands of our brothers and sisters died in other war-torn areas. Yet, the pro-life crowd seems unfazed. Even recently thousands more died in three African countries because structural and economic devastation facilitated an Ebola outbreak. Yet, the pro-life crowd seems unfazed. Killing and murdering happens every day in our own communities across this nation. Black and brown bodies are gunned down in their own neighborhoods, choked to death on our public streets, tasered to death in prisons every day across this nation. Yet, the pro-life crowd seems unfazed. Pregnant women die during pregnancy, childbirth and post partum at rates higher than most of the developed countries. In fact, our maternal health report card puts the United States at 60th in the world. Yet, the pro-life crowd seems unfazed. In fact, it seems that killing and murder don’t really trouble the pro-life crowd.
To be honest, the words kill and murder are obstacles to clarity, dead ends to dialogue. They are, for all intents and purposes, words that inform the metaphors of war. While a metaphor about killing or murder can shape an argument, organize perceptions and elicit emotional responses, it cannot win an argument by itself. Consider the United States’ quotidian yet banal metaphor about the war on drugs. Coined by Nixon and repeated by Reagan, Bush, Jr. and Clinton, the war on drugs was and is a documented abysmal failure. Despite all the heavy-handed policing, policy initiatives, mandatory sentencing and the phenomenally expansive growth of prison industrial complex, the war on drugs was not a war on drugs but a war on an entire population of U.S. citizens. The war on drugs has led to citizen surveillance and arrests similar to fascist regimes around the world. But, consider that in a similar vein, the war on abortion is intended to reduce, if not outlaw, the use and commerce of abortion. It follows, with a high probability, that the war on abortion has had and will continue to have unintended consequences reminiscent of pre-Roe days. A war on abortion is a war on the entire population of women of reproductive age and on abortion providers. We’ve evidence already of the consequences of the war against abortion, targeting especially poor and immigrant women and women of color with heavy-handed policing from state-mandated gestational bans on abortion, imprisonment of pregnant women, force rehabilitation of pregnant women, targeted regulations against abortion providers, and contraceptive exceptions from the Affordable Care Act.
Asking whether abortion is killing or murder distorts the abortion controversy, elevates the status of the z/e/f and ignores the primacy of the woman. Asking whether abortion is killing or murder is also a serious distraction from the socioeconomic realities in which women must make decisions about family planning. However, asking whether abortion is killing or murder is a page ripped right out of the so-called pro-life playbook and, as such, functions well to create a lively round of responses. We’ve all played right into the hands of the master. Kudos to Pat Richards!
LikeLike
December 5, 2014 at 4:45 am
I hate it when people write these multi-paragraph, endless, comments. I’m the only one who reads them. Comments should be short! Leave the length for “Is Abortion ‘Killing’?” above. Then I can enjoy myself. I don’t even have to time to read this right now.
LikeLike
December 5, 2014 at 8:57 am
I’m take this paragraph by paragraph, and it’s taking me forever:
“Asking if abortion is killing or murder is problematic because the closed-end question forces one of two possible responses, both of which move us no closer to the real issue that pro-lifers have with abortion. Asking if abortion is killing is as ignorant as asking if buying prime rib is killing a steer. Of course it is. So what? Most of us wear leather shoes but don’t tend to ask others, “Is wearing leather loafers a form of killing? The majority of Americans frankly don’t give a damn. There are those who believe that extinguishing the life of any living creature is morally wrong including cockroaches, snakes, spiders and bullies outside abortion clinics. Some even believe that there is a life force in wood and rocks, a type of life that should never be destroyed.”
The argument here is that it doesn’t matter what people believe because they believe everything. So it’s OK to believe aborted people are not murdered now. And it’s OK to believe that Jewish people were not murdered then.
LikeLike
December 5, 2014 at 9:00 am
“But asking if abortion is murder takes the question down the lane of legalese. The simple answer is abortion is not murder. In the U.S., abortion is legal. Period. Yes, in some states there are restrictions. But abortion remains legal and is, therefore, not murder.”
You’re right, Kate. Nevertheless, the young person is murdered in spite of what the law says. And two hundred years ago the slave was murdered in spite of what the law said.
LikeLike
December 5, 2014 at 9:07 am
“Asking a forced choice question guarantees one of two responses. It cannot entertain context, history, personal agency, human rights or socioeconomic factors. To be obvious, asking the question of whether abortion is a type of killing or a type of murder ignores the lived experiences, agency and desires of the woman. To be even more obvious, asking the question of whether abortion is a type of killing or a type of murder ignores the fact that such a question elevates the existence of a zygote/embryo/fetus to the status of a separate and equal entity, on par with the woman in whose body the z/e/f resides. And this is where the line begins to be drawn. Some individuals, particularly those found in pro-life circles, believe the z/e/f and the woman have equal moral and legal footing while the majority of individuals use their critical faculties to arrive at more nuanced understandings that generally consider priority and value of the woman over the z/e/f.”
