Home - List All Discussions

Horrifying Pictures Of Women Going Into Killer Tiller's Clinic

by: Teresa18

These pictures were uncovered by Operation Rescue. I posted the link, but I think it got buried in the middle of another thread. I'm not sure how many people saw it. These women are going in for their late term abortions. They are so far along that you can see their "baby bump" as the media calls it.
Scroll down through the center black part to January 23.
http://www.dr-tiller.com/
These women look perfectly healthy to me, and some look like they are at a point where the child could be delivered and survive. I'm assuming that many of these women are using the "health" exception which is so vague that a woman can use nearly anything to abort. Either that or they were told their child had an illness or deformity and would not be healthy at birth. I've read so many cases where doctors have been wrong and children have been born perfectly healthy. Even so, does poor health deprive someone of their God given right to life? Would you kill a born child with an illness or disability? The only difference between a born and unborn child is development, size, and location. None of these women appear to have their lives at risk. If so, would they really be casually walking into Killer Tiller's office? Wouldn't they be at a hospital?
I'm using the approximate 1,287,000 abortions per year I got from Guttmacher for the year 2004. The CDC has a lower number because not all states are required to report. Around 1.4% occur after 20 weeks according to the CDC. The number could be higher because not all states are required to report and because sometimes the date is changed to make the child appear younger to comply with abortion laws. Anyway, that would be 18,018. They say that 4% occur between 16-20 weeks. That would be 51,480. They say 5.9% occur from 12-15 weeks. That would be 75,933. They say that 9.4% occur between 11-12 weeks. That would be 120,978. They say that 18% occur between 9-10 weeks. That would be 231,660. Finally, the other 59.3% occcur in the first 8 weeks. That would be
763,191. These numbers are so overwhelming. I have to keep reminding myself that this isn't statistic's class. It is human lives! As Stalin said, "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic."
For fetal development photos, check here.
http://www.wpclinic.org/parenting/fetal-development/
We know that by 7 weeks, the child has a definite human form. Well over half a million are done after this time. See the I AM A PERSON thread and cards. Not that this matters, as the child is a person regardless.

reply from: kayluvzchoice

Why exactly were women being photographed without their knowledge or consent?
Isn't that illegal?

reply from: Teresa18

First of all, I believe it is legal to take a picture of someone else in public and post it. Yoda photographs women entering the abortion clinic in Knoxville.
Most importantly, have you no comment on the photos of these women with "baby bumps" entering the clinic? Does it not horrify you? What about the statistics I produced showing well over half a million abortions are occuring when the child has a definite human form? As I said, that is not an issue to me because a child is a person from conception onward, so all abortions are equally as horrible. I thought it might appeal to the emotion's of you pro-aborts and at least make you realize this is indeed a person being killed. Of course, if you are using the "it's her body, her choice" argument, I suppose you would support abortion through all nine months. You would have to, or you would be logically inconsistent.

reply from: Refresca

Paparazzi take pictures of celebrities all the time without their knowledge or consent. In addition to that after you take a picture of someone it is your property and you can sell it to a magazine if you want! So NO!! There is absolutely nothing (that I know of) that is illegal about taking those pictures and posting them on the internet.
Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

reply from: yoda

I most certainly do, and I post them weekly at http://www.abortionknoxville.com . Many courts have ruled that we have no "reasonable expectation of privacy" when we are in public, so there is no legal bar to taking all the photos you want to in public. Had Kay bothered to click that link in my sig, she wouldn't have had to ask her stupid question.
Of course not. Actually making a comment on the intended topic of the thread would not serve to divert attention away from it.
Tiller is famous for his "late term elective abortions", he even has a webpage by that name on his website, in case there is any doubt. His records show he has granted abortions for women who give as reasons "a desire to attend a concert", and "wishing to go to a high school prom".
How's that for "life saving" reasons?

