By Chris Magee
Night editor
I saw the press release earlier in the week that there was an abortion protest planned for Naperville, but other than realizing we'd be doing a story on it, I didn't think much of it.
That is, until Saturday when I was driving down Ogden to Jewel to pick up some milk. Traffic was heavy and as usual backed up at the lights, so there was a lot of time to look around. On the side of the road next to Naperville North, I notice a sign warning of graphic abortion images ahead.
Now, I suppose if you have young kids in the car that sign might give you time to tell them to avert their eyes, but it's not like you can take another route, because Ogden is the main road through the north side of town, and since my destination was at the intersection of Ogden and Washington - where the protest was centered - there would be no avoiding it.
The kids are why this protest bothers me. I am an adult and I can handle reality. Those protesters were set up in front of the grocery store, a place families are likely to be taking their young kids. Thekids are going to see that and they won't know what it is or why it's there and then the parents are stuck having to deal with a very uncomfortable situation they weren't prepared for. And the kids will never understand a complicated issue like this anyway.
And I'm pro-life, so if I don't approve I can only imagine how the pro-choice people feel about this. Regular readers of this blog will have learned how sometimes the message can get lost in the tactics of the messenger. Someone has a decent point, but their tactics and the way they go about the debate turns people off.
That's what happens with a protest like this. Instead of a conversation about abortion, the conversation is going to be about "you're scaring my kids." That's not helping the cause these protesters represent.
Did you catch the counter demonstration by Our Lady of Mercy Church before Saturday Evening Mass?
I happened to see the protestor's signs. So did my 6 year old son and 4 year old daughter. Can you imagine the horror those images inflict on innocent children?? We ended up sitting at the light just two car-lengths away from the protest. Once I realized what the protest was about, (I didn't see a warning sign) there was nothing I could do other than to attempt to distract my kids.
No matter what an adult's stance is, I believe you should be respectful about how you pose your arguement. In my humble opinion, the protestors were negligent and disrespectful to the citizens of Naperville who saw their small-minded way of attempting to prove their point. I don't agree with their shock-therapy, in-your-face tactics and it angers me that their ironic disregard for others can so negatively impact young children or even sensitive adults, for that matter. The location they chose was very public and many families travel through that busy. I don't think they should have been allowed to use such disturbing and graphic visuals.
I think doing so detracts from the sincerity of the message and focuses on the disregard and disrespect in the manner the protestors used to convey their message. Shame on them!
It is truly outstanding citizens are excising their constitutional right to protest. With an abortionist heading up the White House, babies needs all the help we have to offer. I’m behind any effort supporting the life of a baby. I would like to see protests every weekend.
The images scare your kids? I wonder what these fetuses go through. If the images warrant a conversation with your kids then have one. Say thats what happens to babies inside of women who would rather have them killed then allow them the opportunity to live. It can't be worse then the crap you allow them to watch on tv or the computer or even video games.
If pro-choice is so right, what makes the images so wrong?
It's the truth isn't it?
And for those who didn't see the warning signs on the side of the road, when your daughters become pregnant don't blame the fact you didn't see the warning signs. Life comes at you fast and with no signs on the side of the road to warn you. What world are you living in?
Just another example of adults acting like children.
Go to the Jewel and pick up a can of stewed tomatoes and a can opener. Open the can and hurl the contents at the sidewalk in front of them.
Personally, I have always felt that these types of protests tend to hurt their case and their message. Yes it may be the truth in a way, but it doesn't win people who may be on the fence over to the cause. In fact, I feel it pushes them the other direction because of their anger at having to deal with this issue with children who are not at an age to possibly comprehend it. It adds in a whole new set of issues that are not part of the pro-life pro-choice debate.
Pro-abortion politicians like Judy Biggert would (do) tell us that unborn children are non-people and have no legal rights; like the Jews in Nazi Germany; and, that abortions are simply another medical procedure like removing an ingrown toenail or a wart.
Like the 1945 movies showing stacks of skeleton corpses, the photos of aborted humans graphically demonstrates the big lie that the politicians and courts have been telling us for years.
Babies are humans.
I believe that Attorney General Holder is illuminating the way to resolving this gross violation of human rights by threatening trials for officials in the Bush Administration and the workers at the CIA by claiming that crimes against humanity need to be prosecuted. If putting water in the nose of a terrorist is a war crime, certainly exterminating 50 million US citizens must qualify?
Just like the Nazi’s had absolute control over the Reich’s courts and legislature in Germany, the abortionists have control over the legislature and courts in the USA. Given the extreme scope of the crimes against humanity perpetrated by the abortionists, should the next President (or just the military) defend the constitutional rights of the babies and declare martial law in defense of the Constitution?
It is the sworn duty of the President, all Federal Officials and the Military to defend the constitution, not the politicians or judges. “All enemies foreign or domestic”
Denying humans their US constitutional rights by declaring them non-human would seem to be a gross violation of the constitution. The disproportionate number of African Americans aborted does appear to indicate Nazi like targeting of an ethnic group.
