From Summer Betts:
This morning, October 27, I was driving my daughter to school. She attends Joppatowne High School. We arrived approximately at 7:05, which is our usual time. When we turned off of Joppa Farm Rd into the school entrance we were greeted by anti-abortion protesters. I could immediately see my daughter look over and tense up. I also read their signs and saw the pictures that they were displaying. Just like my daughter, I tensed up and then got quite angry!
While I agree that we have that right to protest and freedom of speech, I believe that was not the time or the place for such a thing. We send our children to school in hopes that they have a good and positive learning experience and environment. Seeing pictures like that and reading the signs as soon as they are trying to start their day is uncalled for!! I believe that the children should learn about abortion and what can happen and does happen, but let the school health teachers teach them that or their parents!!
I asked my daughter if she was ok and her response to me was, “Yeah I saw that, and it just ruined my day!” I am wondering if that was their purpose? Did they want to ruin our children’s day? I know that while some may read this and immediately assume that I am pro-choice, I am both. I could not have an abortion myself, but I do believe it is the woman’s choice.
I do not want to turn this into a debate on abortion itself, because that is not my purpose in writing this. This letter is to address the issue of whether or not having anti-abortion protesters showing graphic pictures is appropriate at the entrance to our children’s school! I recall not too long ago, another Harford County high school was having the same issue. What did they do if anything to address these protestors?
I know that I will be having another talk with my daughter this afternoon after school to discuss the issue and I can only assume that it will be talked about at school throughout the day. Perhaps that is what the protesters wanted, for the issue to be talked about and to get people thinking? Perhaps, but was this the proper place for their message to be viewed?
Summer Betts
I do not support abortion, but also feel protesting with graphic pictures in front of minors is inappropriate. If these kinds of visuals were in a movie, wouldn’t it require adult permission. Just a thought.
What about parents who need to go to the grocery store with their children and have to lead them right in front of the magazine racks, which are full of graphic photos of women and words that are very inappropriate for kids to be reading? If the magazines can be put right in front of young children’s eyes even if parents consider them graphic and offensive, then what is the difference between that and having pictures in sight for high school aged kids that are of something that some consider offensive? Are these same kids not allowed to see pictures of the dead bodies of the Holocaust victims without their parents’ permission? It sounds like it’s restricting freedom of speech to me. I’m sure the protesters weren’t going to be their every day – they just wanted to get the word out. People don’t realize what abortion is unless they see it, just like people don’t realize how bad the Holocaust was unless they see pictures. Kids need to be educated to understand BOTH perspectives, not just the pro-choice side.
My son encountered these kind of protesters in front of the Bel Air High School as he was heading toward the building entrance. The images were graphic and being held by men in their late forties or fifties. Fortunately or unfortunately my son has my tact but a good deal more presence of mind. he confronted one of the protesters and asked him exactly what he thought he was doing in front of his school with these graphic signs.
The author is correct: freedom of speech is protected in this country. And we see blatant examples of people using that right to be as offensive and confrontational as possible. You only have to follow the experiences of the Westboro Baptist Church to see what it’s like for people to speak their mind without regard to the question: “Is this appropriate?”. In the end, just like so many other things in the world, just because you can do something does not mean that you should do something.
We talked about it at length after his experience and I was proud of my son’s response to this situation. In the end, the protesters did nothing but solidify the resolve of good people that look at them and wonder just how sick you have to be to force your opinion on someone else.
I think that these signs were held by “men in their late forties or fifties” tells much about this “protest.” Men do not have a say in this matter. It is only women who have a say about their own bodies. Moreover, these are the same men who are always complaining about women and children on welfare. It seems they care about a zygote but not about the child.
David Porter is correct in comparing these men to the hate mongers at the Westboro Baptist Church.
How about those Code Pink honeys?
“Anti-abortion”…what an odd term. One wouldn’t say he is “anti-murder” would one? “Yes, Your Honor, I’ve been “anti-murder” most of my life. So has my family, come to think of it.” Liberal whackadoodles just don’t get it because they live by the mantra: “anything goes and nobody is responsible for anything.” Yipee!
It is disturbing, and disgusting, and this should NOT be allowed in front of schools, where OUR CHILDREN…minors… are forced to see these photos, and the blatant stupidity of these people who have nothing better to do with thier time. I have asked several CHILDREN if this display has effected their view on abortion, and they have all said “no” but it did make them angry that they have to deal with this, and that no responsible adult is making this go away, so they can concentrate on what they are actually at school for. A few have also replied that “the people are scary and creepy, and I would never take any advice from anyone who would do this”…Point is, its not working, this is NOT the right way to accomplish anything. Go find another place where you can try to FORCE your opinions on adults..not our kids.
Hey Gina,
“It is disturbing, and disgusting,” – And though provoking and enlightening.
“and this should NOT be allowed in front of schools, where OUR CHILDREN…minors… are forced to see these photos, and the blatant stupidity of these people who have nothing better to do with thier time.” – They should be allowed in front of schools where children, who are capable of getting pregnant and having abortions, attend. Also, noone is forced to see anything. They can avert their eyes, though I think most would still look. As for stupidity, that is an opinion and an insult. Not very nice. I also imagine these people consider this issue very important to them and worthy of their time.
“I have asked several CHILDREN if this display has effected their view on abortion, and they have all said “no” but it did make them angry that they have to deal with this, and that no responsible adult is making this go away, so they can concentrate on what they are actually at school for.” – I doubt this was a very scientific case study, but, I would love to hear more details of the questioning.
“A few have also replied that “the people are scary and creepy, and I would never take any advice from anyone who would do this” – How many did you question and how many replied this way?
“Point is, its not working,” – Proof?
“this is NOT the right way to accomplish anything.” – Proof?
“Go find another place where you can try to FORCE your opinions on adults..not our kids.” – Yes, lets suppress their 1st amendment rights because you don’t like what they have to say! To hell with the Constitution!
Anyways, have a nice day.
I am pro-life but am committed to changing my views to pro-choice as soon as someone can reasonably explain how taking the life of someone one minute before they are removed from their mother’s womb is morally acceptable but taking that same life one minute afterwards is not.
So far… no takers.
Mike Perrone Jr: I don’t want to start a discussion about abortion, but your post begs for an answer. I find it unacceptable that it is usually MEN who have something to say about what a woman does with her body. Also, I feel no one has a moral right to protest medical privacy (which is what Roe vs. Wade is about) unless they have adopted one of the children they feel should not be aborted (including minority children). You people want women to have unwanted children but refuse to help support them. Typical!
Moreover, “natural and spontaneous miscarriage in early pregnancy is common…the actual rate of miscarriage is even higher since many women have very early miscarriages without ever realizing that they are pregnant. One study that followed women’s hormone levels every day to detect very early pregnancy found a total miscarriage rate of 31 percent.” Since there were 4,316,000 2007 births in the US in 2007, that equals to 1,333,960 miscarriages that year. You men should also picket a church as many more children are “aborted” by God.
But to answer your question Mike, a zygote only has the potential for life, which is why a woman has the last say. So why is it you want to protect a zygote one minute before it is in the womb but abandon it one minute afterwards?
Hey Proud,
“I find it unacceptable that it is usually MEN who have something to say about what a woman does with her body.” – I think I have seen plenty of women speak on both sides of this as well. And some would say this issue is not about what a woman is doing with her body but what a person is doing with an unborn child.
“Also, I feel no one has a moral right to protest medical privacy (which is what Roe vs. Wade is about)” – Roe v. Wade is not the controlling law on this, Planned Paretnhood v. Casey is. Also, again, some would say this issue is about the right to life of the unborn child.
“unless they have adopted one of the children they feel should not be aborted (including minority children).” – A woman that has a child she does not want has an option of giving the child up for adoption.
“You people” – What do you mean, ‘you people’? Ok, just kidding there, but I love that line from the movie ‘Tropic Thunder’.
“want women to have unwanted children but refuse to help support them. Typical!” – I don’t know of anyone that wouldn’t help a child out. I think many are against helping some parents of children out.
“Moreover, “natural and spontaneous miscarriage in early pregnancy is common…the actual rate of miscarriage is even higher since many women have very early miscarriages without ever realizing that they are pregnant. One study that followed women’s hormone levels every day to detect very early pregnancy found a total miscarriage rate of 31 percent.” Since there were 4,316,000 2007 births in the US in 2007, that equals to 1,333,960 miscarriages that year. You men should also picket a church as many more children are “aborted” by God.” – I really don’t think any comment is needed for this statement. You are better than this, Proud.
“But to answer your question Mike, a zygote only has the potential for life, which is why a woman has the last say.” – Some people consider a zygote to be a life.
“So why is it you want to protect a zygote one minute before it is in the womb but abandon it one minute afterwards?” – I don’t think anyone would abandon a child one minute after its birth.
One thing I find intersting is that the ‘Democrats’ are pro abortion, or as some would say, killing an unborn child, while they are against killing a convicted criminal, or the death penalty.
While the ‘Republicans’, the right to lifers, are against abortion and are in favor of killing convicts.
Anyways, have a nice day.
Paul Mc: “And some would say this issue is not about what a woman is doing with her body but what a person is doing with an unborn child.” Re-read what I said “…a zygote only has the potential for life.” This is why abortions are allowed in the first trimester. This is why I quoted the information about natural and spontaneous miscarriages. I’m sorry you did not catch the connection.
“A woman that has a child she does not want has an option of giving the child up for adoption.” Women who are having abortions are not protesting, are they? So this is a meaningless comment.
“I don’t know of anyone that wouldn’t help a child out… I don’t think anyone would abandon a child one minute after its birth.” You have not been listening to the Tea Party. They are against welfare, all welfare. They do not adopt children and certainly not minority children. They are the party of NO. Perhaps you wouldn’t abandon a child, but then you are not protesting choice.
“‘Democrats’ are pro abortion, or as some would say, killing an unborn child”. If a zygote cannot live on its own, it is not an unborn child (See what I said about miscarriages.) This is a loaded, emotional statement used by hate groups for effect. I thought you eschewed this type of loaded rhetoric? These are people who would force a woman to carry an unwanted child to term and then refuse to support it. How are they any different than Eastern religions that subjugate and enslave women?
That goes for Mike Perrone Jr. who does not wish to type.
Hey Proud,
“Paul Mc: “And some would say this issue is not about what a woman is doing with her body but what a person is doing with an unborn child.” Re-read what I said “…a zygote only has the potential for life.” This is why abortions are allowed in the first trimester. This is why I quoted the information about natural and spontaneous miscarriages. I’m sorry you did not catch the connection.” – A zygote is a living organism.
““A woman that has a child she does not want has an option of giving the child up for adoption.” Women who are having abortions are not protesting, are they? So this is a meaningless comment.” – I listed this as an alternative to the abortion.
