Behavior at abortion clinic

[goofyjim]

If we cannot win this through peaceful protests, meaning no physicla or verbal threats, then we cannot win it at all. Yelling names at the women going in does not do the trick and I would never participate in that. Simply stand across the street and pray the Rosary. Let Our Lady do the rest.

 

[Danny_OC]

Simply stand across the street …

This disgusts me

 

[leftistdestroye]

Yelling at these women most likely makes them feel more afraid, and also causes them to see the protester as the enemy. Also, screaming rude and/or threatening message could possibly constitute as a form of harassment.

They already see us as the enemy, so who cares if we now make them feel afraid? And I plan on harassing them as much as I can. I don’t give a ****, they are killing innocent lives.

 

[leftistdestroye]

Yelling names at the women going in does not do the trick

Well, it used to. At least when society declared it unacceptable.

 

[kalt]

The same was true for the Nazis in Germany with regard to Jews.

Now, I haven’t compared the women to Nazis, but what I do indeed think is a good comparison is Roe v Wade to the holocaust.

I have never ascribed motives to the women who get abortions, I have said that their INTENT is to kill the baby. I said nothing about their mindset. But their intent is 100% undeniable. They know they’re getting an abortion.

And if you are right, that many of them “don’t know” that it is killing a baby, maybe exactly what we need is some people yelling that fact to them on their way in. Reason says that a little bit of a risk of making them feel bad is not as bad as the risk that they may be murdering a baby without knowing it.

Well, you did compare these women to Nazis, saying they were like the Nazis killing the Jews. That was a very clear statement.

And you did ascribe Nazi-like motives to them, saying that, like the Nazis wanted to kill the Jews, they want to kill their babies.

You can say that someone has the “intent” to murder, unless murder is the motive. And for murder to be their intent, they have to believe that abortion is killing a baby. They don’t believe that.

Remember the social climate. These people look around them and see that the US legalized abortion and that many intelligent people support “abortion rights”. They know that in the US, murder is illegal. They think, herefore, that abortion must not be murder.

That is a very powerful thing to overcome. You’re not going to overcome that by screaming “loser” at someone.

They need education. “Loser” is not educational.

It’s true that people thought that murdering Jews was justified. They knew it was murder. They knew they were killing a human being. They thought that those people were a lower race, but they knew they were people. They knew they were murdering a living, breathing person.

With abortion, they don’t believe they are murdering a person. They don’t believe, even, that they are killing anything. They don’t consider it alive. They don’t consider it an individual being.

 

[kalt]

Well, it used to. At least when society declared it unacceptable.

And that’s the point. Our society does consider abortion acceptable. Not only acceptable, but legal. The women going in don’t only have the legal right to do this, they are protected by the police from those who think it’s wrong.

Think about the message that sends to the women going in, and to those who may become pregnant in the future.

If anyone thinks that screaming and otherwise behaving badly at the clinics is a good thing, think about that scene.

The police are there to protect the women from you. The authority figures in our cities are there to protect the women from the screamers.

If prolife people hadn’t behaved badly at the clinics, we wouldn’ t have the police protecting the people they (the prolifers) are saying are committing murder.

Think about the last image these women see as they enter the clinic–police there to escort them into the clinic, protecting them from those who are telling them that they’re killing a baby.

If that doesn’t send the message that the people outside the clinic are the ones the woman needs to be afraid of, I don’t know what does.

The screamers have seen to it that this is set up so that the prolifers have to fight an uphill battle now. The police are there to hold them back, as if they’re a bunch of lunatics. That makes it look like the people in the clinic, the ones who will perform the murder, are the good guys!!!

Behave yourselves, ladies and gentlemen, if you want to have any credibility with those going in.

 

[Danny_OC]

Well, you did compare these women to Nazis, saying they were like the Nazis killing the Jews. That was a very clear statement.
I could be wrong but I don’t recall being the one to bring up this comparison
And you did ascribe Nazi-like motives to them, saying that, like the Nazis wanted to kill the Jews, they want to kill their babies.

You can say that someone has the “intent” to murder, unless murder is the motive. And for murder to be their intent, they have to believe that abortion is killing a baby. They don’t believe that.

Remember the social climate. These people look around them and see that the US legalized abortion and that many intelligent people support “abortion rights”. They know that in the US, murder is illegal. They think, herefore, that abortion must not be murder.

That is a very powerful thing to overcome. You’re not going to overcome that by screaming “loser” at someone.

if it has more than a 0% chance of working (which is precisely the odds of your method working when you were there) then they deserve far more praise than you

They need education. “Loser” is not educational.

