By "The Corporal"

July 18, 2008 10:40 AM | Link to this

Yes, and we let our kids watch everything gory that comes on t.v. with no problems. It’s amazing how one would attempt to stiffle this type of free speech. How about no more pictures of the bodies in the ovens during the Holocaust. Let’s just close our eyes and it will all go away. I applaud these people who are not afraid to stand up for the truth of abortion. I wish I had that kind of guts. Our animals have better treatment and more rights than our unborn children. May God forgive us.

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you.” Jeremiah 1:5

By T

July 18, 2008 10:45 AM | Link to this

Wow. That’s creepy. Would that fall under freedom of speach and right to protest or violate public indecency?

By jakesdad

July 18, 2008 10:54 AM | Link to this

your timing is impecible - there’s also been a huge increase this week in protesters outside a place I pass every morning w/my two kids (boy, 5 & girl 3) - I’m not going to say where in case anyone who reads this might be inclined to join them. anyway, luckily they haven’t seemed to have noticed (or at least they haven’t said) but it just donned on me this morning what would I say if they asked me what happened to the babies in those pictures?

I don’t know where the balance is here - I’m deflinitely pro 1st amendment but telling me not to put my radio on Howard Stern w/them in the car is very different than telling me to avoid a prominent stretch of public road in rush hour traffic. not sure I’d go so far as to say it should be illeagal but it’s certainly inappropriate and IMHO counterproductive to their cause (not saying I agree w/them - just that those tactics are far more likely to swing moderates away from them).

By "The Corporal"

July 18, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this

To T:

Yes it is “creepy”. Do you realize we litterally “pull” unborn children apart in the womb without anesthetics? If I did the same thing to a frog in my front yard I would be arrested for animal cruelty.

Oops ! I guess I just painted a mind picture too horrible to contemplate ! Please forgive me if any of you have nightmares tonight after watching a rerun of the move “Scream”.

By Matt

July 18, 2008 11:03 AM | Link to this

As if the abortion signs weren’t enough, there were “Eric Rudolph Fan Club” signs as well. About a block away from Centennial Park. Classy.

By Matt

July 18, 2008 11:05 AM | Link to this

As if the abortion signs weren’t enough, there were “Eric Rudolph Fan Club” signs as well. A block away from Centennial Olympic Park. Classy.

By CommunistAJC

July 18, 2008 11:12 AM | Link to this

Gee, little Sally was frightened by an abortion sign. AHHHHHHHHHH. She should be more frightened by the people who allow the murder of unborn babies. I don’t hear too much about kids being frightened by movies with gore. I remember seeing Kill Bill at the theater. Underage kids outnumbered the adults two to one. See the hypocrisy?

By Copyleft

July 18, 2008 11:12 AM | Link to this

Public spaces are not going to be childproofed for your convenience, madam. Free speech is more important than your little darling’s hurt feelings—even the free speech of raving lunatics like GA Right to Life.

By GaLiberal

July 18, 2008 11:19 AM | Link to this

It’s their right to free speech, but free speech has limits. If the speech is intended to inflame or incite, then it is not protected. I cannot go to a theater and yell ‘Fire’ and call it free speech. Similarly, these religoNazis cannot show these graphic images (which are clearly faked if you look closely) and say it’s free speech.

It is typical hypocrisy of these religoNazis that they want to control what you can see on TV. These same religoNazis were behind the fained outrage over the Superbowl ‘wardrobe malfunction.’ These same religoNazis in Congress raised the fine broadcasters face from a reasonable $3,500 to a crushing $35,000. As a result, many networks either won’t run movies like Private Ryan or so heavily censor them they are not worth watching. These same religoNazis want to force their narrow view of society on everyone else. And the Rethuglicons are all too willing to do their bidding in exchange for votes.

When you vote Rethuglicon, you vote against your own best interests. And the ReligoNazis are living proof.

