Video: Pro-life memorial destroyed because abortion’s a right and you’re not allowed to challenge that
posted at 3:36 pm on May 7, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
This principle was codified, I believe, in the “You’re Not Allowed to Disagree Act of 2002.” In defense of our hero, he’s just following his political instincts: He sees something that challenges his beliefs and, voila, down it goes. Think of it as the Fairness Doctrine for campus protests.
And before you ask, no, your right to free speech that he’s challenging doesn’t count. Exit question one: This sort of makes sense by Doug Kmiec standards, no? Exit question two: “If there’s a student on this campus that … might be having an abortion, might be going through this, you’re going to put this up in front of them? Are you crazy?”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 [2] 3 »
Ah can’t wait for the SCOTUS to rule on the 2nd amendment. assuming that they will rule it is an individual right, by this guys logic the government cannot take my guns away or challenge what guns I can own since it is a constitutional right.
However I am sure he would not apply that same logic to the 2nd. oh well.
jharada on May 7, 2008 at 5:34 PM
It’s fine to value human life, and I understand the demographic problem but I still can’t fathom the call for a public outcry about abortion to the point of taking extreme measures or demonstrations. There are many ways to get the message out without causing more problems and rising tensions. Is that too much to ask?
Indy Conservative on May 7, 2008 at 5:36 PM
But I suppose an anti-war display in front of someone who has just lost a family member is ok, right?
crosspatch on May 7, 2008 at 5:37 PM
I wonder if these folks will be arrested & charged with a crime like Larry Norther did?
Cheesestick on May 7, 2008 at 5:37 PM
I’ll repeat what I said over at MM’s site when I first saw this…
Leave the crosses on the ground, and explain that a Pro Abortion advocate is the one who threw the crosses to the ground… just like they throw those souls away when they murder a child…
Anti free speech and anti christian all in one neat package.
Romeo13 on May 7, 2008 at 5:38 PM
Hmmm…
Second thought… is this not HATE Speech? is he not desecrating a religious symbol? And on a college campus?
Romeo13 on May 7, 2008 at 5:39 PM
Funny how this young black man of 2008, expounding on a 7 to 2 ruling by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade sounds EXACTLY like the white southern slaveholders of 1858 expounding on a 7 to 2 ruling by the Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sanford. “Slaveholding/ abortion is a Constitutional right! And that means you have no right to challenge it!”
radjah shelduck on May 7, 2008 at 5:45 PM
Liberal tolerance at it’s finest.
RightWinged on May 7, 2008 at 5:49 PM
You can’t fathom these people publicly expressing their opinion that abortion is immoral? If you watch the video, it appears the problems and tension were coming from the student ripping out the crosses, not those who planted them. Is it too much to ask that fellow (and perhaps you) to respect the views of others?
I’m perplexed that you seem to disapprove of pro-lifers holding demonstrations. What else would you have them do?
KGB on May 7, 2008 at 5:51 PM
Help me here. Where in the constitution does it say that? It must be somewhere close to where it says I have the right to privacy. I just can’t find it.
I did notice that in the Declaration of Independence, the founding document upon which the Constitution is based says quite clearly:
Guardian on May 7, 2008 at 5:57 PM
Abortion isn’t a private decision any more than it is a private decision when a murderer make the private decision to break into your private home to kill you.
Any decision that takes the life of another human being is not a private decision. Don’t even get started on the “my body” happy hogwash: 1: we already have laws restricting what people can do with their bodies 2: The entire “my body” argument is irrelevant. A human being is destroyed in an abortion every single time, except those times when they are born alive, in which case Barack Obama still wants them to die on a stone cold operating room table.
Spare me the happy libertarian BS on abortion. Liberty does not include the liberty to snuff out someone else’s right.
BKennedy on May 7, 2008 at 6:01 PM
Demonstrating is fine, but it depends of the ‘how.’
Now, seriously, what in the world planting crosses can do?
Let’s use common sense here.
I think there are better ways to tell people that abortion is wrong, don’t do it, without being silly or stupid.
Indy Conservative on May 7, 2008 at 6:03 PM
This country is still living it’s puritanism.
But again, I think there shouldn’t be any federal regulations against personal decisions. If you want to apply criminal law, I have no problem with that, but we shouldn’t go overboard and have a hysteria about that issue when it’s more of a personal decision than a collective one.