The application of anti-genocide and anti-war-crimes international laws to the abortionists would open the way for military trials, just like 1945 Germany. For international legitimacy and diversity, Islamic Sharia law judges could be invited to participate as impartial jurists.
As a defense, the abortionists can claim that:
* they were lawfully elected
* they made it legal by passing laws
* they made it legal by finding judges to uphold and implement their laws
* the babies are somehow at fault, nobody wants them
* and the abortion workers can claim they were simply following orders
to By Anonymous on July 19, 2009 10:38 AM
DITTO
I am against abortion.
But here is some food for thought.
If the girls and ladies had the 50,000,000 unwanted babies every year or whatever time frame who were aborted, we would have a population approaching that of China by now or soon.
Maybe because we have abortion we are not limited by our government to one baby per family.
In China no child has a brother or sister.
In China no parent has both a boy and a girl.
As you can see there is a huge positive to each negative in this world.
Thanks to all the people who believe in abortion, I was able to have 4 beautiful kids instead of just one.
This issue is a double edged sword issue and the pro-life people need to think positively instead of negatively.
Whenever I see these protesters I always ask them how many adopted and foster children they all have. I imagine that since they care so much for children, they must have a lot! But the answer is usually along the lines of "none" or "I have a family of my own".
I wonder why that is?
One would think that those who care so deeply about the unborn would then continue to care about the lives of those children once they have left the womb, wouldn't they? And those people would be doing all they could as good Christians to care for those unwanted babies, including bringing them into their own home and caring for them and providing for them as they would their own, right?
And yet, strangely enough, we don't see protesters or activists parading through Naperville encouraging people to adopt and foster unwanted children - those who were "saved" and whose parents "chose life". That is curious indeed! It's almost as if those pro-life activists stop caring about the life that was "saved" once it's out of the womb.
I would almost suggest it smacks of negligence and hypocrisy.
I live within shouting distance of the pro-life protesters. They were rude and loud. One was disrespectful when asked why they were shouting so loud. (Do they think everyone who's pro-choice is deaf?) There was a woman, a mom who, in addition to having a 3 and 6 year old with her, was carrying a disgustingly graphic sign. She treated me and her kids to a big "F@#% YOU B@#$%!" when I asked her why she was shouting. I was totally amazed and saddened to hear her disrespectful comment. I had not asked disrespectfully. I had not used bad language. I had not shouted. BUT - here's the worst thing that happened. Her older child said "YEAH...(and then said the same thing his mother had said)". Then his mother said to me "Look what you made my little 6 year old say!"
WOW, I just shook my head. What kind of message was she giving?
Anon 7/19 10:38-interesting comment. Educators and others in our community have no problem having our children watch movies containing shocking and appalling WWII prison camp movie footage in schools wherein the subjects are easily identified as previously living and murdered human beings. Or criminals speaking in our schools who are guility as sin but free as a bird. Odd how when the subject matter chips away at their precious purportedly enlightened poitical pro-abortion point of view trumping life, they become agitated and are grossed out. Suddenly we must have a set of laws that prevent this peaceful protest from being seen by our children. Or in the Sun article today the woman complaining the bad timing of this protest too soon after the death of the infamous Dr. Tiller, a very, very bad man who became a multi millionaire operating a very miserable abortion "womens health clinic". Abortion is a dirty business and if you are going to be a proponent of total unrestricted abortion on demand, you are going to get dirty hands since most people in this country oppose such enlightened ideas. And finally to Origninal Joe-refrain from hurling anything at anyone on either side of the street. That already happend a couple three years ago and as those lads found out, the criminal court system cost a lot of money. They now have a file. You may see the police there but there are also police there you do not readily see. So control your anger and contempt for someone who does not think like you do and behave like adults at these protests or you are going to eat cheese sandwiches in the county jail in Wheaton until bond court on Monday morning.
To By of Course 7/19/092:38pm: Most people in this country do oppose unrestricted abortion. It is reasonable to think most adoptions are by anti-abortionists rather than abortionists. And, the rate of adoptions is probably a higher pecentage in the anti abortion crowd than the abortion crowd. I know many of the anti abortionists and groups such as Birth Right, The Cradle and others assist women by helping them adopt unwanted babies. To the woman with the NOW sign, reddish hair and glasses standing on the corner of the Mobil station shouting NO Fetus Can Beat Us! Shame on You! You are simply a disgusting human being. Go back to DuPage NOW, Glen Ellyn where you belong. From what we heard when we were observing the protest, neither side at times can claim their language was more appropriate than the other and that includes a couple of passing motorists with obscenity laced comments and gestures.