““I don’t know of anyone that wouldn’t help a child out… I don’t think anyone would abandon a child one minute after its birth.” You have not been listening to the Tea Party. They are against welfare, all welfare. They do not adopt children and certainly not minority children. They are the party of NO. Perhaps you wouldn’t abandon a child, but then you are not protesting choice.” – I dont agree with everything any political party/sub-party says. I am against “welfare” but not against helping a child out. I have stated before what I would do with the children of the parents that are not taking proper care of their children. I staill stand by that.
““‘Democrats’ are pro abortion, or as some would say, killing an unborn child”. If a zygote cannot live on its own, it is not an unborn child (See what I said about miscarriages.)” – Some would disagree with whether a zygote is a child.
“This is a loaded, emotional statement used by hate groups for effect. I thought you eschewed this type of loaded rhetoric?” – You are correct, I apologize. I should not have done that. I sincerely apologize. I want to keep this conversation civil and engaging.
“These are people who would force a woman to carry an unwanted child to term and then refuse to support it.” – Another way of saying this would be ‘These are the people that are standing up for the rights of an unborn child as they feel that it is a child at conception, not at the beginning of, or somepoint after, the second trimester.’ And we, as society, should support all children.
“How are they any different than Eastern religions that subjugate and enslave women?” – Again, some would say the zygote is a life form and a child at conception and therefore should be given the opportunity to live.
That goes for Mike Perrone Jr. who does not wish to type.
Anyways, have a nice day.
Paul Mc: “A zygote is a living organism.” No. it has the potential to be a child. If you believe otherwise you should picket churches against the biggest “abortionist” of all: God.
“I listed this as an alternative to the abortion.” Adoption does no good if no one will adopt the child. Have you adopted a minority child Paul?
“I am against “welfare” but not against helping a child out.” That is welfare. You cannot be for something and against the same thing. Make up your mind Paul.
“Some would disagree with whether a zygote is a child.” Yes doctors and scientists.
“And we, as society, should support all children.” As I have said, this is called welfare.
You have a blessed day. And this is my last word this topic.
Hey Proud,
“Paul Mc: “A zygote is a living organism.” No. it has the potential to be a child. If you believe otherwise you should picket churches against the biggest “abortionist” of all: God.” – A zygote is a living orgamism. Any scientists will tell you it is living.
““I listed this as an alternative to the abortion.” Adoption does no good if no one will adopt the child. Have you adopted a minority child Paul?” – No, I have not adopted a minority child. However, welfare is still out there to support the children of all races.
““I am against “welfare” but not against helping a child out.” That is welfare. You cannot be for something and against the same thing. Make up your mind Paul.” – That’s not true. I am against the parents getting welfare but not children.
““Some would disagree with whether a zygote is a child.” Yes doctors and scientists.” – What is the magic date a zygote becomes a child?
““And we, as society, should support all children.” As I have said, this is called welfare.” – Welfare is given to the parents, not the kids.
“You have a blessed day. And this is my last word this topic.” – You too. Take care.
Anyways, have a nice day.
Paul Mc: I told you Paul always had to have the last word.
Hey Proud,
“Paul Mc: I told you Paul always had to have the last word.” – Not always, only sometimes. I am simply trying to keep us with the same amount of posts in this chain. You know, equality…:)
Anyways, have a nice day.
No need to respond – Paul just saved me several minutes of typing.
This is NOT a debate or discussion as to where you stand on abortion.
Gina – fair enough. I probably should have replied to “Proud to be Liberal”‘s comment directly instead of creating an entirely new comment. Considering that it was the ridiculous assertion that “men do not have a say in this matter” that prompted me to respond in the first place.
Mike, my concern was whether or not this was the time or place for these protesters, which all it did was upset the kids. It falls back to what David said, just because you can doesn’t mean you should.
Summer – I understand. Sorry for jumping off topic. I agree that choosing the entrances to schools for these demonstrations is highly insensitive. Right or wrong I believe their First Amendment rights stand, but it is unfortunate for the children involved that these demonstrators do not exercise better judgment.
They did the same thing in front of CMW a few weeks ago. Again, the issue here is not whether you are for or against abortion, but whether you think CHILDREN should be forced to see these images on their way to what ought to be a safe learning environment. My daughter is not old enough to see an R rated movie without my consent. I’m not naive enough to think that she doesn’t run across similar images when perusing the internet, but thrusting them in her face has effectively taken away her choice of what she wants to look at. She isn’t even afforded the opportunity to exit the page. Not exactly the way I want to send my daughter off to school.
Were the protestors on public property? Were they within their legal rights? I also have a relative that saw the specimens. If laws were broken, complaints should be filed. Otherwise, opinions are great but the hypocrisy is kinda lame.
Not sure where they where in this case. THose familiar with the geography of Joppatowne would know that if they are on Joppa Farm Road then they simply have a few sidewalks to stand on, unless they got permission from Holy SPirit to use their property adjacent to the school. The side road which the school is actually on is all BOE property and they would require a permission to stand on that during school hours I believe. This could not have been very big to be at the enterance to the school which would have gotten the most attention.
Upon entering JHS my 14yo daughter and myself were shocked by the signs. When we arrived around 7:20 the school resource officer was speaking with the protestor as he began to slowly remove the signs. I called to question why he was allowed to be on school property and was told that the entrance right before the parking lot was public property. We try to communicate and explain things to our children, I felt like it was thrown in my childs face and I barely had an oppurtunity to talk to her about the posters and the horrible graphic photos that have been chosen to be used.
I love the fact of opinions, debates and beliefs,(why i check the Dagger daily) but what I dont agree with is when people are so wrapped up in their own opinion or belief that they loose the ability to respect others around them.
Do you subscribe to the notion that if it is not illegal it is somehow acceptable? Is this the way your morality operates? Do you find yourself in agreement with people that just simply like to be profane because after all it’s their protected right?
What are your values K? Do you have any that the rest of us would share?
Mr. Porter:
“Do you subscribe to the notion that if it is not illegal it is somehow acceptable? Is this the way your morality operates? Do you find yourself in agreement with people that just simply like to be profane because after all it’s their protected right?”
Abortion is not illegal; that does not automatically make it acceptable, especially to the child who is being deprived of life. Is that the way your morality operates, sir? Your question could well be directed right back to you.
Being a male and not having a functional uterus, my opinion about abortion is primarily as a spectator. As a father I certainly have a position but one that is not compromised by casual intercourse. I find abortion undesirable as a male father who loves children. But that is not a choice I have to make. I have supported a person who chose to raise a child under less than ideal conditions. I helped bring that baby girl into the world even though she already had two children from two other fathers and her current mate was incapable of supporting her or his unborn child. I have provided my support to her in the three years I knew her than any of the three fathers provided, combined. I would gladly take any one of her children to raise as my own, or all four of them (yes she had a fourth after she said her tubes had been tied). But that is not something that anyone would let me do. So please question my morals. I will respond to you in a way that suggests I am more than a spectator.
If they were in front of Middle Schools, I would understand. We’re talking about an age group that can and should well understand that actions have consequences.
From personal experience – there are no easy answers when a teen becomes pregnant. The anguish that one goes through while confronting all choices at that point are 1000 times more more damaging to the psyche than the images that these self-rightous jerks are displaying.
Prom Night, The Last Exorcism, Aliens and Poltergeist are rights of passage for gore at that age and probably have more disturbing imagery (I haven’t seen these particular posters).
Yes, children need to be able to develop at their own pace and no one wants to see a child forced to have to grow up and encounter the real world before they are ready. We’re not in a 3rd world country, though, where children are commonly forced into lives of hard labor, crime / prostitution or military subscription just to survive. No – the greatest risk to growing up too early in our society are all of their own making, often without the knowledge of even the most hovering of helicopter parents.
Young men and women being forced to encounter the potential reality of the consequences of their actions as they enter the institution that plays the central role in their social interactions at the time that children are more often thinking about who they’re going to talk to that day is probably doing much more good than harm.
I applaud your instincts to use the moment as a teachable one to encourage a dialog with your child and your child’s mature reaction.
I want to picket in front of your home on public property with depictions of something you find vile and repugnant. After all, you should get used to the notion that you share the planet with people that may not share your views. I’ll say it again because two people thus far have not grasped the concept: Just because you can do something does not mean you should do something.
Hey David,
I believe the Supreme Court has stated that the picketing of an indivudual residence is illegal, unless you are outside of a 300 foot zone.
You two aren’t getting it. This behavior isnt doing any good, its Not going to persuade kids to join the pro-life movement. If anything it leads them to believe that the protesters are a bunch of nuts, and would deter them from joining…..maybe you all should talk to some kids for yourself who were forced to see this and ask them how they felt after being subjected to the display, because I did, and not one kid said they wanted to hear what those people had to say…
Hey Gina,
“You two aren’t getting it.” – Who are you referring to and what are they not getting?
“This behavior isnt doing any good, its Not going to persuade kids to join the pro-life movement.” – The behavior of a person exercising their 1st Amendment right to free speech?
“If anything it leads them to believe that the protesters are a bunch of nuts, and would deter them from joining…” – I think part of the idea of the protest is to get people talking about it, which they did.
“maybe you all should talk to some kids for yourself who were forced to see this and ask them how they felt after being subjected to the display,” – I don’t think anyone was ‘forced’ to see anything.
“because I did, and not one kid said they wanted to hear what those people had to say…” – How many did you talk to? What specifically did you ask them and what were the specifi replies? Did you get permission from the parents to talk to every kid? Was this a case study or just a couple questions to a couple kids? How valid and reliable was the study? Just curious.
Anyways, have a nice day.
Then would not these people have broken that law because while standing on Hinton off the school parkinglot they are less then 300 feet from two houses?
Hey Cdev,
“Then would not these people have broken that law because while standing on Hinton off the school parkinglot they are less then 300 feet from two houses?” – No, because they are not protesting the residence. To protest the residence you must be outside of the 300 feet zone (there are exceptions to this). As these people are protesting the school, it would appear to be legal.
no they are protesting the abortion issue they are doing it outside of a school and within 300 feet of a residence on the public easement of that residence.
Hey Cdev,
“no they are protesting the abortion issue they are doing it outside of a school and within 300 feet of a residence on the public easement of that residence.” – I am sorry, maybe I didn’t state what I meant clearly. The 300 foot zone is for specifically protesting a residence. You may not protest a specific individual’s residence in the 300 foot zone (with exceptions, of course). These protestors are not specifically protesting any residence. Therefore, the 300 foot residence protection stated by the Supreme Court, would not apply.
Anyways, have a nice day.