By jill leclerc

July 18, 2008 11:23 AM | Link to this

The quote from the mother sounds like feminazi-liberal rhetoric at it’s most disingenuous:

Woman speaking to her child as they pass the picture of an aborted child

“Sweetheart, just don’t look at the results of our most cherished liberal law called abortion. We women have the right to murder the unborn, but we’d don’t want you to see our handywork. And, by the way, Sweetheart, if mommy had had a bad day a few years ago, that might be a picture of you. Why, yes, I love you sweetheart,…yes, I do…”

A picture’s worth a thousand words.

By Logical Dude

July 18, 2008 11:35 AM | Link to this

These are the kind of shock tactics that make people flock the other direction. The protesters claim “pro-life”, but are okay with someone setting a bomb off??

This makes no sense, and a MUCH better way to fight abortion is to make it increasingly rare by reducing the occurrence of unwanted pregnancy. You do this by having comprehensive sex education with contraceptive information. You make contraceptives easy to obtain and use. You support strong education to improve the lives of those who would otherwise cause unintended pregnancy - male and female.

You do NOT do it by using questionable tactics. I do not believe that the images are any more disturbing than many on tv, and I support the 1st amendment and their right to show them.
But it does reveal more about the people showing the pictures than what the picture is actually about. Judging people when unfamiliar with their situation.

“Judge not, lest ye be judged”

By Logical Dude is LAME

July 18, 2008 12:05 PM | Link to this

Dude, the people who say “Judge not, lest ye be judged” are usually people doin’ the “perp walk” & on their way to jail. With your logic you would conclude that we shouldn’t “judge” anyone - not even Mr. Eric Rudolph. Right - go ahead and take another hit off the crack pipe.

If you haven’t figured it out, there are people who REALLY think abortion is legalized murder…of unborn children… Seems like a pretty serious cause to me and you don’t have to be religious to see their point.

By Copyleft

July 18, 2008 12:08 PM | Link to this

It’s no surprise that GA Right to Life uses idiotic shock tactics… they’re based entirely on emotional manipulation, not logic.

But as I said: that’s their right, to demonstrate their idiocy as loudly and publicly as they want. In fact, I encourage it—it’s the best way to illustrate how precious the right to reproductive choice is, by seeing the deranged lunatics who rave against it.

By "The Corporal"

July 18, 2008 12:11 PM | Link to this

Just remember, underground “freedom fighters” who fought the Nazis by trying to blow up railroad bridges into the death camps were caught and hung. I would never condone violence to resolve the abortion issue (there is enough against the babies already) and the Supreme Court has spoken “for now”. I just think we will be surprised by God’s judgement standards someday ……………. and showing pictures of what really happens to these unborn babies is NOT violence and it is no even in the same league as “fire in a crowded theater”. You don’t like it because it makes you face the reality of what’s going on !

By Buzzer

July 18, 2008 12:13 PM | Link to this

Logical Dude - You are generalizing when you state that these people are OK with bombing aortion clinics - that is a fatal flaw with regard to critical thinking - As for GA liberal - burning the flag is free speech - are you OK with a 5 year old see that kind of disrespect. As logical dude stated Judge not, lest ye be judged - not is that religious, its a fact of life. If you dont want your kids see those signs, go another way, dont let them watch trash on TV, and do their homework with them. We are all responsible for OUR society.

By CommunistAJC

July 18, 2008 12:16 PM | Link to this

Copyleft, Idiotic tactics? Killing unborn babies is not idiotic? Wow, your logic boggles the mind. Those unborn dead babies would disagree with you if they had a choice. The only deranged lunatics I see are those who murder unborn babies. Blowing up abortion clinics is flat out wrong but I have not seen or heard of one getting blown up in almost 10 years. Let’s do the math. Over 30 million babies have been killed in that time. I don’t remember but how many people have been killed in the Iraq war and abortion bombings? Much less.

By Copyleft

July 18, 2008 12:29 PM | Link to this

And if any people had been lost in those abortions, you might have an argument. Unfortunately, the only thing aborted was fetuses. Both law and medicine are on my side, stud.

Abortion shouldn’t be necessary often, especially if we focus on sex education and birth control—but it will always be needed as a fallback to protect women’s rights.

As I said: the GA Right to Lifers have every right to make public fools of themselves, and it doesn’t matter if little children are frightened or offended by their stupidity. Open political discourse is more important.