Indy Conservative on May 7, 2008 at 6:08 PM
Just curious. What’s your opinion of Capital Punishment?
Guardian on May 7, 2008 at 6:11 PM
*snaps fingers* ….Hated it!
The Ugly American on May 7, 2008 at 6:17 PM
I don’t mind test questions.
I believe prison time is more torturous to those who deserve it than relieving them from their miseries.
I have some exceptions, especially with the Muslim terrorists whom I’d like to take care of them myself. It will be gross to tell you here what I’d do to them.
Indy Conservative on May 7, 2008 at 6:18 PM
Me either, which is why I think the government should cease all federal funding to Planned Parenthood immediately, and the MA legislature should rescind abortion co-pays. In fact, I’d like them to tax Planned Parenthood into the ground for all the social costs they engender.
Any application of criminal law would be directed at abortion providers and abortion doctors. I’d offer legal immunity to any woman who would testify against an abortionist or a provider. They have damaged her body, mind, and soul irreperably for a quick buck in the name of altruism, or, more sickly, “choice.”
What kind of sicko offers state-sanctioned slaughter of her own child as a legitimate moral choice?
BKennedy on May 7, 2008 at 6:21 PM
For a guy that calls himself a conservative you sure are well versed in all the liberal claptrap and quick to regurgitate it. Fifty million dead children is a public matter and those opposing it are exercising a civic and moral duty. Roe v. Wade was bad law, just like the laws of Germany that extinguished so many Jewish lives and it was done “lawfully.” Or was that a private matter too?
So you admit it’s a “crime” ….. how interesting.
I guess you need to read the Ten Commandments again, which Jesus advocated, there is one in there about “Thou shalt Not Kill.” So Jesus DID talk about it.
Even Jesus was not “moderate” when he kicked the money changers out of the Temple. There is a time for righteous indignation and if not after such a monumental loss of life… then when? The Bible also teaches your not suppose to allow your neighbor to be attacked and do nothing. Abortion is clearly much worst than that, so I don’t know what Bible you are reading.
Maxx on May 7, 2008 at 6:23 PM
Sue abortion clinics, I don’t care.
My point is:
A woman has chosen to go there, she made that decision and anything wrong that might have happened to her should be her responsibility, not the government’s.
Indy Conservative on May 7, 2008 at 6:24 PM
That’s actually a good point. As Milton said: what liberals want is not freedom, but license. In the case of gay marriage, I suppose that’s taken to its literal extreme: liberals want society’s stamp of approval put on a sexual fetish.
But I don’t think it’s entirely accurate to say that liberals “have” the desire to impose their perversions upon normal people. That’s what liberalism IS: the monomaniacal urge to warp society to fit around your personal defects. That urge defines all of liberalism; liberals don’t “have” that urge; at its core, liberalism IS that urge.
I mean, think about it: what on earth do things like Communism, homosexuality, Atheism and - for crying out loud - vegetarianism have in common? Sure, greed, sexual fetishes, religious intolerance and - yes - even unhealthy dietary obsessions are faults to which everyone is prone. They’re all things that normal people attempt to control - or at the very least to keep out of public view.
But liberals take the opposite approach; they take what should be relatively harmless peccadilloes and treat them as virtues - eventually expanding them to the point where they become sociopathic “lifestyles.”
That’s because Liberalism is subjectivism. Liberals know that guilt feels bad. But instead of addressing the anti-social behavior that causes the feeling in the way that any normal person would, liberals see only the feeling itself as the problem. And they address it without regard to any outside reference - by redefining reality.
Abortion is by far the most extreme example of this. Of course it’s impossible for anyone, even a serial killer, to rationalize such an abomination as the killing of an unborn child. So, like the guy in Silence of the Lambs, liberals simply re-define their target: “IT puts on the lotion…” or by the same token, “IT gets burned alive by saline.” They can’t possible face that moral choice - so they simply define it out of existence.
In other words, as utterly insane as it sounds, liberals never see themselves as twisted; instead, they see the rest of the world through their internal prisms. So believe it or not, when you try to stop them, they see YOU as the monster.
logis on May 7, 2008 at 6:25 PM
Puritanism? This country? Boy what planet do you live on? Do you know what a television is? Watched one in the past 15 years or so? You just saw a Crazy-ass openly Gay dude go romping through a legally permitted display of crosses which he ripped up and threw away under the supervision of police and you say we are still puritanical? HAHAHAHAHAHA
Guardian on May 7, 2008 at 6:26 PM
I understand your enthusiasm, but again, I do not want the government to interfere in people’s private life. That is all.
