Fox Valley Families Against Planned Parenthood

City Council to vote on abortion restriction tonight

Posted by Eric Scheidler on Tuesday, February 12th, 2008

Former abortion facility on GalenaTonight the Aurora City Council will vote on an ordinance (PD07.012) that would restrict abortions from being performed at 523 W. Galena Boulevard—the site of the notorious "Jakubowski" abortuary.

The new owner of the building, who is pro-life, wants to rent the building to a general practice doctor, which requires a special use permit. He has asked the council to grant that permit with a proviso that abortions cannot be performed there.

I will live-blog the meeting, which starts at 6 p.m. This ordinance is the second item under "unfinished business" and seven or eight neighbors who were involved in the pro-life witness at the old abortuary will speak in favor of it. Tune in then . . .

6:05 p.m. The Council is gathering. No sign of Mayor Weisner yet. Quite a number of the public here this evening, apparently for a variety of issues.

I see that Alderman-at-Large Bob O'Connor has taken the mayor's seat, so apparently Weisner will be absent. O'Connor calls the meeting to order with a reference to Abraham Lincoln's 199th birthday. The Pledge and a prayer by Whitey Peters (the usual "chaplain" of the council, Shakita Hart-Burns, is absent today).

The public6:10 p.m. Now a motion to approve the items on the consent agenda. With these items approved, the council will move on to the unfinished business. Again, the ordinance we're concerned with is the second item.

Our item is now up. O'Connor announces that members of the public will speak on this issue.

Dave Wade is the first speaker. He shares his experience as a pro-life witness at the old Galena abortion facility, and how its presence in that nice neighborhood made him shudder, just driving by. Dave refers to Hannah Arendt's phrase "the banality of evil"—how wickedness can become "part of the landscape".

But if man can redeem himself, then perhaps a building can be redeemed too. He applauds Dr. Sanchez for wanting to publicly assure the neighborhood that there will be no resumption of abortions at 523 W. Galena Blvd.

6:15 p.m. Jerry Nickels thanks the council and staff for the openness and responsibility they have exhibited in this matter, and then contrasts it with the situation at 3051 E. New York Street, where no such open process took place. Jerry looks forward to the day when abortions will end there (at Planned Parenthood) too, and it will revert to its original stated purpose as a regular medical facility.

Karen Nickels now speaks about the impact that the presence of an abortuary had on the west side, the protests, the disruption of traffic, the impact such an inappropriate location had on the women who entered it. She too draws a link to the east side abortuary.

6:20 p.m. Rob Larsen now speaks about living near the abortion facility for eight years and the negative impact of the place on so many women and men. He applauds the council for being open to working with Dr. Sanchez in this way, and how it shows the benefit of working openly.

Elizabeth Earl addresses the councilNow Elizabeth Earl shares he experience with the Jakubowski facility: passersby swearing from their cars, fist fights among visitors to the clinic in the parking lot, a women dragged across the street by clinic escorts for an abortion she didn't want (and was saved from by Elizabeth's call to the police). Elizabeth now lives near this building and does not want an abortion facility in her neighborhood.

6:25 p.m. Roger Earl encourages the council to support this voluntary restriction on this property from an economic standpoint: negating the stigma of abortion can only help the neighborhood and the value of this property.

Deacon Tom Hawksworth from Holy Angels Church again presents the spiritual and sociological harms of abortion on the neighborhood.

And now attorney Waide Royner (sp?) presents him self on behalf of Ray Gonzalez, the property owner, to answer any questions the Council may have. There are no questions, but Alderman Lawrence offers his praise for Mr. Gonzalez throughout this whole process.

6:30 p.m. The ordinance is passed 10-0. This building at 523 W. Galena has been approved for use as a medical office with a restriction that abortions cannot be performed there. Thus this chapter of the abortion battles of Aurora closes.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 12th, 2008 at 3:52 pm and is filed under Legal and Political, News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

164 Responses to “City Council to vote on abortion restriction tonight”

  1. Laura says:

    This will be very interesting to see how the Council votes. Thanks, Matt, & I look forward to your updates.

    February 12th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
  2. Brian says:

    Well, that's a plus. Now if only this City could plow the snow and melt the ice!

    February 12th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
  3. Laura says:

    Thank God!

    God bless you, Mr. Gonzalez, on your noble effort and success in keeping abortion out of the building you own.

    Thank you, and may God bless all of the Council members who voted in favor of this ordinance this evening.

    :)

    February 12th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
  4. Laura says:

    Brian,
    And maybe fill the potholes while they're at it?

    February 12th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
  5. Anne says:

    Eric,
    I really like this live blog- way to go!

    February 12th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
  6. Troy Medlin says:

    Praise the Lord, One killing center in Aurora is closed now lets shut down planned parenthood, Thank everybody for standing up for the unborn, Thanks for standing for Life. Thanks Aurora for shutting down this manufacturer of evel. Keep praying that one day abortions will be non existant and we will truly become The greatest nation on Gods green earth!

    February 12th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
  7. Laurie Paulson says:

    Way to go everyone!—Thanks for hanging in there—my Rosary has been going deep into the night—Thank you—especially Eric, Elizabeth, Roger, Jane Fonner, Rita Adolphson and Lisa SanDiego—I will help when I can—everyone—God Bless!

    Good work—make that great work—I am certain God is pleased with our perseverence!

    Sincerely,
    Laurie Paulson

    February 12th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
  8. Therese says:

    God is amazing. Everything in God's time. Thanks to all of you at the meeting. Thanks Eric for the update.

    February 12th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
  9. GSeeker says:

    "The last nail on the coffin of the abortion clinic" I Hope, I Dream when we hear the phrase "The last nail on the coffin of Planned Parenthood". What a glorious day that will be.

    February 12th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
  10. Maureen says:

    Amen!

    February 12th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
  11. Jeff E says:

    This is great to see… thanks to everyone who came out to the meeting!

    February 12th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
  12. Rita says:

    Praise God!!!

    February 12th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
  13. Jon Zahm says:

    The attorney is named Wade Joyner. He is a fine Christian man who ran for State Rep. in 2002 on a pro-life, pro-family platform but was defeated by Pat Lindner.

    February 13th, 2008 at 12:12 am
  14. Dan the Methodist says:

    WAY 2 GO!!!!

    February 13th, 2008 at 6:28 am
  15. Tara says:

    God is working in Aurora! Praise Him for His mercies. We should all stop by and pray over that building, so that LIFE and healing will be accomplished there!

    February 13th, 2008 at 9:23 am
  16. Student says:

    Is everyone really naive enough to believe the testimony of Elizabeth Earl (and my apologies to her if she was inaccurately quoted above) that "a women dragged across the street by clinic escorts for an abortion she didn't want (and was saved from by Elizabeth's call to the police)?"

    If it happened, why wasn't there any news coverage? Why weren't criminal charges pressed against the escorts and the clinic? Why wasn't a civil suit filed against the escorts and clinic?

    February 15th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
  17. Steve says:

    Thy will be done!

    February 16th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
  18. Elizabeth says:

    Student,

    Obviously they believed her..the place is shut down isn't it?

    February 17th, 2008 at 12:49 am
  19. Student says:

    So if I can get someone to believe that the moon is made of green cheese it makes it true?

    February 17th, 2008 at 11:24 am
  20. Elizabeth says:

    Student,

    It wasn't just ONE person she got to believe anything. I believe it requires a vote of numerous people, no? Numerous people with different opinions on the issue, and yet, the place is still shut down. Hmmm, makes ya wonder.

    WHY would she call the police if the woman wasn't in trouble? Because she likes wasting the police officer's time? Don't think so. I'm sure if the police went out there, there is a report on it..maybe you could look that up and see what it says and get back to me.

    February 17th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
  21. Student says:

    Yes, it was closed….and perhaps it should have been. I don't have the facts to say one way or the other. However, I have grave doubts as to the honesty and accuracy of that statement. I also doubt that her statement was the reason it was closed. Again, simply saying something that people believe and having it be true are very different things.

    I'd love to look it up for you. Do have a date and/or approximate time frame? I certainly have the resources to check it out.

    February 17th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
  22. Elizabeth says:

    I will have to do some research on the time frame, because I only became active in the abortion debate when the Aurora PP happened..so I don't really know the history of abortion clinics in Aurora. I will try to do that tonight after I finish my personal essay for my English class. :)

    February 17th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
  23. Student says:

    I'll make a deal with you. You get me the dates that an escort allegedly attempted to force a pregnant woman to have an abortion against her will. I'll do a FOIA request with the police department and do a thorough search for any litigation and/or media coverage of said event. IF there is any truth to the matter, I'll stop my volunteer work and I'll join you to picket for two Saturdays.

    If, on the other hand, it is total BS, you volunteer 2 hours on a Saturday with me and see what really happens at the clinic — not just what your preconceived notions and other people tell you — check it out firsthand and have a couple of conversations with the patients there.

    Put your money where your mouth is.

    February 17th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
  24. Elizabeth says:

    Like I said, I will attempt to find out the date..but that will have to be later in the day because I have got to finish my paper and take care of my daughter.

    Student,

    I already know what goes on in the clinic: abortions. Oh sure, papsmears and contraceptives are given too…but I've seen videos of actual abortions and I would never volunteer for a place that has anything to do with that. You couldn't even pay me to do that…so sorry. You seem to think that the other things PP does make up for the killing of unborn children, and frankly for me, it doesn't.

    It's like the drunk driver who killed a family one night while driving drunk. Sure, he's served his time, paid restiution, and even spoken out in school's about the dangers of drunk driving. DOES THAT BRING THE PEOPLE HE KILLED BACK? NOPE. I believe he can be forgiven, though, just like I belive abortion doctors can be forgiven..but it doesn't change the past.

    Some choices you just can't take back.

    I appreciate the offer, but no thanks. I like my conscience clear.

    February 17th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
  25. Student says:

    Elizabeth,

    I didn't expect you to take me up on the offer. If you honestly believed a woman was dragged by escorts for a forced abortion then you wouldn't have to worry about your conscience — in fact, you'd have a member of the community out on your side. If you were convinced of the total honesty and accuracy of the testimony, your conscience would have nothing to fear. For all the outcry of lies and distortion by PP, the same thing goes on with your side of the aisle.

    February 17th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
  26. Laura says:

    Student,
    I have no doubt that Elizabeth called the police. However, I think the clinic escorts "dragging" her may have been exaggerated by what we may perceive "dragging" to be. Did they encourage her to go in? Probably. Did they put their arms around her and start to walk with her to the clinic? Probably. Was the woman crying? Probably. Was she maybe not sure about having the abortion? Probably. Did Elizabeth's call to the police give the woman more time to think and give her support to walk out of the clinic? YES, IT DID! Was there a police report made? Probably not. But then again, I wasn't there, nor were you, so we really don't know the details.

    Elizabeth Earl, if you're out there, would you care to provide more details about this incident to clear things up? It would be greatly appreciated.

    February 17th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
  27. Elizabeth says:

    My unwillingness to volunteer at PP has nothing to do with this case. EVEN IF IT WAS A LIE, I still wouldn't volunteer there. Baby-killing is what I don't want on my conscience thank you. Volunteering to support that kind of deprivation of life is what I don't want on my conscience.

    I can still try to find that date however if it can be found.

    February 17th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
  28. Paul2 says:

    Student,
    There is also a legal reason to ask these minors who got them pregnant. There are age of consent laws and if they girl is below the age of consent for the laws in their state then "any" sex is actually illegal to begin with and we need to make sure the perpetrator of this crime is, at a minimum, made aware that they are breaking the law. And depending on the circumstance (if they are an adult) prosecuted could be warranted. We must not turn a blind eye and leave these perverts to rape again. Lets work together to reduce that number minors are in fact abused by adults. I propose Parental Notification of Minors. It may not resolve all cases of abuse but it would ferret out many cases of abuse. What do you propose to protect these minors and bring these criminals to justice?

    February 18th, 2008 at 2:17 am
  29. Dan the Methodist says:

    Well said Paul.

    Forgive me, but I am sick and tired of the barrage of media coverage on NIU.
    I am very sympathetic to the families, especially the one from Mendota who served for 12 years and wanted to avoid danger by not going to Iraq. I cannot begin to understand their pain and loss, however I continually get bombarded with news, side news, 4th hand side news, basically a HEATHERFICATION of events. If you have ever seen the movie Heather's you would understand. Why must this be a life-changing moment for everyone??? To be fearful?? To generate bans on guns?? To allow universities to charge even MORE for tuition for security???

    Tell me if I am cold hearted, the first two or three days were understandable, but rehashing and regenerating a story such as this is a result of 24 hour news channels and ratings, not sympathy or compassion or what is best for the students or society.

    Go ahead, beat me up. If you feel the need. Just wanted to unload.

    February 18th, 2008 at 6:38 am
  30. Student says:

    Elizabeth,

    Nobody was asking you to perform an abortion…..just talk to some of the women there. I realize it's much easier to be judgmental and yell at them from the sidewalk rather than actually speaking to them if they disagree with you.

    I won't hold my breath waiting on the date. We're both pretty sure it didn't happen.

    ******************

    Dan,

    I'm sorry you feel barraged by media coverage. My suggestion is to simply turn off your television — it's easily avoided that way. And yes, after being personally touched by what happened there, I'm all for more gun control. I hope that's not considered beating you up….just my opinion.

    February 18th, 2008 at 8:13 am
  31. Megan says:

    Hi Student,

    I've been reading some of your postings and hoped you would find the time to read this… http://et-tu.blogspot.com/2008/01/how-i-became-pro-life.html
    God Bless!

    February 18th, 2008 at 8:53 am
  32. Elizabeth says:

    Student,

    I'm not judgemental nor do I yell at people from the sidewalk. WHEN they come over to talk to us, WE actually SPEAK to them….but thanks for the judgement on what we actually do again. I don't mind people that disagree with me…if everybody agreed, this world would be a pretty boring place. I happen to enjoy discussion/debate.

    Why don't you just contact Elizabeth Earl? I'm sure she can give you all the details and the date. I'm also sure she's listed in the phone book.

    I'm all for more gun control.

    So was Hitler.

    It is in the Bill or Rights..you know the right to bear arms. It's funny how you don't want to take away people's rights and YET, you do.

    February 18th, 2008 at 10:23 am
  33. Student says:

    Paul2,

    There is no legal requirement for anyone to name their partner. Nor, if asked, is there any legitimate way for a healthcare provider to tell if the information is accurate.

    If abuse is suspected, it is discussed with the patient and she is encouraged to contact the authorities and is offered assistance in doing so.

    As to age of consent laws, they do not apply to teenagers having sex with other teenagers.

    I think people need to "work together" to reduce the need for abortions. There are way too many of them. I believe the key is education.

    February 18th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
  34. Student says:

    Megan,
    I'm happy to read it — but likely won't get to it until this evening or sometime tomorrow.