Your argument here is that an older person’s rights trump the younger person’s, the w’s trumps the zygote/embryo/fetus’s, and of course that’s nonsense. (I love “their critical faculties.” Really elevates “think,” don’t it.)
LikeLike
December 5, 2014 at 9:08 am
“Elevating the existence of a zygote/embryo/fetus to the status of a separate and equal entity, on par with the woman in whose body the z/e/f resides ignores the value of the woman’s life. This equalizing, in effect, reduces the life of the woman to incubator status, at best, and as inconsequential, at worst. This status is especially evident when a particularly aggressive anti abortion protester confronts a man accompanying a woman into an abortion clinic. When the protester learns of the situation, that a fetus has died en utero and the woman requires an abortion to avoid the potential complications to her own life, the protester desires no further commerce with the man or the woman. Her use value is nil. The question of whether abortion is killing or murder is no longer interesting, provocative or debatable. What’s isn’t debatable is that the question is taken directly from the pro-life playbook. And that’s troublesome because pro-life is a problematic adjective. Let me explain.”
Yeah, you’d better explain this one.
LikeLike
December 5, 2014 at 9:11 am
“Arguing about killing or murdering ignores the deeply disturbing number of deaths that our government inflicts on people—men, women (and even pregnant women) and children—across the globe calling it by different euphemisms like collateral damage, unfortunate accident or, even more insidious, justifiable protectionism. Yet, the pro-life crowd seems unfazed. Thousands of our brothers and sisters died in other war-torn areas. Yet, the pro-life crowd seems unfazed. Even recently thousands more died in three African countries because structural and economic devastation facilitated an Ebola outbreak. Yet, the pro-life crowd seems unfazed. Killing and murdering happens every day in our own communities across this nation. Black and brown bodies are gunned down in their own neighborhoods, choked to death on our public streets, tasered to death in prisons every day across this nation. Yet, the pro-life crowd seems unfazed. Pregnant women die during pregnancy, childbirth and post partum at rates higher than most of the developed countries. In fact, our maternal health report card puts the United States at 60th in the world. Yet, the pro-life crowd seems unfazed. In fact, it seems that killing and murder don’t really trouble the pro-life crowd.”
Just silly: you join a group because you agree with its objectives, protecting whales from over harvesting, for example. And then you get attacked because you’re ignoring shark killings, the Ebola outbreak, the plight of African-Americans, and spontaneous abortions? Just silly.
LikeLike
December 5, 2014 at 9:14 am
“To be honest, the words kill and murder are obstacles to clarity, dead ends to dialogue. They are, for all intents and purposes, words that inform the metaphors of war. While a metaphor about killing or murder can shape an argument, organize perceptions and elicit emotional responses, it cannot win an argument by itself. Consider the United States’ quotidian yet banal metaphor about the war on drugs. Coined by Nixon and repeated by Reagan, Bush, Jr. and Clinton, the war on drugs was and is a documented abysmal failure. Despite all the heavy-handed policing, policy initiatives, mandatory sentencing and the phenomenally expansive growth of prison industrial complex, the war on drugs was not a war on drugs but a war on an entire population of U.S. citizens. The war on drugs has led to citizen surveillance and arrests similar to fascist regimes around the world. But, consider that in a similar vein, the war on abortion is intended to reduce, if not outlaw, the use and commerce of abortion. It follows, with a high probability, that the war on abortion has had and will continue to have unintended consequences reminiscent of pre-Roe days. A war on abortion is a war on the entire population of women of reproductive age and on abortion providers. We’ve evidence already of the consequences of the war against abortion, targeting especially poor and immigrant women and women of color with heavy-handed policing from state-mandated gestational bans on abortion, imprisonment of pregnant women, force rehabilitation of pregnant women, targeted regulations against abortion providers, and contraceptive exceptions from the Affordable Care Act.”
The war against proliferating drug addiction failed. Therefore, the war against legal murder will too. I hope not, in both cases.
LikeLike
December 5, 2014 at 9:18 am
“Asking whether abortion is killing or murder distorts the abortion controversy, elevates the status of the z/e/f and ignores the primacy of the woman. Asking whether abortion is killing or murder is also a serious distraction from the socioeconomic realities in which women must make decisions about family planning. However, asking whether abortion is killing or murder is a page ripped right out of the so-called pro-life playbook and, as such, functions well to create a lively round of responses. We’ve all played right into the hands of the master. Kudos to Pat Richards!”
