More Pro-Abortion Vandalism
— Posted by John (October 25, 2006 at 10:40 am)
…In South Dakota.
From LifeNews:
The pro-abortion organization that is opposing the statewide abortion ban in South Dakota is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to televise ads against the ban. Though they have outspent pro-life advocates by a 2-1 margin pro-abortion activists have tried to silence the pro-life campaign for the ban by vandalizing their signs.
The pro-abortion vandalism has included painting coat hangers on the signs, changing the wording to urge people to vote against the abortion ban or advocate violence.
Desperation, anyone?
The article also notes:
A Catholic high school and Catholic church have been defaced with spray painted pro-abortion slogans and another incident of vandalism included spray painted messages advocating the eating of unborn babies.
Nice. I’m sure that will play well in Peoria Pierre.
Contrast this unhinged behavior with the pro-life response:
While abortion advocates claim to support women’s rights, a spokeswoman for Vote Yes for Life, the pro-life group whose signs have been trashed, says they don’t speak for her.
“The people who did this do not stand up for women like me,” Kayla Brandt told World Net Daily.
“Vandalism like that reminds me that the pro-abortion movement didn’t care about me when I was facing an unplanned pregnancy. And they still don’t care about women like me now.”
This entry is filed under Abortion, Culture Wars, Law & Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Rosie says:
No they don’t care about those women, but they do care about the money they will be losing. They’re done and they know it.
Comment posted October 25th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
Christina says:
When it comes to the ubiquitous coathanger, we need to remember:
1. Who is wielding the coathangers? Not prolifers. Every woman who died, dies, and will die from any abortion — legal or illegal, professional or amateur — dies at the hands of a prochoicer.
2. Waving a coathanger is shorthand for “If you don’t let us kill fetuses with canulas, we’ll kill their mothers with coathangers. At best that’s blackmail. But isn’t there a word for when you threaten to kill people if you don’t get your way? Isn’t that — terrorism?
Comment posted October 26th, 2006 at 10:09 am
mary kay says:
I love when really young protesters wave PLASTIC coathangers…they are obviously unclear on the concept…and you would perform an abortion with a plastic coathanger how?
But you’re right. People committ suicide by overdosing on drugs all the time. But we still sell aspirin. You don’t see people protesting suicide by waving bottles of tylenol or codeine…
Hangers were made to hang clothes on. If a woman decides to use one to perform an abortion then she does so at her own risk.
And I can’t imagine anyone ignorant enough to actually use a coathanger for such a thing in the year 2006…As a matter of fact there is no proof whatsoever that anyone EVER used a coathanger to do an abortion.
Besides, there will always be a Ms. Arcana to perform illegal abortions…and then talk about it at a Catholic college…so coathangers would be unneccessary.
MK
Comment posted October 26th, 2006 at 10:35 am
Mike says:
Listen to Dr. Allen Unruh’s Update in the Fight in South Dakota
———-
Listen to Barbara McGuigan (10-24-06) on EWTN radio interview Dr. Allen Unruh on a update on the fight for life in South Dakota.
Barbara McGuigan’s Weekly Pro-Life Open Forum
I think this is the best Pro-Life Show in the media. It’s weekly on Tuesday’s on EWTN Radio. If you missed Barbara’s Show this week you can listen to the archived version. Just click on the link and type in “Barbara McGuigan” in the second search engine.
http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/intro.asp
Mike
Comment posted October 26th, 2006 at 9:52 pm
Lauren says:
Whether you or I like it or not…
“And I can’t imagine anyone ignorant enough to actually use a coathanger for such a thing in the year 2006…As a matter of fact there is no proof whatsoever that anyone EVER used a coathanger to do an abortion.”
Girls, especially young girls, are still using this method of abortion because they are too afraid to have to tell their parents about their pregnancies. It’s a very dangerous method that leaves many women severely damaged. Safe and rare is how abortion should be.
Comment posted October 28th, 2006 at 11:17 am
mary kay says:
You can’t very well use the argument that legal abortion is safe abortion and then turn around and say that we’re still using coat hangers. Which is it? And please show me proof that this went on and still goes on…
MK
Comment posted October 28th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
Pansy Moss says:
Christina,
Do you have any stats on “coathanger abortions” particularly now? I kinda thought that was an urban legend. I have never known anyone who would resort to even considering such a thing…So if it is known that young girls are resorting to coathanger abortions, there has to be some evidence somewhere (either statistically or anecdotal) for ianyone here to know it still happens.