    February 18th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
  35. Student says:

    Elizabeth: “It is in the Bill or Rights..you know the right to bear arms. It's funny how you don't want to take away people's rights and YET, you do.”

    I believe what you’re attempting to refer to is the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution which states: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    The “militia,” at the time the Constitution was written, was a group of ordinary citizens who served as part-time soldiers. It was a well-regulated and its members were trained, supplied their own firearms and took part in military exercises away from home. This was compulsory military service to protect the people from outside forces and internal rebellion. The “militia” IS NOT another word for the people at large. I’m not sure you’ve noticed, but we no longer have a citizen militia like that of the 18th Century.

    U.S. v Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939): The “obvious purpose” of the 2nd Amendment was to “assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness” of the state militia.

    In Quillici v Morton Grove the 7th Circuit ruled that a city ordinance banning handguns was valid and that there was no individual right to keep and bear arms under the 2nd Amendment. The Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of this ruling in 10/83 which allows the lower court ruling to stand.

    In 1991, former Chief Justice Burger referred to the 2nd Amendment as “the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime….[the NRA] has mislead the American people and they, I regret to say, they have had far too much influence on the Congress of the United States than as a citizen I would like to see – and I am a gun man. The very language of the 2nd Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon.”

    In Gillespie v City of Indianapolis the Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms.

    And, as an aside, Hitler was also a Christian.

    February 18th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
  36. Brian says:

    There's a 2nd amendment case currently before the Supreme Court. We'll see if it refers to an individual right or not shortly.

    February 18th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
  37. Elizabeth says:

    And, as an aside, Hitler was also a Christian.

    In name only, I'm sure.

    I could also say I'm purple, but that doesn't make it so.

    February 18th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
  38. Student says:

    Brian,
    Would you happen to know the case caption?

    February 18th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
  39. Student says:

    Elizabeth,

    You're catching on. Saying something doesn't make it so. I'm assuming you'll go with the "true Scotsman" argument on that?

    February 18th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
  40. Elizabeth says:

    You're catching on. Saying something doesn't make it so

    What's to catch on about Student? I already knew that. You're assuming that I think just because a PL person says something I believe it. Well, no..sorry I do my own research as well. I do have my own opinions/thoughts based on my experiences and knowledge.

    But that's okay, you go right on assuming things about me.

    February 18th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
  41. Brian says:

    The case is District of Columbia v. Heller. Here's a link. http://www.cato.org/pressroom.php?display=comments&id=740. If you're interested in a historical look at the second amendment, here's a good start: http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/testimon.htm

    Mind you, I don't like guns. I've never shot one, but there's no doubt that it's an individual right.

    February 18th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
  42. Paul2 says:

    Student says:
    ***************
    As to age of consent laws, they do not apply to teenagers having sex with other teenagers.

    I think people need to "work together" to reduce the need for abortions. There are way too many of them. I believe the key is education.
    *****************

    Please read my post #33 again. My question/statement to you was about Parental Notification and protecting minors from predators and how you would go about it? Your response didn't even address the focus of my post. Do you really not understand that my stated goal here plain and simple is protection of minors from abuse/predators. How would YOU address that issue, and save me from the redirection and doublespeak. Also, a minor can NOT give consent to anyone(including another minor) because they do not have the capacity to fully understand the implications of their decision, that is precisiely why "any" sex at age younger then the "consent" laws is illegal. Any health or government authority would have the ri to insist on that information from a minor because the act of her having sex was illegal to begin with. You seem to be grasping at ways to disagree rather than supporting a solution.

    February 19th, 2008 at 9:32 am
  43. Student says:

    Paul2: “My question/statement to you was about Parental Notification and protecting minors from predators and how you would go about it? Your response didn't even address the focus of my post. Do you really not understand that my stated goal here plain and simple is protection of minors from abuse/predators. How would YOU address that issue, and save me from the redirection and doublespeak.”

    I don’t think the majority of minor patients are victims of adult predators. Regardless, I don’t think Parental Notification would resolve that problem. Notification will only advise a parent that a minor is seeking an abortion – nothing more. I believe in some cases that is a very BAD idea. However, as I’ve told you several times, I do think a minor in that situation should have the support of her family and many do. But, if a minor feels they cannot talk to a parent about such an important issue, I find fault with the parent – not the minor. This is why it is every important to cultivate a good relationship from an early age.

    Now, as to solve the problem of adults have sex with teenagers, I don’t have an answer. I also don’t have an answer to world hunger, aids, poverty and a whole host of other issues.

    ***********************

    Paul2: “Also, a minor can NOT give consent to anyone(including another minor) because they do not have the capacity to fully understand the implications of their decision, that is precisiely why "any" sex at age younger then the "consent" laws is illegal.”
    Sorry, that’s simply legally incorrect. If your 15 year old has sex with my 15 year old there has been no crime. Statutory rape laws do not kick in under these circumstances.

    ***************

    Paul2: “Any health or government authority would have the ri to insist on that information from a minor because the act of her having sex was illegal to begin with. You seem to be grasping at ways to disagree rather than supporting a solution.”

    Wrong again! Perhaps another example would make my position clear. Suppose you have a bad cough and go to your general practitioner for treatment. Your g.p. asks if you smoke pot (which is, I’m sure you know, against the law). Your doctor, not any “government authority” would not have the right to “insist on that information” just because smoking pot is illegal.

    February 19th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
  44. Halo says:

    //I'm not judgemental nor do I yell at people from the sidewalk. WHEN they come over to talk to us, WE actually SPEAK to them….but thanks for the judgement on what we actually do again.//

    Elizabeth,

    I've visited PP on 2 seperate occasions when the protests were occuring to use the facilities and I have to say that yes, I was yelled at and yes, there was immediate judgement passed on me. In fact, there was a couple there who were yelling rather insulting things as I entered the building but in the next minute (as I was walking out) they were praying. How does that work? Anyway, they didn't even know why I was there (obviously), but in your words, 'thanks for the judgement'.

    Now, this doesn't bother me because I expected it…I mean, I was purposly going there while you protested to see how it all is and to use PP's services. However, I felt compelled to share my experience after reading that part of your post. It was made pretty clear to me on those days that you guys are not as innocent, 'peaceful', or 'helpful' as you advertise. In fact, the actions of your protests are more of a repellent then anything else.

    Student, I'm glad your here helping to clear the foggy air that clouds this website. Thank you :).

    February 19th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
  45. Paul2 says:

    Student,

    ***************
    Student said,
    "I don’t think the majority of minor patients are victims of adult predators."

    You don't "think the najority"???? How can you be so callouse in your thinking as to brush off efforts to help the ones who are abused.
    ***************
    Student said,
    "Regardless, I don’t think Parental Notification would resolve that problem. Notification will only advise a parent that a minor is seeking an abortion – nothing more."

    By notifying the parents they can/will protect their daughter's future by seeking out the predator and bringing them to justice. That is SOMETHING more
    *************
    Student said,
    "I believe in some cases that is a very BAD idea. However, as I’ve told you several times, I do think a minor in that situation should have the support of her family and many do. But, if a minor feels they cannot talk to a parent about such an important issue, I find fault with the parent – not the minor. This is why it is every important to cultivate a good relationship from an early age.

    You and PP would be well served to rethink that position because you will run into parents who hold you resonspible for mistreating their daughter with such a gruesome procedure. And besides, that is a strawman cause there is already a judicial bypass in the law t protect the minor from just this kind of situation.
    ***************
    Student said,
    "Sorry, that’s simply legally incorrect. If your 15 year old has sex with my 15 year old there has been no crime. Statutory rape laws do not kick in under these circumstances."

    If your fifteen year old had sex with my 15 year old, you may not care about it if they went to PP for an abortion without either of us being notified, but I would expect any doctor or givernment agency to notify the legal guardian of any child before putting them through the psychological and emotional and physical effects of an abortion.
    ***********
    Student said,
    "Now, as to solve the problem of adults have sex with teenagers, I don’t have an answer. I also don’t have an answer to world hunger, aids, poverty and a whole host of other issues."

    I do have an answer, notify the people who are responsible for the care of the minor and you solve a "big" portion of the problem. Why can't you get behind that? Cause of the very small minority of cases where the parents are the abusers? The Illinois Parental Notification f Abortion Act already has a legal way around that situation known as "judicial bypass". SO WHY ARE YOU REALLY AGAINST IT?

    February 20th, 2008 at 12:19 am
  46. Elizabeth says:

    "I was yelled at and yes, there was immediate judgement passed on me. In fact, there was a couple there who were yelling rather insulting things as I entered the building but in the next minute (as I was walking out) they were praying."

    What exactly did they say that made you feel judged, Halo? I'm just curious….

    February 20th, 2008 at 10:09 am
  47. Tom says:

    Some of these posts sound pretty fanatical. I think we would have our own religious war in the states if some of these posters were in a position of power.

    Bing spiritual is a great thing. The church is a different story. Many churchgoers believe that the bible is the word of god. They also believe, without question, what one person standing on the pulpit tells them to believe.

    In organized religion, I find their is often evil just beneath the surface in the form of bigotry, pedophilia and lies.

    Educate yourself. Definitely take a bible history course at an accredited university. Investigate for yourself what the ministers are telling you.

    I was at my parents church as the ministers were preaching about homosexually, how they pray on children to convert. As a psychology major, I new this was not true. All I saw was a bunch of head nodding in agreement as I looked at the congregation. I regret to this day that I did not stand up against his massage of lies and fear. And no I’m not gay.

    Ever since then I realized how dangerous organized religion is. The people that follow may lack the education level to see though someone’s hidden agenda.

    I just bring this up because I recognize this in some of the above postings

    February 20th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
  48. Elizabeth says:

    I just bring this up because I recognize this in some of the above postings

    Which ones would those be Tom?

    February 20th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
  49. Halo says:

    //I just bring this up because I recognize this in some of the above postings
    Which ones would those be Tom?//

    I'm not Tom, but I see it in nearly all of them in almost every blog. Honestly, it doesn't just take a psych major to see it Elizabeth.

    //What exactly did they say that made you feel judged, Halo? I'm just curious…//

    Well to quote them *exactly*…"Please don't go inside! Only damned souls use this place!" and "You will be judged harshly for your awfulness."…that one was yelled at me as I walked out. There were a few other things, but those stood out most (for obvious reasons). You talk about judgement Elizabeth, that you on the picket lines don't judge and are kind and welcoming…I have always doubted that. Now, I know for sure. Did they know me? No. Did they pass immediate judgement? Yes. Did I want to march right over to them and tell them off? Yes, but I was the bigger person and walked away. "Damned soul"?…"your awfulness"? Now, please tell me again about 'no judgement' Elizabeth.

    Again, I wasn't bothered by it because I was expecting it. In fact, I kinda wished it would happen to prove myself right. I did't want to share my experience here because I thought it would come off as petty, but after reading your post, I felt I had to.

    If you want a description of the people and where they were standing, and description of the other person standing with them (who didn't participate), I'd be glad to share. Just in case you want to right them for next time around.

    February 21st, 2008 at 10:46 am
  50. Tom says:

    Should read "how they prey on children to convert"

    Elizabeth – I'm not going to name names. It will become apparent when you take another look at the comments.

    February 21st, 2008 at 1:31 pm
  51. Student says:

    Brian: "The case is District of Columbia v. Heller. . . . .Mind you, I don't like guns. I've never shot one, but there's no doubt that it's an individual right."

    Thanks for the info. I grew up around guns, shoot well and have even made my own bullets (my father was an avid black powder weapon collector). I don't disagree that we have a right to limited gun ownership. However, I do think there should be STRICT limits placed upon same. I don't want my next door neighbor to have an uzi or a shoulder fired missle launcher. I believe we need to have significant checks on psych backgrounds, etc.

    February 21st, 2008 at 1:43 pm
  52. Student says:

    Paul2: "You and PP would be well served to rethink that position because you will run into parents who hold you resonspible for mistreating their daughter with such a gruesome procedure."

    Thanks for your opinion.

    Paul2: "And besides, that is a strawman cause there is already a judicial bypass in the law t protect the minor from just this kind of situation. . . . .The Illinois Parental Notification f Abortion Act already has a legal way around that situation known as "judicial bypass"."

    Clearly you don't work in/around/with the court system. It is difficult for people who know what they are doing to maneuver the court system. Asking a scared teenager to do so is simply ridiculous.

    Furthermore, you know that law is currently under judicial review. I believe the NDIL will strike it down.

    February 21st, 2008 at 1:49 pm
  53. Tara says:

    Student,

    Hitler was not a Christian. He was heavily involoved in the occult. Hitler went into churches and took down the Cross and replaced it with the swaztika which is an occult symbol. The swaztika can also be found in Buddist and Hindu relics.

    Hilter was influenced by a man named Guido von List, who decided to use it because he thought it was a link to ancient German priests. He vowed as a child, that when he grew up he would build a temple to the German god Wotan. In creating a brotherhood called Armanen (Aryian), his dream was to have a pure German master race. Some of the rituals were sexual perversions in nature, and he was heavily involved in magic.

    Hilter continued to venture deeper into the occult as he became more powerful. Hilter met List before List died. Hitler's ultimate intention was to wipe Christianity off the map. He had declared himself the new messiah, hence he was the religion of Germany. If you do a search in Nazi symbolism you'll find many occult symbols.

    Individuals like Dietrich Boenhoffer gave his very life to challenge Hilter in this claim. He was executed because he wouldn't bow before Hilter and continued to encourage the Church to stand for the true Messiah Jesus Christ, even at the cost of losing their lives. And there were thousands who did lose their lives for not calling Hilter God.

    February 21st, 2008 at 2:04 pm
  54. Elizabeth says:

    You talk about judgement Elizabeth, that you on the picket lines don't judge and are kind and welcoming…I have always doubted that.

    Well, Halo, *I* can only speak for myself and *I* would never tell you that you are a damned soul or will be judged harshly, for it is not my place to make those sort of judgements on you. I don't judge and I am kind and welcoming. I'm a single mom as a result of an unplanned pregnancy, so I don't think it's my place to really put judgement on anyone. I know what a tough spot it is to be facing when you're pregnant and possibly alone. I just want to help women by showing them that they CAN do it. I don't think people are "damned souls" just because they go to PP. That isn't my place to say so like I've said.

    February 21st, 2008 at 3:09 pm
  55. Elizabeth says:

    Elizabeth – I'm not going to name names. It will become apparent when you take another look at the comments.

    I'm not going to re-read comments I have already read once. If you can find me something specific and keep it IN context, then we can have a conversation.

    February 21st, 2008 at 3:11 pm
  56. Tara says:

    Halo,

    When was the last time you were at PP? I remember you making thses comments over the summer. Many people who were there then are no longer participating.

    When I heard something said that wasn't kind, I told that person so. So did many others that are out there. I am out there often, and when I am there, I never hear anyone say anything that is unkind.