reply from: Skippy

I am truly impressed with your ability to diagnose a person's health just by looking at a photo of them! Where did you learn to do that?
In a nutshell, you think all abortions are unacceptable. So of course you think abortion for fetal anomaly is unacceptable.
Most pro-choice people, on the other hand, do not judge a woman's reason(s) for having an abortion, because we trust her to make the decision that is right for her and her family.
There will never be a meeting of the minds on this. You think women who abort for poor prenatal diagnosis are monsters, and yet 90% of all diagnosed Downs Syndrome pregnancies are aborted. So there's a whole lot of people who think those abortions are okay.

reply from: yoda

No you don't, skippy-poo. You just don't give a damn what her reasons are, because you don't think any "reasons" are needed to justify killing babies.
If you really "trusted women", you'd ask for a law that exempts all women from all criminal laws. That way women could kill any born people they wanted to, and not be unduly restricted by oppressive laws. But obviously, you don't "trust women" to do anything but kill their babies....... do you?

reply from: lukesmom

good read: http://shortstorycorner.blogspot.com/2005/11/late-term-abortion.html

reply from: lukesmom

And that makes aborting the unborn, disabled or not, morally right? You have absolutely no idea of the pressure from the medical community to abort those who are not perfect. You have no idea the pain these parents live with before AND after their abortion. You have no idea the regret some of these parents live with because in too many cases they were given no choice BUT abortion. They were NOT given the right to chose but instead were given one choice only: abortion (actually "termination of the pregnancy" is the term used for "medically necessary" abortions. PC terminology makes reality a little easier, don't you think?) Skippy, you are talking out of your a** about a subject you don't know the first thing about.

reply from: Skippy

And that makes aborting the unborn, disabled or not, morally right? You have absolutely no idea of the pressure from the medical community to abort those who are not perfect. You have no idea the pain these parents live with before AND after their abortion. You have no idea the regret some of these parents live with because in too many cases they were given no choice BUT abortion. They were NOT given the right to chose but instead were given one choice only: abortion (actually "termination of the pregnancy" is the term used for "medically necessary" abortions. PC terminology makes reality a little easier, don't you think?) Skippy, you are talking out of your a** about a subject you don't know the first thing about.
Are most women really that weak, that they just do what their doctors tell them to do? I mean, no one is going to force a woman at gunpoint to go to a clinic and abort because of poor prenatal diagnosis. So she is choosing abortion on some level.
I guess I'm just baffled as to why, if a woman doesn't like the options given to her by her doctor, she doesn't just find another doctor.
Oh, and this site
http://www.aheartbreakingchoice.com/

suggests to me that there are some women out there who went into it fully informed, chose to terminate the pregnancy, and do not regret that decision.
I know you chose a different path. Just throwing that out there for some perspective.

reply from: yoda

MANY women are "that weak", skippy-poo.... I don't know about "most" women.
Because MANY doctors think they are God (just like you), and some women are intimidated by them.
How DO you tolerate the indignity of communicating with us mere mortals?