By T

July 18, 2008 12:51 PM | Link to this

I have to agree with By Copyleft on this one. That being said here is a nastier comment.

In the book Freakanomics, it was stated that legalized abortion caused the decline in violent crime in the 90’s. Abortions helped unwanted children not to be raised in povershed and uneducated conditions where violent crime resides. This book said with fewer people who are being born into conditions that will likely generate criminals, there were fewer people commiting violent crimes.

I also find it interesting that some of the anti-abortion fanatics are also “some” (not all) of those whom are against federal aide. The same aide that helps financially raise these unwanted children.

Maybe we can find a solution were abortions are only needed in extreme circumstance.

By J

July 18, 2008 12:53 PM | Link to this

Everyone who has posted to this blog, including the mother/child in the article, should have been aborted as a fetus. Then, this discussion would not have been necessary.

By "The Corporal"

July 18, 2008 12:56 PM | Link to this

To Copyleft:

You do err sir. The law and medicine is not on your side as it is changing everyday. Legislatures continue to clamp down on abortions as much as they can. Meidicine is struggling very hard with the abortion issue as what you call “fetuses” can survive outside the womb now very easlily at five months and that time frame is dropping. That “fetus” has a heart beat, brain waves, it can hear, see (when light is provided), taste, smell and touch. The ONLY difference between it and a “born fetus” is where the oxygen supply comes from. No doubt in my mind who has the moral, legal and medical high ground here …………

By Dan

July 18, 2008 12:57 PM | Link to this

Actually copyleft as so often is the case, you are wrong, medicine is not on your side. If you read Roe v Wade, the opinion states that medical opionion cannot state categorically when life beigins. They therefore took a compromise opinion on what they thought was reasonable at the time. (which is unquestionably beyond there pervue but thats another discussion) what is indisputable, is that, medical science has progressed dramatically since that decision meaning the basis of those subjectively drawn lines has clearly changed. But why let facts get in the way of your opinions at this late juncture

By Worker Closeby

July 18, 2008 1:03 PM | Link to this

I am disgusted with the folks outside the clinic in Buckhead. Children for gods sake not older than 10 years old are out there holding those signs of aborted fetuses. Shouldn’t they be playing or something? Why should a 10 year old even be involved in an abortion protest? They should be riding their bikes and playing with their friends. I work in the area and HAVE to drive by them. There is no back way to my office. There has to be a better way to protest. They are out there every Friday also but this week is progressively worse. I am a mom of a 5 month old and it’s appalling to be forced to see that. Its one thing to protest with non-graphical signs but it’s totally different being forced to look at those picutres. You can say, “Turn your Head”, but they are on all 4 corners of the street and all along the road too.

And about the protesters comment about a 5 year “It’s time she learned the facts.” It’s not their call to when this child “learns the facts”. That’s just idiotic. Get a life and quit worrying about other peoples.

By Worker Closeby

July 18, 2008 1:04 PM | Link to this

I am disgusted with the folks outside the clinic in Buckhead. Children for gods sake not older than 10 years old are out there holding those signs of aborted fetuses. Shouldn’t they be playing or something? Why should a 10 year old even be involved in an abortion protest? They should be riding their bikes and playing with their friends. I work in the area and HAVE to drive by them. There is no back way to my office. There has to be a better way to protest. They are out there every Friday also but this week is progressively worse. I am a mom of a 5 month old and it’s appalling to be forced to see that. Its one thing to protest with non-graphical signs but it’s totally different being forced to look at those picutres. You can say, “Turn your Head”, but they are on all 4 corners of the street and all along the road too.

And about the protesters comment about a 5 year “It’s time she learned the facts.” It’s not their call to when this child “learns the facts”. That’s just idiotic. Get a life and quit worrying about other peoples.

By Copyleft

July 18, 2008 1:13 PM | Link to this

That’s just idiotic. Get a life and quit worrying about other peoples.

Ironically, if they were able to do that they wouldn’t be protesting!