If abortion clinics are funded by the government, it’s wrong.
If a woman chose to have abortion, she shouldn’t be punished.
As for my personal opinion, again, I think abortion is wrong, it is murder, it’s unbiblical.
But that is MY opinion and do not want to impose it on anybody.
Indy Conservative on May 7, 2008 at 6:29 PM
Yes, and the proof is this topic.
Indy Conservative on May 7, 2008 at 6:31 PM
If you are amiable to killing innocent babies but against the killing of monsters then that my friend is the very definition of insanity. Once such hypocrisy is accepted as normal in your own mind, you are forever caught in an illogical loop of ever dwindling morality. Right and wrong become blurred to the point that there is no right or wrong. When that happens you become an Anti-American liberal.
I think you are tottering on the brink my friend and I seriously doubt that you actually understand the concept of conservatism. Sort of like how you don’t understand the meaning of Puritanism.
Guardian on May 7, 2008 at 6:35 PM
How do I know that my female neighbor had an abortion last night in her home where she flushed the fetus and that’s it?
And what if I knew, do I go after her and kill her just like killing the Muslim terrorists, or call the police on her?
Yes she committed a crime, in my opinion, but is there any law that is prohibiting her from doing what she wants with her body inside her home?
If there is any such law, then so be it, although it would be against my view of no government interference in people’s private life. I’m not making laws here, but I do have a say when voting.
Indy Conservative on May 7, 2008 at 6:42 PM
No it’s not, it’s a stupid point. How is objecting to changing the definition of an institution in order to attempt to normalize someones dysfunction “an ugly desire to force other people to live the way we want them to live.” ? How is objecting to the state supported murder of unborn children even close to being the same? That is one of the more ridiculous examples of moral relativism I’ve ever seen.
Really, just plain stupid.
peacenprosperity on May 7, 2008 at 6:48 PM
Just struck me…
they use “privacy” to justify taking another life…
And yet, you can’t use “privacy” to take your own life… suicide being illegal…
Interesting…
Romeo13 on May 7, 2008 at 6:50 PM
Indy Conservative on May 7, 2008 at 6:54 PM
Lets face the truth, these people are baby killers. Take responsibility for your own actions.
jdun on May 7, 2008 at 6:54 PM
I’m not sure I read or heard that suicide is illegal in America. Maybe you can enlighten us.
Indy Conservative on May 7, 2008 at 6:55 PM
That’s another excellent example. I’m sure that even this idiot would understand how utterly repugnant infanticide is when a mother kills her child ten seconds after its birth.
Or ten minutes after…
Or ten years after…
Anyway, at some point, even this guy would see it.
Liberal thought always sounds completely arbitrary, but actually it’s ridiculously easy to understand how liberals draw their lines if you look at it from their point of view.
It’s what Ayn Rand referred to as subjectivism: “It’s not a real baby until *I* see it.” Before that, it doesn’t exist.
logis on May 7, 2008 at 6:56 PM
So it’s only “fine” to value human life? You seem to be quite “moderate” on the value of human life as well, very strange for a conservative.
No public outcry for the death of all those children? You can’t even support “demonstrations” which are a protected Constitutional right provided they are peaceful? You are a very strange conservative indeed.
Many ways to get the message out? But you don’t want us to talk about it for fear of offending someone, so how exactly do we get the message out?
You are more concerned about “offending” those who support abortion than you are about all those kids? I would remind you there is no right to NOT be offended.
Maxx on May 7, 2008 at 6:59 PM
He makes a compelling FOR abortion, his mother shouldve exercised her right.
Viper1 on May 7, 2008 at 6:59 PM
I agree, baby killers should be punished, even if the babies are unborn and flushed at night in your own bathroom?
I have a problem with that.
How in the world can anybody know that a woman flushed her unborn child? Shall we put a surveillance camera in each home? A GPS system? A Microchip? Any suggestion?
Abortion can happen anywhere, it doesn’t have to be in a clinic.
What the government should do?
Come on wise people, any ideas?