reply from: lukesmom

And that makes aborting the unborn, disabled or not, morally right? You have absolutely no idea of the pressure from the medical community to abort those who are not perfect. You have no idea the pain these parents live with before AND after their abortion. You have no idea the regret some of these parents live with because in too many cases they were given no choice BUT abortion. They were NOT given the right to chose but instead were given one choice only: abortion (actually "termination of the pregnancy" is the term used for "medically necessary" abortions. PC terminology makes reality a little easier, don't you think?) Skippy, you are talking out of your a** about a subject you don't know the first thing about.
Are most women really that weak, that they just do what their doctors tell them to do? I mean, no one is going to force a woman at gunpoint to go to a clinic and abort because of poor prenatal diagnosis. So she is choosing abortion on some level.
I guess I'm just baffled as to why, if a woman doesn't like the options given to her by her doctor, she doesn't just find another doctor.
Oh, and this site
http://www.aheartbreakingchoice.com/
">http://www.aheartbreakingchoice.com/
suggests to me that there are some women out there who went into it fully informed, chose to terminate the pregnancy, and do not regret that decision.
I know you chose a different path. Just throwing that out there for some perspective.
I know of that site and I know many of the mothers that go there. I talk on the net with many, many moms that have made both "choices". Poor prenatal diagnosises are my LIFE since Luke. You don't have to "educate" me on either choice. What YOU don't understand, because you have never lived this, is the emotional impact those first weeks. I wanted to do ANYTHING to get out of the nightmare. I was, fortunantly, gently pushed toward "termination". At first I didn't even understand what they were talking about with "termination". That is how shocked and numb I was. Every single women talks about this same emotional pain. Remember, these are very much wanted babies and EVERY single mom facing this knows that is a baby, not a fetus or an embryo or whatever you proaborts have as flavor of the day terminology. Making a decision that is 'informed" is darn near impossible and yes, parents are at their most vulnerable after hearing their baby is sick or imperfect. During this period, it is emotionally very difficult to even breath, much less think. Unless you have felt this, you have no conception (HA, no pun intended). Every single mom facing this is trying to "help" her baby and is terrified for her family and herself. Now do you understand how easy it is to manipulate her by saying "termination" is the only choice because you are "saving" your baby from pain?

reply from: Teresa18

Look at those pictures, and tell me everyone of those women was a t death's door. If their lives were truly threatened, why would they not be at the hospital? We know by the sheer number of late term abortions demonstrated above that not all are to protect the life of the mother. In fact, many doctors say abortion is never necessary to save the life of the mother, as there are ways of saving both lives. Treating ectopic pregnancy is not considered a "procurred" abortion because there was no intent to kill the child. The health exception is so broad, the woman can get a psychologist to claim she would be depressed or anxious if she continued the pregnancy. She really may have depression and anxiety. The problem is, the doctor will recommend an abortion because the medication may harm the child. It is illogical to kill the child because the child may be harmed by the medication. Attempts should be made to save both lives. Therefore, give the woman the medication, but don't kill the child. The same can go for cancer and chemotherapy and other illnesses. Give the woman the chemo, but don't abort the child because the child may be harmed by it. Plus, people have said Dr. Tiller has or at one time had on his site that he has performed abortions so women can go to concerts and proms.
I think it is wrong to deliberately kill the child. I think attempts should always be made to save both lives. If both lives can't be saved, then the primary aim should be to save the life of the woman.
I do not believe it is right to kill a born person with an illness or disability, so of course I do not believe it is right to kill an unborn person.
Of course you don't. You think it is ok for a woman to have an abortion at any time during pregnancy for any reason. Over 95% of abortions are done are healthy women and children. I hope you give the woman the same respect when it comes to her born children.
Some said this about slavery. Did that make it moral?
As Sue said, there is a lot of pressure from the medical community to abort children with illness or disability. However, just because people think something is right, does that make it right? We could say the same with slavery.

reply from: kayluvzchoice

::Yoda photographs women entering the abortion clinic in Knoxville. ::
How exactly can you not think that is insane or radical? That is just creepy.
::Most importantly, have you no comment on the photos of these women with "baby bumps" entering the clinic? Does it not horrify you?::
Yes, it does sadden me that an abortion is being performed that late, but you have to wonder why the women didn't get one sooner.

reply from: yoda

How is it that you take offense at the use of photography, but not at the use of medical instruments to slaughter babies?
Did you know that photographs are not deadly weapons, but that medical instruments in the hands of abortionists are?
Or do you even care about such mundane things as killing babies?

reply from: Skippy

Perhaps they are coming in from states that have laws that are intended to obstruct a woman's access to abortion. Those laws can result in women aborting later than they would have otherwise.