    Again, if I did I'd bet he first to say something. However, we have had many girls come and talk with us and decide not to abort. That is not a bad thing. Chosing life is always better then chosing death. And anyway one wants looks at this issue, abortion is the deliberate act of taking a life.

    We call ourselves civilized, yet we allow our unborn to be killed, we want to allow euthenasia to kill the unproductive or those "in pain". We live in a culture that embraces violence and death, and we wonder why crime rates are so high, and people don't care and rsepect one another. You can't have these things if a society doesn't value life. All life, from the unborn to the elderly.

    February 21st, 2008 at 3:18 pm
  57. Halo says:

    //When was the last time you were at PP? I remember you making thses comments over the summer. Many people who were there then are no longer participating.//

    Making these *exact* comments Tara? No, I was not. I indeed have been posting on this site for quite sometime, but I've never posted my experience before because it didn't happen long ago. In fact, my incident took place last month. So no, I've never shared this with the site before because it didn't happen until recently.

    //I am out there often, and when I am there, I never hear anyone say anything that is unkind.//

    Well, you probably arn't standing in the right spots. Try standing in an area where patients are within earshot. Thats where those types of people like to make there hate known I guess. Plus I didn't see many standing there so it's a good place for them to yell at us without being seeing by the rest of the protesters.

    Unfortunatly, alot of those on the picket lines, as it seems and I have yet to be proven wrong, would more then gladly crucify me for even stepping on PP's sidewalk, despite what I'm there for. That is cruel. I don't care what you stand for.

    //However, we have had many girls come and talk with us and decide not to abort.//

    Not everyone who walks in those doors are there for abortions. Myself for example. In fact, less then 10% nationwide walk through those doors for abortions.

    February 21st, 2008 at 4:27 pm
  58. Elizabeth says:

    Very nice post, Tara.

    And I would also be one to say something if I heard people yelling terrible things….it's unnecessary and those statements certainly don't change minds or help people.

    February 21st, 2008 at 4:56 pm
  59. Student says:

    Tara: "…we want to allow euthenasia to kill the unproductive or those "in pain."

    Can you ellaborate a bit further on this? I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Are you referring to the Schaivo case, something similar, something different or am I completely off base?

    February 21st, 2008 at 6:34 pm
  60. Student says:

    Tara,

    Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf: "I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work." In 1938, he quoted those same words in a Reichstag speech.

    In a speech delivered April 12, 1922, published in "My New Order," and quoted in Freethought Today (April 1990), Hitler said:

    My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.

    In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison.

    Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross.

    As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice . . .

    And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery.

    When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exploited.""

    ***********

    Now, do I think he was a "Christian" in the way I would use the word? No! However, I don't think MANY people who call themselves "Christian" would fit my definition. My comment was to Elizabeth who wanted to take Hitler's stance on gun control and basically tell me that my position was in agreement with Hitler. My point was to tell her that Hitler's Christianity can be viewed in much the same way.

    February 21st, 2008 at 6:41 pm
  61. Paul2 says:

    Tom said:
    ********
    I was at my parents church as the ministers were preaching about homosexually, how they pray on children to convert. As a psychology major, I new this was not true. All I saw was a bunch of head nodding in agreement as I looked at the congregation. I regret to this day that I did not stand up against his massage of lies and fear. And no I’m not gay.

    Ever since then I realized how dangerous organized religion is. The people that follow may lack the education level to see though someone’s hidden agenda.
    *********************

    Tom,
    Did you really mean pray on the children or did you mean prey on the children? And I am not homophobic but it is an aberration to human nature. Anybody who follows another person blindly is not following scriptures teaching. You should not put your faith in man but rather put your faith in God and you will not be disappointed.

    February 22nd, 2008 at 2:48 am
  62. Paul2 says:

    Student,
    You skipped these POST: Maybe you could answer ir now:
    *************
    Student said,
    "Now, as to solve the problem of adults have sex with teenagers, I don’t have an answer. I also don’t have an answer to world hunger, aids, poverty and a whole host of other issues."

    Paul2 said:
    I do have an answer, notify the people who are responsible for the care of the minor and you solve a "big" portion of the problem. Why can't you get behind that? Cause of the very small minority of cases where the parents are the abusers? The Illinois Parental Notification f Abortion Act already has a legal way around that situation known as "judicial bypass". SO WHY ARE YOU REALLY AGAINST IT?

    February 22nd, 2008 at 3:08 am
  63. Paul2 says:

    And your "scared teenager couldn't find their way through the court system" post is ludicrous and hilarious. If a scared teenage girl can't find her way to a hearing room at a courthouse then they aren't mature enough to understand the consequences of abortion.

    February 22nd, 2008 at 3:14 am
  64. Student says:

    Paul2: "And your "scared teenager couldn't find their way through the court system" post is ludicrous and hilarious. If a scared teenage girl can't find her way to a hearing room at a courthouse then they aren't mature enough to understand the consequences of abortion."

    Clearly you couldn't negotiate the court system either. You think a teenager simply walks into a courtroom and announces her intentions? I'm sorry, my friend, it simply isn't that easy. There is paperwork to file, rules to follow, deadlines to meet, etc. Why do you think the NDIL is still reviewing this law and has issued a stay?

    February 22nd, 2008 at 8:17 am
  65. Eric Scheidler says:

    Halo—You might have noticed that your comments are taking a while to post. That's because they keep getting thrown into the moderation cue.

    I'm not sure why that is (it's all automatic), but I suspect it's the double-slashes (//) that you're using to attribute other people's comments. Maybe you could try em tags—<em>like this</em>—or plain old quotation marks

    Now I'd like to respond to one comment you made, and then say something in general about people's perceptions or pro-life activists. You said:

    Try standing in an area where patients are within earshot. That's where those types of people like to make there hate known I guess.

    Assuming for the moment that you really heard what you say you heard (I'm doubtful, as I will explain in a moment), does it make sense to describe these words as hateful?

    To hate someone is to wish them ill—to want the worst to happen to them. From the Christian's perspective, the worst fate that can befall a person is to suffer eternal damnation.

    If I hated you, Halo, I would want you to wind up in hell. And the last thing I'd do would be to say or do anything that might prevent such a fate.

    If pro-lifers really "hated" Planned Parenthood clients, we'd stay away. It's precisely because we do not hate you, or any other woman walking through those doors, that we're there trying to persuade you not to go in that place.

    Now, perhaps we're wrong that it is possible to be eternally isolated from God (that's what hell is) and that the way of life Planned Parenthood promotes leads in that end, but we do believe it.

    If someone really said those things to you, it was on the basis of that belief, inspired by an urgent concern to protect you from harm.

    That said, I remain doubtful of the accuracy of your report. Over the years I've just heard and seen too many false accounts about events I participated in myself, or even led.

    There was the letter to the editor last summer about pro-lifers "waving signs" and "screaming" at a Face the Truth protest in Naperville. But our signs are too big to "wave" (3' x 5') even if we wanted to, and if there had been any "screaming" my crew and I would have put a stop to it—but there wasn't.

    There was the phone call I received at the end of last September's Jericho March from a woman deeply offended by the "bloody abortion picture" on display. In reality, the large picture was of a beautiful eight-week-old living fetus. I tried to point that out, but she was convinced. We were actually talking on cell phones from different parts of the Dominicks parking lot. Both of us could see the picture—but we saw completely different things.

    Those are just two examples.

    Now, I do not accuse those individuals—or you—with lying. I'm sure you sincerely believe you heard what you said. But add the fact that you went out there explicitly hoping to have your worst suspicions about pro-life activists confirmed, and it becomes very hard for me to believe that what you say is true.

    Moreover, some of the words you say you heard "exactly" just don't sound like the kinds of things pro-life activists—even the most misguided ones—would actually say.

    I've been around the pro-life movement for 35 years, and I've never heard anyone say anything like "You will be judged harshly for your awfulness."

    I've heard things like "you will be judged harshly"—though I cringe to when I hear such words (which, by the way, I have never heard anything like from the Aurora regulars)—but "awfulness" just doesn't ring true.

    Not only doesn't it sound like the kind of thing a Christian—even the "fire and brimstone" sort—would say, but it doesn't even sound much like regular English.

    So I'm going to have to believe you misheard that word, and if that one, likely other ones, too.

    But either way, you can't come in denouncing judgmentalism and then in the same breath judge the motives of the whole pro-life movement on the basis of what one person may have said to you.

    I don't call all pro-choicers hateful and violent just because some of you write things like "It's all I can do when one of the Scheidlers shows up to NOT run them over" and "I hope someone has the balls to blow you all up."

    Sure, it would be easy to dismiss your whole side because of outrageous remarks like that, but it wouldn't be right. I'm asking that you treat us with the same fairness.

    (On the subject of pro-lifers "hatefulness" I would suggest reading this article that I wrote in May 2006.)

    February 22nd, 2008 at 12:30 pm
  66. Student says:

    Eric Scheidler: "Assuming for the moment that you really heard what you say you heard (I'm doubtful, as I will explain in a moment), does it make sense to describe these words as hateful?"

    The words Halo described were: "Please don't go inside! Only damned souls use this place!" and "You will be judged harshly for your awfulness."

    ————————–

    Eric Scheidler: "I don't call all pro-choicers hateful and violent just because some of you write things like …."

    I'm pro-choice and I too found those posts offensive. There is no excuse for that type of behavior from either side BUT it does happen on BOTH sides.

    ————————

    I haven't heard the same things that Halo has heard, althouh I don't doubt her account. "Most" of the protesters, while they do yell at women entering the clinic, do not use the same words Halo heard. However, at a city counsel meeting a gentleman (term used loosely) came up behind me and informed me that I was "doing the devil's work." Sorry, I do find that hateful and judgmental.

    I'm sorry, Mr. Scheidler, but those words DO sound hateful to me.

    —————————

    Eric Scheidler: "Now, perhaps we're wrong that it is possible to be eternally isolated from God (that's what hell is) and that the way of life Planned Parenthood promotes leads in that end, but we do believe it.

    If someone really said those things to you, it was on the basis of that belief, inspired by an urgent concern to protect you from harm."

    I'm not completely sure what you mean in the first paragraph. That said, MANY people simply don't believe the way you (and others) do when it comes to religion. By no means will I tell you that I'm right and you're wrong…..I simply don't know. But neither do you. I think it is wrong to judge other because they don't agree with you religiously — that is a personal, not a public decision.

    ———————–

    Eric Scheidler: "There was the phone call I received at the end of last September's Jericho March from a woman deeply offended by the "bloody abortion picture" on display. In reality, the large picture was of a beautiful eight-week-old living fetus. I tried to point that out, but she was convinced. We were actually talking on cell phones from different parts of the Dominicks parking lot. Both of us could see the picture—but we saw completely different things."

    Surely you jest???? Are you telling me that the guy who stands on the corner with the "bloody abortion picture" is actually holding a "beautiful eight-week-old living fetus?" I've given birth twice and even right after birth, when my boys were bloody from delivery, they DID NOT look like that photo.

    February 22nd, 2008 at 7:39 pm
  67. Brian says:

    Student, you and Eric were talking about two different pictures. The Baby Choice picture that the man shows on the corner of New York and Oakhurst is different than the picture I've seen of the eight week fetus. I'm no fan of the aborted fetus pictures because they are disturbing. I understand that that's the point.

    February 22nd, 2008 at 8:39 pm
  68. Student says:

    Brian,
    Thanks for clearing that up. And, I think we agree that they shouldn't be there?

    I'm against the war but I don't think standing outside of a mall holding bloody photos of dismembered soldiers is the way to make my point — although they would be disturbing.

    February 22nd, 2008 at 8:43 pm
  69. Brian says:

    I don't like the pictures, but the counter-argument is that they are truthful depictions of abortion (although baby choice is a picture of a third trimester abortion, which are not performed here. Gotta go to Kansas to find such a barbarian).

    February 22nd, 2008 at 8:49 pm
  70. Math Prof says:

    Brian,
    I can respect your opinion. However, I think it is disingenuous to use that photo to insinuate that PP performs third trimester abortions.

    February 22nd, 2008 at 9:38 pm
  71. Paul2 says:

    Student,
    Who are you kidding. I have been through the court system and filed my own motions on multiple occasions. The logisitics for a hearing like the one we are talking about is easy to set up. You say that no "child" should go through this process alone, so I am assuming you understand that these types of minors need guidance. Why is it then that you fail to comprehend that this same "child" should go through an abortion without support of a "legal" guardian?? Please answer my question without all the redirect and doublespeak. Why is it then that you fail to comprehend that this same "child" should go through an abortion without support of a "legal" guardian?? And the judge in the IPNOFA has already made his decision that the law is acceptable in it's current form and he expects it to be enacted. It is an absurd polical abuse that it is being held up in The Northern District for Illinois (DIL) for politically trumped up reasons.

    February 22nd, 2008 at 9:55 pm
  72. Student says:

    Paul2: I work in the court system daily. It's not easy for a minor. I've answered your questions a number of times. We clearly disagree.

    The district court judge is superior to the IPNOFA judge. When the district court judge renders a ruling, if you're opposed to it, it can be appealed to the 7th circuit. If you don't like the decision of the 7th Circuit, a cert petition can be filed. That's the way the system works.

    February 22nd, 2008 at 10:07 pm
  73. Matt says:

    Student Said:

    I'm against the war but I don't think standing outside of a mall holding bloody photos of dismembered soldiers is the way to make my point — although they would be disturbing.

    There are two differences between protesting abortion with graphic signs and protesting a war with graphic signs.

    The first is, everyone knows what a war looks like. We have had graphic images of war in movies and even on the news for years now. So much so, perhaps, that we have become numb to it.

    Abortion is hidden. People don't know what it looks like and that is precisely why we feel it is necessary to drag it out into the public square.

    The whole "It's just a blob of tissue" line has been force fed to the American public for so long they've begun to believe it. I can't tell you how many people approach us when we use those signs with tears in their eyes saying they had no idea that's what abortion was.

    The same is true, to a lesser extent, about prison abuses in the war on terror. That's precisely why we had images of Abu Ghraib on the news and on the cover of time magazine for months. If the American people couldn't see what was going on there, they would remain complacent.

    The second difference is that abortion isn't happening in Iraq, abortion is happening next door to the Dominick's. It's happening across the street from people's homes, and they have a right to know about the truth of what goes on there.

    One final difference is that showing folks pictures of what abortion looks like actually saves babies! Women see those pictures and decide not to have abortions on a regular basis and that is our goal, to save lives.

    If I thought you could save innocent lives in Iraq with graphic pictures here, I would support that too. But the decisions over who lives and dies in Iraq are not made outside the mall, thus making it a less than ideal location for such an endeavor.

    February 22nd, 2008 at 11:36 pm
  74. Elizabeth says:

    Matt,

    That was a very good post!

    February 22nd, 2008 at 11:44 pm
  75. Student says:

    Matt,
    Those graphic images of war in the movies are not in full view of children. I doubt many parents would be pleased about that.