By Elizabeth Warren

July 18, 2008 1:20 PM | Link to this

I, for one, am glad that the author had the courage to speak out. It isn’t a question of whether or not the protestors are proctected by free speech, the real question is why do people who are allegedly “protecting” the unborn child think such a display will (1) change anyone’s mind about having an abortion, or (2) do anything but scare children and inflame adults. If they REALLY wanted to protect unborn children - they would work to offer alternatives to women, real alternatives.

Elizabeth Warren

By violet

July 18, 2008 1:21 PM | Link to this

copyleft your sentiments “And if any people had been lost in those abortions, you might have an argument. Unfortunately, the only thing aborted was fetuses. Both law and medicine are on my side, stud.” are absurd, and repulsive. maybe you need a basic bio class. babies have beating hearts at 6 weeks gestation. they are ‘people’ at their smallest form- even your ignorant self was that small.. its killing a human being. none of us have to judge it, but if you’re going to do it or support it, at least have the ballls to own it.

By Worker Closeby

July 18, 2008 1:30 PM | Link to this

Write your Congressman, protest on Capital Hill but keep your graphic photos of aborted fetuses out of the neighborhoods. That is all that everyone is saying in this “blog” to the people standing on the street corners. There is a better way than showing those graphic photos - real or fake - than to force people driving by to see them. No one cares if people protest but don’t use the graphic photos. End of Discussion!

By RealityKing

July 18, 2008 1:42 PM | Link to this

Americans abort 1,000,000 unborn babies per year. Thats what scares me..

By "The Corporal"

July 18, 2008 1:45 PM | Link to this

To Worker Closeby:

Sorry, you don’t make the rules on free speech.

By Aggie

July 18, 2008 1:48 PM | Link to this

She is absolutely right on the money with her point. What I find most troublesome about the protestors comment is the irony behind it. Here they are protesting that abortion is wrong and that pro-life is the right way. You would think that one who believes this also has compassion for young children and would want to conduct themselves in ANY childs best interest. Holding up an offensive sign, protesting that abortion is wrong but allowing a child to be disturbed by it, it is the ultimate irony.

By CommunistAJC

July 18, 2008 1:51 PM | Link to this

Worker Closeby, Can’t Mcdonalds move you to a different store? I mean there are 500 locations in the metro area, right?

By Steve

July 18, 2008 2:03 PM | Link to this

Wow. I wonder how these right to lifers would like their kids seeing photos of naked men having sex, in public places, with each other.

But, it’s ok to show bloody fetuses to children.

What the hell??

The common sense intelligent approach is to stop the NEED for abortions, period, via solid birth control availability, sex ed programs, and education. Stop it at the source.

By Willa

July 18, 2008 2:04 PM | Link to this

I don’t think this is about whether or not their right to free speech is defensable. It appears these people are well protected there is no disagreement about that.

The author in this case however, is making a heartfelt appeal to people’s moral compass about what’s morally right…not just what is legally right.

For those of us who still have a conscience….Protecting the sensitivity of small children far outweighs the merits of displaying a frighteningly graphic image just to make a point that can be made in many other ways.

By Rick

July 18, 2008 2:13 PM | Link to this

As usual, Right to Life people are thoughtless. They want to upset everyone for their cause.

Right to Life people to need to understand that others have different opinions that are legal and moral. Right to Life people are not a God.

By RenaP

July 18, 2008 2:21 PM | Link to this

to The Corporal - yes there are gory things on tv but not every parent allows their children to have access to those chanels as you suggest. we can turn the channel.

I feel we all need to work together so that women have other options besides abortions. But in now way do I support the governments taking the right to choose away from us. Instead of marching around public streets looking like a bunch of crazy people holding up such unattractive photos, maybe these people should go volunteer for DEFACs.

I just don’t even give these people a second look. but i didn’t even think of people driving with children in the car. that would be horrifying for a child to see - and no matter what The Corporal says - we don’t need to teach a 5 year old those things.

By Chose to be a mom

July 18, 2008 2:24 PM | Link to this

I thank God every day, that I live in a free country where freaks like you cannot get your hands on my body! if you would spend as much time and money focusing on the causes of abortion, lack of sex education (because obviously they do it anyway), and support for ALL mothers, then you might not have anywhere to protest against abortion.