reply from: kayluvzchoice

How is it that you take offense at the use of photography, but not at the use of medical instruments to slaughter babies?
Did you know that photographs are not deadly weapons, but that medical instruments in the hands of abortionists are?
Or do you even care about such mundane things as killing babies?
I honestly don't even think you give a damn about this...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/Tubal_Pregnancy_with_embryo.jpg/250px-Tubal_Pregnancy_with_embryo.jpg

I do care about this....
http://www.ape2zebra.ca/images/landing/aug2007/baby.jpg

reply from: lukesmom

How far along in your pregnancy are you? Miscarriage before 12 weeks is very common and devistating to many women. You willing to tell me you wouldn't be upset if you mc your embryo/fetus/baby? If you say you wouldn't be, you are not only a liar but a fool.

reply from: sk1bianca

kay... this might sound shocking to you... but... you were once something like that "thing" you don't give a damn about. are you saying that there's a certain period in a humans' life in which we should care about him/her and another in which we can dispose of him/her as if he/she was some tumor or unwanted tissue?
if abortion is acceptable, further more, a "right", as some claim it is, why is it embarrassing to be photographed while going in for an abortion? why is there so much talk about how abortion should be "private" and nobody has to know about it, if it's just a "simple procedure"? i had my toenail operated. i didn't keep that a secret.

reply from: yoda

You really suck as a mind reader, by the way. I don't care what an embryo looks like, it's still a human being and deserves the same respect as you or I, even if you're not willing to afford it that.
And you know, there may be some people who think that your looks aren't so hot either..... so you'd better be careful about throwing stones!

reply from: yoda

Kay doesn't like direct, straight questions like that.........

reply from: yoda

Oh, she's really gonna hate that question........

reply from: carolemarie

I think it is creepy and disgusting too, to photograph women and try to shame them, because it serves no point except to humiliate and shame women.
I also think it is so sad that so many women are choosing late term abortions, most are done on healthy babys according to abortion providers. The ones with fetal deformities and other problems, that is heartbreaking and I can't imagine being in that situtation. Right next door is Choices and they have a hospise and help for those babies that will die no matter what, so you don't have to pay Tiller to kill your baby and you can let it be born and treated with dignity--a much better option that comes with no guilt. They provide pain medication and volunteers to walk through the whole ordeal with you all free of charge!
Carolemarie

reply from: lukesmom

Kay doesn't like direct, straight questions like that.........
I could give a rats behind what Kay likes.
Well Kay, what about it? Here it is again: You willing to tell me you wouldn't be upset if you mc your embryo/fetus/baby? If you say you wouldn't be, you are not only a liar but a fool.

reply from: faithman

I think it is creepy and disgusting too, to photograph women and try to shame them, because it serves no point except to humiliate and shame women.
I also think it is so sad that so many women are choosing late term abortions, most are done on healthy babys according to abortion providers. The ones with fetal deformities and other problems, that is heartbreaking and I can't imagine being in that situtation. Right next door is Choices and they have a hospise and help for those babies that will die no matter what, so you don't have to pay Tiller to kill your baby and you can let it be born and treated with dignity--a much better option that comes with no guilt. They provide pain medication and volunteers to walk through the whole ordeal with you all free of charge!
Carolemarie
Oh ! so it is creepy and disgusting to use anymeans nessisary to stop a killer from slaughtering a womb child? You would rather have children die than "shaming" their killers into not doing it? If women kill their young, they should be humiliated and shamed. If one were truely repentant about killing a womb child, they would walk humbly in humility, and proclaim the shame of destroying life. Just as Paul the apostle did for killing Christians. What is "creepy" is baby killers talking down to those who are truely trying to stop the slaughter, and play the victim card which they claim trumps the victim card of the dead preborn. After all, it was legal to kill them and really isn't a crime. According to some on this forum we must quit calling abortion murder, based on the fact they have killed a few and don't want to feel guilty about it. Who cares if some are shamed into not killing a child, we just can't have women feeling bad about sin, because that does not serve any purpose!!!! Yah RIGHT!!!!!!