    The signs you display ARE NOT first trimester abortions and that is all PP performs. I'm sorry, I vehemently disagree with your position. It's simply not honest.

    February 22nd, 2008 at 11:54 pm
  76. Brian says:

    Math prof, I think I agree with you on the third trimester issue. Student, they do perform second trimester abortions in Aurora or so they said during the debate before the city council.

    February 23rd, 2008 at 12:14 am
  77. Leviticus Jackson says:

    Matt,

    "One final difference is that showing folks pictures of what abortion looks like actually saves babies! Women see those pictures and decide not to have abortions on a regular basis and that is our goal, to save lives."

    As a resident of the neighborhood who is extremely passionate about those photos I have a suggestion. There is a man who stands on the corner of Oakhurst and the access road to Dominicks quite a bit. For months this man has terrorized my neighbors and family. In fact kids call him the "boogey" man because of the photos. In my complex we have had several families lose a child due to illness. The reason I get angry when I see that man (by the way in previous posts none of you seem to know this man which I do find humorous..like a political coverup if you will) is these people had a child die and they are punished by seeing that photo constantly. If you put the "boogey man" on the access road by the entrance the community would thank you and actually may support some of your causes. Paul2 I hope the new year is treating you well!

    February 23rd, 2008 at 9:29 am
  78. Student says:

    Leviticus,

    The "Boogey Man," huh? LOL We usually refer to him as "the unibomber."

    February 23rd, 2008 at 10:15 am
  79. Matt says:

    Student Said:

    Matt,
    Those graphic images of war in the movies are not in full view of children. I doubt many parents would be pleased about that.

    The signs you display ARE NOT first trimester abortions and that is all PP performs. I'm sorry, I vehemently disagree with your position. It's simply not honest.

    Student, you're an intelligent person. Are you honestly trying to tell me that graphically violent images are not at the finger tips of any child with a television or computer? To say nothing of the sexual propaganda that's forced down their throats on every billboard and news stand they pass?

    Why is it that all of that stuff is waved away with "Well it's free speech, if you don't like it, don't look at it." but these images seem to get treated like they're in a class by themselves? How is it that people are "forced" to look at these images any more than I'm forced to look at the billboards for strip joints I have to look at whenever I drive to the airport? I don't like those, I find them in horrible taste, but until they are regarded as unconstitutional speech (which our graphic signs most emphatically are not) I have to grit my teeth and look the other way.

    Now, as for Randy (whom I do know, he's a good dude) and his Choice sign. They might not perform 3rd trimester abortions at PP, but they might (They certainly perform second trimester surgical abortions). It would certainly not be the first case of an abortion clinic that said they didn't and then did anyway. There's no law against it.

    If they miscalculated a woman's due date and started an abortion, later to find out she's further along than they thought (which happens more than you might think), do you imagine they'd stop the abortion mid-stream?

    PP has no ethical problem with late term abortions but they do have a serious problem with lying to the public so as not to draw heat. Trombley has said as much in the oft quoted Trib article.

    So forgive me if I don't take their word on that.

    But even if they wouldn't touch a third trimester pregnancy with a ten foot pole, is it somehow disingenuous to have a sign with a picture of a third trimester aborted baby on it?

    I don't think it is. First of all, nothing on that sign says "Third trimester abortions are performed at this facility". Second, I have yet to hear from any of the pro-choice folks around here what the moral difference is between killing an eight week old baby in the womb, a twenty two week old baby in the womb, a three year old baby outside of the womb, or a twenty five year old man. They are all the taking of the life of an innocent member of the human race and therefore unconscionable. Until someone shows me a standard with which to differentiate them, I hold them to be the same crime.

    So, if there was a rash of murders taking place in Aurora and the victims all seemed to be young women between the ages of 16 and 20, and someone put up a poster to raise awareness with a picture of a twenty one year old woman, would anyone cry foul at that? Obviously not. Why? Because there's no moral difference between killing a twenty year old and killing a twenty one year old.

    In like manner, I'd like to see the difference between killing a twenty three week old baby in the womb and killing a twenty four week old baby in the womb. When that difference is made clear and we have two morally different acts to talk about, we can talk about whether it's disingenuous to use a picture of an older murdered baby instead of a younger murdered baby.

    For now, I continue to hold that infanticide is infanticide regardless of how many weeks old the child is. Thus, to use a picture of infanticide that may pull the heart strings a little bit more than another is hardly disingenuous. They kill babies here. That's the point the sign makes, and it makes it well.

    February 23rd, 2008 at 11:15 am
  80. Student says:

    Matt,
    Why don't we do away the rating system for movies. Let's allow 10 year olds to watch porn. Hey, it's available on the computer. Why not? Those things actually happen. Why not allow children to see them? Surely they should understand the "reality" of the situation. I, as a parent, should have no rights whatsoever to control what my child views.

    As to your free speech argument. You are right and I will not pretend otherwise. Those of us in DeKalb have had to contend with the WBC and their right to "free speech" as well. They, as you, believe wholeheartedly in their message. They, like you, believe they are performing some public service for the "greater good." And they, like you, have every legal right to express their views graphically out in public — in full view of children. It may be legal, but I don't think it's right OR moral, nor do I want my children exposed to it. Tough luck for me though, huh!?!!

    February 23rd, 2008 at 11:24 am
  81. Student says:

    Matt: "Until someone shows me a standard with which to differentiate them, I hold them to be the same crime."

    Ok, I have no doubt that you're going to disagree with me, but I am willing to give you MY opinion. I believe the difference is in brain function. The frontal cortex of the brain does not develop until 20-22 weeks after conception. This is the structure that makes humans unique: it is this that we use to reason, plan, and is the basic structure for awareness. It is also the structure we use to determine when someone has died. So why shouldn't we use it to determine when a fetus gains some rights?

    So if we go with my argument for just a moment, my guess is that your question will be what if the development is actually a week earlier. How do we know the cut off? For me, and again I ONLY speak for myself here, I think we cut it off at 16 weeks — then there's no doubt. Anything beyond that, IMHO, should be for medical necessity ONLY.

    February 23rd, 2008 at 11:49 am
  82. Student says:

    Matt: "Now, as for Randy (whom I do know, he's a good dude) and his Choice sign. They might not perform 3rd trimester abortions at PP, but they might…"

    Back to the sign issue just for a moment, suppose I stand outside Catholic churches with a sign (similar in size to the one we've been discussing) that shows a priest molesting a child (no visible genitalia on my sign). It may not happen in that particular Catholic church, but it has happened in many so it "might" be happening in this one. The RCC has certainly moved pedophile priests around from parish to parish leaving them free to molest innocent children again. Now, if I want to alert the public that this is happening, would you agree that my sign is ok? After all, it might make somebody think and may, in fact, save an innocent child?

    I'm certainly free to stand there with such a graphic sign. I would be well within my rights of free speech to do so. However, I don't believe it would be right OR moral.

    February 23rd, 2008 at 11:55 am
  83. Elizabeth says:

    Student,

    We don't think abortion is moral OR right either..but they're still legal and still defended by you.

    So why is it wrong for us to defend what we believe and it's not wrong for you?

    Oh, and the WBC reference is just laughable…we don't preach hate, so the comparison doesn't even work. The WBC believes everyone who isn't them is going to hell, and that everyone who isn't them is evil..nobody here believes that. Nobody here has even said that.

    February 23rd, 2008 at 3:38 pm
  84. Student says:

    Elizabeth,
    I never claimed you said the things referenced in the last two sentences of your post. I realize you don't think abortion is right or moral — I get that. However, nobody is forcing your children to watch an abortion, are they?

    I also never claimed it was wrong for you to defend what you believe. My problem is the way in which it is done. I thought I made that clear. Take a look at post #82 and explain to me the difference between that and what you do.

    February 23rd, 2008 at 4:28 pm
  85. Sylvia says:

    Matt,
    Excellent posts!

    Student: "frontal cortex of the brain….This is the structure that makes humans unique…."

    First, humans are NOT that unique in terms of brain structure. Other primates are very similar. For an excellent evaluation, go to "Neuroscience for Kids" at http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/front.html . There are, of course, many specific differences between humans and other animals. That's part of how scientists determine species. So why isolate brain structure? Differences in thumb/hand structure are far more fascinating on a macroscopic level and better understood. The whole opposable thumb thing…similar to other primates, yet very much different. Leave a bunch of monkeys alone with typewriters and they'll still not have the dexterity to type a novel with the fluidity and precision of a human being. When do our unique hands form? Pictures from the 5th week after conception show distinct little fingers (pregnancy.org). But really, they start forming much earlier.

    Why stop there? Uniqueness starts with DNA. Give a geneticist a fertilized egg (theoretically, of course, as we wouldn't want to kill anyone) and he/she can tell you it's from a human being. Your brain "uniqueness" argument thus fails.

    Student: "…It is also the structure we use to determine when someone has died."

    You're on shaky logical ground when you start using arbitrary standards to make your arguments. Lack of breathing has traditionally been used to determine death. Also, heart beat cessation. Both still are used to determine death in the absence of the machinery to test brain waves. And why certain brain waves and not others? In fact, the definition of brain death is TOTAL brain cessation, including the "lower" functions. "Brain death" itself is controversial and can be mimicked by certain drugs. What will be the next arbitrary determination of "death"? How about cessation of all bioelectrical impulses in the body? Or cessation of all activity at the cellular level? The more machines we create, the more we can measure, the more we can change our diagnosis of "death".

    Student: "So why shouldn't we use it to determine when a fetus gains some rights?"

    Formal logic calls it a "non sequitur", e.g., "if it is a square, then it has 4 sides" cannot be reversed to say "if it has four sides, then it is a square", because other shapes can have 4 sides. Heart beat, breathing, brain waves have been used together to determine death. But a baby's heart beats at 18 days, brain waves can be recorded at 40 days, breathing not till birth. All rational people would have to say that a full term, growing baby is "alive", as commonly understood, before birth.

    To be intellectually honest, you need to answer, "Is a fertilized egg absolutely, positively, 100% certain NOT ALIVE?" It can be scientifically proven that a human egg fertilized by a human sperm is human, by DNA evidence. A human zygote will not grow a puppy. Humans beget only humans. So now that we've settled it is human, you must determine if it is alive. It is either alive or it is not. "Alive" is absolute. There is no such thing as "potential life". Spontaneous generation was disproven long ago. So if it is not alive, what is it? You see, there is no way to argue that a fertilized egg is not human and that it is not alive. Human + alive = HUMAN LIFE!

    Now, to be intellectually honest, what you are really asking is, "Does that human life have as much value as an older, more developed human life?" When you look at it that way, any answer other than "yes" ought to make you VERY uncomfortable. When we start placing value on human life, or rather, start devaluing human life at any stage, we ourselves become less "human". We become more base, more animalistic, cold, and uncompassionate.

    February 23rd, 2008 at 9:04 pm
  86. Tara says:

    Halo,

    I'm sorry if I got you confused with someone else.
    I thought I had remembered you stating something similiar a couple of months ago.

    I do stand right outside where people go in and out. And I know I don't say mean things, and I haven't heard anyone I've been there with say those kinds of things.

    The only thing I hear people say is that PP is not a safe place for the girl or her unborn child. I have heard people say they have alternative places they can go to like the VNA. They provide the same services as PP, except they don't do abortions, and they are less expensive. They don't turn anyone away.

    I have heard people say to those coming out that if they need any help after their abortion, we have information on that too.

    I have had some girls come and talk to me at PP. They have told me that they are surprised that we don't hate them, and that we really do care. I have had some wonderful discussions with people outside of PP. Even if we still disagree, I have never parted ways with someone angry. Conversation and dialouge is the most effective way. Not yelling, name calling or anything else like that.

    So again, if I hear someone behaving like that I call them on it.

    February 23rd, 2008 at 9:37 pm
  87. Math Prof says:

    Sylvia said:
    But a baby's heart beats at 18 days, brain waves can be recorded at 40 days, breathing not till birth.

    I say:
    Actually, the brain waves at 40 days claim is not true. This was a claim made in the early 1960s when monitoring equipment had a lot of static, if you will. The time when real brain wave activity stars is about 20-22 weeks after conception according to ALL the recent studies.

    Sylvia said:
    To be intellectually honest, you need to answer, "Is a fertilized egg absolutely, positively, 100% certain NOT ALIVE?" It can be scientifically proven that a human egg fertilized by a human sperm is human, by DNA evidence. A human zygote will not grow a puppy. Humans beget only humans. So now that we've settled it is human, you must determine if it is alive. It is either alive or it is not. "Alive" is absolute. There is no such thing as "potential life". Spontaneous generation was disproven long ago. So if it is not alive, what is it? You see, there is no way to argue that a fertilized egg is not human and that it is not alive. Human + alive = HUMAN LIFE!

    I say:
    Yes, of course it is alive and human. But so are the sperm and egg. They are both alive and they are both human (they certainly aren't dog or cat). In fact, every sperm and egg is an individual since it is genetically distinct. Also is every skin cell, bone cell, neuron, etc is alive and human. So the point is NOT that it is alive and human. It is not even whether there is a genetically distinct individual. The point is ultimately not even a question of biology. It is a question of values. When do we want, as a society, to give rights? Clearly we don't want to give rights to skin cells or sperm and unfertilized eggs. Some people, like you, seem to think we should give rights to fertilized eggs. Some prefer a later time, for example, when the brain actually starts functioning. Even then, though, the question remains whether the rights of the developping fetus transcend those of the adult person who is carrying it. My person view is that they don't before brain functioning. Even afterwards, when I might agree some right acrue, I do not see those rights trumping those of the woman except, possibly, to require something like a C-section for termination of the pregnancy and hence to require the woman to give birth.

    February 23rd, 2008 at 11:16 pm
  88. Sylvia says:

    Math Prof,
    "Static" is an unsubstantiated assumption. Current research focuses around 20 weeks based on assumptions made regarding brain structure and ease of measurement. The research that gave rise to the 40 day citation is not being repeated because delivering a tiny baby by C-section and implanting electrodes into the dying baby's brain is now deemed unethical (probably because the C-section is considered too invasive for the mother).

    Actually, current research speaks volumes, implicitly, while remaining silent for obvious reasons. The gruesome practice of harvesting baby parts for research has yielded information on developing babies that shows how complex they really are. The optimum time for harvesting a baby's brain cells for transplantation into adults is 6-8 weeks gestation. At this time, dopamine-producing cells are abundant. Dopamine is a neurotransmitter. Dopamine means the baby's brain cells are communicating. Communication means activity. Activity means life. Maybe not "higher" brain activity, but some "higher" forms of activity aren't even complete until adulthood. They've now even found brain chemicals related to pain perception in 11-13 week old baby brains.

    Just look at the many ultrasound images available of even 8 week old babies kicking and moving. You can't tell me that they are not "alive". Good grief!