It’s true that people thought that murdering Jews was justified. They knew it was murder. They knew they were killing a human being. They thought that those people were a lower race, but they knew they were people. They knew they were murdering a living, breathing person.

With abortion, they don’t believe they are murdering a person. They don’t believe, even, that they are killing anything. They don’t consider it alive. They don’t consider it an individual being.

That isn’t what intent and motive mean.

Intent in law is the planning and desire to perform an act

Meaning: you can believe an action is not murder; but if it is murder, you still *intend *to murder if you purposefully undergo this certain action.

In law, especially criminal law, a motive is the cause that moves people and induce a certain action.

Meaning: these women probably are not moved by a desire to kill, but more likely a desire to avoid inconvenience.

The only way a woman getting an abortion could not *intend *to murder would be if A. abortion were not murder (which it is) or B. she didn’t know she was going to get an abortion, instead the doctor just did it.

And if your first post was correct, the men didn’t just scream “loser,” they indicated their opinion that going into the abortion clinic would make them a loser; hence they should not go in. Not a bad fact for a woman intent to murder a baby to know.

The bottom line I’m afraid is; you need to sort your priorities. Start being more concerned with preventing the gruesome lethal mutilation of an innocent baby than with preventing the possibility of hurting a woman’s feelings a little bit.

Now, I can understand if you think their methods are not effective, and avoid using them yourself. That’s fine. But you’re going far beyond that. You are bashing these men for doing it, while you stood by idly doing nothing. You seem to have more of a problem with yelling than you do with murder. I don’t even recall seeing you condemn abortion on this thread. I am also unclear as to what facts you are basing your stance “yelling achieves nothing” on. It seems you don’t even have much experience to go by; as the people here who *do *have experience have stated that yelling can work. All of your arguments on this thread are so utterly unjustifiable in every sense…

 

[kalt]

That isn’t what intent and motive mean.

Meaning: you can believe an action is not murder; but if it is murder, you still *intend *to murder if you purposefully undergo this certain action.

Meaning: these women probably are not moved by a desire to kill, but more likely a desire to avoid inconvenience.

The only way a woman getting an abortion could not *intend *to murder would be if A. abortion were not murder (which it is) or B. she didn’t know she was going to get an abortion, instead the doctor just did it.

And if your first post was correct, the men didn’t just scream “loser,” they indicated their opinion that going into the abortion clinic would make them a loser; hence they should not go in. Not a bad fact for a woman intent to murder a baby to know.

The bottom line I’m afraid is; you need to sort your priorities. Start being more concerned with preventing the gruesome lethal mutilation of an innocent baby than with preventing the possibility of hurting a woman’s feelings a little bit.

Now, I can understand if you think their methods are not effective, and avoid using them yourself. That’s fine. But you’re going far beyond that. You are bashing these men for doing it, while you stood by idly doing nothing. You seem to have more of a problem with yelling than you do with murder. I don’t even recall seeing you condemn abortion on this thread. I am also unclear as to what facts you are basing your stance “yelling achieves nothing” on. It seems you don’t even have much experience to go by; as the people here who *do *have experience have stated that yelling can work. All of your arguments on this thread are so utterly unjustifiable in every sense…

“The only way a woman getting an abortion could not intend to murder would be if A. abortion were not murder (which it is) or”

Legally it is not murder. So your whole argument is wrong.

 

[kalt]

That isn’t what intent and motive mean.

Meaning: you can believe an action is not murder; but if it is murder, you still *intend *to murder if you purposefully undergo this certain action.

Meaning: these women probably are not moved by a desire to kill, but more likely a desire to avoid inconvenience.

The only way a woman getting an abortion could not *intend *to murder would be if A. abortion were not murder (which it is) or B. she didn’t know she was going to get an abortion, instead the doctor just did it.

And if your first post was correct, the men didn’t just scream “loser,” they indicated their opinion that going into the abortion clinic would make them a loser; hence they should not go in. Not a bad fact for a woman intent to murder a baby to know.

The bottom line I’m afraid is; you need to sort your priorities. Start being more concerned with preventing the gruesome lethal mutilation of an innocent baby than with preventing the possibility of hurting a woman’s feelings a little bit.

Now, I can understand if you think their methods are not effective, and avoid using them yourself. That’s fine. But you’re going far beyond that. You are bashing these men for doing it, while you stood by idly doing nothing. You seem to have more of a problem with yelling than you do with murder. I don’t even recall seeing you condemn abortion on this thread. I am also unclear as to what facts you are basing your stance “yelling achieves nothing” on. It seems you don’t even have much experience to go by; as the people here who *do *have experience have stated that yelling can work. All of your arguments on this thread are so utterly unjustifiable in every sense…

BTW, my OP isn’t about setting priorities. It was about men screaming “loser” at women going into a clinic.