Ask yourself, WWJD? Would He offer prayers, love and support, or pick up a rock and commence the punishment, those bad naughty pregnant girls deserve.

If we in the intelligent middle allow you to have your fundamentalist ways, I may not be allowed to read the paper and as a woman, I surely would not be allowed to have an opinion posted.

God bless!

By RenaP

July 18, 2008 2:44 PM | Link to this

We need men to take more responsibility with birth control. Its not a one way street.

By Copyleft

July 18, 2008 2:46 PM | Link to this

Of course the Right-to-Lifers are absurd. That’s not the question before us.

The question is, should their right to wave around explicit photos and shout inane slogans be restricted, “for the children”? My answer is: no.

The amusing part is that the right-to-lifers will ALSO insist on their right to “help the potential children”—by hurting the actual children. Not that it matters to them, but at least my position is consistent.

By Tommy

July 18, 2008 2:51 PM | Link to this

why the hell is this even a “religious” issue…people throwing in god’s name here and there….WTF? Who? NO ONE, especially some man in Washington DC, nor some make-believe fairy in the sky, has any right messing around in a woman’s womb. It’s a private matter…. and not some “god’s”….. jesus, gimme a break..

By Worker Closeby

July 18, 2008 3:10 PM | Link to this

CommunistAJC,

You obviously lack the intelligence to debate this conversation in a mature way. Tou assume that I work at McDonalds just because I don’t agree with YOUR beliefs. Let’s assume that I do work at McDonalds, does my opinion not count? The fact is that NO ONE should have to be forced to see the graphic images is the issue at hand. I’m not disputing Pro-Life or Pro-Choice simply stating that the images are grotesque and uncalled for to get the point across. Protesting for what one believes is not the issue - it’s the images that are disturbing to not just young children but adults as well.

By lundy

July 18, 2008 3:21 PM | Link to this

I think you all are missing the point here. She wasn’t against the protest, but against the huge posters showing a bloody aborted fetus out in plain sight for everyone.

For those folks who argue that people let their kids watch bloody tv shows and play video games, so what’s the difference - those kids watch them in their homes, and have permission from their parents to do so (hopefully). You need to be a certain age to buy a cd with explicit lyrics, or go see a rated R movie. Her point is that she did not have a choice to sheild her daughter from those graphic images.

I know some of you will start screaming about how the aborted children didn’t have a choice, but come on. You are the same people who scream at people not to shove their religion down your throats. That’s all she’s asking for - a little tact.

By Let ME Raise My Child

July 18, 2008 3:42 PM | Link to this

I fully believe that the protesters have every right to their beliefs and they should have every right to protest but I believe the graphic images are taking it too far. For a group that fights so hard for the rights of an unborn child, it baffles me that they are so unconcerned about the rights of the children that ARE born. Why do they believe it is their responsibility to teach MY children about such an intense issue? I would be a fool to think my children could go through life without being education about the issue of abortion but as a mother, I should be the one to decide when they are mature enough to understand the issue. If these protesters want to exploit their own children, the Constitution gives them that right but they should not be allowed to exploit mine. Would they feel as strongly about freedom of expression if I put a stripper in front of their 8 year old? What if I handed out condoms to their 10 year olds? What would they think if I sat down with their 9 year old and explained how to perform oral sex; that is the best way to go since you can’t get pregnant that way. I suppose it wouldn’t faze them in the least since they teach their children all the facts of life at age 3, regardless of how mature the subject matter would be.

By CommunistAJC

July 18, 2008 3:55 PM | Link to this

Worker Closeby, It’s called a joke. Here’s another one. Get a clue. No one cares if you’re offended by seeing a dead baby on a poster or whatever.

By rightytighty

July 18, 2008 4:11 PM | Link to this

I think we should setup drop off centers at the local military schools. Then we could focus all this maddness at a common goal of caring for these kids. In return, they would have the choice of serving two years of military or civil service..