Comment posted October 28th, 2006 at 5:37 pm
Pansy Moss says:
Also, wasn’t legalised abortion supposed to stop coathanger abortions?
Comment posted October 28th, 2006 at 5:38 pm
Mike says:
Lauren said…
Safe and rare is how abortion should be
Lauren,
Making abortion legal has never made it safe. To date over 45,000,000 babies have been killed in their mothers womb and many women have been killed during abortion proceedures.
Another thing I do not understand is why someone like yourself who thinks abortion is morally fine would want to make abortion rare? Why would you care if abortion was rare?
Mike
Comment posted October 28th, 2006 at 10:34 pm
John says:
Pansy said: “Do you have any stats on “coathanger abortions” particularly now?”
Now? Good question; I’m not sure. As for pre-1973:
Check out the the chapter on illegal abortions from Abortion: Questions & Answers by Dr. John & Barbara Willke. It includes this paragraph:
In a more recent version of this book, if memory serves, Dr. & Mrs. Willke report that they have since found documented evidence of one pre-1973 self-induced coat hanger abortion; I don’t have a copy of the newest edition at hand, however, but I think I remember coming across that.
Comment posted October 29th, 2006 at 6:59 pm
Lauren says:
For the record.. more women have died proportionally from childbirth than abortion… but fear tactics rather than facts play out better here. i think this is the number one thing I dislike and why I could never join a pro-life movement. It’s all about scaring women instead of being honest. Between ABC and oooo you might die from a botched abortion, it makes the movement extremely sensational and dishonest.
Secondly I never said abortion was morally right. i don’t think it’s my place to make a judgement on anyone’s decisions or rationale for doing something so personal. I leave that up to the woman in that case to resolve for herself what moral and ethical or spiritual beliefs she has. Nor do I really think it’s your place to judge Michael. You can say abortion is wrong all day long. But it’s not your place to say this woman is evil because she had one, or she’s going to hell, or what a slut she is. If you really believe in what you say you believe in, you know that Jesus is hanging out with the sinners more than the holier than thous. Under your system of beliefs, it’s up to Jesus to decide right and wrong and for him to dictate that once we die. Have mercy.
Comment posted October 30th, 2006 at 10:25 am
Pansy Moss says:
or she’s going to hell, or what a slut she is.
Can you find one place anywhere on the blog were anyone said anyone was going to Hell? if you are Catholic, that what is called an “eschatological judgment” and that is precisely the type of judgement Jesus was speaking of when He said “judge not lest ye be judged”. As opposed to making a practical judgement such as “abortion is murder, murder is not a good thing, therefore abortion is not a good thing”
The point here is not “scare tactics”, just facts.
Again, if you eat Big Macs all day, and someone comes out with the facts that a constant diet of Big Macs is not healthy, is that scare tactics?
For the record.. more women have died proportionally from childbirth than abortion… but fear tactics rather than facts play out better here. Do you have stats on this?
Comment posted October 30th, 2006 at 11:35 am
Rosie says:
“For the record.. more women have died proportionally from childbirth than abortion…”
According to the info. that you have gotten. Here’s some different info.
http://www.gatago.com/alt/atheism/4439536.html
Comment posted October 30th, 2006 at 5:35 pm
lauren says:
I dont trust world net daily rosie.. it’s a very right-wing site.
The CDC i’ll trust…
In 2000, as in previous years, deaths related to legal induced abortions occurred rarely (less than one death per 100,000 abortions).
The overall pregnancy-related mortality ratio was 11.8 deaths per 100,000 live births and ranged from 10.3 in 1991 to 13.2 in 1999.
Comment posted October 31st, 2006 at 9:01 am
John says:
Lauren said: “For the record.. more women have died proportionally from childbirth than abortion…”
Lauren,
How many times are you going to trot out the tired old “Abortion is safer than childbirth” shibboleth?