Hypothetically,
The individual on the corner of Hinton and Joppa Farm Rd had an abortion and I have the same demonstration in the same place and claim it is for the school children but I really aim to be picketing the house. Is that picketing the house or the school? My point is who is to say what building you are picketing
Hey Cdev,
“Hypothetically,
The individual on the corner of Hinton and Joppa Farm Rd had an abortion and I have the same demonstration in the same place and claim it is for the school children but I really aim to be picketing the house. Is that picketing the house or the school? My point is who is to say what building you are picketing” – In your hypothetical situation, the courts would decide. The individuals in the house would file suit against the protestors and I think (Not 100% sure) that the individuals in the home would have the burden of proving the protestors were specifically targeting them. In the mean time, the individuals in the home might be able to get a temporary restraining order to prevent the protestors from protesting there.
Anyways, have a nice day.
“Just because you can do something does not mean you should do something.” So very true, and that’s where good judgment comes into play. Unfortunately, not everyone is equipped to determine the impact of can and should, which is a shame.
I find myself in foreign territory: I actually AGREE with Mr. Porter! There are plenty of things that are not illegal, but not appropriate to do in front of children.
The fact is, the majority of students in a high school are under the age of 17, meaning that they are not permitted to see a rated-R movie without an adult present. The pictures being used for these protests are the most gory available for the purpose of shocking the audience. Gory movies are rated-R. So, I send my teenagers off in the morning for their walk to school, where they will be accosted with images that in other venues would be censored and that their father or I would have to approve?
I understand the message the protesters are spreading (whether or not I agree): that every life is valuable and that each human life has the right to live to its fullest potential. So, why do my children who were carried and raised with love, not have the right to go to school without having this thrust in their faces? Why do my husband and I not have the right, as their mother and father, to teach them the way that we feel is right?
The best thing about our country is that we have the rights we do. What many people do not realize is that these rights belong to EVERYONE. We are free to disagree, and I do not feel that ANYONE has the right to try to force their opinions onto others. But, that is, of course, only MY opinion…..you are free to disagree.
Again, the issue raised here is the exposure of such content to minors prior to starting a day of learning. I applaud the author and am thrilled her child had support prior to entering school. My heart goes out to those children who were exposed to the images solo, left without support or guidance from an adult. Take the blinders off people, if you truly put children first, you missed your mark with this choice.
Most of these children took a bus to school. We parents did not find out about the demonstration until our children came home from school, and had been discussing the situation with their peers all day. I would have loved the opportunity to have a discussion about the demonstration, but I was not given that opportunity.
As far as I’m concerned, these people were helping our kids with their education. It’s no different then showing them graphic pictures of lungs that have been ruined by smoking.
Rick, are you a parent? I cannot believe that any parent would think it ok for these images to be thrust in the faces of his CHILDREN, without a responsible adult, preferably a parent, present to discuss it and examine the feelings brought forth. If you are a parent, you might want to examine yourself, to see why you think this is all right.
One thing I would like to point out for this discussion is that some middle school students are capable of becomming pregnant and therefore, capable of having an abortion.
Also, I believe Maryland law does not require parental consent, nor parental notification, for a minor to have an abortion, if the doctor believes: The minor is mature and capable of giving her informed consent to the procedure, OR
Notification would not be in the minor’s best interest, OR
Notice may lead to physical or emotional abuse of the minor, OR
The minor patient does not live with her parent or guardian, OR
A reasonable effort to give notice has been unsuccessful.
So, as a middle school student is capable of getting pregnant and having an abortion, I believe the protestors (or protestors for the pro-choice side) would be within their rights to hold these protests. I also think the Supreme Court has stated this is legal and as for others that have expressed the opinion that simply because it is legal does not mean it should be done, I think that this issue, because of the capability of the students to have abortions, it is appropriate. Similarly, some may say that just because abortions are legal, does not mean they should be done. It is all a matter of your viewpoint.
I think were this at an elementary school, it should not be allowed, however.
Anyways, have a nice day.
So, since the kids at that age are physically capable of pregnancy, it’s morally acceptable to traumatize them with whatever imagery anyone sees fit to use under the umbrella of “freedom of speech”. I find it interesting that while I am within my rights to use whatever force necessary to halt a physical or sexual assault on my minor children, I am forbidden to interfere with a visceral, emotional assault. For the record, while I usually fall on the conservative side of the fence and find abortion to be a monstrous act, I find myself in the “her body, her choice” camp.
The protesters were indeed on the side rd leading into the school. They were standing right where the rd meets the parking lot. I am not sure if they needed permission from the school or if they had any. The school resource officer was standing there at the entrance to the lot to ensure nothing happened.
So they where on the public easment (sidewalk) of the residences on the corners?
They were further up on Hinton closer to the school than to Joppa Farm Rd.
There are two lots on the corners of Hinton and Joppa Farm. Then Hinton becomes the parkinglot.
I would appreciate the people who feel that this behavior is ok would state names rather than anonymous, and K, so I can be sure that no child I know comes near you or your homes.
* We are a nation and state of laws. If you are offended by that,
stop the insults and do something about it.
* You’d be surprised by how all of our lives are intertwined
and intermingled.
* Based on your rhetoric, I would be scared to divulge any personal
information.
* I don’t believe I remarked as to my opinion of the protestors and
their materials. My question was purely academic.
Then you do understand the point being made…. we are intertwined and somewhat dependent on each other to behave in a publicly acceptable fashion. Strident, blatant offensive confrontations in the public sector are not illegal however they are inappropriate. And as much as you may promote the legality of the things described in this article, if you believe that their behavior was appropriate and not offensive then you are being dreadfully inconsiderate to the people in this community that your life is intertwined with. Try a little tact and decorum.
In addition, I was informed by many Fallston High School students that DFC Kovacs, the school’s resource officer got the gist of the protest and WHY it was allowed to happen. We have something in our country called the U.S. Constitution. Everyone may want to refresh their memories and reread (since I know all commenters have read it from beginning to end) Amendment 1. Many of our best and brightest have died protecting our freedoms and liberties based on that one document. Each and every day in this great nation people from all walks of life do things that maybe you or I disagree with. BUT, they are protected under the laws of the United States of America. I guess it’s okay to watch tortuous, graphic, demented violence in the form of a motion picture. Real life is so tough for some of us isn’t it?
No one is questioning it’s legality K. We’re questioning the wisdom of the people who promote the protest and the manner in which they do it. It is regrettably also a function of our constitutional form of government to have the freedom to be stupid, within certain established bounds. Hurt feelings of course do not matter. Offending your neighbors does not matter. None of these things we discussed here are unconstitutional. The simple litmus test for you would be, would you like to go to your mother’s dinner table with the pictures they displayed at the school? Sure it’s legal – do you have the presence of mind to agree that it is inappropriate?
Dude, ALL I’M TALKING ABOUT IS THE LAW! I’M NOT SPEAKING ABOUT WHETHER THE PROTESTORS ARE MORALLY COURAGEOUS OR REPREHENSIBLE! STOP ATTACKING FOLKS BECAUSE YOU ARE A MIND READER AND THINK YOU KNOW WHAT IS IN ALL OF OUR HEARTS AND MINDS. AND YES, I AM USING ALL CAPITALS. DOES THAT TROUBLE YOU ALSO? GO DOWN THE LIST OF COMMENTS AND PUT A NEGATIVE CHECK NEXT TO ALL THE WRITERS WHO YOU THINK YOU KNOW BUT REALLY DON’T…..
If I had ANY presence of mind I certainly wouldn’t answer you. So, I guess that IS the response.
Hey David,
“No one is questioning it’s legality K.” – True, noone has questioned the legality.
“We’re questioning the wisdom of the people who promote the protest and the manner in which they do it.” – We are?
“It is regrettably also a function of our constitutional form of government to have the freedom to be stupid, within certain established bounds.” – Some may say the people that are pro-abortion are utilizing their freedom to be stupid, or those that protest wars, or the Occupy Wall Street people, some may say they are exercising their right to be stupid. I don’t think that. I think that, even though I disagree with people, they are exercising their right to free speech.
“Hurt feelings of course do not matter.” – No, they don’t.
“Offending your neighbors does not matter.” – Nope.
“None of these things we discussed here are unconstitutional.” – True
“The simple litmus test for you would be, would you like to go to your mother’s dinner table with the pictures they displayed at the school? ” – Why would this be the litmus test? Were that the litmus test, alot of things that people say, how they act, what they wear, what they do, would never be done.
“Sure it’s legal – do you have the presence of mind to agree that it is inappropriate?” – Some may say it is inappropriate, others may say it is perfectly appropriate considering these students are capable of having abortions. Shouldn’t they be knowledgable of what happens?
Anyways, have a nice day.
Paul,
Do you have children? Would it be approrpiate for me to give them condoms without your consent? After all they are capable of having sex. I agree with Porter. These protesters are specifically targeting kids. I agree they have the right to do it but find it lacking tact. It is very much like People v Larry Flynt. Again I think their delivery method is repugnant but that is their right to do so. Just like it is my right to think them to be a-holes!
DAVID: I agree with you that not only is it inappropriate, but incendiary designed to maximize media exposure. I can only suppose in order to satisfy some sick compulsion for publicity much as some people go on the some tell-all TV shows that tests for parenthood.
Hey Cdev,
“Do you have children?” – No comment. No need to make it about me personally.
“Would it be approrpiate for me to give them condoms without your consent?” – First, I find the thought of a grown man giving condoms out to underaged children quite disturbing, especially if they were middle school or younger. I also believe there may be some legality issues there. These protestors didn’t give out condoms. However, to go along with this discussion, children in school have access to condoms. Now, should a stranger on the street give a child a condom, I don’t think that would go over very well, depending on the age of the child, of course.
“After all they are capable of having sex.” – Yes. Children are capabe of having sex.
“I agree with Porter.” – I figured you would, though, I am a bit surprised as the liberal mantra is typically for the 1st amendment.
“These protesters are specifically targeting kids.” – Yes, I believe they are.
“I agree they have the right to do it but find it lacking tact.” – Yes, they have the right.
“It is very much like People v Larry Flynt. Again I think their delivery method is repugnant but that is their right to do so.” – I think some on the other side of the abortion argument might find them to be heroic in their efforts.
“Just like it is my right to think them to be a-holes!” – That is your right. Were you to call them a-holes to their faces, I would support your right to do so. Were you to protest them, I would support your right to do so. Were you to protest the death penalty by showing views of executed individuals, I would support your right to do so.
Anyways, have a nice day.
Paul Mc: “’I agree with Porter.’ – I figured you would, though, I am a bit surprised as the liberal mantra is typically for the 1st amendment”
That just goes to show you are not half as insightful as you pretend to be. You should never assume Paul.
Hey Proud,
“That just goes to show you are not half as insightful as you pretend to be.” – Wow, thanks for the insult, Proud. Also, I don’t think it shows that I am not half as insightful as I thought I was. It simply shows that some people that follow the liberal mantra don’t do it consistently.
“You should never assume Paul.” Sure, Proud. Though, I think my assumptions are usually correct.