Hey! Don’t knock Pat! He’s the most clear “pro-choice” thinker I’ve ever met! And he’s still on your side! (Is it a mistake or deliberate that you omitted my name after “master”?)
LikeLike
December 5, 2014 at 11:41 am
And thanks, Johnnie, for the compliment.
LikeLike
December 5, 2014 at 11:39 am
Phew, kate! I think you nailed it.
LikeLike
December 5, 2014 at 4:40 pm
No, so-called “pro-lifers” should not be attacked for ignoring the plight of remote Christian sects under attack by infidels or advocating for the death penalty or favoring endless war in the Mideast; they should be attacked for failing to care for real children. That is where the cancer of their ideology begins.
LikeLike
December 5, 2014 at 4:48 pm
Chuck calls those he wants to help kill unreal. That’s easy enough.
LikeLike
December 5, 2014 at 5:18 pm
It’s important for so-called “pro-lifers” to define their mission in their terms. As a fetus is a humanoid rather than a human being (check the definitions yourself), to claim that so-called “pro-choicers” consider it an unreal human being is a good tactic for them.
Unfortunately, the latter group is not savvy enough to point out that the former group is not “rescuing unborn humans,” but using humanoids as a vehicle for its own purposes.
LikeLike
December 5, 2014 at 7:19 pm
I’m too stupid to understand this. What about you?
LikeLike
December 5, 2014 at 8:26 pm
It means that you “pro-lifers” try to paint us pro-choicers as not caring about human life, you think we have reduced the fetus to a humanoid, that we do not see the fetus as an actual human being.
We pro-choicer’s should be pointing out consistently and constantly that you pro-lifer’s could give give a rat’s ass about “rescuing unborn humans”. You could not care less about the unborn, because how many born children would you support with your tax dollars? How many “surviving” children that cost millions of dollars to keep alive would you be willing to support with your tax dollars? Seems that probably 99 percent of pro-lifers are against Obamacare, cannot understand if you are pro-life why you would be against Obamacare can you?
You are as pro-life as an ax murderer, you use the unborn as vehicles to promote your own agenda of power and control. You use the unborn as an excuse to bully and harass women, and rake money into the pro-life coffers. You are skilled at using humanoids for your own sick demented cause.
You suffer from cognitive dissonance to the point that you cannot see or fail to understand just what being “pro-life” really is, instead you have twisted it around put a halo around your movement and made yourself out to be saints, saints that murder abortion providers and believe it is justifiable, saints that collect money for murderers, saints who advocate and promote violence against women seeking abortions and the people providing abortion, all because you can’t stand not being in control.
Saints who admit it is their body and their choice when it comes to forced kidney donations but when it comes to a woman’s choices forget it. You could care less about the unborn because what you really want, what your true goal is, is to control and subjugate women, to keep them firmly under your thumb. To make sure that they sit down and shut-up and don’t get up, and when a woman is always barefoot and pregnant it is much easier to dominate and control her.
When a woman has control over her own reproductive health and what happens to her own body, because it is and always will be her body and her choice, it means you have lost your control over her, and you CANNOT STAND IT. So you use the unborn as the reason to try and gain back your control over us women folk and when we exercise control over own body it’s like we are flipping you off and telling you to bugger-off, and you don’t like that.
So do you understand that Mr. Dunkle?
LikeLike
December 6, 2014 at 4:33 am
Yup, and having read it I’m out of breath.
LikeLike
December 5, 2014 at 8:32 pm
Cheryel Lemley-McRoy wrote, “John Dunkle’s threat concerns me. Perhaps it is time to report this thread to the proper authorities.”
I’m not so sure.
Over time, after having read Mr. Dunkle’s immature comments, it occurs to me that he’s probably not in need of a visit from the F.B.I. All his comments have no more bite than a defanged, castrated cat. He seems to be a lonely soul who believes that being a provocateur, if not a bully, will win him friends or a least a pen pal.
It may be conjecture, but I’m guessing that he knows that if he were to actually murder a doctor or a nurse or clinic administrator, he’d lose his freedom and along the way, his abortion.ws audience and the attention he seems to crave. Bunking with a lonely fellow in prison wouldn’t be the sort of attention he thrives on ordinarily. But, that’s a guess.
LikeLike
December 5, 2014 at 10:50 pm
Let’s discuss the race factor. I’m guessing John Dunkle is white. Most white conservatives are taken aback to learn that black and brown women account for the highest percentage of abortions in the race factor. Black and brown babies have the lowest rate of adoption, and are held in foster care until they age out of the system and onto the streets. What about these babies, Mr. Dunkle? Are you willing to adopt them? What about their quality of life? Are you as dedicated to caring for them as you are fanatical about preventing their abortion? What are you doing for all those babies whose lives you’re saving?