And, FWIW, that has nothing to do with anything I have or haven’t done about abortion.

I commented that it was wrong for those men to scream at people, and your only defense is to point a finger at me, saying “Well, at least they did something.”

Well, that’s not the questions. It’s not about what they did vs what someone else (me or anyone else) did or didn’t do. It’s about *their" actions.

 

[Danny_OC]

“The only way a woman getting an abortion could not intend to murder would be if A. abortion were not murder (which it is) or”

Legally it is not murder. So your whole argument is wrong.

Whether or not something is legal does not define whether or not something is murder; again, here is one situation where the Nazi comparison clearly works. Killing jews was legal during the holocaust. It was still murder.

 

[Danny_OC]

BTW, my OP isn’t about setting priorities. It was about men screaming “loser” at women going into a clinic.

And, FWIW, that has nothing to do with anything I have or haven’t done about abortion.

I commented that it was wrong for those men to scream at people, and your only defense is to point a finger at me, saying “Well, at least they did something.”

Well, that’s not the questions. It’s not about what they did vs what someone else (me or anyone else) did or didn’t do. It’s about *their" actions.

And as I’ve said: evidence exists to support the claim that it can work (I am still waiting for evidence to support your claim that it never does); therefore I will gladly risk making a woman feel a little bad if it means even a slight chance of saving a baby’s life.

 

[kalt]

Whether abortion is legal or not, we know it is an absolute evil and is always wrong. Simply because the secular society accepts it, it doesn’t make it right.

The problem currently is that for over 30 years…we have been “gentle” with women…showing them love and kindness…so much so that its consider no big deal today for women to murder their own.

How are we supposed to get society to change, if we refuse to show and demonstrate the horror of it? When we act as if its really “no big deal”…why would we think anyone would suddenly reconsider and realize that it is an immoral act??

We want people, including politicians, to recognize it for what it is…immoral, yet…we refuse to allow anyone to see the real horror of it and we make statements like the one above…“well, its legal”…sigh…

Once upon a time it was legal to own another person in slavery…did it make it right simply because it was legal?

I wonder who you are writing to. Nothing in your post addresses anything I’ve said.

 

[kalt]

I’m talking about the baby. The baby is dead after an abortion. Can’t even repent if you’re dead.

Well, the baby wouldn’t need to repent, would he???

This sub-topic was about the screamer’s screaming because they want to save the women from comitting a sin and going to Hell.

Someone claimed that that was the motive for screaming at her–that they were doing it for her own good, to save her.

I suggested that they then should also be standing outside the no-tell motels where plenty of women are comitting sins that will also land them in Hell.

Someone then said that they don’t scream at people going into the no-tells, because it’s about the severity of the sin. But both sins result in an eternal sentence to Hell. People will scream at “Jill” when she’s going into an abortion clinic, but will look the other way when “Jill” (the very same woman) pulls into the no-tell.

It’s not about the mother, it’s about the baby, and as I said in a much earlier post, the women know it.

 

[Danny_OC]

Well, the baby wouldn’t need to repent, would he???

This sub-topic was about the screamer’s screaming because they want to save the women from comitting a sin and going to Hell.

Someone claimed that that was the motive for screaming at her–that they were doing it for her own good, to save her.

I suggested that they then should also be standing outside the no-tell motels where plenty of women are comitting sins that will also land them in Hell.

Someone then said that they don’t scream at people going into the no-tells, because it’s about the severity of the sin. But both sins result in an eternal sentence to Hell. People will scream at “Jill” when she’s going into an abortion clinic, but will look the other way when “Jill” (the very same woman) pulls into the no-tell.

It’s not about the mother, it’s about the baby, and as I said in a much earlier post, the women know it.

It’s about both the mother and the baby; but the consequences for the baby is the source of this particular situation’s unique urgency.

 

[kalt]

I’d be screaming at you if I saw you in person.

I will never “learn” to deal with injustice. I will fight and end it, wherever and whenever I see it. And if you or anyone else get’s in my way, then, I am sorry for you. If this was ever voted on, it may be another story to many.

It’s bad law.