Lets try less insults, Proud. I like our discussions.
Anyways, have a nice day.
Paul,
SO you find grown men giving condoms to middle school kids creepy but not grown men showing pictures of dead fetuses to kids? Second what legal issues are at play in distributing condoms? finally I am pretty sure condoms are not distributed in HCPS.
The pictures were at Fallston weeks ago too. I had to drive past with my 2 elem/non-school age kids. I held my breath that they wouldn’t see the large posters. Yes, the protester was located where his first amendment rights allow him to be, but my 5 year old shouldn’t be exposed to that. Standing by the side of a road effects more people than those entering that particular school. That being said, as much as I dislike this type of shock protest, I’m proud to live in a country where anyone can speek out under the protections we all enjoy. It is a double edged sword.
Cdev, right before hinton becomes the lot.
Hey Gina,
“I would appreciate the people who feel that this behavior is ok would state names rather than anonymous, and K, so I can be sure that no child I know comes near you or your homes.” – Seriously? I mean, seriously? You want people on a discussion board, where anonimity is they norm, to give their real names so you, not knowing these people, can keep all the kids you know, with or without their parent’s permission, from going near these names without faces?
Umm, ok.
Anyways, have a nice day.
Yes Paul… aberrant behavior of people without tolerance espousing hate does tend to want us to know where you live so we can avoid you.
Hey David,
“Yes Paul… aberrant behavior” – Some would say there behavior was acceptable.
“of people without tolerance” – Some would say they had tolerance and those that complain of them are not.
“espousing hate” – I think it was more of espousing the desire for abortions to end
“does tend to want us to know where you live so we can avoid you.” – So, anyone that doesn’t agree with what anyone else says should have the addresses of those they disagree so they can avoid you? That is just silly.
Anyways, have a nice day.
YES, really…did I stutter?
Hey Gina,
I don’t know if you stuttered or not. I haven’t heard you speak.
And you do realize how silly it is to expect people on a discussion board to ask them for their names, right? Also, just because you know their names, how do you know they are truthful? Also, how will you know what they look like, so you can avoid them?
Anyways, have a nice day.
My daughter came home from Bel Air High School after seeing the display there that morning upset at the graphic nature of the posters, saying it was unnecessary and she saw a couple special needs children who were upset after viewing the posters.
It was a teachable moment for me, as a parent, to explain that as horrific as the pictures were, they were an accurate depiction of what a completed abortion does to an unborn fetus. There is no simple way to show the results of such an act. Although the “in your face” method is a turn off to a huge majority of people, if the shock value of the images stops even one innocent life from being ended prematurely, these people have succeeded in their effort.
My daughter, after our conversation, had a greater respect for these protestors, even though she still felt bad for a couple kids that were emotionally disturbed. She also realized in our great country we have the freedom of speech, and that is a privilege that is not to be restricted if it is a lawful gathering. With all the garbage on TV, movies, song lyrics, and partying, I think most current high school students weren’t robbed of their childhood innocense or emotionally damaged for life.
once again like in most instances we fear telling our children the truth. liberalism must do so to promote their filth.
most are falling right into the hands of liberalism. quieten those who disagree. do not let them practice their free speech. why are so many afraid of truth. the photos show that babies are murdered. therefore pro baby slaughterers want it stopped. plain and simple.
Taking the opposite end of the spectrum could we then suggest conservatism wishes we were all the same and that we suppress our differences and beliefs for the greater good of appearing to be homogeneous? At least liberalism embraces the concept of diversity and tolerance without snickering. Conservatism would prefer to jam it down your throat in the hopes you will see that they have compassion.
Well, folks, I guess it became a debate on abortion after all. It’s just wrapped in the cloak of free speech.
Here is what we have come to. David A. Porter says that showing people the end result of their ‘choice’ is to ‘force your opinion’ on them. I got a hearty laugh out of that nonsense.
Gina Bateman, the kids are allowed to not want to hear what the people had to say. I don’t want to hear what a lot of protsters have to say but a lot of people have died for your right and my right to say it. Another reason they died is so that neither you, nor I, nor any one person or political party or cause gets to be the arbiter of what is said. The law is the arbiter.
That being said I wouldn’t have been there. I try to have the self discipline to make my views known without offending children. I do understand the abortion issue and the hyprocrisy surrounding it. Paul Mc is dead on when he summarizes Maryland law that is written with so many loopholes that it is very easy for a minor child to receive an abortion without parental knowledge or consent. Much, much easier than having a school nurse give the child an aspirin.
As for the parents of middle schoolers and high schoolers who found this to be an opportunity for a discussion, good for you. But with the teen pregnancy rate where it is I’m not sure that, in general, there has been a lot of discussing going on at home. In the classroom there has been frequent discussion but that would be the how to do it discussion not the whether to do it.
Has that Condom Coordinator job in the NYC public school system been filled yet?
That’s not what I said. If you have a reading comprehension problem please return to elementary school. I said just because you can do something does not mean you should do something. I could illustrate my point further by raising issues about your legitimate birth or your educational level or your moral compass but that would not be appropriate. Instead I choose to take the highroad by suggesting you didn’t want to understand what I said and chose the path of ignorance to make your own point about a different topic.
DAVID PORTER: “you didn’t want to understand what I said and chose the path of ignorance to make your own point about a different topic.” Yes he did, otherwise known as a Fallacy of quoting out of context (contextomy)
And I fully agreed with your statement, David, that just because you can do something does not mean that you should. Fully agreed. What part of my fully agreeing with you don’t you understand?
“David A. Porter says that showing people the end result of their ‘choice’ is to ‘force your opinion’ on them.”
Never said that. You made an inference that was wrong. That you later say you are in agreement with what I did say belies the fact you took what I said, manipulated the intent, and spewed it back in an unrecognizable form that would only appeal to someone with a short attention span.
actually the teen preganancy rate is up. Despite the rate of sexual intercourse being down.
http://womensissues.about.com/od/datingandsex/a/Teenage-Pregnancy-Teen-Birth-Rates-And-Teen-Sex-Statistics-2006-2011.htm
I am anti-war. Have always been, since Vietnam, and have actively protested both that war and our most recent engagements. Would it be appropriate for me to stand in front of a school with pictures of wounded soldiers and the aftermath of activities with which I do not agree? Of course not. Now, it would be legal, but would it be right? How is this situation any different?
Hey Billy Jack,
You may not find it appropriate, but others would. I personally don’t see a problem with it.
Anyways, have a nice day.
I’m sure we can count on you to be fully supportive of the next Clan Rally or the next Nazi gathering protesting the hatred against white people that is pervasive in this country. Are you sure there are no limits on offensive behavior that you would be willing to personally support? Is there anything that you would find inappropriate?
That’s the point of free speech. Maybe you think certain exhibitions are problematic, others think it’s the greatest thing since sliced bread. Some people are gutsier, stupidier, whatever your opinion. You wouldn’t protest with provocative materials, others do. Why is it that folks with differing opinions find it so repulsive when the opposite viewpoint expresses their thoughts?
Absolutely no difference Billy Jack. You and I are on the same page. Fully legally. You don’t think it is appropriate and neither do I. Poor taste. Misguided. But legal.
Hey David,
“I’m sure we can count on you to be fully supportive of the next Clan Rally or the next Nazi gathering protesting the hatred against white people that is pervasive in this country.” – No, I won’t support their viewpoints; I will support their 1st amendment rights to say what they want. Damn that 1st Amendment.
“Are you sure there are no limits on offensive behavior that you would be willing to personally support?” – Freedom of speech is a curse and a blessing.
“Is there anything that you would find inappropriate?” – Hell, I find alot inappropriate, but the 1st Amendment allows people to say things. WOuld you rather freedom of speech be suppressed; or only the freedom of speech of the people and viewpoints you don’t want to hear?
Anyways, have a nice day.
Paul Mc
You vehemently seek to make your point that it is not right to victimize children by victimizing children. Nuff said.
Hey Billy Jack,
“You vehemently seek to make your point that it is not right to victimize children by victimizing children. Nuff said.” – Victimize children? I make the point that the 1st Amendment allows for the freedom of speech in the US.
Anyways, have a nice day.
Out of curiosity, why was this SO disturbing to you parents when the movies you let us high school age kids watch are a million times more graphic and definitely more disturbing? Welcome to America. We have a freedom of speech and protest clause in our first amendment which was covered extensively in our mandated government class. So, maybe some kids who are having such an issue with it should reconsider the movies they go to see and maybe go take government again.
Rose, the point that we, as parents, are trying to make, is that this is a very emotional issue. We acknowledge that teenagers see graphic images as a matter of routine. As a good parent, however, I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss these images with my daughter, at the time she was seeing them. I was not afforded that opportunity. In fact, by the time I learned of the situation, my daughter had already discussed this issue extensively with other teenagers. You may realize that a teenager’s take on a situation is sometimes not mature. Truth be told, had I been with my daughter at that time, I would have acknowledged that the images were accurate depictions of what occurs in an abortion. We could have had a discussion about that topic, during which I could have reinforced my own stance against abortion. Personally, I agree with the message, but not with the delivery of that message. I find it interesting that I had been asked to sign a permission slip so that my daughter could participate in a family life class just a few weeks before this happened. I appreciated that fact that I was asked to give permission for my daughter to participate in these discussions that are led by a trained and certified teaching professional. I have frequent discussions with my daughter at home, as well. The point is that there was no adult present who could have a timely accurate discussion with the children re. the images and the message.
This also happened at North Harford High last week. I didn’t speak to anybody who was personally disturbed by the protests, but it was quite the talking point. I agree, however, that high schools at 7 AM is neither the time nor place to be protesting such things, especially in such a graphic manner.
Sarah, NHHS student, Senior
As a teacher, most kids and teachers were not emotionally scared by this. The thing I think is most telling is that the protestors are ignorant to their own cause or want to give that perception.
According to government produced statistics (and let’s face it, who else can fund this kind of study), less than 17% of abortions are performed on women 19 years of age and younger. By protesting in front of schools, they allow passerbys to assume that all these teenage girls are whores not capable of preventing pregnancy in the first place. At this age, children do explore sexuality, as did most of us when we were that age. By this, I don’t just mean sex; this could include the simple act of kissing. That does not mean they will get pregnant.
By showing up at high schools, this indicates that the protestors have no idea who is most at risk for having an abortion, which is actually 20-24 year olds. So perhaps if we could fix the economic crisis, kids graduating college could get a job and not get knocked up requiring an abortion! Paul MC–this is a joke. No need to be an ass.
Hey Tom,
“So perhaps if we could fix the economic crisis, kids graduating college could get a job and not get knocked up requiring an abortion! Paul MC–this is a joke. No need to be an ass.” – WTF? I try to be civil here and not call anyone names (If anyone points something out that I have called them, I apologize). Just because we have differing opinions, Tom, does not make it right to call me an ass.
