"As a woman steps out of the
Hope Clinic, Bill Gover implores her,
"When you're crying at night, don't turn
to the booze or the drugs. Turn to Jesus
Christ." The Illinois center provides
abortions, and Gover is one of many
protesters who come out every Saturday
morning to demonstrate against the
facility. He carries a large green and
white "Jesus" sign and follows patients as
they walk from their cars to the door of
the clinic.
[snip]
"I often see patients bawling because
they've been so brutalized by protesters,"
she told new volunteers at a recent
training session.
[snip]
At volunteer training, escorts are
repeatedly told not to speak to or even
look at the demonstrators. They are also
warned not to use each others' names at
the clinics. Widzer and Diedermann agree
that demonstrators will constantly goad an
escort whose name they know.
Oh my gosh, this is horrible! Thank-you
for posting the link....
And what is this I am reading about
someone taking photographs of woman at
clinics and posting them up on a website?
Is this really
true? And what exactly is being said
about these woman? I'm not sure it's
illegal, but I would think it would be a
form of slandering or defamation of
character. (depending on what was
written)
Note* When I try to post this it says the
system detects censored words in my text.
I'm not sure what that means, but I am
going to post it anyway. If there is
anything wrong with my post (Eiri) please
let me know.
You're fine!! It's the new safety system;
it clearly has some kinks in it still!
And yes. Everything in that article is
true. I have heard stories from other
people on this forum of how they were
chased - literally! - by pro-life
protesters all the way back to their car;
how they were even physically grabbed by
these protesters.
And Yoda himself is one of the
photographers of these women. No, it's not
*technically* an invasion of privacy
because the space around the clinic is
considered "public" and so a photographer
has the right to publish your image
without getting your consent. That doesn't
make it right or acceptable, however.
|
Snug
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 12 Dec 2007 Posts: 151 Location: In the jacuzzi, silly.
Thanks: 21
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-02-08 21:00pm
nightangel73
wrote:
But what you are doing
doesn't sound like caring for the unborn
about to die but more like revenge toward
the women going to abort. I have to think
you are not a christian Yoda because a
christian wouldn't do what you are
doing.
Yoda isn't pro-life. He's anti-woman.
Why else would someone use phrases like
"your looks aren't so hot either" and
"great big fat woman" in reference to
females on the internet that he knows
nothing about and has never met?
|
lucy315
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 25 Oct 2007 Posts: 123 Location: New Jersey, USA
Thanks: 10
Thanked:5
Posted: 03-02-08 22:09pm
Eiri
wrote:
You're fine!! It's the new safety system;
it clearly has some kinks in it still!
And yes. Everything in that article is
true. I have heard stories from other
people on this forum of how they were
chased - literally! - by pro-life
protesters all the way back to their car;
how they were even physically grabbed by
these protesters.
And Yoda himself is one of the
photographers of these women. No, it's not
*technically* an invasion of privacy
because the space around the clinic is
considered "public" and so a photographer
has the right to publish your image
without getting your consent. That doesn't
make it right or acceptable,
however.
Good to know I wasn't breaking any rules
I was one of the "victims" of protester
violence (who did get chased to my car,
and was grabbed AFTER the abortion was
over) It was the reason I joined this
forum. I literally had nightmares about
this lady! I don't think many of these
protesters realize what kind of mental
harm they are causing some of these woman.
When you are being chased, harassed,
having things thrown at you, and being
yelled at, of course you are going to
wonder if the person has a gun. Scary
stuff.
|
lucy315
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 25 Oct 2007 Posts: 123 Location: New Jersey, USA
Thanks: 10
Thanked:5
Posted: 03-02-08 22:26pm
yodavater
wrote:
Eiri
wrote:
That is just
DISGUSTING.
Yes, it certainly is. And probably 100%
false.
Why would you think the article is false?
Things like this happen all the time. The
pro-lifers are always coming up with new
ways to try to stop woman from aborting,
no matter how drastic.
Quote:
On the other
hand, I've read many prochoice posts where
they say they can ONLY feel empathy for
the mother, not for the baby. Prolifers,
on the other hand, always say they feel
compassion for BOTH, not just
one.
Are you one of the pro-lifers who has
compassion for both?
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-02-08 22:35pm
Yoda thinks it's false because if it's
true, then it reveals what the extremists
really are: wackos with no regard for a
person's life. He does not have compassion
for the woman, I can't imagine he does if
he's photographing them, saying the things
he does about them, and being outright
disrespectful of their rights as human
beings. Most pro-lifers fall under at
least one of those categories.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 03-03-08 08:34am
Snug
wrote:
It's legal, so that makes it right?