By Of Course... on July 19, 2009 2:38 PM
Totally Agree. These people are typically swept up into this movement by poor arguments that simply deny the facts of the world around them. It would be wonderful if we lived in the ivory tower world these "Family values / Christian" folks espouse. The reality is much different. In one breath they can say they are defending lives while freely supporting the murder of others. It's the same type of justification used by other radical groups such as Al Qaeda, IRA, etc.: "The end justifies the means".
I find it funny that some of the above posts use typical conspiracy theory tactics as well by trying to argue that the government is somehow conniving to "kill babies". In reality, the vast majority of politicians avoid this topic like an electric line.....
Oh well, I learned a long time ago that it is hard to argue with people that blindly believe things based on "faith". They have long ago abandoned logic and critical skepticism....
The total depravity of our generation is confirmed when people can see images such as these and continue to argue the merits of abortion or nit pick over the way in which this heinous evil is exposed.
There is no greater proof of the supremacy of self in our culture than Creative Thinker's argument that it's good that so many other people's babies were slaughtered in the womb so that Creative Thinker could have a large family.
As a people, our "consciences are seared as with a hot iron" such that "They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts"
May God have mercy on our generation, both the 50 million murdered and the rest who stand by watching.
LEVITY,
What would have been the appropriate volume level outside the main gates at Dachau?
By LEVITY on July 19, 2009 5:14 PM
I live within shouting distance of the pro-life protesters. They were rude and loud.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Course,
The baby would have to be very quick on their hands and feet to get past the abortion doctor pulling him apart, then they could be adopted.
Alternatively, no other country would adopt the Jews that the NAZIs wanted to get rid of. So your point sounds like a recycled argument used by the NAZI to justify genocide.
By Of Course... on July 19, 2009 2:38 PM
Whenever I see these protesters I always ask them how many adopted and foster children they all have.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Creative,
According to the CIA worldfact book, the population of China is 1.33 billion.
The US population is 307 million.
Total abortions since R v W is estimated at 50 million.
To catch up with China, your husband is going to have to rush home for lunch frequently. You may want to stock up on vitamins and bottled water.
By Creative Thinker on July 19, 2009 2:12 PM
I am against abortion.
But here is some food for thought.
If the girls and ladies had the 50,000,000 unwanted babies every year or whatever time frame who were aborted, we would have a population approaching that of China by now or soon.
From persuasion research these methods actually do more harm than good. They can do incredible harm to children also. We have restrictions in movies where children can not view sex, nasty horrific blood & guts & hear offensive language and yet this is ok for them to see? This is something the parent does not have a choice to avoid unlike a movie theater. Our radio & tv we can't do this so why in general public outside is it ok? I think it is totally the wrong approach. While I'm not in favor of abortion I do agree one has a right to choose. I'm sorry but I do not want some 9 yr old girl who has been sexually assaulted by a stranger or even some abusive family member having a baby. I don't agree it should be just used as a careless birth control method but there are cases I'm ok with it.
Glock 22...what age are these children that educators allow to watch this...now preschool, 1st & 2nd graders etc! Big difference!
Quite frankly on tv/radio or movies I even get to choose not to view/hear but in public like this I can't avoid them and that is not right.
You know why don't we see the following pictures from protesters:
* Dead people, diseased livers, lungs etc for smoking & alcohol etc.
* Dead mangled bodies against speeders or drunk drivers
* Children/wives who are abused
* Animals who have been abused or neglected
ETC!!!
Actually PETA does use images of abused and mangled animals in some of their protests. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riyGsjGs78I
And they do those on public streets. I would imagine that could be quite disturbing for kids too.
The others I don't believe use them in protests, but they do use images in educational materials geared towards specific ages or populations. And in those cases they are probably all over the age of 15 which means they can process it better.
As someone who is on the fence on the issue, not quite in either camp, these tactics make me want nothing to do with the pro-life side. They can have those images in their literature, on their website, etc. But the tactics they employed over the weekend, that expose young children who are not developmentally ready for these topics, are appalling. And the behavior of some of the people when questioned about their tactics is even worse. They give Christians a bad name.
The sad reality is that if there wasn't a demand for the service (from the customers) there wouldn't have to be any protests.
Simple as that.
To Get Real,
With all due respect, it is not your place to tell me when to talk to my children about issues nor what to say to them. Given your viciousness and in-your-face-beligerance, you would have fit in well with the shrill and angry protestors (on both sides) who were unable to maturely and respectfully present their points of views.
Your attack on my children and my parenting skills, when you don't even know me, proves you are the type of person who is unable to see the big picture or attempt to stand in someone else's shoes. You don't know what televisions shows, movies, etc I allow my children to view. You don't know our family values, beliefs, or our faith yet you feel you are in a position to comment on my life. That sort of ignorant attitude is similar to those, pro-life and pro-choice, who feel they are qualified to tell others how to run their lives - and with no regard to being respectful or kind in how they deliver their message.
That is how the message is lost. The delivery, when it is done in a militant, rude, disturbing, or graphic manner becomes the issue. The focus is then shifted to the behavior rather than the issue. Get Real - Grow Up!