Anyways, have a nice day.
Did anybody think that HCPS was unaware the provocateurs would be standing near their schools? Why would permission slips have gone home if nobody knew this was going to happen? Should the principals have gone out and wrestled the signs/posters away? Should we stow away all the filthy looking homeless so no youngster can see them? Should we remove all the walls from the high school bathroom stalls so our youth can’t see all the offensive vulgarities? Maybe banning sex ed would be prudent so the kids aren’t seduced? I know, any books in the school libraries that mention anything unpure should be burned while all the angelic parents look on with their progeny? Wow…..
K: You are guilty of some logical fallacies. You are arguing a False Dilemma. Equating your ludicrous argument with this issue is meaningless. You are attempting to compare apples to oranges. Nice try!
I do believe the argument is NOT do these MEN have the right to exploit this issue for publicity or sick motives (they do) but should they. Just as has been pointed out, just because you can do something, should you?
Proud,
Hopefully yo won’t think I took some of your words out of context. You asked the question “just because you can do something legally, should you do it?” I hope I got that right. You would, I think, answer ‘no, you shouldn’t’ and I would agree. Proud, we so seldom agree there must be a flaw somewhere.
Proud, where I get stuck is who determines the “should”? You? Me? Paul Mc? Porter? BillyJack? The government? The lib/Dems? The Tea Party? The Conservatives? Have I left anyone out?
That’s life in a relatively free America.
ALEX R: “where I get stuck is who determines the “should”?” That would be one’s sense of decency. You know, that part of one’s being that senses that upsetting innocent children with theatrics is wrong. You surely have some sense of decency left deep down inside and can understand.
I do actually have a sense of decency and that is why I have said several times on these posts that I do not agree with where they did what they did. I also don’t agree with Westboro and other jerks like them.
The question you are dodging is what happens when my sense of decency doesn’t match up to yours?
You said “Their only action should be to overturn our legal choices either through the courts or through legislation.” That’s a direct quote and in context. How wonderfully, wonderfully American of you. I felt the same way in the late 1960’s when the liberals were marching in the streets protesting the Vietnam War and Jane Fonda was astride an anti-aircraft gun in North Vietnam, joking with and supporting the North Vietnamese leadership while my relatives were being killed by them in South Vietnam.
The difference between you and me is that I recognized that they followed their conscience, their sense of decency as you describe it, and that my relatives were being killed for their right to march in the streets and to show the equally graphic pictures to anyone and everyone. Including little kids. I was there. I saw it.
Well said, Alex.
ALEX R: Wow that was a wild leap, “…when the liberals were marching in the streets protesting the Vietnam War and Jane Fonda was astride an anti-aircraft gun in North Vietnam, joking with and supporting the North Vietnamese leadership while my relatives were being killed by them in South Vietnam.” How can you equate “liberals” protesting the war in Vietnam with Jane Fonda and with this incident? That is known as a straw man argument. Let’s keep to the subject.
We are talking about men who are nothing more than street performers, trying to shove their twisted religious beliefs down the throats of children for theatrics and publicity. It does not surprise me that you were there.
“The question you are dodging is what happens when my sense of decency doesn’t match up to yours?” Obviously you sense of decency is far from mine. I feel children should be safe from harassment and you seem to feel it is acceptable. I’ll let others decide who is correct.
“ ‘Their only action should be to overturn our legal choices either through the courts or through legislation.’ That’s a direct quote and in context. How wonderfully, wonderfully American of you”. Yes it is. I am sorry you don’t understand the concept of jurisprudence.
Proud,
Are you purposely dense or is it your lack of education? When I said I was there I meant for the Vietnam protests where loud demonstrators purposely shoved very objectionable material into the faces of even the smallest children. Yes, I was at those demonstartions in the 1960’s and I saw it first hand. Frequently. The same type of thing that apparently is happening now with the abortion issue. I wasn’t at the school. Had I been at the school I would have done what I could have to stop the demonstrators. I doubt you would have. What they did was legal. What they did was also in poor taste and objectionable to me.
Yes, let’s keep to the argument. My argument is why was it okay for what happened in the 1960’s – and it was the same type of thing almost exactly – to be okay then but not now? I suspect it is because the anti Vietnam War demonstration was something you fully supported. Today they are demonstrating against abortion and it really frosts you that someone would be against something that you really support. How dare they? Today the shoe is on the other foot and now it is objectionable. Then it wasn’t, at least for you.
ALEX R: Don’t blame me if you are incapable of writing in a clear manner. You asked, “is why was it okay for what happened in the 1960?s – and it was the same type of thing almost exactly – to be okay then but not now?” There were big differences that if you were really there you would realize: this was in front of a school filled with children, the demonstrations in the 60’s were not. The anti-war demonstrations were for policy makers, not children who cannot change the law. The demonstrators of the 60s were not total assholes and these men were. Can you understand these differences? Moreover, how do you know I was even alive in the 60s?
As much as I hate to say it, the 1st Amendment allows these protesters the right to freedom of speech. However, they must comply with local regulations pertaining to the demonstration. That said, I hope we all take a deep breath and remind ourselves that this country has a separation of Church and State. Please keep your religious views to yourself and DO NOT IMPOSE THEM ON ANYONE ELSE. Abortion is still legal so get over it.
BlissfulInBel Air,
Yep. You do have the right to ask people to keep heir religious views to themselves. But you don’t have the right to REQUIRE them to do it. They, on the other hand, have the legal right to express their views. Publicly. Sometimes they do it in a manner that many of us don’t agree with. Oh well, that’s life in America.
Also, don’t make the mistake of thinking think that the anti-abortion view is totally religious based. It isn’t. For some folks it is a matter of conscience and their view of what is morally right and wrong. It is said that atheists have morals. While I am not an atheist I can well believe that is true. The folks who are anti-abortion are never going to get over it.
Blissfulinbelair: When men impose their religious views on you it is called a theocracy, you know, like the Taliban or al-Qaeda. There is a difference between expressing their views in a legal way and shoving them down your throat and upsetting children. This is the side that feels it is acceptable to murder doctors, burn down clinics and intimidate women (not that this particular crew does that).
And let’s stop calling them anti-abortionists, they represent an anti-privacy and anti-freedom group that I think is anti-American. As you said “Abortion is still legal so get over it.” If they do not want an abortion for their women, don’t allow them: but if I want one, keep your publicity seeking, incendiary, bulling actions for your women. The American way is to live and let live. Their only action should be to overturn our legal choices either through the courts or through legislation. They tried that and it did not work as American women, as well as the majority of all voters, want their choices.
@blissful,
No- a Theocracy is where a ruling body is controled by religious convictions. The taliban and Hamas are definately examples of this, however in this discussion it has no relevance.
This group of people believe that a fetus is a person and therefore abortion is murder.
Though I am not one of these protesters and I would be angered if they were in front of my child’s school – I can understand protesting “Murder.”
If you don’t even attempt to understand the opposing argument, all you add to the discussion is noise.
Abortion no matter how you defend it is a ugly, horrific and destructive.
Liberal pro-abortionists like you want to sanitize it to the extent that it seems no more traumatic as getting a tooth filled or wart removed.
Bartman and Niccolo: You missed the part where a zygote has potential for life. If a zygote cannot live on its own, it is not an unborn child (See what I said about miscarriages.) Conservative anti-privacy people like you want to impose your religious views on all citizens. Yes an abortion is traumatic, but who are you to deny a woman her legal choices. Unless you are a woman and have adopted an unwanted child, you really should just keep quite. You want to protect a zygote, but will abandon it the instant it has come to term and is, in fact, a child. I consider this the height of hypocrisy.
Hey Cdev,
“SO you find grown men giving condoms to middle school kids creepy but not grown men showing pictures of dead fetuses to kids?” – Big difference in the scenarios. The protestors are not giving anything to any child. Although I am not sure, I do not think they are interacting with the children, other than holding up the signs. Someone giving condoms to a child would have direct interaction. As for my opinion, yes, I find a random person handing out condoms to children creepy.
“Second what legal issues are at play in distributing condoms?” – Let’s conduct an experiment. Go out and start handing out condoms to middle school and younger children and see what happens. My guess is, you would a) get arrested, b) get yelled at by parents c) get into physical altercations or d) all the above.
“finally I am pretty sure condoms are not distributed in HCPS.” – I am not sure if they are given out at schools or not. However, children still do have access to condoms.
Now, were a child to obtain condoms from a health worker at school (if they are given out at school, I am not sure if they are or not), or at a health clinic, fine. Though I don’t know if some parents would like this.
Anyways, have a nice day.
Cdev and Paul Mc: Actually both scenarios creep me out.
So if the kids who walked to school where told things that is not an interaction? Furthermore interactions do not have to be verbal. Would you be opposed to them distributing literature?
a) what charge?
b & c) are not legal issues but simply bad judgement (just like this)
yes children do they walk into a drugstore and buy them. or their parents buy them for them alongh with a discussion about premarital sex.
I am not advocating the condom example as OK I am simply saying it is akin to the issue.
Hey Cdev,
“So if the kids who walked to school where told things that is not an interaction? Furthermore interactions do not have to be verbal. Would you be opposed to them distributing literature?” – You are correct, it is still interaction, however, handing out condoms as opposed to protestors holding signs, is significantly more interaction. As for the protestors saying things, yes, that would be more interaction, but still nowhere to the point of handing things to the children.
Now, were the protestors to hand literature to the children, the interaction would be the same as the handing out of condoms, and I think I would have a problem with that, though I am not sure of the legality.
“a) what charge?” – Not sure. Though, I still think it might happen.
“b & c) are not legal issues but simply bad judgement (just like this)” – physical altercations are legal issues.
“yes children do they walk into a drugstore and buy them. or their parents buy them for them alongh with a discussion about premarital sex.” – They can get them at health clinics, I think.
“I am not advocating the condom example as OK I am simply saying it is akin to the issue.” – I think the example is different as the level of interaction is significantly different.
Anyways, have a nice day.
b & c only become legal issues if I decide to hit back or feel I was assulted by the yelling at me parents. In and of themselves they are not legal issues.
Hey Cdev,
Or if they are observed by a police officer or reported by another citizen.
try but simply confronting someone loudly is not a legal issue and if I was physically assulted I can decline to press charges. My point is even if they are legal issues that stem from the inncident. That does not make the underlying distribution a legal issue. That is people excercising bad judgement!
Hey Cdev,
try but simply confronting someone loudly is not a legal issue” – Disturbing the peace.
“and if I was physically assulted I can decline to press charges.” – Not exactly true. The police would be the ones pressing charges, not you. Now, without the victim as a witness, it would be more difficult for a prosecution, but the police (or a private citizen in some situations) could still make an arrest and press charges.