Indy Conservative on May 7, 2008 at 7:00 PM
A woman has chosen to
go thereget really drunk and drive at a high speed through your childs school crossing, she made that decision and anything wrong that might have happened to her should be her responsibility,and she will be held responsible after she plows over your kid, not the government’s.Everything has repercussions, Indy. I guess you are an open border, amnesty kind of guy since the result of killing 50 million babies since RoevWade is that we seem to have a labor problem. When there were three million people in the continental United States maybe the libertarian sensibility worked for about a minute. The more crowded it got, the more necessary it became to adopt common standards and laws. You want anything goes? Go to Holland, it should be anything goes for another 25 years or so and then the result of their anything goes attitude, sharia, will kick in.
peacenprosperity on May 7, 2008 at 7:01 PM
It’s not about offending anybody, it’s about using the effective mean to express an opinion, not being stupid about it.
Indy Conservative on May 7, 2008 at 7:03 PM
I’m repeating myself for each of you, let me summarize and then I’m out of here:
1 - I think killing the unborn is a crime. No unborn child deserves to die unjustly, unless as a Catholic, the Church approves it in extreme circumstances such as saving the mother’s life.
2 - Government should not interfere in people’s private life inside their homes or concerning their bodies. Unless the people vote by a majority that abortion is a crime, I think the government should stay out of it.
3 - Government should not fund abortion clinics, just like it’s not funding churches.
I think I covered that issue and if you have any questions or replies you can reread my messages.
Indy Conservative on May 7, 2008 at 7:11 PM
Didn’t I observe him disobey a direct order from a police officer to cease and desist from destroying a display that was placed under a university issued permit?
Didn’t I observe him disobey a direct order by a police officer to leave the area?
Wouldn’t that be two separate criminal offenses?
Why wasn’t his sorry @$$ cuffed, stuffed, and hauled off to jail?
RhymesWithRight on May 7, 2008 at 7:15 PM
Roe v. Wade is BAD law because it is legislation from the bench. Justice Scalia makes the point in his dissent to the follow up case to Roe, Planned Parenthood v. Casey that the reason there is so much political pressure placed on the court for some of these decision is that they should not have made the decision in the first place. Scalia says that when the court begins to make value judgments the people realize that is what is being done and they know that their values are no worse and probably better then a group of 9 lawyers. His point is that the court invites the controversy by overstepping its bounds. He reiterates this point in another values related case, Lawrence v. Texas.
Govgirl on May 7, 2008 at 7:16 PM
Will you at least have the integrity to change your name to “IndyLeft-Winger”?
RhymesWithRight on May 7, 2008 at 7:18 PM
That is all? So far you’ve told us you can’t support peaceful demonstrations against abortion…. which is every American’s right. You’ve told us you don’t want to risk offending anyone, so you don’t want us to talk about it.
But your quite happy to adamantly express your opinion that no one else should talk about it or engage in lawful demonstrations because that would be extreme…. according to you. You seem to be a walking contradiction… you don’t want to risk offending the abortionist but you seem quite in-your-element to offend conservatives here at HotAir.
Since you don’t want to impose YOUR opinion on anyone, would you like to apologize to the commenters here at HotAir that you have implied are extreme, simply because they would support peaceful demonstrations and would publicly denounce abortion?
Maxx on May 7, 2008 at 7:33 PM
Yes, please tell us, what are those “effective mean” you keep talking about? And please define exactly what you mean by “being stupid about it.”
Maxx on May 7, 2008 at 7:38 PM
I probably should have added a fourth point to this: Indy Conservative on May 7, 2008 at 7:11 PM:
4 - Effective means of showing contempt for abortion should be utilized. Be smart about sending your message. You are trying to get people on your side, not to make hostilities and enemies.
Indy Conservative on May 7, 2008 at 7:41 PM
Planting crosses is useless, for example.
It’s showing your feeling about abortion, but it doesn’t tell anything to those who did it, especially the atheists among them.
Maybe showing a dead fetus instead can help more, or sending fliers with information about the harm abortion can cause, etc. etc.
Enough said, I’m tired of repeating myself.
I gotta go. I have an abortion to perform pretty soon. Let me go take my pregnancy pill.
Indy Conservative on May 7, 2008 at 7:47 PM
Indy Conservative on May 7, 2008 at 7:47 PM
Indy
ConservativeLiberal on May 7, 2008 at 7:47 PMThere…. I fixed that for you, have a good night.