    Do you understand what you are saying when you are assigning "values" and "giving" rights to human life? You are saying that one human being is less valuable than another, and because he is less valuable that he has no rights, including the right to live. That is frightening. Who decides "value"? By what criteria? Size? Age? Race? Ability? Do you see what you are saying? The woman to you is more "valuable" than the child. Why? Age–she is an adult, you said. What about infants? Hey, the Netherlands wants doctors to kill "defective" newborns. We know instinctively this is wrong. Why? Because human life, ALL human life is sacred. To see your reasoning in action, just look at slavery and Nazism.

    (By the way, the skin cells and sperm-as-life is a bunch of hooey, and you know it–a red herring thrown in to detract from real discussion. Skin cells are part of an organism, whereas the zygote/embryo/fetus is an organism in its entirety.)

    February 24th, 2008 at 3:26 am
  89. Brian says:

    "Yes, of course it is alive and human. But so are the sperm and egg."

    One is a total, unique human life, the others are cells which have only half the number of human chromosomes and are part of another human life.

    February 24th, 2008 at 10:26 am
  90. Eric Scheidler says:

    Student writes:

    I'm against the war but I don't think standing outside of a mall holding bloody photos of dismembered soldiers is the way to make my point —although they would be disturbing.

    Anti-war protestorMaybe you should ask yourself why you're not standing out at the mall holding pictures of bloody soldiers. Or better yet, dead Iraqi babies like this guy.

    Closeup of anti-war displayI ran into this fellow at Soldier Field during the Democratic candidates debate back in August. We were there too with big graphic abortion signs. As you can see, he had this display hooked up to a bicycle—pretty creative.

    But with the mainstream media being decidedly opposed to the Iraq War, maybe you don't feel the same sense of urgency to reach the public that we do as pro-lifers. They won't show abortion pictures on TV or in the paper. So with 3,400 unborn babies being legally killed every day, we feel an obligation to go out on the street and show the truth ourselves.

    One other point—to return to the "hateful comments" issue—I'm sorry somebody said to you at the City Council, "You're doing the devils work." Not because I disagree—I think you are doing the devil's work when you support abortion. At the same time, let it be known that I am guilty of doing the devils work myself any number of times each week.

    No, the reason I'm sorry someone said that is because it was such a misguided way to try to talk to you. And in all likelihood, those words were uttered in anger, or at least frustration. Angry words are not helpful, and they're often disrespectful as well.

    Clearly these words did not give you pause to reflect on the service you might be rendering to the Prince of Darkness, but on the contrary gave you a bad impression of pro-lifers. I regret that, and hope that pro-lifers reading this think seriously about the duty they owe to speak to opponents in a way best calculated to lead to real understanding.

    Never the less, I'm certain that the person who said that to you does not hate you. At this point I know pretty much everyone who shows up at City Council meetings, and none of them is hateful, even if some of them on occasion forget the words of Sirach: "There is a reproof which is not timely."

    February 25th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
  91. Halo says:

    "One other point—to return to the "hateful comments" issue—I'm sorry somebody said to you at the City Council, "You're doing the devils work."

    Seems I'm not the only one pro-lifers have thrown their hate and negativity twords. Not that I'm surprised. I'm sure there are others out there who have had the same happen to them but don't come forward, as I chose not to at first as well.

    I'm just glad my claims are being backed up by similar experiences, considering above, you (Eric) almost (but did cover yourself in a later statement) outright called me a liar…

    "Assuming for the moment that you really heard what you say you heard (I'm doubtful, as I will explain in a moment)."

    Shame on you.

    "Maybe you should ask yourself why you're not standing out at the mall holding pictures of bloody soldiers."

    Hmm…maybe because, its disrepectful? I don't care how you feel about the war, it's downright disrespectful. How about I start protesting their funerals as well (as some radicals already have)? That would go right along with the pictures idea.

    February 25th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
  92. Anonymous says:

    Student: "Take a look at post #82 and explain to me the difference between that and what you do."

    I assume you are talking about standing outside of a Catholic church with the priests and pedophiles poster. Here are two differences that I came up with:

    1) No one defends pedophilia. You wouldn't be protesting against something that is a controversey among people of good faith. You wouldn't be bringing light to something that people tacitly approve without their full knowledge of what is going on.

    By contrast, a large portion of the population(perhaps a majority, perhaps not) believes that abortion should be legal. Many don't know what abortion looks like. By protesting, you'd hope to wake them up. As I said, I don't like the posters, but that's a pretty clear difference.

    2) The vast majority of churches do not house pedophile priests and by protesting a church, you're making an unsubstantiated charge against priests who are in all likelihood good men serving God. Some might call it slander. It would not be inappropriate, in my opinion, to protest outside of the offices of an archdiocese that routinely transferred pedophile priests from parish to parish.

    By contrast, protesting abortion outside an abortion clinic is protesting where the practice is going on. Your example is akin to protesting at an Ob-Gyn office without having any knowledge as to whether or not abortion is performed there.

    February 25th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
  93. Student says:

    Eric Scheidler says: "Maybe you should ask yourself why you're not standing out at the mall holding pictures of bloody soldiers. Or better yet, dead Iraqi babies like this guy."

    I would tell him the same thing I'm telling you. If you want to present it in an ADULT FORUM where children cannot see them, then fine. By all means, go right ahead. In fact, if those are your convictions I would strongly urge (and support) you in following them. However, I agree with Halo….because it is disrespectful AND it's not something I would want my children exposed to so why on earth would I expose someone else's child. There is too much crap out there for children as it is. To me, it's just another early removal of their innoncence. Again, why not expose them to porn. It exists. It happens every day. It's real. Shouldn't they see that too? [See post 80 for more on this]

    Eric Scheidler: "One other point—to return to the "hateful comments" issue—I'm sorry somebody said to you at the City Council, "You're doing the devils work." Not because I disagree—I think you are doing the devil's work when you support abortion. At the same time, let it be known that I am guilty of doing the devils work myself any number of times each week."

    I have no idea what you mean by the last sentence. As to the rest, anyone can think whatever they like about me. You are entitled to hold whatever religious beliefs you do, however, not everyone shares them. I don't believe in a deity, but I do believe in right and wrong. You think my views are wrong and I think your views are wrong. I hope for the ability of reasonable people to compromise….something I see no chance of as regards this issue. What scares me more than anything else is the mixing of religion and politics.

    February 25th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
  94. Student says:

    Halo,
    Please see my post #80. I know EXACTLY what you mean.

    February 25th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
  95. Student says:

    Anonymous,

    As regards your #1 — perhaps not everyone knows that many children have been molested in the catholic church. It's not a place I would want my children. I think what goes on there is wrong and I'm not simply referring to pedophila (and, for the record, I don't think that happens in every catholic church).

    As regards your #2 — I think you'd have a difficult legal time proving slander. After all, my signs don't say that a specific priest molests children — it's just a sign with a priest molesting a child.

    Like I said before, I think my sign would be wrong. I also strongly believe that your (not you personally) signs are wrong as well. They should not be in full view of children any more than pornography.

    February 25th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
  96. Brian says:

    Sorry, I was anonymous (on accident). I don't think you were succesful in explaining why your anti-Catholic signs are in any way akin to the abortion signs. My point about slander wasn't that it was necessarily legally slanderous, but that it was a slander in coloquial term against the priests at the parish (that's point 2). On point one, if you are a mass-attending Catholic, you know what has been discovered in the last 5-10 years. You go to mass because you believe it is good for you and your children. You also go there not intending for your child to be molested. Indeed, that's the best reason that your comparison fails: a church is not a place designed for molestation (and it rarely, although not rarely enough, has been a place where that happens). An abortion clinic has abortion as its designated purpose. Your hypothetical protester is there to make the faithful angry (like the God hates f*gs guys) rather than to dissuade someone from allowing their child to be molested.

    February 25th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
  97. Brian says:

    "I have no idea what you mean by the last sentence."

    Pretty clearly, Eric's saying that he sins several times a week.

    "What scares me more than anything else is the mixing of religion and politics."

    What scares me more than that is that we live in a society where the next generation's existence is legally contingent. There's a lot of scary stuff in the world, but the fact that religion is mixed with politics, as it always has been in this country, ranks pretty low.

    February 25th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
  98. Amy says:

    Student,
    You and everyone else do have every right to believe in God, or not or any other deity you would like. I personally find that sad because my faith has been so uplifting and helpful to me. That aside I respect your rights.
    These freedom and rights we all have are due to the political system we have in this country founded on the Christian values the founding fathers held so dear. If you actually read the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence it is quite clear. Religious freedom not freedom from religion is a big part of how they all got here. And contrary to popular belief no were does it state a separation of church and state.

    Amendment I
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    In other words the government can not establish a church which was in direct response the Church of England and other countries who forced all to attend one church and believe one thing. We are all free to bring our religious beliefs into the political arena. Since it is what made this country what it is the absence of that freedom to express our religion should be far more frightening then those who base their political views on their religion. Your choice to not believe in a deity is a religious view you bring to the political arena. My choice to believe in God and practice Catholicism is also a religious view I bring to the political arena. This is my right under the Constitution of the United States.

    Amy

    February 26th, 2008 at 10:47 am
  99. Student says:

    Amy,
    I am quite familiar with the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. The phrase you refer to came from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists:

    "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

    More importantly, the phrase "wall of separation" has been used in several U.S. Supreme Court cases which does, in fact, make it the law of the land.

    ****************

    Amy: "Your choice to not believe in a deity is a religious view you bring to the political arena"

    No, it's not a "religious view" at all. However, I agree that we are both entitled to our particular points of view. I am simply very much opposed to having ANY religious view legislated.

    *********************

    Amy: "Since it is what made this country what it is the absence of that freedom to express our religion should be far more frightening then those who base their political views on their religion."

    I disagree. While I would wholeheartedly defend your right to your beliefs, I do not believe your religous beliefs/morals should be legislated on the rest of us based upon religion. This country was not founded on religion. John Adams stated, "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." In my mind, our laws should not be based on christianity (or any other religion) either.

    February 26th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
  100. Amy says:

    Student,
    Try reading the documents again. What made those documents what they are and so great to with stand the test of time is that they are based on the religious beliefs of those men that wrote them. You can continue to rewrite history if you like but it will change nothing. The documents are quite clear and the historical writings of the founding fathers expresses these views.

    The fact that you choose not to believe in God IS a religious view because it is your view of religion and it is that view that leads you in certain directions and decisions.

    Those who are trying to legislate their beliefs on others are in fact those with your religious view. The one that says no religion or it's view can be near government/public anything. The ones that won't allow my children to say grace at lunch or to sing Christmas carols. Those are the same people who are trying to force me to pay for other people abortion, birth control and sterilization even though it goes against all my believes. Those of us who vote pro-life only want the murder of children to stop. Thousands die everyday because the pro- choice crowd and PP lie. They lie about the safety of the procedure, they lie about crisis pregnancy centers and they lie about the long term impact of the decision. They want public funding for all of this and to force their form of sex ed down our throats. One visit to teenwire should have any parent concerned.

    What am I doing about all this? I have pulled all my children from public school and I teach them the fundamentals of government and the Constitution. Those who are old enough (I have some adult children)have been shown the PP site and teenwire along with the other nearly pornographic links so they know what the lies are. They all have had experience with the pro-life movement and the real truth about crisis pregnancy centers and the help available no matter how great the need. I didn't need religion or even to explain it to them. They easily made the choices and the connections all by themselves. Simple logic rules.

    Amy

    February 26th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
  101. Eric Scheidler says:

    Student writes:

    Again, why not expose them to porn. It exists. It happens every day. It's real. Shouldn't they see that too?

    I don't agree with you that porn is "real". Yes, there is such a thing as pornography. But what it portrays is a distortion of reality.

    By distorting the truth about masculinity and femininity and how these two modes of being human interrelate, pornography is harmful—not only to children, but to everyone who sees it.

    That is why pornography is rightly banned (at least to some extent) from the public square.

    Our abortion signs, in contrast, depict the truth of what abortion does to unborn babies—a truth which the mainstream media and abortion supporters would prefer to remain hidden.

    If we could expose that truth without children ever seeing it, we would. My crew and I place WARNING signs before our displays whenever possible to enable parents to take another route.

    But there is no "adult forum" wherein we can exercise this particular mode of free speech effectively. Sharing our message in the public square remains essential.

    You are entitled to hold whatever religious beliefs you do, however, not everyone shares them.

    I'm not asking you to share my religious beliefs, but just to understand the religious beliefs of people whose religious statements you've gotten into the business of interpreting.

    I don't believe in a deity, but I do believe in right and wrong.

    Can you explain? When I was an atheist—ten long years—I very much wanted to believe in right and wrong, but I couldn't find any basis for a moral code in the raw facts of the material universe.

    February 26th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
  102. Student says:

    Amy,
    Do you have anything to back up your claims? I provided you with direct quotes. You provided me with "your" interpretation of documents.

    Webster's dictionary defines religion as follows: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

    I have no "religious code" regardless of whether or not you would like to assign one to me. I hold you no ill will because you have one and fully support your right to believe in god, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Toothfairy or Zeus. That is a freedom everyone is afforded in this country and I am grateful for that.

    As to your children, if they want to say grace at lunch that's fine by me — as long as my children aren't forced to go along I have no problem with it. And, for the record, I like Christmas carols. My children have performed in many a Christmas concert. Some of the music is beautiful.

    I don't like supporting religion with my tax dollars, yet I do. I don't like supporting the war with my tax dollars, yet I do. Tax dollars ARE NOT spent for abortion services (at least at PP).

    I do not begrudge you your prochoice vote. One person — one vote. That's what makes this country great. For the last almost 8 years we've had a PL president — in my mind, he's been a disaster since day one. I think our next president will be PC. Regardless, the majority of the country will make that decision.

    Finally, you are entitled to teach your children your values as to birth control, etc. as I am free to teach mind. I have no problem with Teenwire and encouraged my teenagers to use it as a resource. Your "real truth" is not mine. We just view things differently.

    February 26th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
  103. Student says:

    Eric Scheidler: "I don't agree with you that porn is "real". Yes, there is such a thing as pornography. But what it portrays is a distortion of reality."

    You don't agree that there are some people who regularly practice BDSM? It's not a distorted reality. It exists and is very "real" for many people. However, because I veiw it as offensive to women I don't think I should go out of my way to show depictions of same to other people to have it banned.

    ************

    Eric Scheidler: "My crew and I place WARNING signs before our displays whenever possible to enable parents to take another route."

    WHERE? Not once have I ever seen such a sign. Now, I wear bifocals so it's quite possible I've missed it, but where do you put such warnings?

    ***************

    Eric Schediler: "But there is no "adult forum" wherein we can exercise this particular mode of free speech effectively. Sharing our message in the public square remains essential."

    I disagree. Why don't you bring them to City Council meetings and hand out copies to alderpersons and community members? You can thus avoid giving children access. Even one of your own member stated above that they frightened neighborhood children and caused a couple of families to re-experience the loss of their child through illness. Again, tough luck for them???