LikeLike
December 6, 2014 at 4:55 am
Funny you bring this up, CLM. When I moved to Reading here over twenty years ago, AA’s made up more than twenty-five percent of the population. Now it’s below fifteen. Why? Well a year after me, Planned Parenthood opened on the edge of the ghetto. EA’s (European-Americans) have never paid back to the AA’s what was stolen from them. Planned Parenthood is their latest attempt to solve that problem. And that’s why “. . . black and brown women account for the highest percentage of abortions . . .”
(I’m black.)
LikeLike
December 6, 2014 at 7:27 am
Cheryl if you go to the last post that Pat did for November and scroll all the way to the bottom there is a link to my blog and on my blog I have a picture of John Dunkle and yes he is an old white man.
I have written a few blogs about the angry Anti’s I have encountered while being a clinic escort and I have their pictures on my blog.
I guess I should say thank you to whoever posted a link to my blog on this blog but in a way it does kinda creep me out that someone is watching me that close. Then again I guess I know how John feels, being watched like a hawk.
LikeLike
December 6, 2014 at 8:34 am
I look white but early in my teaching career, first in the South Bronx and then in Queens and Bed Sty, I converted.
LikeLike
December 6, 2014 at 4:42 am
I would never murder a doctor or a nurse or a clinic administrator. If I had the guts, though, I’d stop a serial killer and his aids more effectively than I have been able to.
But I forgive you everything, Alice, just for this sentence: “All his comments have no more bite than a defanged, castrated cat.”
LikeLike
December 6, 2014 at 9:49 am
See basically right there he just admitted he would “stop” a serial killer, which he considers abortion providers to be, if he had been able to. He didn’t come right out and use the word “kill” instead he used “more effectively” but the intent was clearly stated.
LikeLike
December 6, 2014 at 11:33 am
Get it right, Carrie:
He didn’t come right out and use the word “kill” instead he used “stop” but the intent was clearly stated.
LikeLike
December 6, 2014 at 7:20 am
John Dunkle is always being watched by the FBI, he is never very far away from their watch. They know all about him and if he as so much looks crossed eyed at an abortion provider, he will be in cuffs, just like Robert Weiler was. People like John, are considered terrorists and he is on many terrorists watch lists. There are more than just the FBI keeping an eye on him, isn’t that right John? Tells us how many people you have watching you, John.
LikeLike
December 6, 2014 at 8:47 am
Oh com-on, Carrie, stop flattering me. Years ago the feds watched me (read my newsletter on line). And when my wife the meddler prevented them from reading it, they came after me. But that was then. Now I am
“. . . very far away from their watch.”
How do I know? I’ve forgotten to post on line for many months and I’ve heard nothing. Since they were the only ones to read it anyway (they and the prisoners), I miss the attention. And I like attention (ask Kate).
I plan to post the missing issue soon so if you go there to see if I’m lying, you just might find them.
LikeLike
December 6, 2014 at 9:39 am
ahhh John but they are watching you. You’d be a fool not to think they are.
How do I know? I’ve forgotten to post on line for many months and I’ve heard nothing. …does not mean that they are not watching you, now does it? Just because you have not posted anything does not mean they have stopped watching you, boy you really are a fool. No one “forgets” to post stuff on their blog unless they are afraid.
The real reason you stopped posting stuff is that you know they are still watching you, and you are afraid and trying to stay under the radar, but see it doesn’t work that way. Once on a terrorist watch list always on a terrorist watch list. The FBI will never stop watching you and your ilk John.
LikeLike
December 6, 2014 at 11:35 am
silly
LikeLike
December 6, 2014 at 9:44 am
Oh so you have an actual wife? You two still married?
LikeLike
December 6, 2014 at 11:37 am
More than fifty years! And I love her more with each passing year. But she does meddle.
LikeLike
December 6, 2014 at 11:54 am
He also knows what will happen if he’s taken to court again… The first time was enough for her.
LikeLike
December 6, 2014 at 12:23 pm
Absolutely right. She’s with me everywhere, except at mills and homes. At my trial I called her to the stand, without warning her. What do you think of that. I also called Erich Schmidt, a die-hard “pro-choicer” who became a good friend. I didn’t warn him either.
LikeLike
December 6, 2014 at 12:28 pm
So that explains why he has “forgotten about his blog”….
Chuck is there a link to story you could post about John when he went on trial? thanks
LikeLike
December 6, 2014 at 3:48 pm
I was told that after the trial she in effect said, “If you pull off any more cr*p like this trial again, you don’t get any more sex.” That’s why he will never rise to the rank of so-called “pro-lifer” Hero.