Clizabeth
I've lived thought a 'vocation' after attending a theological seminary
brainwashing's are for the meek, and gullible
protesting is fine; ditto for the posters
I too have to agree & again point out the fact
that there's a significant difference between
pro-birth & pro-life
as for adopting kids; personally I don't want any of the
protesters in the prairie dresses adopting anybody
let them have their say / posters
just hand them army application forms. . .
they'll fit right in
yet another example of Christianity
rhymes with insanity
That inhuman monolith
Category: Evil • Religion
Posted on: July 18, 2009 10:00 PM, by PZ Myers
Several months ago, we witnessed a tragic spectacle in the news: a nine-year old Brazilian girl was raped, became pregnant, and got an abortion…and the Brazilian Catholic church responded by excommunicating all the participants. One cleric in Rome, Monsignor Rino Fisichella, said the church had been insensitive, but no one in the hierarchy stepped forward to outright condemn the heartlessness of the church's stance and the unfairness of the policy.
We now have an official document from the Catholic church clearly stating their position. Anyone involved in an abortion for any reason is to be automatically excommunicated, no exceptions. They've actually hardened their position.
That includes nine-year old children raped by their stepfather. It includes any doctors who act on sympathy for a maltreated child. Of course, all the rapist has to do is demand that his victim bear his child, and he will be welcomed in the bosom of the holy church. The church is standing firm on principle.
…there is a more important principle at stake. "We have laws, we have a discipline, we have a doctrine of the faith," the official says. "This is not just theory. And you can't start backpedaling just because the real-life situation carries a certain human weight." Benedict makes it ever more clear that his strict approach to doctrine will remain a central pillar to his papacy, bad publicity be damned.
I see. Dogma is more important than reality, and most surprisingly for representatives of a religion that claims the moral high ground, it is more important than human needs.
Everyone should simply leave that evil institution — tell them they can keep their bricks and their real estate, their gold chalices and their gilt robes, their layered assemblage of celibate perverts, meddling old men, and fearful brides of Christ, and let that human element walk away, free of their superstitions. The church doesn't want that human weight, anyway.
It's none of your business what a woman does with her body!!!
How about this for a hypothetical?
What if a group held a position that all (legal) pornography is just a celebration of how God intended us to be? The human body is beautiful and sex is a gift from God - don't hide it. The group could then hire a dozen college kids to hold full size graphic photos of adults engaged in all kinds of sexual activity. The college hires would be directed to specifically stand in front of the abortion protestors kids and show them the pictures....In the same vein you could have a group that is FOR the death penalty holding pictures of murder victims along with autopsy photos to show why they believe in the death penalty. Again, these could be shown to the abortion protestors children.
Is this a hypothetical that has similar points and methods used by the protestors, and what do you think the protestors response would be? Would they view it as educational and a learning tool? They are on record as already saying their pictures are ok for my kids to see - are they ok with my pictures shown to their kids? Before you respond though, keep in mind that those in favor of this have been using the holocaust and Nazi germany atrocities as equal examples so my hopotheticals are under the same stretch of logic, and not something I advocate.
As an adoptee, it is hard for me to argue for abortion. After all, my mother gave me the chance at life. However, should my daughter be raped and become pregnant or should I or my daughter have a medical condition that may claim one of our lives because of a pregnancy...I am glad that abortion as an option exists.
As for the tactics used by the anti-abortion group, yes it is their constitutional right to peacefully protest but like others, I believe their behavior simply forces people away from their cause, not bring them into the fold.
When we drove through there was a counter protest already in place, so we had the sight of mutilated fetuses, stacks of baby fetus arms in blood, and banners demanding...abortion on demand as their god given right. My son opened the window and asked what right they had to display violent kiddie snuff pornography in public. Then the light changed.
Nothing like two ignorant groups of fools occupying both sides of the issue.
Anonymous July 20, 2009 12:20am,
Not long ago India was about the population of America. It is now approaching the population of China.
How did that happen? Did the husbands rush home for lunch?
Usually a little less than one person dies for every person that is born causing population growth in Western Countries to be under control.
If you have 50 more million born against no additional dead adults in the USA, a population rise can creep unimaginably and exponentially fast. We could catch China in a century or two as these 50 million will have trees of offspring against no initial new deaths. Should we not care what happens to the USA after we die?
I wonder how China ever reached a poplulation of 1.33 billion. That is truly amazing considering for as long as I can remember Chinese couples could only have one child. If I recall correctly it happened some time in the 70's.
I am sure China was only a billion or less when the law was passed "only one child per couple." And yet they increased their population 330 million which is more people then in the United States. And keep in mind China does not have an immigration policy like the USA. No one immigrates to China. In America most of us are immigrants of the last 2 centuries. I guess the American Indians in the last million years had a low reproduction rate compared to the Chinese Natives. Maybe the history majors including the Moderator can educate us as to what happened to bring the Eastern Asian world to this situation of near disastrous growth.