Maxx on May 7, 2008 at 7:52 PM
Whatever happened to freedom of speech? They let muslims protests on campuses all around the country, yet when a few individuals try and express their freedom of speech they can’t.
Freedom of speech works both ways (NOT IN THE CASE OF ISLAM THOUGH). They should not be allowed to practice their death cult and express anything that has to do with it.
As to this video, just because a pro-abortion man doesn’t agree with the issue, it doesn’t give him a right to go and attack a pro-life demonstrator.
The left only agrees to freedom of speech when it’s convenient and when they agree with the issue at stake. No principles.
What about feminists and sharia then? MUTE…..
siren on May 7, 2008 at 7:54 PM
Intolerance of intolerance. What an Enlightened way of thinking! I wonder how Allan Bloom would respond to this.
Send_Me on May 7, 2008 at 7:56 PM
25 years? I think you’re being a bit conservative in your estimate. My guess is, 10 years and there’s a de facto sharia. England is on about the same track for many parts of the country.
bikermailman on May 7, 2008 at 7:56 PM
I’d say ol’ Roderick King needs the Rodney King treatment.
Big John on May 7, 2008 at 8:18 PM
I think God has said enough to make determine which way he falls on abortion…
For a Christian the issue of abortion is quite settled.
Overturning Roe will not make abortion illegal.
Theworldisnotenough on May 7, 2008 at 8:50 PM
Indy conservative–
I think you’re partly right about the demonstrations. If the main purpose a demonstration serves is allay the guilt of people discomfited by abortion, there is a good chance they will not be very effective. This bunch of crosses is a good example. I suspect that the combination of cross with mention of abortion will tend to make proponents of abortion twice as closed minded and irrational (the video shows a good example of this). As near as I can tell, the best way to get a member of congress to do what you want is to give them money. So, maybe people opposed to abortion need to raise a lot of money and use one of the legally accepted methods employed to bribe congressmen. Then the guy in the video can go knock over congressmen while he lectures them about what they are allowed to do.
snaggletoothie on May 7, 2008 at 8:57 PM
Indy Conservative on May 7, 2008 at 9:23 PM
I know I’m completely right.
The people who argue here are drifted by their strong feelings, I understand.
But one has to be rational when dealing with some issues and we need to use proper means to get desirable results.
Indy Conservative on May 7, 2008 at 9:24 PM
Dude, go perform your abortion already.
Big John on May 7, 2008 at 9:29 PM
No, by this guys logic nobody is even allowed to protest the 2nd amendment.
taznar on May 7, 2008 at 9:48 PM
He’s obviously a frustrated homosexual that is enjoying his college-enabled sexual freedom. The mere sight of all of those crosses made his butt clench, which is the opposite of its normal state. So, he’s cranky, but very good at walking while slightly bent over.
If I was there I would have knocked him over and made him cry. I would gladly take the assault charge to prove my point.
cannonball on May 7, 2008 at 10:48 PM
Also known as “free speech for me but not for thee!”
psrch on May 7, 2008 at 10:52 PM
i don’t care about abortion one way or another, this is a damn free speech issue that liberals are all too quick to boast about defending and refuse to actually live up to the standard.
Defector01 on May 7, 2008 at 10:53 PM
No, you’re completely wrong. The argument here should not be about abortion, but about free speech. Let’s say that the “radicals” who did this offensively stupid & horrible thing (putting up the crosses, with permission of the University) were way off base, irrational, etc., as you claim (or something similar), the question is, “So what?”
The First Amendment is about the right to be offensive in the pursuit of liberty, of standing up for what you believe in, of calling for change, speaking truth to power, etc., etc., ad nauseum.
If the left has taught us anything, it should be that fact!
Free Mark Steyn!
Get a clue, Indy “Conservative”
NptPrchr on May 7, 2008 at 11:03 PM
Typical liberal, freedom of speech is only good when their the one speaking. Glad I wasn’t there, I’d of hurt him pretty bad.
eski502 on May 7, 2008 at 11:03 PM
Perhaps liberals will understand; Abortion…Darfur of the womb.
Speakup on May 7, 2008 at 11:17 PM
I just think it is amazing that abortion is legal and marijuana is not. Marijuana hasn’t ever killed anyone. Abortion always kills someone.