“My point is even if they are legal issues that stem from the inncident. That does not make the underlying distribution a legal issue.” – You are correct, the underlying distribution would not be (I don’t think) a crime in and of itself. Though, I don’t know what the legality would be in this scenario for an extremely young child (Under 5 or so). I think the legality might be the same but I am not sure.
“That is people excercising bad judgement!” – Bad judgment is such an opinion based argument. What is bad judgment to some is not to others. I am not saying your viewpoint is wrong or right, I think in some situations more that one viewpoint can be wrong or right.
Thanks for the keeping this debate civil, Cdev. I really enjoy these intellectual discussion with you.
Anyways, have a nice day.
I think we can all agree screaming at someone to the point of disturbing the peace is bad judgement. In your scenario that would be a legal issue for the parent not the condom distributor. Attacking someone physically is bad judgement.
CDEV and PAUL Mc: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
a few weeks ago Nancy Jacobs talked to my son’s scout troop – she started talking about child molesters, murders, rapists and the like – while all that stuff is wrong and I might support legislation she authored – I didn’t appreciate her doing her adult subject lecture with my kids when she was supposed to be talking about citizenship. My kids are homeschooled, but if I were driving up to JHS and had my kids in the car with graphic stuff I think I would have turned my car – gone up the other entrance and then complained to the guys holding the signs. I as a parent should make the call when graphic stuff gets introduced to my kids not a bunch of doogooders = what the heck were they doing in front of a school = go to an adult place like the county office building – these jackasses, no matter how noble their cause, as well as people like Ms. Jacobs should have more sense.
BEL AIR FED: You stated “these jackasses, no matter how noble their cause, as well as people like Ms. Jacobs should have more sense.” You have to understand that Nancy Jacobs has something in common with these “jackasses”: they are both street performers who are publicity seeking and incendiary. The “jackasses” want to shove their religious views down the throats of children and Ms. Jacobs wants your vote and was speaking to the parents and not the children. As you have pointed out they “should have more sense.”
They were in front of John Carroll a couple of weeks ago. Now JC is a Catholic school, so that tells you they want to shock school kids rather than just exercising the 1st and protesting abortion.
I find it amazing that you liberals are more offended by the pictures of murdered children then by the act of murdering them. Pretty twisted.
Both images are disturbing. Your generalization is also disturbing.
Wow. My last comment got struck down/censored. Amazing.
Hitler convinced the German people to help him murder six million people in the Holocaust, by convincing them that jews weren’t “real” humans. That they weren’t human at all. That they possessed no human life, as we understand it.
At conception, a process starts that will result in a human life. Why do we consider that life of no value, if that life hasn’t gone through the birth process? Isn’t the baby alive inside the womb? Because the baby hasn’t drawn a breath outside the womb, it becomes okay to murder it for reasons of convenience? “A womans body, a womans choice”? What choice does the baby have?
The signs are the latest effort in a move to wake people up to the fact that we have done something far worse than the Holocaust. Forty Million babies have been murdered in the U.S. since Roe V. Wade. Forty million children that had no chance. Forty million unlived lives. Your science is cold comfort to the mother who has stopped the beating heart of her child, by her choice. Not only stopped their heart from beating, but had them chopped up and vacuumed out, or had them burnt and poisoned with saline. “A mass of cells”? You and I are a mass of cells.
We murder the unborn. How long do think it will be, before we are legally allowed to murder one year olds? How are they different?
Until you are willing to carry a child to term with your body, you are simply an opinionated spectator. Until you are willing to take a child in foster care or adopt a needy child you are a spectator. This community has plenty of children that were created by their spontaneous and over eager biologically driven parents who chose to keep their children – and then abuse, neglect or otherwise impair their development – all leading to the creation of a new generation of entitled, enabled and narcissistic adults who feel that what they want is more important than than whether or not they interfere with the rights of others. I personally know of a young lady who has four children from three different fathers who exposes her children to drug trafficking in the home and criminally inclined friends. She is on state support for food, power and recently gave birth to her fourth child which was paid for by the state (Read: You and Me). They will be raised with no respect for law enforcement and be emboldened with the notion that what they want outweighs the impact it has on other people or society as a whole. They are liabilities. When you actually care enough NOT to put them in a corner where you can pay not to look at them and take responsibility for the children who are disadvantaged that are already here – then you can dictate to another person how they handle their body – with input from their God and their Doctor.
Yadid, there are a few individuals on this site that will degrade and denigrate your opinions for no reason other than they “think” you’re a nonliberal, progressive, nondemopcrat. The only facts they have are gleaned from the vacuous space between their ears. Just an observational opinion…..
Yes K there are people who denigrate opinions from people because they do not conform to some narrow minded partisan rhetoric. I agree with you. I have a problem with the fact that you only think democrats do that and do not seem to recognize that people do the same thing for not being conservative, republicans etc.
I guess that makes you one of those shepple too!
Cdev, I certainly am not a sheeple, whatever that may be. I suppose you are correct that I should have included ALL opinionated opinion denigraters. It’s too tiring trying to keep up with the subject topic since every pseudo-debate seemingly ends up as a political battle. I’m going to make it a point to stop reading The Dagger and then commenting on subjects of interest. Okay…..go and start with the positive checkmarks. Sayonara…..
YADID: As a man you have no say in what a woman does. As a human you are despicable by comparing this whole issue to Hitler. Firstly, by using the emotional, yet incorrect and inappropriate, imagery of “murdering” unborn children, you are, in fact, using the same tactics Hitler used. Do you think the same about the 1,333,960, or so, annual miscarriages? This is no different than that.
You asked: “How long do think it will be, before we are legally allowed to murder one year olds? How are they different?” You are using the following propaganda strategies: “The art of propaganda consists precisely in being able to awaken the imagination of the public through an appeal to their feelings, in finding the appropriate psychological form that will arrest the attention and appeal to the hearts of the national masses. The great majority of a nation’s thought and conduct are ruled by sentiment rather than by sober reasoning. This sentiment, however, is not complex, but simple and consistent. It is not highly differentiated, but has only the negative and positive notions of love and hatred, right and wrong, truth and falsehood.” Do you know who conceived of these strategies? Moreover, you are using SLIPPERY SLOPE and RED HERRING arguments.
Secondly, as David Porter pointed out, “Until you are willing to carry a child to term with your body, you are simply an opinionated spectator. Until you are willing to take a child in foster care or adopt a needy child you are a spectator.” You are entitled to your religious beliefs; no one wants to attenuate them. What I object to is you trying to force them unto anyone else. This country is founded upon the concept of separation of church and state. We do not want the Taliban controlling decisions. Keep your harassments for your own women and leave me alone.
Thirdly, unless you have adopted an unwanted, minority child, you have no credibility on this issue. You people want to control a woman’s choice, but refuse to support these children. I do not approve of the woman David describes, but I am willing to support this child: are you?
BTW: it the propaganda strategies you are using were found in Mein Kampf.
I’m a firm believer in the 2nd amendment, I think every law abiding citizen THAT WANTS should be able to carry a gun for self defense, IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO THAT. I wonder what would happen if were to stand in front of a school with a picture of a gun? This was completely rhetorical I know what would happen.
You struggle so hard to hold on to your belief that the mass of cells in a womans womb is not alive, not a life, not human. You do this for what reason? No consequences for our actions? No guilt for having had an abortion? Not accepting that you have been brainwashed into devaluing human life to the point you defend butchers of the most defenseless members of the family of man?
To say that I have no input is your effort to remove my responsibility for what I see as genocide. You have no authority to do that. Your arguments are weak and misinformed and your anger tells me that you know in your heart that your position is wrong, but since you’ve commited to this path, reversing your beliefs is tantamount to condoning the murder of children. It does not matter. Search your heart and follow that. How can we say we love, when we kill life as a routine act?
How about giving the other involved party a say in what happens to the child? A male had to be involved in the beginning. What if he were willing to take the baby, no questions asked and no support requested? All the female would have to do is carry and deliver the child. No. The child is not worth nine months of her life or the changes that her body will undergo. The child is not worth…….
I’ve adopted two children and raised them to adulthood. If it were possible, I would raise children for the rest of my days on earth. All of mankind has a say in this matter because it has cheapened life itself. Life is precious, all life, and to hold the belief that a child is a life, only if they’ve went through the birth process, makes humanity worse than animals.
And before you go there, no, I don’t believe in the death penalty. Love would suggest we don’t ever get to decide who lives or dies. Who are we, that we could hold such power? Who are we, that we who have many sins, put to death one who has more or bigger sins?
YADID: You are describing your religious beliefs. As I said, I do not want to attenuate them. You may have them. Why can’t you understand that you cannot force them onto me? What is so difficult in the concept of separation of church and state?
You have not answered the question about the over 1.3 million zygotes “aborted” by God every year just in the US. There are also over 26K stillbirths after 20 weeks. If you extrapolate that to the worldwide population of 7 billion, we are talking about many millions a year. Do you also hate Him for that? You sound like a sincere man who lives by his beliefs; all I ask is that you do not force them onto me. Is that not reasonable?
Miscarriages and stillbirths? You would have the gall to equate tragedy with a “choice”? The mother of a BABY chooses to abort them. Miscarriages and stillbirths are a result of the natural order of things. The law of averages. No action is required on our part, thus we are helpless to prevent them. Abortion, on the other hand, is the willfull murdering of a baby by our direct actions. Hone you talking points a little more. Your coming across as immature and uninformed.
Have I said anything about my religious beliefs? I’m arguing from the point of a caring and compassionate human being who values life at all stages of development. Why are you trying to make this into a religious debate?
YADID: You have no compassion for the women or girls who you would force to carry an unwanted pregnancy. Some of these pregnancies are the result of rape or incense. Some are horridly and profoundly mutated.
My point about your beliefs is that they are beginning to sound like a theocracy where religion rules and not the majority. You do not need to say anything about your religious beliefs, they are quite apparent. And, yes, this is a religious, political debate. As I said before, and the point you choose to ignore, is that a zygote only has potential for life. If a zygote cannot live on its own, it is NOT an unborn child. That is why women can decide what to do with their own bodies. Your constant use of inflammatory, incendiary language (murder, babies, etc.) only points out the bankruptcy of your arguments. BTW, you are a man and do NOT have a say in this.
If you were the product of a rape or incestous relationship, should we withdraw you right to life because of the crimes of your father? Horridly mutated? WTF is that about? A brother and sister can conceive a child and the odds are only one in four that the baby will have a genetic abnormality. Irregardless, the percentage of baby murders due to rape or incest are numerically insignificant anyway. Better than 98% of murders happen because the mothers aren’t “ready” to have a baby, or some similar reason.
These moms, who carry these babies to term, were once unborn themselves. Do you imagine that I would care less about them, once they’ve reached adulthood? Don’t get pregnant and you don’t have to worry about commiting murder.