As I’ve said, being a so-called “pro-lifer” is the easiest job in the world. You do only what you want to do, risk only what you want to risk, avoid any commitment you want to avoid, set any priorities you want to set….
LikeLike
December 6, 2014 at 5:38 pm
Actually I have found the information about John’s trial, amazing what you can find on the Internet if you know where to look. Reading it now, my John you are a terrorist. But like I say once on a terrorist watch list ALWAYS on a terrorist watch list. Especially after this:
“Significantly, Mr. Dunkle devoted the entire July
issue of his newsletter, which regularly advocates the “moral necessity” of violence in achieving its ends, to the topic of justifiable homicide.
In addition to these generalized threats against those who work reproductive clinics, Defendant Dunkle has specifically threatened Dr. Blanks’ life. In the same newsletter provided to criminals already convicted of murdering doctors, Mr. Dunkle advocated the use of violence and provided Dr. Blanks’ name, address and phone number.”
Now I understand why you have “forgotten” to post on your blog,surprised that Pat allows you to post here still, but as the saying goes keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
LikeLike
December 6, 2014 at 6:22 pm
Some killers’ helper probably wrote that, Carrie. It’s all wrong.
LikeLike
December 11, 2014 at 6:33 am
I’ve tried posting those dozen or so missing newsletters (from May, ’14) but can’t do it anymore. I don’t know why it’s not working.
LikeLike
December 6, 2014 at 5:46 pm
On Aug. 28, 2007, the U.S. Justice Department filed a civil lawsuit against John Dunkle, an anti-abortion activist from Reading, Pennsylvania, seeking injunctive relief for alleged violations of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (“FACE”), 18 U.S.C. § 248.
According to the complaint, Dunkel posted messages on his webpage and blog encouraging readers to kill an abortion provider by shooting her in the head. The postings allegedly targeted a former clinician at the Philadelphia Women’s Center and included her name, home address, and photograph, along with instructions about how to kill her and avoid detection.
The complaint alleged that Dunkle’s postings constituted a “threat of force to injure, intimidate and interfere with a person providing reproductive heatlh services” in violation of FACE. The government moved for a preliminary injunction, requiring Dunkle to remove the postings in question and prohibiting him from posting the same or similar messages in the future.
Dunkle, acting as his own legal counsel, filed a response to the motion for injunctive relief and a motion to dismiss. He argued that his writings were not “threats” under FACE and also maintained that some of the content was posted by a third party. The government contested Dunkle’s claims, including his argument that the postings were not legally cognizable as “threats” under the statute.
On Nov. 8, 2007, after an evidentiary hearing, U.S. District Judge Thomas Golden granted a permanent injunction, ordering Dunkle to remove the postings and barring him from posting similar messages in the future. The injunction contains the following statement: “Nothing in this Order shall prohibit Defendant from picketing, creating, publishing and disseminating anti-abortion information so long as such activities do not constitute illegal threats and elicit violence.” The court also denied Dunkle’s motion to dismiss as moot.
Google: gonzales-v-dunkle
LikeLike
December 6, 2014 at 6:24 pm
This is better but still has wrong stuff.
LikeLike
December 6, 2014 at 9:21 pm
Then set the record straight here’s your chance Johnny boy. No one is stopping you from telling us what really happened.
LikeLike
December 7, 2014 at 4:25 am
OK. I post everything in my newsletter. When a correspondent wrote that it would be better to kill abortionists rather than let them enter mills to kill many others, I wrote back. Dave, I said, if I post this, the feds will visit me, and I will tell them who wrote it. Want me to post it anyway? He said yes, and so I did, and that’s what happened.
(Notice that “The court also denied Dunkle’s motion to dismiss as moot.” Moot means arguable, so we’re still arguing that one.)
LikeLike
December 6, 2014 at 7:46 pm
These recent posts, responding to or speaking about Mr. Dunkle, must surely deliver him to a deliriously happy state, enough to satisfy him for a fortnight. Keep in mind that boys seek attention while men demand respect. Poor soul seems to do neither.
LikeLike
December 7, 2014 at 4:27 am
I’m counting on it lasting a month.
LikeLike
December 7, 2014 at 4:32 am
Would you condone that, Kate? Or should I have written, “I’m counting on its lasting a month”?
LikeLike
December 7, 2014 at 8:22 am
Oh, he’s enjoying the attention no end, Alice!
LikeLike
December 7, 2014 at 8:56 am
Chuck,
I’d agree that John likes attention. Among the escorts, we call him an attention hound (or, alternately, whore).