It’s certainly better than the alternative. I’d take it…

By "The Corporal"

July 18, 2008 4:27 PM | Link to this

To Choose to be a Mom:

A couple of points ma’am:

1) I don’t want to control your body. But a fetus is NOT your body. It is a separate human being that you nourish until it is born and I think the body inside of you has the right to live.

2) When is a “mother” most a mother? When the child is 100% dependent on her in the womb or after it is born and others can take care of it if necessary? You don’t “choose to be a mother” if you carry the child to term. You are ALREADY ONE!

3) 25% of the men whose names are on the Vietnam wall were draftees. The government “CONTROLLED” their bodies not for 9 months but for 2 years and sent them to a war they did not want to go to where other men tried to kill them. The Supreme Court ruled THAT was constitutional at about the same time it said the government could NOT control a woman’s body. No logic there.

4) The fight (just like the anti-slavery fight) will continue and we will eventually in God’s timing prevail …….

By CommunistAJC

July 18, 2008 4:30 PM | Link to this

Worker Closeby, I apologize for my previous post. I am being an arrogant a*. You are a human with feelings that matter and shouldn’t be taken lightly. I’m sorry that you are offended by the graphic pictures. No one should have to see those. The convention that is intown is leaving on Sunday. Hopefully next week will be better. Have a great weekend and God Bless you!

By Worker Closeby

July 18, 2008 4:41 PM | Link to this

Punk!

By jonotchabelter

July 18, 2008 4:43 PM | Link to this

I am more outraged by the anit-war protester’s why don’t they go protest in Irag? then they will learn the true meaning of freedom of speach - OR how about the carpenter’s union who pay homeless people to stand in their picket lines. Pro-Life protester’s have every right to show what actually happens, to show the truth~ or would you prefer to keep it a dirty little secret between you and your daughter?

By m

July 18, 2008 4:44 PM | Link to this

so how many of you d******* have adopted a child lately? HYPOCRITES.

i am perfectly fine with aborting my first child. nothing anyone can say will ever change my mind and i’m thankful that i had the choice to make that decision. i’m sure every one of you hypocrites would’ve come to my rescue to raise the child i didn’t want. yep, absolutely certain. you’re the same people who cry for the poor aborted babies, but also damn the people who are on welfare. SOMEONE’s gotta take care of the kids that people don’t want. which one of you are stepping up to the plate? no one? thought so.

By CommunistAJC

July 18, 2008 4:49 PM | Link to this

Wow, someone stole my handle. Nice.

Worker Closeby, Troglodyte!

By "The Corporal"

July 18, 2008 4:54 PM | Link to this

To m :

Sorry, I hate to be so stern but if no one ever adopts another child in this country it’s still wrong to kill them in the womb. Raising that child was YOUR responsibility. You can’t pawn that off on someone else. That makes YOU a hypocrite.

P.S. I would also like to hear your response to each of my comments (#1-#4) above at 4:27pm

By Mom First

July 18, 2008 4:57 PM | Link to this

A couple of responses to you, Corporal:

1) You say that you don’t want to control my body but the fight you put up is an attempt to control the fate, therefore the body of the fetus inside me. You have no right to control ANYONE’S body but your own and the arrogance of you and those like you continues to astound me.

2) Your comments that you don’t “choose to be a mother” and “You already ARE ONE” are completely off the mark. Except in the case of rape, when I chose to have sex which resulted in conception, I DID CHOOSE TO BE A MOTHER.

3) I absolutely agree with the point you make about the Vietnam war, however, when those men were killed in battle, we did not take pictures of their mutilated and destroyed bodies and waive them on 8 foot posters in front of their family’s homes and force their families to view them.

4) I find it extremely presumptuous of you to claim to know the mind of God. The fight will continue and in time God’s will is going to prevail…won’t you be surprised if isn’t the same as yours??

By Must Agree

July 18, 2008 5:08 PM | Link to this

Boo-ya Corporal.

Looks like you got your response!

By Truth March

July 18, 2008 5:10 PM | Link to this

Woman’s Healthcare should not be a boogie man for children.

This society is ridiculous. Viagra is shouted out on television in song and in the oh so subtle mona lisa smile from the woman in the spot. She really likes viagra, after last night, you know.