reply from: Skippy

So you seriously wouldn't object if someone photographed you and the license plate on your car as you were going in to have a toenail operation, and posted the photos on the internet?
Everyone is entitled to medical privacy, whether they are going in for an abortion, to get a hangnail taken care of, or for some Botox. It's not illegal to take those pictures. But creepy? Yeah, it's creepy.

reply from: xnavy

i would probably pose with a smile if someone decided to take my picture, and give a thumbs up. i would not care, because i know i
honestley don't care who sees me doing what i am doing, because i am not doing something of which i am ashamed.

reply from: yoda

Last fall when I was working with the 40 Days project (you have heard of that, right?), an elderly gentleman told me about a friend of his whom my photography had affected. He said that she was in a panic when she found out that she was pregnant, and wanted to "get rid of it" as soon as possible. Since she lived in Knoxville, the fastest way would've been for her to come down to the Concord St. mill, but she told him that she had heard rumors that "they take your picture down there and put it on the internet". So, she decided she'd have to drive to Atlanta, since it would just be so "shameful" if her friends found out.
But the drive to Atlanta was a long one, and she had several hours to think about what she was doing. By the time she got to the abortuary in Atlanta, she said she realized that she could not kill her baby.
So, that's the first direct feedback I've gotten so far about how my photography has affected anyone. And I certainly have not heard of any women deciding to abort because of my camera. So, I'd say that the score is "Babies One", and "Camera haters zero".
Now, you may think you know more than I do about what I'm doing, or that your way is the "only" way to reduce abortions. But I've got to disagree with you, and I know of one woman, with one live baby, who might disagree also.

reply from: yoda

Skippy-poo, click on the link in my sig and tell me how many license plates you see in the photographs, okay? And how many have any information about what "operation" they are there for?
Oh wait, skippy-poo doesn't read my posts, will someone else quote my questions to her, please?

reply from: yoda

Of course you would, and so would skippy-poo, carole, and kay if they were photographed at the mall. Why, they'd probably try to touch up their hair and turn their good side to the camera! They're probably vain enough to love being photographed, just not while they're doing something they are ashamed of!
And I've been photographed many, many times there by customers who seem to think they are getting "revenge" on me. I always smile and take my hat off, so they can get a real good likeness of me.

reply from: 4given

The bottom line is whatever works! Obviously this would not be an issue if the women seeking an abortion were proud of it as xnavy said. What is creepy is that someone can pick up the phone and order an abortion. What is worse is that, as seen in Tiller's clinic photos, they can do so, after their pregnancy is no longer concealed..(many women abort because of shame) Oh yes, enter the certificate of "miscarriage". Praying for justice here. This man is Lucifer's hand servant. So encouraged by your work Yoda. Thank you for relying on whatever means necessary to save the unborn! Keep on! I would love to see one of these photos of you working. Do you suppose they have a special site for you? Do you ever fear they have more sinister intentions?

reply from: Skippy

Oh? Are you jumping on faithman's "shoot the doctors" bandwagon now?
So your measure of whether being photographed is an invasion of your privacy or not is whether you are "proud" of the medical procedure? That's weird. I don't know anybody who goes around bragging about bunion surgery or liposuction, but it is still an invasion of their privacy.

reply from: 4given

No.
It is my understanding that the identity of women photographed w/out consent (for profit typically) is concealed. These men and women that are at the clinics surely are aware of the possibility that they will be met with moral opposition for one. Comparing bunion surgery or other cosmetic procedures to elective abortion is disgraceful. Aren't you proud to be pro-choice? I have a close friend that to this day would tell me he is proud to support a woman's right to choose. Isn't that the same? I don't know any woman that has stated they are proud of their abortion, but I did know a girl that had an abortion after party. It should be indicative of shame if a woman does not want her abortion to be known.