Maybe the Chinese are coming home for lunch for some extracurricular activities and raising kids secretly since most Chinese live out in the rural country where it is hard to monitor them. Keep in mind bribery is widespread in China. Those officials responsible for birth control could be on the take.
To reiterate I am against abortion. But I feel those who abort have allowed us who do not believe in abortion to have more children and enjoy our bundles of joy while they slaughter their bundles of joy. That is the irony of the situation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
There would have been 400 million Chinese between 1979 and 2006 if it was not for the one child per couple law according to Chinese Officials. Maybe 417 million by 2009. Thus the population of China today could have easily been 1.75 billion and counting in 2009. For the record, Chinese are forced to abort a second child with few exceptions. I guess without abortion and control in China, it appears the Chinese would not have enough room in their own country for themselves. Are we willing in the USA to allow 300 million Chinese to immigrate here? Certainly the Indians with a population of over one billion and less land than the Chinese, can not allow immigration of Chinese to their homeland. In truth we in this WORLD have a dilemna approaching us in the near future. Of course that is why we have nuclear bombs....to solve the problems that we otherwise can not solve.
It is interesting that prior to the 1950's organized religion did not recognize the humanity of the miscarried, still born, and children who did not survive for at least 30 days. According to organized religion the above were not to be mourned or accorded funeral rights. There are passages in the Book of Job recognizing this lack of humanity.
If the above were not recognized for over 5500 years as human entities, why the big fuss now? What has changed? The Holy Scriptures are the same. Why would the above who were not recognized as a life worth mourning prior to the 1950's suddenly be accorded human entity status now?
In answer to your question of what happened to spur population growth in Asia, the answer is modern medicine. For most of history families all over the world pretty much all lived on farms and had 6-8 kids or more because half of them would die in childhood and they needed help with the farm. Medicine advanced and all of a sudden, those children didn't die, but the parents kept having kids. In the more developed countries, people moved off the farm, got better educations, married later in life and stopped having big families. In the third world, that hasn't happened, thus high population growth.
By Anonymous on July 20, 2009 2:34 PM
It is interesting that prior to the 1950's organized religion did not recognize the humanity of the miscarried, still born, and children who did not survive for at least 30 days.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organized religion is simply organized religion just as you refer to it. It is not the word of God. It it the word of man saying what he pleases at the appropriate moment and time in history.
Organized religion is for the weak in life who need a crutch to get through life.
If possible, I would keep religion out of this debate about abortion.
I have no objection if the Moderator wants to post another thread about organized and man made religions. It would give us an opportunity to disprove all religions.
Of course, for those who have blind faith, you will not be able to disprove anything. On second thought, I think this would be a very bad choice for a thread.
You people are very frightening. I wouldn't let my backhand near any of you.
Critical Thinker on July 20, 2009 3:26 PM
Organized religion is for the weak in life who need a crutch to get through life.
I wouldn't go there "critical thinker" (at least you have consistently been using non gender aliases). The last time you attacked religion and called it a "crutch" it led to you pretending to be Barak Obama and we all know how that ended. Based on your recent discussions with Former WV Mom on another thread I would think you have your hands full with your own kids (and their friends who are thieves), not time to insult those who find their religion a matter of their own business. Of course this assumes that you actually do have kids!
If what you said about your own kids is true, I think more than a few of us would suggest that a little "organized religion" would have helped them out in life!
Just for clarity and honesty's sake, the Anonymous posting "By Anonymous on July 19, 2009 9:37 PM" was me. I lost the signal on my iPhone and did not realize the post had been submitted.
As for the topic, it is actually quite simple: You cannot argue with people that blindly believe in "spirits", "angels", "gods" what have you. These people have no problem recognizing any other mythology as just that but abandon the very same arguments to support their so called "faith".
The arguments on this topic are simple:
Tactics: as pointed out by many people extreme tactics as used by this group, PETA, and any other protest group do nothing but embolden their opposition. The folks who agree with them are not the targets of the protest. They want to "convert" others to their cause. It appears to generally fail.
Anti-abortion rights position: There is a grim reality in this world. Abortion has been around since the dawn of time. The only difference is that it can be obtained in sterile and controlled environments in some Nations now. Even if totally banned, just as many abortions will occur. Only, now you can add to it deaths of women & the spreading of infectious disease due to unsanitary conditions where the procedure occurs. The religious folks use classic non-logical arguments based on a book they believe was quoted to someone by a god. You can insert any god (Christian, Jew, Hindu, Mayan, etc.) and the argument is the same: An imaginary person said so. You can't argue this as it is a non-sensical argument to begin with.....
The good news: America seems to finally be getting fed up with this "moral majority" crowd and they are losing power and influence throughout the land.....
:~)
"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."
Thomas Jefferson
Unfortunately, the fanatical religious right thinks it has to stoop to this level to get their point across and gain supporters, when in fact the graphic photos, as well as murder, harassment, vandalism and bombings that they support actually turn people away.