ThackerAgency on May 7, 2008 at 11:18 PM
I couldn’t make the uniform out clearly from the video, but I assume that was a university rent-a-cop. No real police officer is going to stand there and listen to some jackass tell him who he can or can’t arrest. That’s about the best way to turn a ticket into jail time.
logis on May 7, 2008 at 11:18 PM
I think everyone here understand that liberals are hypocrites and selfish.
Having an abortion is a cheap and disgusting way out of a problem that both parties created. There no place in heaven for baby killers.
jdun on May 7, 2008 at 11:25 PM
If this demonstration had been reversed (a pro-abortion demo of some kind) and a pro-lifer had tried to tear it down, the pro-lifer would likely have been surrounded by a human circle, beaten, arrested or perhaps even all three for violating the free speech rights of the demonstrators. Perhaps pro-life groups should start forming human circles around those that would destroy their pro-life demonstrations. While they’re at it, they could sing songs like “Jesus Loves You” for added effect. When can we see that video?
kgs_mvs on May 7, 2008 at 11:32 PM
Ah man, I was hoping to see a brother tased.
Buford on May 7, 2008 at 11:42 PM
I know it’s tempting, but let’s not fall into the stereotype that conservatives judge by appearances. C’mon.
SouthernDem on May 8, 2008 at 12:05 AM
I agree, if the woman is 2 or 3 months pregnant. But if she is 6 or 7 months pregnant then it’s a different matter altogether.
MB4 on May 8, 2008 at 12:25 AM
Um, right. ;-) That uptight lib is as straight as a boomerang. Don’t deny the obvious for the sake of political correctness.
cannonball on May 8, 2008 at 12:30 AM
If only it were that simple to get them to stop.
logis on May 8, 2008 at 12:36 AM
Since when has freedom of speech covered destroying someone else’s work? He can stand there and protest and put up his own stuff, but not to take down someone else’s freedom.
Rbastid on May 8, 2008 at 12:56 AM
To me, the aggressive anti-Indy Conservative comments here, look a lot like that guy pulling crosses.
Indy Conservative is right. Staging angry protests is not the way to get results in this country. It doesn’t work in Olympia when Moonbats try to stop trucks from loading boats destined for Iraq, and it doesn’t work when Pro-Life folks loudly denounce abortion clinics. Time would be better spent on petition representatives or on pro-life education.
It’s tough for resolute pro-life conservatives to grasp, but Indy Conservative also identifies a key issue. It’s possible to have what pro-life folks would consider an abortion merely by taking a pill in the days following conception. I don’t see how that could ever be regulated given underground markets, nor do I think that it would be good for our society a to put a woman in jail for doing so. There’s a pragmatic reality of the many ways it will be possible to end fetal life, that will only become more difficult for pro-lifers as medical technology increases. That doesn’t make abortion right, but it makes it hard to detect and stop.
I think the best thing to do is to show this video to help educate people on free speech and the number of lives lost to abortion, all at once.
JeffB. on May 8, 2008 at 1:14 AM
Roderick is a little too angry. This happens with all movements. If I had been at his campus, I would have found a way to annoy the pro-lifers that would have been funny to sane people, but truly offensive to the fetalidolaters. They aren’t hard to offend. Perhaps, I would have invited that nice artist woman from Yale.
thuja on May 8, 2008 at 1:37 AM
I have a couple of points to make about abortion. First of all, the argument goes that the “fetus” is not a living entity until it leaves the womb, and thus can be aborted if the mother so wishes. This is a ludicrous argument, of course, because every part of the body is alive, and this includes the baby. This is like saying that the heart is not a living part of the body, and can be removed at will, without consequence. Second of all, the baby has a complete nervous system by four weeks gestation, this is about the time most women discover they are pregnant, and when abortions begin. They tear the baby apart, without any anesthetic, and it has the full capacity to feel all of its murder. Abortion is a disgusting thing that has killed MILLIONS of innocents. If we were to abort any animals offspring it would be called cruelty to animals and would be immediately stopped. But we as a country have decided that this is a perfectly acceptable fate for our children. We have blood on our hands as a country, and judgment will come.
Trtle2001 on May 8, 2008 at 1:37 AM
I think that if abortion is a right, and paid for with public funds, then it should be performed in public, in a stadium environment, and we can cheer or jeer, just like the Romans.
Let the doctor hold the fetus, still tethered with an umbilical cord, in the air. the head of the govt can thumbs up or down the fetus’ fate.