Hardly. That makes it not an "invasion of
privacy".
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 03-03-08 08:35am
Snug
wrote:
What's to defend? Robert Ferguson thought
it was okay to shoot doctors and plant
bombs.
You read his mind? Or are you channeling
him now?
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 03-03-08 08:36am
Snug
wrote:
And there was ol' Neal, telling the world
that shooting doctors was a good
idea..
Really? Do you have a link to that? I
have the BB service, too, what was the
name of the movie?
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 03-03-08 08:44am
meblonde01
wrote:
Yoda, with actions like that your position
does not come across with compassion. And
helping, loving, compassion goes a lot
further than the method you are using. How
many woman do you think changed their
minds by you doing that in such a radical
way? I think not
many.
First, I disagree that it is not
"compassionate" to remind people who are
about to kill their babies that it is an
action that they may be ashamed of, now
and later on.
Second, I know of no "more compassionate"
tactic that can be used to get someone to
reconsider as they head in the front door
of an abortuary. If you do, please
describe it to me.
Third, to show "compassion" towards the
woman while she is in the process of
killing her child is to send her the
message that you approve of what she is
about to do, IMO. It may make her feel
better about killing her child, but it
will not do anything for the life of the
child.
Fourth, I have one confirmed save by the
use of photography. I cannot say whether
or not there are others that I just
haven't found out about, but I can say
that I know of no one that has been made
more likely to abort because of the
photography. So, by my calculations,
that's a plus one score for photography.
And saving one baby, without causing the
death of any others, is a positive result
in my book.
To sum up, if you have some ideas of how
we can deal with abortion bound women more
effectively, I'd love to hear them. Bear
in mind, though, that we are kept about
150 feet away from the entrance here in
Knoxville, so we do not have the luxury of
being within "conversational distance"
from them. Anything we do, therefore, has
to be either on a large sign, or said
rather loudly for them to see or hear us.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 03-03-08 08:52am
nightangel73
wrote:
I'm pretty sure he is being more
succesful than you in saving lives. I
recall him saying of the women who went to
talk to them voluntarely. See I would join
a group like that.
I'm very happy to hear that someone
besides me is actually doing something
away from this forum, and even happier to
hear that they are successful. Every baby
saved is a wonderful thing.
Unfortunately, his method would not work
here, because we are restrained by court
order from getting within 150 feet of the
front door to the abortuary. Indeed I
agree that sidewalk "counciling" is the
preferred method of interaction, but it
isn't possible here. So, we do what we
can.
nightangel73
wrote:
But what you are doing doesn't sound like
caring for the unborn about to die but
more like revenge toward the women going
to abort. I have to think you are not a
christian Yoda because a christian
wouldn't do what you are
doing.
I think that the best way of caring for
the unborn is to try to save their
lives, in whatever non-violent way
is available to you. There is no
"revenge" involved because I'm not there
after the women have had their abortions,
nor am I interested in photographing them
then. My effort is to get them to
reconsider. And no, I am not a Christian,
I've mentioned several times here that I'm
agnostic. However, there are others who
self-identify as Christians who are using
the same photographic tactics that I use.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 03-03-08 08:55am
Snug
wrote:
Yoda isn't pro-life.
My opposition to the legal status of
elective abortion defines me as prolife,
your opinion notwithstanding.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 03-03-08 09:01am
lucy315
wrote:
Why would you think the article is false?
I've been a prolife activist for about
five years now, and I've traveled around
the country meeting other prolifers. To
date, I haven't seen any other prolifers
act in such a manner, or even heard such
behavior spoken of. I realize that
doesn't prove that it doesn't happen, but
I do believe that if such behavior exists,
it is the rare exception rather than the
rule. In fact, what is being described
comes quite close to sounding like a
violation of the federal law called the
FACE law, and violations of that law can
get you a nice long prison sentence.
lucy315
wrote:
Are you one of the pro-lifers who has
compassion for
both?
Yes, I am. But I don't believe that
showing compassion means expressing
agreement with the intention of killing
your baby, or in any way assisting them in
carrying that out. I think the most
compassionate thing one can do is to try
to dissuade someone from that path, by
whatever civil, non-violent means
available to you at the time, to prevent
that person from a possible lifetime of
regret and recrimination for having taken
their own child's life.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 03-03-08 09:04am
Eiri
wrote:
Yoda thinks it's false
because if it's true, then it reveals what
the extremists really are:
.
You have no understanding of the prolife
movement at all. It doesn't matter to a
true prolifer if you think we are all
monsters like Frankenstein or Dracula, as
long as we can influence you not to kill
your baby.