Newsflash...............after all these years, abortion is still legal in this country. Also, the Constitution protects everyone born in this country, not everyone conceived. I know the Bible thumpers will claim different, but fortunately the Bible isn't the law of the land.
this thread is not to debate the right or wrong of abortion, but the methods used to protest last weekend. their methods were absolutely wrong and out of line and draw a response that quite frankly they are hoping to get.
From the Jefferson Library Website concerning the quotation posted By Anonymous on July 20, 2009 10:05 PM:
"We are asked about this one on a fairly regular basis. As with many spurious Jefferson quotes, it is frequently seen on various Internet sites. Many sites do not cite a source, but a good number of those that do attribute this quote to a letter from TJ to a "Dr. Wood." As far as we know, TJ never wrote to an individual calling him/herself Dr. Wood. Another suspicious element is the statement that he does not find in Christianity "one redeeming feature." One presumes that Jefferson did, in fact, find some redeeming features in Christianity, otherwise he would not have taken the time to paste together his own versions of the Bible."
http://www.monticello.org/library/reference/spurious.html
Dear Ron: Since maybe you and many others seem to think the government should be making the choice for ME about MY health care and ultimately what medical procdures I should be favored with, you had better damn well believe to claim "its none of your business what a woman does with her body" is no longer a substanative argument for abortion rights. Given the direction and potential scope of Obama Healthcare, it is eactly everybodys business what a woman or any other person in the country does with their or has done to their body. It will no longer be their decision. So climb on board and forget about its a womans right to choose. It is the government that will ultimately decide.
Anon,
I just finished writing down the words and ideas of two intellectual giants ( I was selected for my superior penmanship and writing skills for the job), I will now retire to my farm and relax in bed with my 15 year old (75% white) slave girl. My slave girl is my wife's half sister, same father.
Who am I?
In Jefferson's day, if I recall correctly, abortionists were hung as were child molesters, hanging was common as was flogging. A legal punishment was being made into a slave by the state. I'm not sure Jefferson took issue with any of these legal practices. Do you also endorse Jefferson on these points?
Jefferson's position, as I recall it, was subtracting out the supernatural passages, the bible was a pretty good book to live by. Apparently he had no problem writing a constitution based on Christianity.
The ten commandments and Christianity are the basis for the country and the laws. While hiding behind the recognition and protection afforded to you in this country's system, you attack its' basis.
Why not scrap the entire belief system, since Christianity is one more flawed set of superstitions and move to something more enlightened? What do you suggest?
What enlightened people think:
* elect a President who is a deity
* worship government
* base all decisions on the false premise that the Earth is overpopulated
* exterminate other humans to achieve "sustainability"
* keep the good boating locations from being over crowded by the little people and non-academics.
By Anonymous on July 20, 2009 10:05 PM
"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."
Thomas Jefferson
To ATOWN on July 20, 2009 11:35 PM
"this thread is not to debate the right or wrong of abortion, but the methods used to protest last weekend. their methods were absolutely wrong and out of line and draw a response that quite frankly they are hoping to get."
If "Screw you people" was the response they are hoping to get, they got it.
The protesting tactics, as always, were out of line. They do more harm than good, every single year without exception that they've been doing this here, and I think any fence-sitters on the issue consistently get driven away by their heavy-handed tactics.
What I would be more impressed by is the POSITVE actions of the pro-lifers in helping assist and care for the children, already born, that need everyone's help.
Anonymous on July 21, 2009 7:42 AM
In Jefferson's day, if I recall correctly, abortionists were hung as were child molesters, hanging was common as was flogging. A legal punishment was being made into a slave by the state. I'm not sure Jefferson took issue with any of these legal practices. Do you also endorse Jefferson on these points?
____________________________
Anonymous. I think moderator Chris had a very good response on a different thread to this path you are trying to go down.
Chris Magee, moderator on July 16, 2009 8:07 PM
....... I try to view history through the lens of the time it happened. If you try to judge historical events by modern values it really isn't fair or productive.
"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."
Thomas Jefferson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have done the same examination independently of Thomas Jefferson and could not agree more with his conclusions.
The facts that all religions are contradictory but claim their source is one God is enough to make me believe they are based on fables and mythology.
I laugh at Chritians when they tell me Muslims can't go to Heaven. I laugh at Muslims when they tell me Christians can not to to Heaven. I laugh at Jews when they tell me they are the Chosen People of God and they can only go to Heaven.
I can not believe that people on this earth allowed a few prophets to brainwash them inside out. It is very sad.
Not long ago people worshipped statues of Athena and that was the norm. We laugh at them now.
Tomorrow people will laugh at us for believing in man made religions blindly based on fables and mythology.....or maybe faith is the better term.
This religion discussion is getting rather far afield from the topic at hand.