Its our public money, lets see what we’re spending it on, and enjoy it, and internalize it, or shun it, not hide it in cold hidden rooms at planned parenthood.
AZCON on May 8, 2008 at 1:50 AM
A Libtard who thinks with his emotions. He feeeeeeellls it is wrong to have that display so it must be, free speech be damned.
I am impressed that he can walk and toss crosses at the same time without falling on his face. Thank God he wasn’t chewing any gum.
Mallard T. Drake on May 8, 2008 at 1:56 AM
Brilliant!
Glynn on May 8, 2008 at 3:04 AM
Oh come now. You’re mising the entire point of the anti-abortion demonstration. Were people who have had an abortion singled out or was the practice of abortion singled out? You mentioned in another post that God would punish those who have had an abortion. I assume you meant that they would end up in hell. What kind of Christian aould allow a person to end up in hell because they did want to offend that person here on Earth? Would it not be better to call them on their sin here to try and stop them from committing the sin rather than wait for God to judge them. Are you that much of a spiritual coward? That kind of attitude brought us the Holocaust, but at least I can understand why Germans who might have questioned their government’s policies were silent. To speak out would have meant death or long imprisonment. Today, we have no such burden…as of yet.
sdd on May 8, 2008 at 7:42 AM
Here, lets use your litmus test.
I think there are better ways to tell people that what they do is wrong, don’t post, don’t be silly and stupid.
See? What you think is a valid post, is considered to be by some silly and stupid…just like you think it was silly and stupid to place crosses…but this is where you are wrong. If it was silly and stupid it would have been ignored, but it wasn’t.
*
Indy, if some one thinks your post is silly and stupid, then will you not post anymore? Those are your standards.
right2bright on May 8, 2008 at 7:48 AM
Incredible analysis and spot-on in terms of how exactly liberalism thinks and looks at the rest of the world. I’d like to quote this on my own blog, if you don’t mind. E-mail me at jockolanty@gmail.com if you’d like your entire name to appear with the post, instead of just “logis.”
Jockolantern on May 8, 2008 at 7:54 AM
Does anyone else see the irony in this? For years blacks fought to get out of the cotton fields and now we see a black man picking white things out in the field to ensure that many blacks will be destroyed before they are given a chance at life. The racist Margaret Sanger would be proud.
bloggless on May 8, 2008 at 7:54 AM
These are the same people who claim they can do this in the name of “Freedom of Speech” but of course you can only speak or promote your idea if you happen to agree with them. Otherwise they will do everything in their power to deny you your freedom of speech.
JeffinSac on May 8, 2008 at 9:24 AM
I’m pretty far from pc or a lib, but what the hell does his being gay or not have to do with the argument.
Aside from some using it as a way to criticize him.
SouthernDem on May 8, 2008 at 9:39 AM
Ultrasound pretty much put the end to the human being argument.
If that “thing” in the womb is not a human being, what is it? If it’s human why is it legal to kill it? More over, why is it a Constitutional right? Is the “right to choose” guaranteed by God? Is it inalienable, or is it a man-made right that can be taken away at any time?
Is the “thing” in the womb alive? If not what is it? If it’s alive, why is it legal to kill it?
So, if the “thing” in the womb is human and alive, when why is it legal to kill it, why is that not murder? Medical science has shown beyond a doubt the unborn is human AND alive.
Jesus talked about loving your neighbor as yourself. I wouldnt kill my neighbor, I wouldnt kill myself and I certainly wouldnt kill a child in the womb. Then there’s that old saying about you will not commit murder. It’s in Exodus, I believe along with nine other “suggestions.” And depending on who you say Jesus is, then He was the one who handed out what our society calls the “Ten Suggestions.” So He plainly talked about the taking of an innocent life even if He did not call it a “right to choose.” Who gets to “choose” for the life in the womb?
Is the taking of an innocent life murder? If not what is it?
abcurtis on May 8, 2008 at 10:01 AM
Using a commonly accepted formula that 10% of the U.S. population is homosexual, if there have been 50 million abortions then 5 million future homosexuals have been killed. I wonder what Roderick would think about that? Maybe the love of his life was aborted 20 years ago.
rockmom on May 8, 2008 at 10:05 AM
Abortion’s a right and you’re not allowed to challenge that, is an example of the flagrant liberal agenda at work. This is more evidence the liberal left are more wacky than ever, and dangerous because they take away your freedom of speech. I happen to think most people are against abortion without really understanding why they are against abortion. They just know it’s wrong, and that’s alright with me, but if you really want to know why you’re against abortion watch this video. It wasn’t until I watched this video that I truly understood why I was pro-life and why abortion is murdering babies. Warning: The video starts getting graphic at the 7:49 mark.