When I was working on my documentary about the Allentown Womens Center (when they were located on Union Blvd), I was able to capture enough footage to reveal more about him than he cares to share on this site. While the footage shows his beliefs about abortion and contraception, it also revealed the many tactics he used to draw attention to himself. One comical situation occurred when young college coeds arrived to observe as part of a class assignment or to counter protest. John’s demeanor toward them showed a marked shift from his ranting about breast cancer and dying to “Oooo, what do we have here my little pretties?”
Chalk it up to the old cock-a-doodle-doo factor.
LikeLike
December 7, 2014 at 9:09 am
I wish I could remember these fun escapades. I’ll bet the marked shift occurred when I switched from dealing with death to life.
LikeLike
December 7, 2014 at 2:28 pm
So basically John is perv as well? Kinda got that impression from him as well. Your post affirms what I have thought about him all along. From my limited experiences with Anti’s ain’t a one of them I would hang with EVER. They are for sure one doughnut shy of a dozen.
LikeLike
December 7, 2014 at 5:28 pm
Carrie,
I’d not say all anti-abortion activists are perverts but a good many white males I’ve encountered definitely have some sexual obsessions. Some folks believe it’s because of the corruption of organized religious teachings about sex, particularly Catholicism.
Anyway, John has his own brand of perversion. He loves to spout the disproven myth about the abortion-breast cancer link. But he gives his breast obsession a necrophilic twist when he tells a young woman that not only will she die within one year but the “baby” will die as well. Spreading disproven myths by eschewing science in favor of lies is simply part of the entire anti-abortion propaganda machine. John just ramps up the myth with his own fondness for Hell, death and such. [there’s more to this fondness for another time]
One of John’s fellow sidewalk terrorists, a sanctimonious blowhard named Sulpizio, is fond of sharing his sexual hang ups in public. He’s labels people he doesn’t like by calling men homosexuals and women lesbians. Of course, he thinks these labels are offensive because they’re offensive to his homophobic self. But his imagination runs really wild when he twists the sexual and the grotesque in a priceless invocation to women. On numerous occasions, he has told women that the doctor will rupture her rectum or perforate her uterus or that she will hemorrhage to death. Then in the same rant, he says, “God loves you and so do we. We have lots of free help. Come talk to me.” Is that the sign of a pervert? You tell me.
LikeLike
December 7, 2014 at 5:55 pm
I don’t say that. I say, “You’re not just going to kill a baby, you’re going to kill yourself. Two people will die if you walk in that door.” If my voice holds out I become the the person they’re bent on killing: “Mom! Help me! Save me! Don’t let that man pull me apart!” And if one or both of the couple are African-American, I add, “Don’t let that white man come at me with his knife.”
Please tell me how I could better this.
So far as Tony is concerned, I love the boy. I’m also jealous because he gets all the attention over there.
LikeLike
December 8, 2014 at 4:13 am
And btw — baby killing being safe for the perp, the carrier, is truly a myth, and it has been dis-proven, and I do spread that fact. Got that right.
LikeLike
December 14, 2014 at 11:51 am
Yes Kate that is a sign of pervert, I was really paying attention to that the Anti’s were saying yesterday and yes they are for sure perverts because that is exactly what they were saying.
I did have Angela tell me that she prays for me 3 times a day, yes you heard that right 3 times a day, and that she is my “friend” and she stands between me and Hell, I asked if since I was her friend why would you want me to go to hell, she said she that stands between me and hell and she is just trying to make sure I don’t go there, not that she knows anything else about me, hopefully, but that I was going to hell. I said that I hoped I did go to hell then she would not be there to bother me, should of seen the look on her face, then again I don’t know anything about her either so she may end up in hell with me..lol
See as an Atheist I do not believe in Heaven NOR Hell but she sure does. I think next time I see her I am going to mess with mind a little more, maybe I can get her head to explode.
LikeLike
December 8, 2014 at 6:32 am
Mr. Dunkle, you could better your pitch at the clinic by saying, “I want to rescue your unborn baby. Here’s a cashier’s check for $260,000 so that you and his father can do a good job of raising it to adulthood,” and then hand her the check.
A lot of people would then realize you are not just living out your fantasy of becoming a hero on the cheap.
LikeLike
December 8, 2014 at 8:05 am
I think you got me there, Chuck, but it’s not money.
LikeLike
December 8, 2014 at 11:25 am
Well, well, well. You certainly have stirred it up once again, huh, John? I’m reading with interest this stuff about the feds watching John. I cannot prove it but I just have this funny feeling that no one is “watching” him anymore. Sure, if someone lodges a complaint, someone has to respond but I just feel like he is not high on their radar chart anymore. Sorry, John. Let’s face it, the feds only have so many resources and, knock on wood, it’s been rather quiet out there for a few years. Sure, something could happen at any moment but with federal cutbacks, the feds have to use their resources even more wisely.