reply from: kayluvzchoice

How far along in your pregnancy are you? Miscarriage before 12 weeks is very common and devistating to many women. You willing to tell me you wouldn't be upset if you mc your embryo/fetus/baby? If you say you wouldn't be, you are not only a liar but a fool.
If I was pregnant right now I would probably want to miscarry. If I got pregnant when I wanted a kid, then miscarried, I would probably be upset because I wanted a kid.
Maybe you should ask this question in 10-15 years...

reply from: kayluvzchoice

::are you saying that there's a certain period in a humans' life in which we should care about him/her and another in which we can dispose of him/her as if he/she was some tumor or unwanted tissue? ::
You can care about what you want..but not make laws off of opinions. When life begins is an opinion and only that.
:if abortion is acceptable, further more, a "right", as some claim it is, why is it embarrassing to be photographed while going in for an abortion?::
I wouldn't like someone to take my picture without my knowledge or consent and post it on the internet where everyone in the world can see it. At an abortion clininc or not.
It is worse when the photographer uses the pictures to use it against you and demonize you.

reply from: kayluvzchoice

Kay doesn't like direct, straight questions like that.........
Because you know me so well, right?

reply from: Skippy

No.
Okay, just curious, since that whack-job Neal Horsley is so big into the picture-taking thing.
http://www.abortioncams.com/index.htm#States
">http://www.abortioncams.com/index.htm#States
Patients, their vehicles, and their vehicle license plates. I guess until some peeved boyfriend finds his ex-girlfriend's picture on the internet and takes a shotgun to her for killing his "baby," it won't be a big deal to you.
Actually, I doubt it will be a big deal to you even then.
It is my understanding that the identity of women photographed w/out consent (for profit typically) is concealed.
In the link above, the identities didn't look too concealed to me.
Strike that. They are intentionally not concealed at all.
Your comment was "Obviously this would not be an issue if the women seeking an abortion were proud of it..." You appear to be equating not being proud of a medical procedure with being ashamed of that medical procedure. I was merely pointing out that people don't go around talking about how "proud" they are of their laser hemorrhoid surgery, either, but that doesn't mean they are ashamed of it.

reply from: kayluvzchoice

Kay doesn't like direct, straight questions like that.........
I could give a rats behind what Kay likes.
Well Kay, what about it? Here it is again: You willing to tell me you wouldn't be upset if you mc your embryo/fetus/baby? If you say you wouldn't be, you are not only a liar but a fool.
It doesn't matter how many times you repost the question. If I am not fully conscious, I can't answer it.

reply from: kayluvzchoice

Of course you would, and so would skippy-poo, carole, and kay if they were photographed at the mall. Why, they'd probably try to touch up their hair and turn their good side to the camera! They're probably vain enough to love being photographed, just not while they're doing something they are ashamed of!
And I've been photographed many, many times there by customers who seem to think they are getting "revenge" on me. I always smile and take my hat off, so they can get a real good likeness of me.
"Of course you would, and so would skippy-poo, carole, and kay if they were photographed at the mall. Why, they'd probably try to touch up their hair and turn their good side to the camera! They're probably vain enough to love being photographed, just not while they're doing something they are ashamed of! "
When that picture is being used against me, I do have issues with it.

reply from: carolemarie

I think the photographing to shame a person is wrong. It is mean and hateful and it would absolutely destroy some lives if the abortions became public knowledge. If you post the women who had an abortion, it can only be for revenge, since the baby is already dead. It serves no useful purpose.
I am very glad that nobody did that to me. It is a veiled threat and a type of intimidation.
I think it may be legal, but it is still morally wrong.

reply from: joe

You have to be kidding me? You claim to be a repentant follower of Christ?
Being a deterrent is certainly a useful purpose and reason enough to continue and expand such operations.

reply from: faithman

OOOOOOHHHHH!!!!! Doth sayeth the baby killer, the resident authority on what is moral. Who cares about the womb child, we must not offend those hell bent on killing them.