After you did so on August 10th, I referred in a post the following day to your having done so, and linked to an analysis by Dr. John Willke that debunks, for the umpteenth time, this talking point.
Comment posted October 31st, 2006 at 11:06 am
Rosie says:
I just found this…
Published in the Rapid City Journal: 10/24/06
In the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court case of 1973, the Court said: “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins … the judiciary at this point in the development of man’s knowledge is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”
The High Court then made a key admission: “If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case of course collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the (14th) Amendment.”
Scientifically, we now know exactly when life begins – at conception. From the point of conception, the child’s DNA is fixed and remains constant throughout the child’s life.
We now know scientifically that the unborn are separate unique living human beings. That means that they should be protected under the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment couldn’t be clearer: “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.”
Comment posted October 31st, 2006 at 12:15 pm
lauren says:
and for the umpteenth time i’ll trust the CDC before I’ll trust some pro-life organization’s statistics.
Comment posted October 31st, 2006 at 3:43 pm
John says:
“and for the umpteenth time i’ll trust the CDC before I’ll trust some pro-life organization’s statistics.”
As you wish, although I continue to be puzzled by your repeated tendency to shoot the messenger (without, seemingly, scrutinizing the message).
I’m also puzzled by your apparent willingness to uncritically accept figures from, say, the CDC. At the very least, would you admit that it’s at least possible that government agencies like the CDC might be biased on the issue of abortion, and consequently, produce skewed data favorable to the pro-choice position?
Bear in mind, I’m not asking you if you agree that this is the case; merely if you think it’s possible that it may be inadvisable to take the CDC’s data at face value.
Comment posted October 31st, 2006 at 4:07 pm
lauren says:
I think it’s entirely possible that numbers may be skewed. I dont understand why the center for disease control might do it. DOn’t you think it’s 100 times more possible your numbers are biased given their source?
Comment posted November 1st, 2006 at 12:20 pm
lauren says:
and btw, i shoot the messenger all the time, because you guys always seem to fail to bring a legitimate study up that’s actually published other places besides made up “institutes”
Comment posted November 1st, 2006 at 12:21 pm
Pansy Moss says:
and btw, i shoot the messenger all the time, because you guys always seem to fail to bring a legitimate study up that’s actually published other places besides made up “institutes”
Why? Again, it’s a pro-life blog. Why is it more important for you to cause discord among people who don’t agree with your POV versus just sticking to places where people agree with you? It’s not as if you will convince anyone here that murdering babies is OK…
Comment posted November 2nd, 2006 at 10:42 am
Lauren says:
My presence isn’t to convince you. my presence is to counterbalance some of the hyperbole (i’m sure by occasionally balancing it with my own hyperbole). You can’t convince someone who is looking at biased sources and hanging to them for dear life.
Comment posted November 2nd, 2006 at 4:37 pm
Pansy Moss says:
My presence isn’t to convince you. my presence is to counterbalance some of the hyperbole (i’m sure by occasionally balancing it with my own hyperbole)
Justifying murder is a “counter balance”?
You can’t convince someone who is looking at biased sources and hanging to them for dear life.
The same can be said for all the pro-choice sources.
Comment posted November 2nd, 2006 at 5:04 pm
John says:
Lauren said: “and btw, i shoot the messenger all the time, because you guys always seem to fail to bring a legitimate study up that’s actually published other places besides made up ‘institutes’”
Lauren,
The only overtly pro-life research institute footnoted in Dr. John Willke’s “Abortion vs. Childbirth” analysis that I cited in comment #15 is the Elliot Institute, which merely provided graphs for a Finnish study. (Here’s how that footnote reads: “Pregnancy Associated Deaths in Finland 1987 – 1994, M. Gissler At All Acta Obstet. Gynecal. Scandi 76, 1997, p. 651-657, graphs from Elliot Institute.”)
The other sources cited were the Southern Medical Journal, the British Medical Journal, the American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, and Medical Science Monitor.
To answer your question, then:
“DOn’t you think it’s 100 times more possible your numbers are biased given their source?”
No, not really.
I should also remind you that the study we cited last week on the carcinogenic properties of birth control pills was published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings.
Comment posted November 3rd, 2006 at 11:39 am