    ****************

    Eric Schediler: "I'm not asking you to share my religious beliefs, but just to understand the religious beliefs of people whose religious statements you've gotten into the business of interpreting."

    Fair enough. However, I'd appreciate the same consideration of the non-religious views of others.

    **************

    Eric Scheidler: "Can you explain? When I was an atheist—ten long years—I very much wanted to believe in right and wrong, but I couldn't find any basis for a moral code in the raw facts of the material universe."

    This is a significantly longer answer than this forum would allow. However, I'd suggest reading the following:

    "Moral Minds" by Marc Hauser
    "Why Good is Good" by Robert Hinde
    "Can We Be Good Without God" by Robert Buckman
    "The Science of Good and Evil" by Michael Shermer

    In the "Journal of Religion and Society" (2005), Gregory S. Paul compared 17 economically developed nations and concluded that "higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homoicide, juvenile and early mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies."

    Are you telling me you couldn't be good without a belif in God. Would you steal, rape, murder, etc. without your faith?

    February 26th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
  104. Brian says:

    Student, I think he is not talking about the guy at PP Aurora (who does his own thing), but rather the Pro Life Action League's face the truth outings where they put up the signs along the road.

    http://www.prolifeaction.org/truth/

    February 26th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
  105. Halo says:

    "Are you telling me you couldn't be good without a belif in God. Would you steal, rape, murder, etc. without your faith?"

    Took the words right out of my mouth Student.

    February 26th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
  106. Anonymous says:

    Dostoevsky asks whether without God, everything is permitted. Maybe an ethics can be developed without a metaphysical grounding which prohibits murder, rape, and thievery. Maybe the categorical imperitive that you act in a manner that you would have all others act in the same way is sufficient. I don't think it is because who cares about what others do if there is no personal consequence?

    We're living in a time where too many live according to what they can get away with. I fear that those who still live an ethical life do so either out of faith in God or out of the cultural residue of faith in God (that Western ethics is still rooted in God, even if it is divorced from belief in God). If faith weakens, and the residue correspondingly weakens, so will ethics.

    February 26th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
  107. Amy says:

    Student,
    All you have to due is read the document and which really doesn't need much interpretation and read what the founding fathers say about it. They have written much and if can be found at the Library of Congress and many other places. Not hard at all. As I said before you can rewrite history but it won't change a thing. In my public school history class, my trips to Washington and other sites such as Mount Vernon and my boot camp history class all confirm and taught what I said about the Constitution.

    And yes PP lies. I can read what they say about a Crisis Pregnancy center and then go there myself and deal with the people who do that kind of work ( and I have) and see that it is not true. Try it sometime. Father Barr at Holy Cross church would welcome you with open arms and show you the program he is working on.

    There is a bill( I think 5516 or something like that maybe someone else can remember) right now trying to mandate sex ed in the schools for all children which would mean that I as a parent could no long opt out of it for my children. The sex ed program that is being batted around with it would be from PP though I don't believe that is specified in the bill and all abortions would be deregulated.

    In short stop regurgitating PP, the popular media, and what ever your liberal law professor has to say and truly be the intelligent woman you seem to be. I never take anyones word for anything. If someone tells me PP has done something I check it out for my self and the same with CPC's. I don't assume. What I have found is PP lies and that is a fact not an opinion. I have not interpreted the Constitution I have read it and the documents that surround it. What I have said about it is fact not opinion because the guys who wrote it said so. When a action alert for a bill comes across my desk I go to the state web site and read the bill as well as look at voting records for candidates for myself. I always look for fact. I am not interested in anyones opinion because (and this is an opinion) I don't think it is a good reason to make a decision.

    February 27th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
  108. Student says:

    Amy,
    Why are you so hostile when all I asked you to do was to back up what you say. I backed up each and everyone of my statements. I do not "regurgitate" what others have to say, I actually read the documents and those surrounding them AND THEN use those same documents (with citations) to back up what I'm saying.

    **********

    Amy: "The sex ed program that is being batted around with it would be from PP though I don't believe that is specified in the bill…"

    The bill you are referring to is House Bill 5615. Those interested can read the bill in its entirety here.

    Why do you claim that the sex education portion would be from PP? Even in your own post you say it's not specified in the bill — and, at least in that, you are correct. So, upon what evidence do you base your claim?

    *****************

    I am quite capable of thinking for myself — if not, I wouldn't be where I am. Thinking critically is an important skill. I don't "assume" anything and when I do make a "statement," I back it up with facts. If you want to provide me with a citation to back up your claims, I'm happy to look at it. Until then, it's nothing more than "your" opinion — to which you are certainly entitled.

    February 27th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
  109. Student says:

    My apologies to all. I have no idea what I did wrong to make my link run off the page like that.

    February 27th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
  110. Halo says:

    Amy: "And yes PP lies. I can read what they say about a Crisis Pregnancy center and then go there myself and deal with the people who do that kind of work ( and I have) and see that it is not true. Try it sometime."

    I have. In fact, I go there every month (in some cases, twice) and I have worked with the people there. Also, I was there when a friend asked me to go with her to get help a few years back. They don't sugar coat, nor do they lie. They tell you everything you want to know and back up there words with published facts. So yes, I have tried it and no Amy, they don't lie.

    Because of my many years of experience with Planned, I highly doubt alot of what people say on here with regards to there 'experience' with the center. I've always been impressed with there professionalism, understanding, and care they give to there patients. Enough to a point where I'd love to volunteer my time to work at one of there facilities. I've refered several friends and they have become longtime patients (which I wouldn't do if I didn't have total trust). Which leads me to ask, what exactly they said to you when you visited (the center, and talked to a person) that was a lie?

    February 27th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
  111. Paul2 says:

    PP is the face of industrialized baby killing. They'll fight ant way they can to keep the right to kill your unwanted babies.

    February 27th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
  112. Paul2 says:

    Mr Jackson,
    I am truly sorry about your neighbors losses though. Can you share with me the approximate ages of the children and a little bit about the circumstances surrounding their death?

    And a fine New Year to you also.

    February 27th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
  113. Student says:

    What does the circumstances regarding their death have to do with anything?

    February 28th, 2008 at 8:23 am
  114. Paul2 says:

    Student,
    The circumstances of the childrens death and the ages of the children at the time they were lost has a great deal to do with understanding the pain they are going through.

    February 28th, 2008 at 10:20 am
  115. Halo says:

    Paul2: "PP is the face of industrialized baby killing. They'll fight ant way they can to keep the right to kill your unwanted babies."

    Umm Paul2, its the woman's CHOICE to go there had have an abortion, not Planned Parenthood's (how many more times do we have to say this?). They are simply there if in fact a woman chooses to terminate there pregnancy. Last time I checked, PP employees weren't walking the streets at night with hand and ankle cuffs dragging pregnant women from there homes, chaining them down, and doing abortions against there will. Women CHOOSE to walk through those doors. And yes, Planned will continue to fight to keep a woman's right to CHOOSE maintained. Which I will fully and always support.

    February 28th, 2008 at 10:23 am
  116. Paul2 says:

    Halo, I guess our hearts just see things differently. It doesn't make me fell good inside to know somebody like PP is willing to pracice lies and deceit to move into my neighborhood and set up a shop to kill babies.

    February 28th, 2008 at 10:32 am
  117. Halo says:

    Paul2: "It doesn't make me fell good inside to know somebody like PP is willing to pracice lies and deceit to move into my neighborhood and set up a shop to kill babies."

    It's already been proven once by the Aurora zoning board that they can be there Paul2. I'm pretty sure a judge will say the same thing (refer back to the lawyers comments above for a more professional opinion).

    Plus, why such tunnel vision? Again, I use the facilities, but not for abortion. As it has been stated time and time again, less then 10% of the procedures performed at there facilites *across the country* are abortions. I respect your position, but you need to open your eyes and start looking at the bigger picture Paul2.

    February 28th, 2008 at 11:28 am
  118. Paul2 says:

    Halo said:
    ************
    And yes, Planned will continue to fight to keep a woman's right to CHOOSE maintained. Which I will fully and always support.
    *************
    Halo, it is this "fully and always" support that gets you into trouble. You support them even though they are not open and honest in conducting their business. You support them even though they hide their inentions from the townspeople when opening new abortuaries. You support them even though they fought to the Supreme Court of the U.S. for the right to deliver babies to their chest and puncture their skulls and suck their brains out. You support them even though they fight to keep minors legal guardians from being notified before their children are submited to the physical and psychological trauma of abortion. You promote businesses that promote barbaric procedures and that are openly dishonest with the people in the towns where they practice their business.

    February 28th, 2008 at 11:29 am
  119. Paul2 says:

    Halo, your asking me to ignore the "10%" of their business and look beyond it. Look at my above post. I could never "ignore" those behaviours because they speak volumes about the organization. WWhen you are able to open your eyes and see that your "right" to an abortion does not exist because of PP's lies and deciet then you will see things in a better light.

    February 28th, 2008 at 11:35 am
  120. Sylvia says:

    Halo,
    I think Amy meant you should check out crisis pregnancy centers to see how PP has lied about them.

    I believe most women feel forced to have abortions, by partners, parents, peers, and society. Read the accounts of women like those who belong to Silent No More, Rachel's Vineyard, and other groups of post-abortion women. While noone may be dragging them in (though that does happen sometimes, especially to young girls), they feel forced nonetheless. Maybe they feel they don't have enough money, maturity, or emotional support. That's what crisis pregnancy centers, Project Gabriel, and the like, are there for–to let women know that they are not alone and that there are those willing to help them and to love them. Women who have abortions know deep down that they are killing their babies. They don't want to do it, but they feel trapped. Helping them kill their babies is not "understanding" or caring. It is cruel.

    Maybe if you volunteer to help at the PP, you can volunteer to reassemble the dead babies to make sure the abortionist got all the parts out. Sorry to be so blunt, but that's what abortion and PP and "choice" is about.

    February 28th, 2008 at 11:38 am
  121. Halo says:

    Sylvia: "I think Amy meant you should check out crisis pregnancy centers to see how PP has lied about them."

    If that's indeed the case, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

    Sylvia: "While noone may be dragging them in (though that does happen sometimes, especially to young girls)"

    Oh yea? Do you have documented proof of that? Have you seen it with your own eyes? On second thought, I'd actually prefer proof from your own experience, instead of what someone else supposedly 'witnessed' and you heard 2nd or 3rd hand.

    Sylvia: "Maybe if you volunteer to help at the PP, you can volunteer to reassemble the dead babies to make sure the abortionist got all the parts out."

    Great idea Sylvia! And maybe afterwards, me and all my PP volunteer friends could drench ourselves in the aborted babies blood, and dance naked under the full moon!

    …seriously Sylvia, for someone who usually has good, respectable comments, that was downright petty and deplorable. Instead of responding with a good, solid point (maybe…you don't have one? hmm…), it seems pro-lifers need to stoop to the lowest common denominator in order to respond to someone (not surprisingly, I've gotten alot of those kind of responces though. Doesn't show much for the people on this site, does it?). Nor does it do much for your character.

    Sylvia: "Sorry to be so blunt, but that's what abortion and PP and "choice" is about"

    Thanks for the apology, but it doesn't mean anything if the comment was still made, does it? Choice is about making your own decision, choosing your own path…and having people there to support whatever decision you make. That's where Planned comes in. You may not agree with the choice that person makes, but that's not YOUR call, is it?

    Sylvia: "That's what crisis pregnancy centers, Project Gabriel, and the like, are there for–to let women know that they are not alone and that there are those willing to help them and to love them."

    I never said there was anything wrong with those centers. They can exist and help women all they want. I never said PP had to be the ONLY choice, but they should be ONE OF the choices. Crisis centers can help those who don't want the abortion, but let those that DO have another place to go. That's the point that many of you fail to understand.

    Paul2: "WWhen you are able to open your eyes and see that your "right" to an abortion does not exist because of PP's lies and deciet"

    That doesn't make sense Paul. Please explain so I can respond in a more apporpriate way.

    Paul2: "You support them even though they hide their inentions from the townspeople when opening new abortuaries. You support them even though they fought to the Supreme Court of the U.S…"

    I knew you guys were good with scare tactics but Paul yours was golden. I could do the same thing regarding telling people not to attend church or church functions because of the risk of getting molested or raped by priets/fathers/pastors. I could go into great deal on how they do it to with explicit descriptions and everything. Again, your tunnel vision is getting in the way of the greater picture Paul.

    February 28th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
  122. Student says:

    Paul2: "The circumstances of the childrens death and the ages of the children at the time they were lost has a great deal to do with understanding the pain they are going through."

    And what does "your understanding [of their] pain" have anything to do with whether or not they find your sign painful to look at? Will "your understanding" help them in some way?

    *****************

    Halo,
    Excellent post. If others spoke to them in the same manner as Sylvia responded to you, they'd be upset (and rightfully so).

    February 28th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
  123. Paul2 says:

    Halo said:
    ************
    I knew you guys were good with scare tactics but Paul yours was golden. I could do the same thing regarding telling people not to attend church or church functions because of the risk of getting molested or raped by priets/fathers/pastors. I could go into great deal on how they do it to with explicit descriptions and everything. Again, your tunnel vision is getting in the way of the greater picture Paul.
    **************
    Halo, your blindness is exposed by your posts. The church does not "fight" for the right to molest children. They speak out against child molestation as an evil. While PP fights for the right to deliver babies to their chest and slide a scissors up their spine to puncture the babies skull and suck his brains out.Your analogy shows your ignorance. Do you really not see the difference?

    February 28th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
  124. Paul2 says:

    Student said:
    **********
    And what does "your understanding [of their] pain" have anything to do with whether or not they find your sign painful to look at? Will "your understanding" help them in some way?
    ***********
    Student, it is through understanding others that we are able to bridge the gap between people who disagree. Didn'y anybody teach you that in school. Listening and understanding are even more vital to effective communication than speaking.

    February 28th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
  125. Paul2 says:

    Halo posted:
    ************
    Paul2: "When you are able to open your eyes and see that your "right" to an abortion does not exist because of PP's lies and deciet"

    That doesn't make sense Paul. Please explain so I can respond in a more apporpriate way.
    ************
    Halo, simply put, your right to "choose" is based upon law and does not depend on PP. So why support a business whose modus operandi when interacting with the community is lies and deceit? My post 118 already details these decitful practices so rather than explain again I would ask you to refer to that post for the specifics.

    February 28th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
  126. Eric Scheidler says:

    Cartoon from XKCD.comThanks for writing back, Student. I thought I'd share this comic; I used to be this guy, but I'm not anymore. So I hope you'll forgive me if I limit myself to commenting on only a few of your remarks.

    You said:

    You don't agree that there are some people who regularly practice BDSM? It's not a distorted reality. It exists and is very "real" for many people. However, because I veiw it as offensive to women I don't think I should go out of my way to show depictions of same to other people to have it banned.

    Whether pornography depicts scenes that actually take place is beside the point; it still depicts sexuality falsely.