Abortion Exposed Part 1 of 2
Part 2 has been flagged by Youtube as inappropriate for some users, so you can watch it here without having to login.
Abortion Exposed Part 2 of 2
apacalyps on May 8, 2008 at 11:30 AM
When you have to count body parts to make sure you got “it” all, that is a good indicatin that abortion is wrong.
bloggless on May 8, 2008 at 11:43 AM
I just saw the ultrasound of my granddaughter, due to be born this fall. Looks pretty darn human to me.
Ellen on May 8, 2008 at 11:55 AM
Yes, that “mass of tissue” is rather unlikely to be a fish, or a cow or anything other than human, is it?
I’m confused by people who are upset because an environmental project may endanger fish eggs, but consider abortion to be anything other than murder. They have no problem considering the eggs to be fish, but consider the in vivo child to be something other than human.
obladioblada on May 8, 2008 at 12:13 PM
I think the image of the torn down crosses are more effective then when they were upright.
It depicts the discarded image of life, and the intolerance of the left.
I say leave them down, and a bigger more effective point will be made…Ideas and beliefs can’t be physically destroyed, the morph into something even more powerful.
right2bright on May 8, 2008 at 12:28 PM
Interestingly this is described as a fairly common abortionists’ dream in the book Lime 5 (studies have been done on the effects of abortion on the
providerskillers and their staffs: they deliver a baby and a crowd gives them a thumbs up or down and they are forced to drown it in a bucket if down.inviolet on May 8, 2008 at 12:42 PM
Oh, the humanity. Lime 5 should be required reading, along with Nathanson’s The Hand of God, which gave me hope that even a “celebrated” abortionist can have an epiphany and emerge from the dark side.
Glynn on May 8, 2008 at 1:23 PM
How dare you remind us this is MURRRRDERRRRR!??!!! /moonbat gay guy
Black Adam on May 8, 2008 at 4:12 PM
1) Forget the nerve endings. At the moment of conception, the new life has 46 chromosomes. That’s the best/only definition of human that is not arbitrary.
2) The privacy argument is absurd.
Should people be allowed to cannibalize each other in the privacy of their homes?
Should terrorists be allowed to develop nuclear technology (with which to destroy the people of this country) in the privacy of their own homes?
Should fathers and daughters–uurrrrpp!!–in the privacy of their own homes? (I guess there’s nothing wrong with that guy in Austria.)
(The bedroom: aka, get-out-of-jail-free card!)
3) If men don’t have a say in abortions because it’s “not their body”, then why do gays have any say in the matter? (Whether this guy is gay or not has little to do with the present argument–except inasmuch as he is offended by any notion of morality, since his conscience is already seared.)
4) DON’T FEED THE TROLLS!!
urbancenturion on May 8, 2008 at 6:52 PM
As usual people are ego-centric in their thinking.
Ladies its not about you, its about your baby.
DavidM on May 8, 2008 at 8:48 PM
Another fine example of free speech for me but not for thee.
Huh? I don’t find any exceptions in my Catechism of the Catholic Church. I find “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.” and that procurement of an abortion “incurs excommunication” (even formal cooperation is considered a “grave offense”). Practically speaking, it means the utmost effort is made to protect both mom and baby at all times during pregnancy. The Catholic Church never “approves” abortion.
Thuja - aren’t you glad your mom was one of those “fetalidolaters”? I am a proud fetalidolater and I’m sure my pregnant patients are glad that I am.
inmypajamas on May 8, 2008 at 10:52 PM
Brilliant.
Talk about a specious argument. What, because there aren’t any stretchmarks yet it’s okay to “end the pregnancy”?
We are justly judged by the way we treat the helpless. May God grant us a national awakening.
Squiggy on May 9, 2008 at 6:15 AM
Proverbs 6:16-19
16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
Your claim is inconsistent with the Bible. Try again.
fossten on May 9, 2008 at 8:46 AM
Comment pages: « 1 [2] 3 »