So go ahead, hurl all the insults you like
at me, they will roll off like water off a
duck's back.
|
Snug
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 12 Dec 2007 Posts: 151 Location: In the jacuzzi, silly.
Thanks: 21
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-03-08 10:58am
yodavater
wrote:
Snug
wrote:
It's legal, so that makes it right?
Hardly. That makes it not an "invasion of
privacy".
So you're conceding that taking photos is
not right, even though it's legal? Then
why do you do it?
|
Reptar
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 24 Oct 2007 Posts: 389
Thanks: 44
Thanked:13
Posted: 03-03-08 11:24am
yodavater
wrote:
Fourth, I have one confirmed save by the
use of photography. I cannot say whether
or not there are others that I just
haven't found out about, but I can say
that I know of no one that has been made
more likely to abort because of the
photography. So, by my calculations,
that's a plus one score for photography.
And saving one baby, without causing the
death of any others, is a positive result
in my book.
The woman said because of the long drive
she had time to think about what she was
going to do. She would of had a lot of
time in an abortion clinic, not to mention
counseling as well. And yes, we all know
that you think the counsellors will just
pressure them into it because they want to
make money, but that's simply not the
case. If a woman comes in and hesitates,
she will not be walking out of that room a
second later. They are frank in the
process of explaining what will happen,
they even offer to show the tools they
use. They do not push in one way or
another, and if I had to guess, I'd say
they push towards not performing an
abortion. The woman you spoke of probably
wouldn't of went through with an abortion
at the clinic. She obviously never thought
it through from the start.
|
Verizon-y
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 29 Aug 2007 Posts: 3291
Thanks: 2
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-04-08 04:09am
lucy315
wrote:
I was one of the "victims" of protester
violence (who did get chased to my car,
and was grabbed AFTER the abortion was
over) It was the reason I joined this
forum. I literally had nightmares about
this lady! I don't think many of these
protesters realize what kind of mental
harm they are causing some of these woman.
When you are being chased, harassed,
having things thrown at you, and being
yelled at, of course you are going to
wonder if the person has a gun. Scary
stuff.
I'm really sorry you had to experience
that. I don't think those people even
care if they are mentally harming women,
because they hate women to begin with.
That's why they are there in the first
place, they enjoy yelling at women. They
exhibit the exact opposite behavior you
would expect from someone who actually
cares about women and children.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 03-08-08 10:33am
Snug
wrote:
So you're conceding that taking photos is
not right, even though it's legal?
No.
Snug
wrote:
Then why do you do
it?
To try to save the lives of the babies
about to be slaughtered.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 03-08-08 10:36am
Reptar
wrote:
The woman said because of the long drive
she had time to think about what she was
going to do. She would of had a lot of
time in an abortion clinic, not to mention
counseling as well.
I'm basing my opinion on what the woman
herself said. Further, it is at least a
four hour drive to Atlanta, and I don't
think anyone claims that women are
counseled for four hours, do they?
Reptar
wrote:
The woman you spoke of probably wouldn't
of went through with an abortion at the
clinic. She obviously never thought it
through from the
start.
That was the whole point, to give her time
to think it through. Had she rushed down
to the nearby clinic, she might not have
had that time. And if we're going to
speculate on "what if" scenarios, the best
authority on that is probably the woman
herself, isn't she?
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 03-08-08 10:40am
futureshock
wrote:
I don't think those people even care if
they are mentally harming women, because
they hate women to begin with. That's
why they are there in the first place,
they enjoy yelling at women.
.
That's right, we're all sadists and
wild-eyed lunatics.
Now, how does that make it morally right
to electively kill an unborn baby?
|
worriedauzzi
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 29 Jul 2007 Posts: 203 Location: ,
Thanks: 5
Thanked:1
Posted: 03-23-08 03:42am
abortions are the removal of cells. I am
pregnant and I have had an abortion. You
don't know the emotional stress that woman
face. You have no idea the reasons behind
a woman who aborts. People need to back
of.f Having an abortion is nobody's choice
besides the pregnant woman. My friend had
an abortion after being violently raped
and caught a STD ... I went with her to
the clinic and there were people there
yelling and screaming at her telling her
she is a murderer. She aborted cells.
Unless you yourself are pregnant and face
a similar circumstance to someone who is
considering abortion you have no place to
criticize.
Is this really
true? And what exactly is being said
about these woman? I'm not sure it's
illegal, but I would think it would be a
form of slandering or defamation of
character. (depending on what was
written)