Hey PTBL, miscarriages and stillbirths occur for a myriad of reasons and to refer to them as “God” aborting them like a person would isn’t winning any debate points. Even though I find myself on your side (a strange enough occurrence itself) I don’t see this as a valid comparison. Not that I agree with Yadid either. While this life form is solely dependent on the host it isn’t anyone else’s business. While I personally find abortion abhorrent, I realize it’s a woman’s body and soul to do with as she sees fit. The idea that you can force a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn’t want is simply too presumptuous. Protest abortion all you want – away from the minor children of others whom you have no right to traumatize – but realize it’s been around a long time and isn’t going away any time soon. Getting back to the original question put forth, as I said before, these protesters wouldn’t be permitted to physically assault these minors, but, unfortunately, emotional and psychological assault is allowed as freedom of speech. It’s a shame there’s no legislation to stop this from happening near any school.
AMAZED: You have a point, but it isn’t any different than calling it murder. BTW, I’m glad I was sitting down when I read your post. 🙂
If more people were like you Yadid, there would be no need for abortion. Too many children in America go hungry. Too many children in America are homeless. Welfare is not the answer although it is needed. Community and human decency could be. I wish I had the answer. I wish someone had the answer. Many of these women and girls are living in a reality where it’s not about 9 months out of there lives but just making it to Friday. If adoption were the answer, why do we have so many children in foster care?
Those people protesting are worthless unless they can actually offer an alternative. Ugly disturbing photos will get people talking as you can see from the many posts above. Saying people don’t have to look is ridiculous. You can’t un-ring a bell. You see the picture and it’s hard to stop seeing something like that in your head. The thing is those protesters are just offering noise. Put down your signs and go help the children who are here. I don’t respect any message coming from an adult trying to frighten children. Anyway the reality a pregnant teenager faces is more frightening than a vulger attention getting sign.
These protesters are not offering God’s love and light, I only see darkness and human anger in those signs.
A Mom;
Nothing has worked. This argument has driven people mad, resulting in the murder of abortion providers and the bombing of abortion clinics. These criminals believed that the end results would justify the means, but they became exactly like the people they were protesting.
There are adoption agencies available but it’s just too convenient to kill the baby, rather than carry them and give birth. There is no consequences placed on having sex, resulting in a pregnancy. If abortion were illegal and the father and mother were held responsible for the baby, unplanned pregnancies would drop dramatically, barren couples wouldn’t have to advertise in the newspapers and children who were born would have a greater value to our society. We pay lip service to our imagined care and concern for the children of mankind and it must be so, since we don’t allow a large number of them to draw breath and be held by their mothers.
YADID: You said “If abortion were illegal and the father and mother were held responsible for the baby, unplanned pregnancies would drop dramatically.” No the only thing that would happen is that millions of mothers would die in back alley abortions. Why don’t you care about women? Why are you so heartless?
For your information there are thousands of babies in foster homes or in agencies waiting to be adopted. Even though you have adopted, I would bet none of the protesters have. They are publicity hounds bent on bulling young girls. What have they personally done for these children?
Proud,
And there are thousands of people adopting children from other countries because the silly laws and costs to adopt children right here in their own backyard make it virtually impossible to do so.
Alex, people go to other countries so that they can adopt BABIES. There is a distinction. The costs (and wait) to adopt a baby in the US are high because there are lines miles long of people who want to do so. The sad fact of the matter is that people don’t want to adopt 5 year olds, 10 year olds or (in some cases–I personally know a few exceptions to this) minority children. It’s a bit disingenuous for folks to claim that life is precious, and it can’t be terminated, while refusing to consider adopting older kids in the system.
That said (begin waffle-mode), I don’t know what the answer is. This is such a huge debate not because both sides are passionate, but because both sides are right. I wonder sometimes what my reaction would be if placed in such a scenario. On the one hand, it isn’t MY body that would be at risk. It isn’t MY pain and expense of carrying and delivering a child. What right do I have to tell a woman that she HAS to do those things? On the other hand, I also know in my heart of hearts that it would just about kill me to know that I had created a child, and that child could be destroyed without my consent, input or even informing me at all.
Both sides have completely valid points that arrive at totally contradictory positions. I would love to see research funds poured into artificial womb technology. The sooner an unwanted pregnancy can be transferred to a technological surrogate rather than being transferred to a dumpster, the sooner this craziness can end (Note–I am not a science nerd. I have no idea how soon, or even if, such technology would be possible).
Proud To Be Liberal;
You’ve forced me to live in a country where I know that everyday, 4000 or more babies will never see life or feel the love of another human being. Is that worse than me trying to force my “opinion” on you?
Yadid: No one is forcing you to do anything, least of all Proud. If you have an issue with the laws of this land, may I suggest you buy yourself a compass? You have Canada to the North or Mexico to the South. Have a nice trip.
Yes, you are. I’m American and because of the devaluing of human life in this country, I’m forced to live with the knowledge that many of my countrymen are asleep in a nightmare. We fight where the battle is. Leaving my country because of my beliefs would do nothing to stop the carnage going on, daily. I’m here and I’m staying and I’m speaking out against this until we allow all children to live.
I take it that you are OK with us making the choice about what movies your kid sees and does not see? This group took that choice out of these parents hands about how to discuss with their 13-18 year old about this sensative subject!
C Dev; If the majority decided what movies my children were to see, I would be fine with that, as long as what was presented was the truth. The pictures on the signs are actual human beings looking they way they do because of the actions of other actual human beings. We cringe at the sight of a lifeless body, but this is only a recent phenomenon. All through our history as a race of beings, we’ve been intimate with death and understood it to be a part of life. Now, we shield the public from all signs of death and insulate our children from it’s sight. If abortion is truly just a surgical procedure and the mass of cells has no value or life, why would you object to their visage? I think your protesting a little too much, as Bill Shakespeare would say.
YADID: “as long as what was presented was the truth.” Who are you to say what is the “truth?”
Proud to be Liberal; Dialation and Curettage cut up a living human being, which is then vacuumed out of the womb and disposed of. Saline injections burn and poison the baby, which is then removed. Both result in the death of a human being. Thats the truth. Believe what you will, but those procedures end a process that once started, will result in a fully formed and functional human being.
You cannot say that is not the truth.
Yadid who said it was the majority maybe a few people decide for you. Let us ramp it up a notch and they decided it was relevent to show animal mating, without consulting you.
Furthermore again this group decided to overide the parenting ability of 13 year olds. SOme are assuming all high school kids are 18 year olds and they are not. There is a big difference between a frshman who has been in high school for 40 days and a senior!
YADID: I have not “forced” you to live anywhere: in America, the majority rules. That is how we do things here. The majority of Americans believe a woman has the last say about her own body. Your only choice is to change the laws of this nation through legislation or move. Period.
The founders understood that a true Democracy would fail in short order, because once the majority figure out that they can vote themselves money out of the treasury, they will.
That is why we live in a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy.
And Yes, we are going to change the laws that illegaly allow the killing of human beings. I promise.
YADID: Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy: either way, the majority rules, sorry.
That is not an enumerated power in the Constitution. So you will need to get 50 states and DC to decide that on their own!
You used to post as John Galt and espoused a Randian Objectivist mindset and belief system. Your hero, Ayn Rand, has this to say about abortion: “An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child can not acquire rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living.” It is one of the few times I find myself in agreement with social darwinism.
Ayn Rand was kind of a selfish pig wasn’t she?
Who forced you to live her? You are free to move.
If I left, would babies still be murdered?
Yes they would. And children alive today would also go hungry and be neglected by their natural parents because they do not have the integrity to do the right thing for their child. And yes, if you choose to ignore the consequences of rape and incest and instead demand that the life created by a criminal act be treated as a valued human being and force the woman to term regardless of the impact on her physically, emotionally and mentally you are simply a controlling manipulative male seeking to dictate what another should do – despite their religious beliefs. Judaism handles Tay Sachs in a fashion consistent with their beliefs – are you willing to deny them that right?
And please, whatever you do today, don’t breathe because you are inhaling zygotes that have the potential for life. And your body is killing them.
Yadid? Male, over 40? Get a uterus man and make your own babies and raise them with the values you see fit.
This is precisely the attitude that resulted in the murder of six million Jews. It doesn’t effect me or my loved ones, so I just need to keep my mouth shut and let folks do what they will. The callous murder of unborn children effects every single one of us by devaluing the sum of human life. Thankfully, people like you are in the minority or we may well be euthanizing the elderly or infirm.
An argument exists on the basis of your “no uterus” reply, that is, If the male half of the conception couple were able and willing to raise the baby, no strings attached, why wouldn’t we allow him to do so? Shouldn’t he have veto power or some input on whether his baby is murdered?
YADID: No people like you are in the minority, thank God. The majority of us feel that women should not die for your religious views. Keep your women enslaved but let us be free.
Of course… in the part of the world where you seem to be comfortable the male is the owner of the piece of property that just happens to have the womb. Birth control has always been the responsibility of the woman, and warlike rampaging men who came into new communities typically raped the female inhabitants of those communities so that biologically their line would continue, and the men in those communities would typically be killed thus ending their lines. Lions do that in the wild. They are animals and they exist to eat, sleep and reproduce – regardless of the females willingness. That is what you are talking about whether you care to admit it or not. The female body to you is something that is to be possessed, dominated and controlled.
And by the way – you have strayed from the topic of this column which had to do with the inappropriate behavior of some adults who felt the need to foist their beliefs on minor children. And you are now doing the same to the rest of us.
David Porter;
If we had the foreknowledge that a child would be abused, neglected, raped, sold, enslaved, starved, or murdered, would that be justification to not allow them to live?
A spectator with just an opinion? There was a certain man who was obviously insane. He was driving down the road with his toddler when he stopped the car, took out the toddler and in front of a crowd, started punching and kicking the toddler, because he believed the child was the devil. Now, assume I was right there. Would I not have an obligation to save the child by any means necessary? Should I just remain a “spectator”? What I’m doing, in arguing FOR life, amounts to me yelling at the man while he is killing his child, and you insist I don’t even possess the moral authority to do that.
That speaks to the level the conversation has sunken too. A human has no right to argue for the life of another human. How cold is your heart?
YADID: Do you even know what SLIPPERY SLOPE and RED HERRING arguments are? You argument boarders on the crazy. You are trying to equate two totally different things. Answer my qyestion about miscarriages and stillbirths.
Once again, stillbirths and miscarriages happen of their own volition. Your arguments are specious and I find them as borderline insane as you find mine. So here we are. Why not err on the side that would allow a child to live?
What have you done to mitigate the suffering and neglect of the ones already here?
You can certainly talk all you want about forcing your will on someone else, but unless you have a dog in the fight you are nothing but a spectator.