Ron-Actually it may come to pass with nationalized health care controlled in DC, no one's body may be THEIR choice. Interesting reading about John Holdren, the Obama Czar of Science and Technology Projects. He is the co-author of a text book favoring forced abortion and sterilazation as a means of contolling population growth and the degredation of the planet by people and resources required by people. Think of it, this whole abortion issue is mitigated by a government that will determine population growth similar to when the Chinese government recently decided that the population contained too many females.
Yes I meant on the street...I have not seen PETA use huge posters.
I feel they would do so much better if they had posters where they said "What if Einstein's mom aborted him" or the like AND perhaps show couples who would like to adopt and the phone number to a adoption service etc.
Anonymous at 5 p.m. says: He is the co-author of a text book favoring forced abortion and sterilazation as a means of contolling population growth
This is wholly incorrect. The book written by Holdren, in 1977, discusses this as a possibility, and comes no where near 'favoring' it as a solution. He discusses it, and if you think about it, this specific solution has come to pass in China, as their population troubles spiraled out of hand.
There is no part of this book, co-authored by the way, where this solution is favored, recommended or justified as acceptable.
Anonymous @ 11:11
Exactly. That is a much more effective way of using posters for their cause.
Of course then the other side could use posters of Hitler, Pol Pot and Ted Bundy...
Actually GJC, my comments 7/21 5:00pm are not wholly incorrect. Google John Holdren, select the Wikipedia offering and examine the links. Read some of his work in the links and elsewhere on the net and you will conclude his lament is with the logistics of implementing population control by any means on a global basis. In some of his work, he addresses some solutions to various impediments. I believe after examining some of the links he indeed actually embraces population planning by forced abortion, sterilization and other means. And many of those among his peers to as well. Certianly with repect to large, impoverished poor and illiterate populations within emerging nations such as China, India and smaller countries where the existance of human beings he deems as undesireable of consuming resources of the planet. But we are not going to argue. Anyone interested can examine a fair amount of his work on the net and make their specific conclusions. Incidently, I think he an intelligent scientist. I seriously wonder however about his common sense and moral development only after reading some of his work. And he would not be the first scientist who is extremely bright and gifted but has a severly arrested human development. I want my science and those guiding it to remember human needs and desires with frailties.
Anonymous @ 12:53 -
Rather than relying on wikipedia and various derivative works posted on the internet, you might want to try and read the book in question. It's on my shelves, and I looked at it again this morning to refresh myself on the topic at hand. Does Holdren and his coauthor mention this topic, and discuss it in some detail? Yes, they do.
But when you say: He is the co-author of a text book favoring forced abortion and sterilazation as a means of contolling population growth it's just flat wrong. Completely, utterly wrong.
As a former high school librarian, Wikipedia has never been considered a good source for research. While you may find some good information on it, it is not a definitive or authoritative source. It would not be considered a valid source of research for a term paper.
I would suggest using something better for your arguments in the future. And double check the source of anything found on the internet to make sure that it is valid. Databases of journal articles are usually good resources. Websites that take a neutral stand on issues and present multiple sides are good also But sites that are biased towards a specific view are often not good resources.
Knowing nothing about Holdren really myself, I would have to go with GJC on this one because of the use of primary source material at this point, but I'll withhold my judgment for now.
Just thought I would put my computer research literacy lesson out there. :)
I would like to respond to Get Real's comments about how the protesters' images are no worse than what we allow are kids to see on T.V or video/computer games. That statement is indicative of the problem with these types of protesters. They are so busy passing judgement on people whom they do not know, that they become incapable of feeling empathy or compassion for them. It must be difficult to live life filled with so much righteous hatred. The Nazis were sure that they were doing the right thing too.
And by the way, an abortionist is one who performs abortions. The last time I checked, President Obama was a lawyer, not a doctor.
Pro-choice is not pro-abortion. I chose to have my children, but I do not presume to put myself in a position to make that choice for everyone else. Pretty soon, people will be required by law to undergo chemotherapy and radiation treatments, whether they want them or not. Pro-choice is just that. I stand for allowing each of us to choose.
Anonymous on July 23, 2009 1:28 AM
----
I agree that Wikipedia leaves a lot to be desired as far as acurate, peer reviewed research. Many times at the end of the Wikipedia article there are "References" and "external links" that can be viewed. Arguably these are put there by someone who may have a point of view they are pushing but it's a good start.
I also agree with your comment that, "Websites that take a neutral stand on issues and present multiple sides are good also But sites that are biased towards a specific view are often not good resources." Perhaps on a different topic we could discuss the various sites and sources where people actually do get their news and do their research? I have a hard time finding sites that are truly neutral. Today's WSJ has an opinion piece by Karl Rove who says "Obamacare is in trouble", while the NYT has an opinion by Gail Collins who explains how the Republicans have "dug in their heels" to stop the plan. Two well known publications with opposing views - who's right?