LikeLike
December 8, 2014 at 12:37 pm
What’d I tell ya. Clear and correct. I have a story.
I met Jim Kopp in Atlanta in ’88 and till about ’95 we were the closest of friends. I was living on Long Island and working in Reading, Pa. We made the three-hour round trip together many times and he renovated my property, and others’. Then I lost track till I saw his picture on the cover of Time magazine, in ’96. The story said the feds would find him immediately because they’d visit all his contacts. Since I was the main contact, I waited. And waited. Nada! Boy did that hurt.
Pat’s absolutely right, the feds only have so many resources. What they do have are many civilians like Carrie who believe they see everything, and that stops a lot of crime.
LikeLike
December 9, 2014 at 6:35 pm
“Three hour round trip”! Six hour round trip. Why didn’t you pick that up, Chuck?
LikeLike
December 9, 2014 at 9:14 pm
Three hours is reasonable, since Kopp always drove like hell. Too bad he’ll never be behind a wheel again…
LikeLike
December 14, 2014 at 5:22 pm
Sexual perversion is an accessory, not a feature, for the so-called “pro-life” mentality. While Freud is supposed to have famously said, “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar,” in his monograph, “The Psycopathology of Everyday Life,” he pointed out how seemingly innocuous words and actions in everyday life do, when repeated, more strongly indicate a pathology.
Sulpizio’s repeated references to rectal injury, Dunkle’s compulsion to refer to all fetuses as feminine, Angela’s insistence that she is the sole barrier between Carrie and Hell– all are indicators that would incline a psychiatrist to ask, “So, would you like to talk about this?”
There are so many others– the allusions to heroism, rescue, doing God’s work–that are promoted as well, that we overlook the absence of actions that would validate their statements– the actual care for children, the sacrifice of energy, time, talent and wealth in behalf of the well-being of pregnant women, children and families.
The combination of hollow phrases and incongruous actions indicates that it is not perversion, but something else, that fuels the mentality of the so-called “pro-lifer.”
LikeLike
December 15, 2014 at 4:52 am
Yo, Chuck, comment on this. I’ve been clipping it lately to the card explaining the abortion/breast cancer link that I give to young ladies entering the mill. Sure it’s not a quarter-mil, but hey.
“Young lady, I have a friend who will pay you $25,000 if you carry the baby to term. He will then arrange for a loving woman to adopt the child. In addition to the up front payment, he will take care of all other expenses as well. John Dunkle 484-706-4375”
LikeLike
December 15, 2014 at 7:30 am
Charles, their pathology extends beyond their sexual hang-ups (noted most definitely among catholics and baptists), to include their view of women as incubators and milk machines. Emily Martin wrote about this perspective of seeing women as machines, producing products that are fetishized and commodified. This machine perspective fits well with Sulpizio, Dunkle, and other curbside terrorists.
Their hollow phrases and incongruous actions illustrate one thing quite clearly: They do not care for women.
LikeLike
December 15, 2014 at 12:03 pm
People ask my why I keep Kate around. I keep her around for her originality: “curbside terrorists.”
I can use that and if I remember, I’ll attribute.
LikeLike
December 15, 2014 at 4:24 pm
The Dunkle proposition:
““Young lady, I have a friend who will pay you $25,000 if you carry the baby to term. He will then arrange for a loving woman to adopt the child. In addition to the up front payment, he will take care of all other expenses as well. John Dunkle 484-706-4375″”
The indicators which reveal its appeal as a tactic for aborticentrics:
1. Rather than a considered care for the well-being of a potential human, It is a display of one’s personal power.
Delivered only in a face-to-face setting, the so-called “pro-lifer” sets the scenario in which he can be regarded as a savior. If she rejects it, he confirms his appearance of moral superiority; if she accepts it, he basks in the confirmation of his self-definition of heroism. This would never appear in a newspaper, because he would never have the satisfaction of seeing the woman’s reaction to the offer, and he therefore would be denied the reward of self-satisfaction.
2. It’s heroism on the cheap. It’s not his money, it’s “a friend’s money.”
3. It disregards the needs of a developing child. That amount would get child-rearing expenses covered only until age four. The parent(s) would still be short $235,000 to get the kid safely through high school.
4. It’s an urban legend. It’s not even “a friend’s money;” there is no money. This is another reason why the offer will never appear in a periodical. (Other offers of a similar nature DO appear in periodicals, but they are from legitimate adoption services who advertise their existence for people who decide to give up their child; they do not care whether or not the woman considers having an abortion.)