Yet birth control pills are not covered by insurance, but viagra is.

cervical cancer vaccines are considered as part of witchcraft and against god’s intelligent design.

We live in the middle ages when it comes to woman’s healthcare, and the idiotic, and totally immature comments by the trolls who infested this blog are proof that americans are backwards and misguided!

Viva viagra, and shove it!

By m

July 18, 2008 5:13 PM | Link to this

1) a fetus is a clump of cells that cannot survive without its host, the mother.

2) when is a mother a mother is debateable with opinions, not fact. in my opinion, a woman can host the clump of cells but not be emotionally attached as a “parent”. would you still call a surrogate mother a “mother” when she’s only hosting the cells for another woman?

3) i dont’ understand what you’re trying to argue, honestly. women are obviously valued more than men in our country or they would’ve been drafted, too. pity to be a man during those days, sorry.

4) i don’t believe in god so i’m not even addressing the last “point”.

By grelican

July 18, 2008 5:21 PM | Link to this

Think those pictures are gross? Imagine a picture of a woman’s nether regions who tried to “take care of things” with a coat hanger. Pro-Choice advocates could resort to the same heart-rending tactics, but it’s not their style.

Abortion is an act of desperation. Desperate women will have abortions, legal or otherwise. Whether you think it’s murder or not, that’s not going to change.

Whether you think it’s murder or not, I think we can all agree that the fewer abortions, the better. It’s a nasty thing that we all hope one day to leave behind. But why does making it illegal achieve this?

What ever happened to good old fashioned contraception, sex ed, and being realistic about people’s personal lives.

Countries that have taken this approach have slashed their abortion rates by more than half. Compare abortions in Latin America to Western Europe and you’ll see what I’m getting at.

In America, abortion rates are highest in places where the voting public is most against both abortion and sex ed. That’s not California or Massachusetts. That’s Texas or Georgia.

From the pro-life perspective, sex ed and good contraception has saved more unborn babies than any law restricting abortion could ever come close to doing.

It’s also helped women to take control over their own bodies in much less damaging way than the trauma of an abortion.

Hard to disagree with that, unless being prude is more important to you than unborn babies or women’s freedoms.

By Lisa

July 18, 2008 5:21 PM | Link to this

Does anyone remember the pro-life campaign from the 80s that showed pictures of these gorgeous, beautiful babies and children of all ages with the slogan, “Life: What a Beautiful Choice”?

That was a far better pro-life campaign than these bloody signs.

By "The Corporal"

July 18, 2008 5:24 PM | Link to this

To Mom First:

1) Turn it around ! The “fate” of that unborn child is to have the chance to live ! You “control” its body by letting it be killed yet YOU don’t want anyone controlling yours !

2) And you make my point. Since you did choose to be a “mother” that makes it a “baby” 100% dependent on you !

3) No, but we showed them every night on television !!! Poor answer - you dodged the point. You can’t have it both ways.
It’s wrong for our contstitution to allow conscription (it’s happening right now under “stop loss”) and yet not protect that unborn child.

4) “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you.” Jeremiah 1:5

I’m just the paper boy - take it up with the Editor !

P.S. To Must Agree:

Take you best shot (#1 - #4) ……

By Kat

July 18, 2008 5:25 PM | Link to this

I’m confused here… isn’t this article written by a woman who chose to give life, therefore, presumably not against the right to life fight? It seems to me she is just asking for the right to now be a caring mother. I applaud her efforts.

By "The Corporal"

July 18, 2008 5:31 PM | Link to this

To m:

1) Thank you - you made my point. You called it the “mother” and that makes “it” a baby. I don’t think I have ever heard, “oh, when is your fetus due?”

2) Would I call the surrogate mother a “mother” ? ABSOLUTELY, because she is and it would be just as wrong for her to terminate that innocent life once it has begun !

3) Try to think this through. It’s a constitutional issue. Why can the “state” (totally different Supreme Court rulings at the same time) control a man’s body for 2 years but not a woman’s body for 9 months ?

4) You will one day.