    BDSM is offensive to women precisely because it lies about women—denies their inherent dignity and makes them into objects of use rather than persons to be known and respected.

    By its nature, a BDSM image conveys a lie, a lie which undermines whatever impact those images might have in raising awareness about the evil portrayed.

    Even one of your own member stated above that they frightened neighborhood children and caused a couple of families to re-experience the loss of their child through illness. Again, tough luck for them???

    I've dealt with the "exposing children to abortion pictures" issue at length here.

    As for seeing one of these pictures and reliving the loss of a sick child, I can sympathize with the emotion, but I don't really understand. Why would an abortion picture remind you of losing a child to illness?

    But we're talking about adults in such a case, so your concern isn't just that children might see the pictures, but that anyone who would be upset by them shouldn't see them.

    But really, anyone who sees pictures like this ought to be upset by them. I'd fear for someone unmoved by a picture like that.

    What you're really suggesting is that we ought to refrain from any free exercise of speech that might upset people. I have to reject that idea as totally contrary to the human right of free speech protected by the First Amendment.

    [What is the basis for a moral code without God] is a significantly longer answer than this forum would allow. However, I'd suggest reading the following…. Are you telling me you couldn't be good without a belief in God. Would you steal, rape, murder, etc. without your faith?

    I'll be honest, Student. I'm not going to read those books you recommended. If I chanced upon one, I might flip through it, but life's just too short. Moreover, I've decided to dedicate the bulk or my reading in 2008 to American history from the Founding through Reconstruction.

    I was hoping you could give me the "nutshell" on deriving a system of ethics from the material universe alone.

    But to answer your question, Would I steal, etc. without faith? . . . Maybe. I've never been inclined to rape or murder, so I've needed no moral guide to prevent me doing those things. Had I been inclined to do so, though, I don't know what "reason" I would have come up with to stop myself.

    But one particular person's inclination to do good or evil isn't really the issue. I'm certain that people can "be good without God"; but I've never heard a rational account of why they are morally bound to be good.

    February 28th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
  127. Halo says:

    Paul2: "The church does not "fight" for the right to molest children. They speak out against child molestation as an evil."

    I never said they didn't speak out against it, or fight it. I just said the *possiblity* exists (and it does), so I can go ahead and pass out flyers saying that the church molests children and not to attend, and hold up big signs outside of the church displaying priests raping young boys. Like PP who don't always do abortions (again, less then 10% nationwide), or the church doesn't always rape children, but I can go ahead and use scare tactics that will keep people away from all the good the church does. Similar to what you do with PP. You continue to use scare tactics to distract yourself from seeing all the good that PP provides to women in need of ANY procedure (abortion included, whether they choose it or not)…again, you can't get past that tunnel vision Paul.

    Paul2: "Halo, simply put, your right to "choose" is based upon law and does not depend on PP. So why support a business…"

    I support the right to choose. I support PP because they honor that right to freedom of choice. I support a place that will provide an alternative if needed. I support a place that allows someone to make there own choice based on whats best for THEM, not someone else. I support that law to choose and that's why I support PP.

    February 28th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
  128. Elizabeth says:

    Choice is about making your own decision, choosing your own path…and having people there to support whatever decision you make.

    So where's PP when these women actually want to continue the pregnancy and have the baby? If it's their choice to continue the pregnancy then they are PLANNING to have the baby..so in essence it is PLANNED parenthood. And YET, no PP support…hmmm…sounds a little fishy to me.

    February 28th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
  129. Student says:

    ES: "Whether pornography depicts scenes that actually take place is beside the point; it still depicts sexuality falsely."

    It may not be sexuality the way you practice it or the way I practice it, but you certainly cannot say it is depicted falsely. There may be things you're comfortable with that I'm not and vice versa — it doesn't make your actions (or mine) "false."

    *************************

    ES: "As for seeing one of these pictures and reliving the loss of a sick child, I can sympathize with the emotion, but I don't really understand. Why would an abortion picture remind you of losing a child to illness?"

    Does it matter why?

    *************************

    ES: "But to answer your question, Would I steal, etc. without faith? . . . Maybe."

    Wow! Really? I'm truly not trying to be obnoxious here, but don't you think that reflects on your moral character?

    **************************

    ES: "I've dealt with the "exposing children to abortion pictures" issue at length here."

    While 'life is short,' I did take the time to read your post AND the suggested link. One of the best ways to learn is to read about MULTIPLE sides of an issue. Shielding yourself to only one viewpoint does not allow much room for growth. Anyway, if I understand what you were trying to say in the link, it's just too bad for parents of children who disagree with you. If those parents don't hold YOUR view and explain those images by YOUR definition children will be upset. It's my fault as a parent if my reaction to your images is anger??? Please! They are absolutely no different than my earlier analogy of putting up images of priests molesting children in front of the Catholic Church. The difference is that my moral code wouldn't allow me to expose YOUR children to such images — even if they are true.

    February 28th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
  130. Student says:

    Paul2: "Student it is through understanding others that we are able to bridge the gap between people who disagree. Didn'y anybody teach you that in school. Listening and understanding are even more vital to effective communication than speaking."

    Thanks for the smart reply…..but I was expecting that. Yes, listening and understanding ARE important in communication. However, "your understanding" of another's loss has absolutely no relevance. That sign upsets them and you knowing the "details" of the death of thier child(ren) doeshn't change that. It is apparent that their pain and their feelings toward your sign mean nothing.

    February 28th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
  131. Student says:

    Paul2: "The church does not "fight" for the right to molest children. They speak out against child molestation as an evil."

    Yeah, they just move pedophile priests around so they don't get caught. It's when the lawsuits start that they decry molestation as evil.

    February 28th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
  132. Paul2 says:

    Student says:
    ******************
    "your understanding" of another's loss has absolutely no relevance. That sign upsets them and you knowing the "details" of the death of thier child(ren) doeshn't change that. It is apparent that their pain and their feelings toward your sign mean nothing.
    ******************
    Student,
    you have "almost" no concept of how relationships work.
    You assume to interject wether or not my understanding of why somebody mourns as being relevant to the conversation I have with them. Who are you to judge what is or is not relevant information in a conversation between two other people? Do you find yourself doing that often? And you also interject that their pain and their feelings toward the sign mean nothing to me. Again, how do you manage to read peoples minds like that. It is astounding. Sorry to inform you that you are completely wrong though.
    ROTFLWTIME

    February 28th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
  133. Paul2 says:

    Student says:
    *********
    Yeah, they just move pedophile priests around so they don't get caught. It's when the lawsuits start that they decry molestation as evil.
    **********
    Student, now you are resorting to lies and slander. The church has always decried molestation as evil. And you said you could carry on rational debate backed up with facts…..

    February 28th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
  134. Paul2 says:

    Halo said:
    *********
    I support the right to choose. I support PP because they honor that right to freedom of choice. I support a place that will provide an alternative if needed. I support a place that allows someone to make there own choice based on whats best for THEM, not someone else. I support that law to choose and that's why I support PP.
    ************
    Who has tunnel vision???? You didn't even address my post about their lies and deception.

    February 28th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
  135. Sylvia says:

    Halo,
    Just because I haven't witnessed an incident first hand doesn't mean it hasn't happened. If that were true, I should consider all newspaper accounts to be false. Also, you then would not be able to believe any story I tell you, because you yourself had not witnessed the same.

    Do you remember the news report of the college student who was kidnapped by her parents in the attempt to force her to have an abortion? A more timid, less forceful young woman would not have defied her parents and escaped. Better yet, an article on forced abortion with documentation.

    Don't be so quick to attack. Do some research first.

    As for the suggestion to volunteer assembling baby parts, I was serious. It's an important, necessary job to make sure all the "contents" of the uterus have been removed so the mother doesn't end up with a life-threatening infection. They do this by counting parts: one head, 2 arms, 2 legs, spine, rib cage, etc. The abortionists don't like to do it themselves–too hard on the conscience. As you can imagine, the baby reassemblers have a high turnover rate. If you really want to help PP, there's your chance. If they don't have an opening currently, you can get on the waiting list. If it's not a baby, it shouldn't bother you, right?

    Halo: "Choice is about making your own decision, choosing your own path."

    And what "choice" does the baby have?

    Think, really think about what I and others have said. Watch out for knee-jerk reactions. Contemplate.

    February 29th, 2008 at 1:05 am
  136. Student says:

    Paul2: "Student, now you are resorting to lies and slander. The church has always decried molestation as evil. And you said you could carry on rational debate backed up with facts"

    Catholic priest coverup facts:

    "BBC documentary has exposed that Pope Benedict XVI, aka Cardinal Ratzinger, played a leading role in a systematic cover-up of child sex abuse by Roman Catholic priests.

    In 2001, while he was a cardinal, he issued a secret Vatican edict to Catholic bishops all over the world, instructing them to PUT THE CHURCH'S INTEREST AHEAD OF CHILD SAFETY.

    The document recommended that rather than reporting sexual abuse to the relevant legal authorities, bishops should encourage the victim, witnesses and perpetrator not to talk about it. And, to keep victims quiet, it threatened that if they repeat the allegations they would be excommunicated."

    PBS
    This Is London
    Boston
    Toledo Blade

    February 29th, 2008 at 9:21 am
  137. Halo says:

    Elizabeth: "So where's PP when these women actually want to continue the pregnancy and have the baby? If it's their choice to continue the pregnancy then they are PLANNING to have the baby..so in essence it is PLANNED parenthood. And YET, no PP support…hmmm…sounds a little fishy to me."

    See, this shows me you know little about what PP does…just more tunnel vision examples. If the woman wants to keep the baby, PP provides pre-natal care, parenting classes, young mother counseling…the list goes on Elizabeth. They also provide adoption services if the woman wants to continue to pregnancy, but not keep the child in the end. So yes Elizabeth, PP IS there to support them every step of the way, no matter what choice the woman makes.

    Nothing fishy about it.

    February 29th, 2008 at 11:17 am
  138. Amy says:

    There is a story from UCLA about PP accepting donations specifically for the abortion of "black babies". This study was conducted in 7 states and not one of the clinics refused the money even when told by the donor that the money was to limit the number of black children born. I am sorry I couldn't get the link tags to work. I must admit my computer skills are low. When I hear this on the radio I had to check it out. I can't stand PP but this was so hard to believe. It seems to be well documented. The address below should get you to one of the articles or just google racism at planned parenthood.
    Amy
    http://www.worldnetdaily.com

    February 29th, 2008 at 11:25 am
  139. Halo says:

    Sylvia: "Just because I haven't witnessed an incident first hand doesn't mean it hasn't happened. If that were true, I should consider all newspaper accounts to be false."

    Just because it's in print doesn't make it true either Sylvia. I want first hand, 'yes, I witnessed this with my own eyes' accounts, because everything else is just bias hear-say.

    Sylvia: "And what "choice" does the baby have?"

    The choice the mother makes for it.

    Sylvia: "If it's not a baby, it shouldn't bother you, right?"

    I don't ever recall saying it wasn't a baby. Whatever the job maybe that a volunteer takes on a PP, it shows a great deal of care, dedication to choice, and support of a woman and her desicion to do with her body what she will. That's the basic intention of PP. But if that's the job that needs to be done, I applaud those who do it. That shows a great deal of good character on the part of the volunteer/doctor…a commitment to helping and supporting women when they make a difficult choice and showing it in there actions. I wouldn't knock any job at PP Sylvia…from sweeping the sidewalks, to answering phones, to providing free health services (reproductive and otherwise).

    So all scare tactics aside (which you and Paul2 seem to be pros at), a volunteer job at PP is something that I'd be proud to do. To be there to support women, help them in whatever way I can with whatever choice they make, not to chastize, mock, and shun them for the choices they make, be there to give them hope and support in a world that would otherwise label them as 'evil' because she didn't do what THEY said to do with HER OWN body, give them strength and empowerment where others would only give them grief and weakness…it sounds like a very good gig to me.

    February 29th, 2008 at 11:45 am
  140. Student says:

    Halo,
    Sylvia is just plain wrong about doctors having someone else review the contents of the uterus. They review same personally and it is not up to a lay person to do so.

    Thanks for posting…..it's nice not to be the only one here with a differing point of view and it's good to see another PCer posting in a positive, non-insulting way. I've seen some here (both sides) that aren't capable of that.

    February 29th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
  141. Student says:

    Amy: "The address below should get you to one of the articles or just google racism at planned parenthood.
    Amy
    http://www.worldnetdaily.com"

    While I consider World Nut Daily about as reliable as you'd consider NARAL, I did check out your claims. After scrolling 2/3 of the way down the page I did find the "story" you referred to. However, in reviewing same, I was unalbe ot find a link or reference to any of the actual information being relayed. Further, I used a university link for UCLA and was unable to provide same also.

    While I applaud the fact that you provided a source, would you be able to point me to the actual evidence or a link through UCLA where I could find same?

    Thanks!

    February 29th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
  142. Sylvia says:

    Halo,
    You don't reply to what has been said. Yes, newspaper accounts can be false. But they can also be, and most often are, true. That's why we have newspapers–to tell us what is happening when we can't be there ourselves. We trust that at least the factual information is correct. Statistics cited are more questionable, as are opinions. I would be less inclined to believe someone like me who just says, "I saw a girl dragged in just last Friday." My words to you, unsubstantiated by other evidence, should be that which is considered "biased hear-say". At least printed articles can be refuted publicly if false. Your standard of "proof" is misplaced.

    I give you links to articles dealing with abortion coercion, yet you say nothing.

    Regarding "choice", parents make decisions for their children based on what is for the good of their children. When a mother's choice is to kill her child, she chooses wrongly and should be stopped from acting on her choice. If a mother chooses to stop feeding her children, we decide she does not have the best interest of her children in mind and remove the children from her care; likewise, if a mother tries to kill her (born) children. Yet the world is so messed up that we allow mothers to kill their unborn children, who are no less alive, no less children. Birth merely changes their residence. There are plenty of valid choices out there, with the help and support of people at places like crisis pregnancy centers, Catholic Charities, Project Gabriel, The Society of St. Vincent dePaul, adoption agencies, and even the government.

    It is not the woman's OWN body that is ripped apart during an abortion (though sometimes that happens too). It is her child's. Obstetricians have to keep in mind that they are dealing with TWO patients when seeing a mother for prenatal care. Abortionists and PP want you to think there is only one. That is simply not true.

    I don't use "scare tactics". I try to present facts and information as best I can. I try to make you think. I try to get you beyond the slogans that are thrown about thoughtlessly. I want you to really look at what abortion is and what it involves. I want you to find the Truth. The job of examining babies' bodies recovered from the suction machines, as well as Randy's signs that are so maligned, speak Truth. In them you see the humanity of the child killed by abortion.

    February 29th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
  143. Halo says:

    Student: "Sylvia is just plain wrong about doctors having someone else review the contents of the uterus. They review same personally and it is not up to a lay person to do so."