1. In Roe, the court actually said that there is no absolute right to privacy.
2. Nothing in the Court’s opinion indicates that Texas might not constitutionally apply its proscription of abortion as written to a woman in that stage of pregnancy. Nonetheless, the Court uses her complaint against the Texas statute as a fulcrum for deciding that States may [p172] impose virtually no restrictions on medical abortions performed during the first trimester of pregnancy. In deciding such a hypothetical lawsuit, the Court departs from the longstanding admonition that it should never “formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied.” Liverpool, New York & Philadelphia S.S. Co. v. Commissioners of Emigration, 113 U.S. 33, 39 (1885). See also Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288, 345 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring).
3. Nor is the “privacy” that the Court finds here even a distant relative of the freedom from searches and seizures protected by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which the Court has referred to as embodying a right to privacy. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
4. To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. Conn.Stat., Tit. 22, §§ 14, 16. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth [p175] Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion.
5. The decision here to break pregnancy into three distinct terms and to outline the permissible restrictions the State may impose in each one, for example, partakes more of judicial legislation than it does of a determination of the intent of the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment.
6. The Texas statute is struck down in toto, even though the Court apparently concedes that, at later periods of pregnancy Texas might impose these self-same statutory limitations on abortion. My understanding of past practice is that a statute found [p178] to be invalid as applied to a particular plaintiff, but not unconstitutional as a whole, is not simply “struck down” but is, instead, declared unconstitutional as applied to the fact situation before the Court. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356"]118 U.S. 356 (1886); 118 U.S. 356 (1886); Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576 (1969).

REHNQUIST, J., Dissenting Opinion

Roe was not only bad law, but it is judicial tyranny! It actually “legislated” certain aspects of abortion! It disregarded certain precidents in favor of their own personal views. It warped the 14th amendment, as it was intended.

Politicians have failed us, and millions of lives! Time to take matters into our own hands and actually get something done. And one more thing, you, stay the hell out of my way!

“I’d be screaming at you if I saw you in person.”

And I wouldn’t listen to you.

If you choose to address me with respect, I will listen to what you have to say. I may not agree with you, even after you’ve given your best argument, but I will listen.

If you choose to scream, I will turn away and wonder what happened in your life that as an adult you can’t address someone you disagree with without screaming. I will figure that you need therapy and hope that somedau you get it, and will become a happier and more self-assured person. .

Good luck,.

 

[Danny_OC]

kalt:

I will figure that you need therapy…

I wonder if you would figure this of Jesus when he cleared the temple of the moneychangers

 

[DebChris]

Gospel of mercy needed by those who’ve divorced, had abortions, pope says.**** This is the headline about Pope Benedict XVI’s remarks to an international conference on the aftermath of abortion and divorce (Our Sunday Visitor).
“…abortion in particular produces ‘devastating consequences’ for the woman involved, for the family and for society…”
Both are outrages against God. “At the same time, the pope said, the Church recognizes that such decisions are often made in dramatic and difficult circumstances and that they bring suffering to those who committ them.”
Regardless of our views about the horror of aborticide, we are called to demonstrate Christ’s compassion, not judgment.
We are to speak the truth in love.

 

[Danny_OC]

Gospel of mercy needed by those who’ve divorced, had abortions, pope says.**** This is the headline about Pope Benedict XVI’s remarks to an international conference on the aftermath of abortion and divorce (Our Sunday Visitor).
“…abortion in particular produces ‘devastating consequences’ for the woman involved, for the family and for society…”
Both are outrages against God. “At the same time, the pope said, the Church recognizes that such decisions are often made in dramatic and difficult circumstances and that they bring suffering to those who committ them.”
Regardless of our views about the horror of aborticide, we are called to demonstrate Christ’s compassion, not judgment.
We are to speak the truth in love.

Everything Jesus did was with love… but as referenced in my previous post, he still expressed fury and emotion at the moneychangers in the temple.

Don’t confuse unconditional politeness with righteousness.

 

[kalt]

Why can’t you provide an equivilant analogy? Abortion is murdering the product of that encounter at the motel.

Did you hear that somewhere recently? rotfl

I suggested that, since some trips to abortion clinics really begin at encounters in no-tell motels, those who are concerned with the salvation of the women should be standing outside the motels screaming at the women.

 

[Jennifer123]

Young girls today are not taught how to say No. They receive mixed messages from the media and elsewhere.

Thank you for this - this is so true. This is what I hear so much about the criticism and misunderstanding of abstinence education - that a pithy statement saying abstinence is the only 100% foolproof method of avoiding pregnancy is equal to an education about saying “no” to sex.

It is so much more than that - but I guess if we could really teach kids to say no to sex and teaching them to believe that our bodies serve for more purpose than personal pleasure and recreation, well, we’d be making moral judgements. And secularists just don’t want that.