5. Separate bonus observation: It is offered only to women who intend to maintain control of their own life. (See reason 1.) The aborticentric attempts to put the woman “in her place,” subservient to a man’s idea of how she should live.
LikeLike
December 15, 2014 at 5:24 pm
I get frustrated with Chuckles at times but he does read what I post an comment on it. What more can I ask?
1. Don’t understand.
2. It’s not heroism; it’s an attempt to save somebody’s life on the cheap.
3. If you save somebody’s life it doesn’t mean you have to support her for the rest of her life.
4. There might be money. How do I know. That’s what he said.
5. Don’t understand.
LikeLike
December 16, 2014 at 7:06 am
Charles,
When I wrote above that these so-called pro-lifers don’t care for women, I perhaps should have said they don’t care for women and their children. It’s obvious when they seek to control a woman with a gravid uterus yet assume no responsibility, as you have suggested and illustrated over the years. Paul Buchheit, in writing about the process of wiping out the poor half of America, cites rather startling facts:
“The U.S. has one of the highest relative child poverty rates in the developed world. Almost half of black children under the age of six are living in poverty.
Nearly half of all food stamp participants are children.
The number of homeless children has risen by 50 percent in less than ten years.”
Perhaps being pro-life means accepting or, even, encouraging births but doing nothing about hunger or homelessness or poverty of those born.
LikeLike
December 16, 2014 at 9:50 am
No, being pro-life means not accepting murder, hunger, homelessness, and poverty.
LikeLike
December 17, 2014 at 5:41 pm
From the Center for Reproductive Rights:
Unsafe abortion, a leading cause of maternal mortality, leads to the death of more than 47,000 women across the globe each year. Another five million sustain debilitating injuries. These are eminently preventable tragedies, and perhaps the most alarming part is the complicit role that the United States plays in perpetuating them.
The culprit: a 40-year-old policy, sponsored by the late archconservative Senator Jesse Helms, that has been used to block the use of U.S. foreign assistance funds to pay for abortion care.
47, 000 dead women. Five million with debilitating injuries.
Where is the outrage from all the pro-lifers who claim to value all life, claim to love both woman and fetus?
Where?
LikeLike
December 17, 2014 at 6:24 pm
Abortions per capita are highest in those ccountries where abortion is illegal. Outlawing abortions does not reach the objective of antiabortionists.
LikeLike
December 17, 2014 at 8:23 pm
oh bull
LikeLike
December 17, 2014 at 8:22 pm
Oh bull
LikeLike
December 18, 2014 at 9:55 am
Cheryel,
To add to your comments:
Robert Merton, a highly regarded sociologist, distinguished between manifest and latent functions in features of society. Manifest functions are those “which are intended and recognized by the participants in the system.” The Helms Amendment was intended to reduce or eliminate global funding from the United States for abortions. Latent functions, according to Merton, are “those which are neither intended nor recognized.” Applied to the Helms Amendment, the latent functions meant women who could otherwise access health care subsidies from the United States were blocked when they needed a specific type of healthcare called a safe and legal abortion. Hence, the latent function of the amendment meant 45,000 women die.
We see the same thing happening again in the United States, as more women are unable to access abortion. With all the antiabortion trolling outside clinics, the targeted regulations against abortion providers, and, now, the rise of imprisoning of pregnant women, the evidence is clear. Legislation passed under the guise of doing what’s good for women (the manifest function) to make health care safer, results in unwanted pregnancies that can lead to abuse and abandonment, women attempting to self-abort, depression and suicide and, failure to seek treatment if pregnant and addicted (all potential latent functions).
And for those trolls outside clinics, the latent function is as expected: they’re viewed as curbside terrorists. They help no woman who is their intended target. They claim to be sidewalk counselors. But no one would take them seriously. To do so would be like asking terrorists like Sulpizio or Dunkle to listen to some dude standing on the sidewalk outside their urologist’s office, “Hey, dude, come talk to me. Don’t go in there. That doctor will lie to you. We’ve got all the help you need. All he wants is your money. God loves you and your prostate.”
LikeLike
December 18, 2014 at 11:33 am
Contradictory — “more women are unable to access abortion”/”no one would take them seriously.” Somebody would seem to be taking someone seriously if the first statement is true.
And Kate, can’t you just quote someone and leave out the shmaltz: “a highly regarded sociologist”? It’s like saying “a highly regarded pig farmer.” He might say something interesting but his day job has nothing to do with it.
LikeLike
January 19, 2017 at 6:37 am
Modvigil online
Your articles are very helpful and i thank you for your amazing insights. Kindly share few more blogs on the topic
LikeLike