    Yes, I did figure as such. But to just come out and say 'your wrong' doesn't have as much of an edge, ya know? ;)

    Student: "Thanks for posting…..it's nice not to be the only one here with a differing point of view and it's good to see another PCer posting in a positive, non-insulting way. I've seen some here (both sides) that aren't capable of that."

    Your welcome and thank you too :). I have seen it from both sides as well, but I've always tried to stay away from the negative, underminding, '5th grade playground bully' type of attacks (that have actually been used alot twords me in most of the posts above) because that doesn't do anything for you when trying to make a point other then make you look less credible and unintelligent.

    Sylvia: "Your standard of "proof" is misplaced."

    It is not when I'm coming in here armed with first hand, personal experiences, to which I then expect the same in return. If I came in here only with articals from PC sites, and no first hand accounts, they wouldn't stand up very well to others who come back at me with real-life experience. So, no it's not misplaced when I have been there, done that, seen that and only get 'well, I read this online' in return. Ex: Your grandfather who fought WW2 or your neighbor who read about it. Who would you be more inclined to listen to and believe?

    Sylvia: "When a mother's choice is to kill her child, she chooses wrongly and should be stopped from acting on her choice"

    Says you. Your not that mother. Your not in her shoes, you don't know her thought process. YOU can't make someone else's decision. How would you feel if I made a nationwide law saying how many children you could or could not have with no regard to your personal situation or feelings on the subject? I think you'd change your view on choice then.

    Sylvia: "If a mother chooses to stop feeding her children, we decide she does not have the best interest of her children in mind and remove the children from her care; likewise, if a mother tries to kill her (born) children"

    If the mother decided to do either one, then she had better be prepared to face consequences, however, that is HER OWN choice, not yours. A mother can go ahead and do what with she will with her own kids, she has a choice. We all do. And we all need to preserve it. However, with choice comes consequence/outcome/aftermath, whatever word you want to use. That mother has the freedom to make the choice on how to raise and treat her children; whether it's starving, abusing or loving and teaching. It's the freedom that she has to make HER OWN choice that's important. She wants to starve her kids? Fine. Do it. She just then has to face the 'what comes next' of her actions, however you can't tell her what she can and cannot do with them.

    Sylvia: "Obstetricians have to keep in mind that they are dealing with TWO patients when seeing a mother for prenatal care. Abortionists and PP want you to think there is only one. That is simply not true."

    Again, is that what you think or know..or heard? I *know* that PP doesn't lead you to believe there is only one, so therefore, what you posted isn't truth, unless your first hand experience says otherwise…

    Sylvia: "I don't use "scare tactics"."

    When you only depict one part of a bigger picture, and use graphic and exaggerated pictures, information, and descriptions to divert attention and make something/one look like 'the big bad wolf' then yes, you are using scare tactics. Again, I could use the church molesting and raping little boys to keep people away as an example of a use of 'scare tactics', but we've been through that and you can just look at my above post for further info.

    February 29th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
  144. Sylvia says:

    Halo, Student,
    OK, one more time: Do your research. I don't have the time to keep refuting your attacks. Go to http://www.clinicquotes.com/former.htm . It contains quotes from former clinic workers, including NORMA McCORVEY, a.k.a. Jane Roe of the infamous Roe v. Wade. She talks about her experience reassembling babies. She was no doctor. Please, before you try to discredit my posts and pat each other on the back, find something to verify what you say. I have yet to see any evidence from you, while I can provide sources to back up what I say.

    This will be my last post to you for a while, at least until I see evidence that you really want to learn and have open minds to take in what is presented. Otherwise, this is a waste of my time and I have better things to do.

    There is no way to defend the killing of an innocent human being, utterly defenseless in the womb. None.

    February 29th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
  145. Student says:

    Syliva,
    Assuming you completely outlaw abortion and overturn Roe, what happens to a woman who attempts to abort anyway? What punishment do "you" think there should be?

    Additionally, what about a mother who continues to smoke and/or drink during her pregnancy? If I go with your line of thought, it's clearly child abuse. How do we punish her or keep her from engaging in these types of behaviors?

    What do we do with women in physically risks jobs or hobbies? Are there punishments if they don't take proper care of themselves. If so, by what standard and who sets it?

    What about women who refuse to take prenatal vitamins or women who want to give birth in non-traditional ways? If something goes wrong, are they then legally liable? If so, to what standard and who sets it?

    February 29th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
  146. Student says:

    Risks should be "risky"

    February 29th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
  147. Paul2 says:

    Sylvia,
    Don't hold your breath waiting. They quit the open-minded/rationale dialogue and change the subject as soon as they realize that there is no rational response.

    Student,
    Those references about some secret document from Pope Benedict are ludicrous sources…. The London Entertainment magazine…really ROTFL. Maybe you could find some facts to quote from the "National Inquirer" or the DaVinci code while your at it…..

    February 29th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
  148. Student says:

    Paul2,
    Ok, so you don't agree with one source. Are you going to discredit the Boston Globe and PBS as well?

    March 1st, 2008 at 12:18 am
  149. Paul2 says:

    Student,
    I pulled up both those links and did a word search on Benedict and Ratzinger…. not one hit.. no mention of Pope Benedict or Karl Ratzinger at all…just admit it was an irrational outburst.

    March 1st, 2008 at 12:33 am
  150. Paul2 says:

    If you do then the Pope will forgive you

    March 1st, 2008 at 12:37 am
  151. Paul2 says:

    Student,
    I understand that you are not Christian so I understand your misconceptions about the Church. Jesus taught us to serve others and that means NOT hurting others, but on the contrary, it means being willing to suffer so others may not. You should know though that the Church has, does, and will always think harming children is evil. It is a fact that some individuals in the body of the Church go against the Church's clear teaching that molestation is evil. But these 1% are liars and deceivers. Predators who do represent the "Church" and live not according to Christian teachings. They are self-serving. It is how pro-aborts rationalize that abortion is a "good" becuase it would cost society more to carry a baby to term. Child molesters and pro-aborts think alike in that respect, but the Christian Church does NOT teach that behaviour. If you ever have any questions about the Catholic Church's stance on issues just look it up in the Caetechism. You don't need to wonder what the Church's stance is on those issues you can look it up.

    March 1st, 2008 at 1:15 am
  152. Paul2 says:

    Here is a link to the Catechism
    http://tinyurl.com/9kq0

    March 1st, 2008 at 1:23 am
  153. Paul2 says:

    Sorry,
    In post 151 that should have read
    Predators who do NOT represent the "Church" and live not according to Christian teachings.

    March 1st, 2008 at 1:26 am
  154. Student says:

    Paul2,
    As I think I've clarified for you before, I don't think anyone is "pro-abort," although I do realize it is a flash word to get a reaction. For you to equate someone who is prochoice with a child molester is ludicrous. It would be akin to my assuming you are a pedophile because you are catholic.

    My guess is that most people who are catholic are good people but, like ANY group, there are a few idiots (not my first word choice but am attempting to be polite) among them. My problem is that the heirarchy, when notified of the problem, attempted to cover it up. It would be similar to the principal of a school finding out the kindergarten teacher is molesting kids and simply switching that teacher to the school around the corner.

    I would love to hear from you (or anyone else) as to my post 145. I'm assuming that since you'd like to get rid of Roe, you've thought through those answers.

    March 1st, 2008 at 11:09 am
  155. Paul2 says:

    Student,
    No apology for the Pope?

    March 1st, 2008 at 11:19 am
  156. Student says:

    Paul2 says: "I pulled up both those links and did a word search on Benedict and Ratzinger…. not one hit.. no mention of Pope Benedict or Karl Ratzinger at all…just admit it was an irrational outburst."

    Sorry…..not an irrational outburst at all. I did a bit of digging and came up with the actual transcript from the BBC documentary. You may find it at the following link:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/5402928.stm

    March 1st, 2008 at 5:27 pm
  157. Student says:

    Sylvia says: "OK, one more time: Do your research. I don't have the time to keep refuting your attacks. Go to http://www.clinicquotes.com/former.htm . It contains quotes from former clinic workers"

    This is the FIRST time you've provided a source for your statement, however, I hardly consider this a valid source — it's nothing more than a collection from a PL website. I don't suppose you'd have anything from a newspaper, peer-review journal or something a bit more reliable? If I sent you to NARAL to back up something I said would you find that acceptable evidence? I think not, nor would I blame you.

    **********

    Sylvia: "This will be my last post to you for a while, at least until I see evidence that you really want to learn and have open minds to take in what is presented. Otherwise, this is a waste of my time and I have better things to do."

    Nobody is forcing you to respond. By the way, that open minds thing works both ways.

    March 1st, 2008 at 5:33 pm
  158. Student says:

    Paul2,
    If you'd like to watch the actual BBC documentary (approx 45 min in length) you may do so here.

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15190.htm

    March 1st, 2008 at 5:50 pm
  159. Paul2 says:

    Student says,
    As I think I've clarified for you before, I don't think anyone is "pro-abort," although I do realize it is a flash word to get a reaction. For you to equate someone who is prochoice with a child molester is ludicrous. It would be akin to my assuming you are a pedophile because you are catholic.
    Student,
    I was not at all equating pro-choice with pro-abort. I meant to say/use pro-abort, not pro choice. And I wish it were true that nobody is pro-abort but unfortunately many are. They look at abortion as nothing more than an economically cost-effective way to get rid of the baby before it becomes an even bigger burden to "their" space/world. That is the pro-abort mentatlity I am talking about. I get that attitude from people on other blogs. You'd be surprised the number of people who look at it that way. Anyway, my comparision between the pro-aborts and the child molesters is that both are motivated by self-serving interests and not the
    good of others.

    March 1st, 2008 at 6:44 pm
  160. Paul2 says:

    Student, I read the article and it does make mention of some "secret Vatican decree" that was "supposed" to be enforced by Cardinal Ratzinger, but where is this secret decree? The BBC article talks about an investigation in Ireland that uncovered some supposed decree but where is the decree? You could save me the time and answer a couple questions for me since you already watched the documentary.

    1) Does it say where we can find/read this secret decree that they read?
    2) WHo from the Vatican "wrote" the decree?
    3)What specific actions did Cardinal Ratzinger take as the "enforcer" of this decree?

    March 1st, 2008 at 7:04 pm
  161. Paul2 says:

    Student says:
    I would love to hear from you (or anyone else) as to my post 145. I'm assuming that since you'd like to get rid of Roe, you've thought through those answers.

    Student,
    1) The law should treat the abortionist like a killer.
    2) The law should treat the mother with counseling and support comparable to what is currently given to people with mental illnesses such as suicidal tendencies etc..

    March 1st, 2008 at 7:11 pm
  162. Student says:

    Paul2,

    Thanks for your response but it only very partially answers the questions.

    (1) What if a woman attempts abortion herself (women have done so almost as far back as recorded history goes via herbs, etc.

    (2) The only way to consider an abortionist a "killer" is to give the fetus the legal status of personhood. In that case, what about a mother who continues to smoke and/or drink during her pregnancy? If I go with your line of thought, it's clearly child abuse. How do we punish her or keep her from engaging in these types of behaviors?

    (3) Again, if a fetus is legally a person, what do we do with women in physically risks jobs or hobbies? Are there punishments if they don't take proper care of themselves. If so, by what standard and who sets it?

    (4) Finally, assuming legal personhood status for the fetus, what about women who refuse to take prenatal vitamins or women who want to give birth in non-traditional ways? If something goes wrong, are they then legally liable? If so, to what standard and who sets it?

    March 1st, 2008 at 9:18 pm
  163. Paul2 says:

    (1) What if a woman attempts abortion herself (women have done so almost as far back as recorded history goes via herbs, etc.
    Answer:
    treat the mother with counseling and support comparable to what is currently given to people with mental illnesses such as suicidal tendencies etc..

    (2) The only way to consider an abortionist a "killer" is to give the fetus the legal status of personhood. In that case, what about a mother who continues to smoke and/or drink during her pregnancy? If I go with your line of thought, it's clearly child abuse. How do we punish her or keep her from engaging in these types of behaviors?
    Answer
    treat the mother with counseling and support comparable to what is currently given to people with mental illnesses such as suicidal tendencies etc..

    (3) Again, if a fetus is legally a person, what do we do with women in physically risks jobs or hobbies? Are there punishments if they don't take proper care of themselves. If so, by what standard and who sets it?

    Reasonable care and precaution should be taken to protect the baby in the womb just like we pass non-smoking laws to protect adults from second-hand smoke.

    (4) Finally, assuming legal personhood status for the fetus, what about women who refuse to take prenatal vitamins or women who want to give birth in non-traditional ways? If something goes wrong, are they then legally liable? If so, to what standard and who sets it?

    No need to micromanage the pregnancy. No harm intended no foul.
    3)Reasonable precaution should be taken to care for the baby. A drunkenness episode would be counseled like a suicidal tendency

    March 1st, 2008 at 10:04 pm
  164. Families Against Planned Parenthood » Blog Archive » In Memoriam: Activist Dave Wade says:

    [...] before Planned Parenthood opened in the fall of 2007. And a few months later in February 2008, Dave again spoke to the city council about the question of a special use permit for the former abortion clinic building so that it could [...]

    April 15th, 2009 at 2:48 pm

Leave a Reply

We welcome a free and open exchange of ideas on this blog, from all points of view, but we request that you restrict your remarks to the topic under discussion in the above entry.

To ensure constructive dialog, the following will not be tolerated:

For long links, please use a service like Tiny URL to shorten the link—or use link tags: replace the text in red with your complete link, and the text in green with a word or phrase that describes the link:

Here's a <a href="http://www.website.com/page.htm">link</a>.

Pregnant? Need help? Hurt by abortion? Call 1-800-848-LOVE, 24 hours.

Buy cheapestbactrim overnight delivery no rx, as a Cheap pharmacycheapest diflucan cash on delivery, as a Order onlineno prescription cod clomid, as a Pharmacy cheapestbuy plavix with c.o.d., as a Buying Cheapcheap generic desyrel, as a Purchase No Prescriptioncompare prices generic baclofen otc, as a Buying Cheaplasix and price, as a Online pharmacybuy generic nexium 20 mg online, as a Purchase No Prescriptionarimidex smoking, as a Order onlinecheap acyclovir without rx, as a Pharmacy cheapestpremarin 1.25mg, as a Buy cheapestdiscount retin-a infections tabs fast, as a Buy cheap onlinebuy zithromax online discount, as a Pharmacy cheapestvaltrex order online no prescription in kentucky, as a Ordering Onlinezovirax on line, as a Online cheap medicationsbuy norvasc next day delivery, as a cheap onlinebuy neurontin from online pharmacy with saturday delivery, as a Online pharmacyhydrochlorothiazide ups delivery only, as a Cheap pharmacypaxil same day, as a Cheap medicationsorder wellbutrin sr next day delivery, as a Ordering Onlinewhere can i order doxycycline no prescription, as a