Why aren’t you out there trying to help the child who is alive NOW and being forced to live hungry, homeless, and/or abused? Make this country a better place first. The majority of the “4,000” children you want to save hold no intrest for you once they are here and need help.
A Mom; My, aren’t we being a little presumptive in your understanding of my cares and concerns? I love mankind, especially children. They are gifts and a joy to be around, and I would be a pretty shallow individual if I spoke of stopping the murder of the unborn, while not caring at all about the children that are here.
Irregardless, would it change that fact that babies are being murdered, if I didn’t care? Wouldn’t they still be allowed to have the life they were given, if I were a savage and couldn’t possibly care less about them? Your equating their right to life with my capacity to love and care for them, which seems ridiculous, wouldn’t you agree?
YADID: A zygote only has potential for life. If a zygote cannot live on its own, it is NOT an unborn child. If it were the church would hold a mass for miscarriages and bury them in a cemetary which they don’t. Are you the Pope now?
Proud to be Liberal; Good gravy! Arguing with you is like arguing with a petulent three year old 🙂 So, life only has value if it can sustain itself? So now we have to murder all people with Downs Syndrome, all people on ventilators, all children, all emotionally ill people, all dumb people, all welfare recipients, all prisoners, etc, etc. Basically anyone who can’t survive on their own and requires the assistance of other people to stay alive.
You’re all hung up on the miscarriages thing, aren’t you? It’s like this. A miscarriage happens because of an accident, not a willfull action. The murder of the unborn happens because the mother has made a decision to stop the life of the child in her womb. The two are not even remotely similar. One is a tragedy and one is a murder. Irregardless, does the fact that miscarriages happen, change the fact that the baby in the womb deserves life? Sheesh.
YADID: Arguing with you is like arguing with a post. “So now we have to murder all people with Downs Syndrome, all people on ventilators, all children, all emotionally ill people, all dumb people, all welfare recipients, all prisoners, etc, etc.” You are attempting to equate two dissimilar actions. You are using a False Dilemma and Appeal to emotion arguments.
These are SOPHOMORIC tactics and intellectually-dishonest debate tactics that are typically employed by dishonest politicians, lawyers of guilty parties, dishonest salespeople, cads, cults, and others who are attempting to perpetrate a fraud (e.g., the Tea Party would be an example, Hitler would be another – see what I said about propaganda strategies).
You are using a slogan, murdering babies, rather than using facts or logic. But I get it, emotion is all you have. But don’t think I’ll fall for it. (If I am for murdering babies, you are for murdering women.) You see neither conclusion is correct, but it arouses emotion which is all you can do. You also are using Argument from Intimidation tactics which is appeal to moral self-doubt and its reliance on the fear, guilt or ignorance. Please give it a rest. You are entitled to your religious beliefs, but so am I and I resent you trying to shove them down the throats of children during your demonstrations in front of schools. For shame!
Yadid,
Arguing with Proud is throwing pearls before, well, you know. The argument has nothing to do with adoption. The argument seems to have segued from the question “Was what the demonstrators did appropriate?” to “Is abortion murder?”
I don’t think it was appropriate to do what they did but I do understand why the did it. I am as opposed to abortion as anyone. I believe it is murder. I don’t differentiate between which trimester, partial birth or whatever. Anyone who can watch an abortion and believe that it is simply a harmless medical procedure is morally bankrupt. No matter what the law says or what the courts have ruled, in my view it fits exactly the definition of premeditated murder performed by the abortionist at the request of the mother. Murder for hire.
Proud has an agenda and part of it is to support abortions. But he doesn’t want anyone to see the results and he would never want to assume accountability for the long term emotional distress suffered by women who have an abortion. He doesn’t believe there are any long term emotional problems. In his view it’s just getting rid of this inconvenient little thing.
Thank you for standing up for what is right. And let’s not have people think this is a ‘right wing Christian radical’ thing. It is moral vs. immoral, right vs. wrong, no matter your religious beliefs, or even if you have none. The child’s life is ended, the mother has been harmed but the main thing is that the agenda has been advanced. The mother and child are just unfortunate collateral damage sacrificed for the greater good.
Proud to be liberal; If I didn’t feel emotion about this subject, I would be a sociopath. My arguments are in direct reply to your posits and calling them red herrings and sophomoric and slippery slopes are all subjective statements. You pose a “what if” such as “a zygote cannot survive on it’s own” and when I answer that insane statement, you respond in some type of protocol infraction or label my answers as propaganda. Believe me when I tell you, I know nothing of the intellectual rules in arguing, nor would it be possible for me to care less. The discussion is about the taking of innocent lives, and, yes, I’m passionate about not murdering babies. How could I not be?
YADID: Yes you clearly are emotional about your beliefs, but so was Tomás de Torquemada. You two have much in common!
ALEX R: “Proud has an agenda and part of it is to support abortions.” This is the type of overgeneralization you people use instead of logic and facts. You make sweeping generalizations, laden with emotional and incendiary words such as “murder” “moral vs. immoral, right vs. wrong” and other meaningless labels. This is a topic that has been judged by the people and they have voted against your views and for mine: get over Dude.
My agenda is to free women from men’s domination. I am for the end of death by back street abortions. I am for the end of you shoving your religious beliefs down the throats of innocent children. And let’s stop calling you folks anti-abortionists, you represent anti-privacy and anti-freedom.
I don’t think you are savage and everyone should care greatly. You have done more than most by adopting children. I apologize, it’s not people like you I’m frustrated with and I should not have lumped you in with them. You HAVE taken action.
Changing the laws will not feed, house or protect the vulnerable. Everyone has a right to life. I won’t argue when life starts. If all the people who care about the right to life took action then we would not need laws changed.
Our social service system is broken and the people of our country want it to take care of the unwanted children. Those protesters need to look into WHY a woman or girl would make that decision. Stop looking to the govt. and congress to solve the problem.
Good for them if they have enough conviction to stand in public and wave their opinion on a sign for all to see. Millions of people feel the way they do. How many would be willing to sacrifice time, money, and/or a place in there homes for these children? Not nearly enough. They are not looking for a solution. It’s easy to place blame. They might as well march around and protest hunger but blame farmers who can’t afford seed or control the weather.
Change is slow but it starts at home.
A Mom; We have to answer the most basic question, before we can even look into the what’s, how’s and who’s. That question is, ” What is the value of a human life and if that life process begins the second the sperm penetrates the ovum, at what point, if any, should we condone halting that process thus terminating that life”?
If we value life, it doesn’t matter what circumstances that baby is born into. We do not possess the moral authority to say they cannot live because their mother is not willing or able or ready to carry their growing bodies for nine months. If they are poor, or disabled, or impaired, or whatever, they still have the right to be born and live the life they possess. How can it be possible that this life has absolutely no say in whether they are allowed to live as other human beings are?
You and I were allowed to be born. Forty million babies didn’t have that opportunity.
I refer you to Monty Python’s Meaning of Life. In the episode where Michael Palin returns home to his abundant family living in a tenement he is greeted by all his progeny and tell the assembled children that because the mill is closed he has to now sell all the children off for scientific experimentation. He then breaks into song talking about the wonders of God: “Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great, if a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate…”.
I’m sure you can look it up on YouTube if you care to. It was very funny and I’m sure it will just tickle your fancy.
In a perfect world you are spot on right. The thing is, you said “If we value life” and that is the key. Value the lives of children that ARE HERE NOW and maybe less abortions would be needed. The protester who marched in front of school are not valuing the lives of those children. They see a faceless group that needs to be FRIGHTENED into believing a certain way.
The people who focus on clinics and medical practitioners as the source of the problem are fools. The ones who would would harm these people and places will be judged by God. God will see the ugliness, and hate in the heart of those protesters. I saw the signs they held up. They may be kind wonderful human beings but that’s not what they put out there for the world to see.
You hammer on how selfish these women are over 9 months of discomfort. Did you adopt those children when they were 18 yrs old? You could not have adopted them if you were not able to provided for them. We live in a society that does not value children’s lives. The choice to have a child is a lifetime commitment as you know.
Those protested should be ashamed of themselves for showing those signs to anyone. It’s not about truth and it’s not about Love for the unborn. I didn’t see any love.
A MOM: You are correct. But please understand that these people are media whores whose only objective is to garner as much publicity as possible and proselytizing their religious dogma. If you don’t agree to it, you are a “murderer of babies.” Their strategy is to use incendiary words and disgusting graphics meant to frighten children. You are also correct in your assertion that they do not care for unwanted children and certainly would not adopt a minority child. (For the record I have.) I consider them beneath contempt because of their hypocrisy, their tactics and their disregard for innocent children.
Proud, You said that I “make sweeping generalizations, laden with emotional and incendiary words such as “murder” “moral vs. immoral, right vs. wrong” and other meaningless labels.” That is a direct quote from you lifted in context from your post.
You have come to a point in your life where right vs. wrong and moral vs. immoral are meaningless labels. You actually believe that? May whatever god you believe in, if any, show you mercy. It makes me weep to realize that there are people in the world who stand by and approve, even encourage, the termination of innocent lfe. I have not heard of such cruelty since the Shoah.
ALEX R: There are meaningless because you use them in lieu of facts, reason and decency. You can only condemn anyone with whom you disagree in your religious parlance. I consider “religious” people who are hypocrites through their actions as depraved. What you have done in your sadistic demonstration is disgusting. Your condemnation of me is meaningless because you are meaningless to me.
@Proud to be Liberal – You’ve cornered the market insignificance, meaninglessness and ignorance.
PORTER: Coming from you that is a compliment. Thanks.
I’d say your welcome but it would be senseless…er I mean to say meaningless.
Seriously, a woman CAN do anything she wants with her own body… but does that mean she has the right to take a life?- no. I believe that if you aren’t ready for a child as of yet or you just don’t want any, get your tubes tied or just don’t have sex. It’s really annoying watching people fight and argue over something that is really pointless; abortion is taking a life… people may think that since a baby isn’t born yet that they still have time to fix the issue, but that issue in your tummy is a living human being. Maybe not fully developed but still there, it’s just like when a teenager hits a growth spurt over summer break or during school. Not everyone understands that abortion is just like stabbing someone in the heart, they have feelings and that’s a SIN. No one has the right to take a life but GOD; yea it’s your body and you have a choice (just like you have a choice to have sex) but trust me when I say that that choice is the biggest mistake you could ever make. If you can lay there and do the do then you should be able to take care of the deed. And I’m a woman in case any of you were wondering… K I’m out!
It’s between her, her God and her Doctor. You do not have a say in the matter; because it’s not your uterus. Different religions have different views on the matter just as different people do. You have an opinion and that is all you have. If you want to exercise your right to choose life you may do so when you become pregnant. Anything else is merely treating a female as a reproductive vessel with little more value than a man’s property.
David A. Porter: Well put Dave!