I recall the Clinton impeachment trial as Peter Jennings was introducing the politicians to the tv audience as they came to the floor. He described each of the republicans by monikers such as "ultra conservative", and "right wing conservative" while the democrats simply had their names given, i.e. Senator Kennedy. I switched to a conservative station who did just the opposite, while C-Span simply gave the names of both sides without additional comment - apparently neutral.
Didn't mean to sidetrack the discussion here, but as for the abortion debate I believe the people for or against this particular issue just look at media that they agree with, and express their own opinion. They then try to push this opinion to the rest of us and try to make it ours as well. Because the only "research" they do is read and view media they already agree with it becomes frustrating for them when others who hold a different opinion don't agree with them. I can't find the source for this, but I have heard it said that over 70% of the population believe abortion should not be used as a birth control method, but is allowable when the Mother is in imminent danger if the pregnancy progressed.
If you don't like it don't look! These are fairly small events and you can easily avoid them if you want to hide this reality from your children. Maybe you can also convince them to believe in Santa and the tooth fairy even after they grow up. I wish we were all spared some of the grusome realities of life such as corrupt politicians, high taxes, terrorism and the like, but there they are, we can either fight them or accept them. I suspect many "pro death" folks hate this type of exposure because in spite of themselves they feel a twinge of concience. Wake up!
GJC: Since claim you have the book, you can perhaps recognize this passage from the book and published in the Washington Examiner on 7/4/09 dealing with world population control. Holdren, Paul and Anne Ehrlich wrote: "Responsible parenthood ought to be enocuraged and illigetimate childbearing could be strongly discouraged. One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption -- especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone...It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society". Or "Of course, a government might require only implantation of the contraceptive capsule, leaving its removval to the individual's discretion but requireing reimplantation after childbirth. Since having a child would require positive action (removal of the capsule), many more births would be prevented than in the reverse situation". Now previously I posted that I considered Holdren intelligent however I will also opine there is a great deal in the Ecoscience book that is unintelligent and the captioned as well as many other "ramblings" in the population control chapters really are peculiar. To former librarian and thomas: thanks for the suggestions on finding references. My utmost concern however is Obama has annointed someone as a Czar of Science on my behalf and I am concerned he thinks women should be adopting out their children, must marry before having children and should be required to wear pregnancy hindering "capsules". Do you see the priorities and cause for real concern or is just Wikipedia and people finding what they want on the internet to suit their purposes?
I wonder how many of the protestors are willing to support a unwed mother thru college and their children thru college and to take the child and her child into their house to care for them forever. Or how many pretestors call and write their representive to add to their taxes bill so that at least the saved children both Mom and her child will be very well taken care of . And I mean a lot more money being ssspent so that their is a much more reasonable life style than the subhuman conditions that you are placing both children as they exist now . I am saying create a reasonable alternative fo rMom and child .
Anonymous @ 7:33 -
You've pulled two quotations - the most commonly pulled quotations, by the way, out of an 1100 page book. I'll say again, I think that the authors in question tried to cover all the different angles and possible scenarios that could be discussed.
let's take one partial quote: "It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society" - is this a hideous, appalling suggestion? Yes, it absolutely is. Can you read that sentence, in isolation, as favoring forced abortion and sterilazation as a means of contolling population growth? Remember, that's what I was objecting to in the first place. The book doesn't recommend or even come close to favoring such things, it just doesn't. It does talk about nearly all the possibilities that scientific advances might make possible - that was, I think, the point, the intention, of the book.
It doesn't advocate for these things.
As with any public debate and evidenced in this thread, one thing is clear.
"you can't fix stupid!"
Lighten up, Denny. You have your views and that's great. No reason to embarrass yourself by standing outside a church or building with graphic photos and yelling, which is what these people are doing. God bless you for believing in what you believe. But you're not persuading anyone one direction or the other with the protests. So knock yourself out. Have fun.
DF Backhand: You are right. These people with their gory signs are probably not going to change anyones mind. Nor are the others shouting no Fetus Can Beat Us. Once you reach the age where you can reason, it becomes apparent unfettered abortions are inhuman. And if I may add, unreasonable.
As Chris pointed out in the opening, the debate becomes more about the tactics than the message. These protests don’t influence anyone, they just piss us off.
I don’t agree with abortion, but I don’t pretend to believe that I can push my views onto everyone else. I have nothing but contempt for these righteous, fanatical few who think they can do anything they want in the name of a cause.
The end does not justify the means.
T.B.
Well said, T.B.. I feel those who use these kinds of methods to express their point of view only undermine their cause. Instead of shedding light on the situation, or expressing their view in a constructive manner, they put the spotlight on their method, which then reflects on their viewpoint. For example, one could think: All pro-lifers are militant, rude, and uncaring because they use shock tactics or rudeness to express themselves. Would you want to align yourself with that sort of group? Isn't that hypocrital?
"For example, one could think: All pro-lifers are militant, rude, and uncaring because they use shock tactics or rudeness to express themselves."
You left out murderers, vandals and terrorists.