reply from: 4given

So I was incorrect. The only clinic photos I have seen are from abortionknoxville.com and Operationrescue.com. Thank you for the correction. I was taken by how happy the PP escorts looked. Many of the women smiled for the camera as well. I assume that they likely were clinic staff. How many people are actually aware of websites that have photos from abortuaries? I was not aware of Neal Horseley's site and likely will not visit it again.
Why would you assume something like that? That is so twisted. Nevermind that, but quite insulting. What are you basing your "guess" on?
Again, that is a strong statement. I am a compassionate person. I find any act of violence to be disturbing. Are you trying to attack me personally? And why?
Again, thank you for correcting me.
Okay. The thing is these women realize that the cameras are there, right? If not I am sure the clinic staff will let them know when they schedule their abortions. If the threat of exposure is not enough to help them reconsider, then I would assume it means they aren't truly bothered by it. I have not spoken w/ a woman who has been in that situation, so I don't know. Have you? I support the use of cameras because of the women that may reconsider, as in Yoda's case. The camera saved a baby from abortion.

reply from: carolemarie

OOOOOOHHHHH!!!!! Doth sayeth the baby killer, the resident authority on what is moral. Who cares about the womb child, we must not offend those hell bent on killing them.
Why am I the bad guy? I just disagree with intimidation. This tactic , while emotionally fulliling for those with hearts set on revenge, isn't going to save a life. The pictures are posted after they get the abortion, so the only purpose is to shame a women.

reply from: yoda

Thanks! I haven't seen any photos of myself on any proabort websites yet, but then I haven't really looked for them either. However, you can see a couple of photos of me on my own website, which I put there just to show everyone that I don't mind taking my "own medicine". I don't mind having my photo put on the web, even in front of the abortuary, because I'm not ashamed of why I am there.

reply from: yoda

No, skippy-poo, the important thing is whether you are ASHAMED of the "medical procedure". But even so, it is not an "invasion of privacy" or else I would've been sued several dozen times already, don't you know? Or do you even care whether you are lying or not? Wait...... I know the answer....

reply from: yoda

There is no profit in it for me. I don't solicit or accept donations, even.

reply from: yoda

Why not, kay? Are you that unattractive, or what?
But whatever your objection, why do you see your objections as more important than the life of an unborn baby? Oh wait, I know the answer to that one.....

reply from: yoda

I don't use pictures "against" anyone, kay, I use them "for" the unborn babies.
Now, I know that doesn't mean any more to you than warm spit, but that's the way I see it. I'll continue to use any non-violent means at my disposal to try to save the lives of unborn babies. It's odd to me that you proaborts want to attack a non-violent, non-invasive tactic, rather than appreciate that it is non-violent. But you're against anything that works to save babies, aren't you?

reply from: Skippy

So I was incorrect. The only clinic photos I have seen are from abortionknoxville.com and Operationrescue.com. Thank you for the correction. I was taken by how happy the PP escorts looked. Many of the women smiled for the camera as well. I assume that they likely were clinic staff. How many people are actually aware of websites that have photos from abortuaries? I was not aware of Neal Horseley's site and likely will not visit it again.
Why would you assume something like that? That is so twisted. Nevermind that, but quite insulting. What are you basing your "guess" on?
Again, that is a strong statement. I am a compassionate person. I find any act of violence to be disturbing. Are you trying to attack me personally? And why?
I am not trying to insult you. I just don't think you can make a statement like "The bottom line is whatever works!" and also claim to care if something goes horribly wrong. That's not in the spirit of your "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" sort of comment.
And something going wrong for somebody as a result of this picture-taking is a virtual certainty. It could be something relatively minor - losing a job, getting a divorce - or it could be something major ala Bubba with his shotgun. You would probably say that these women deserved the more minor consequences for getting an abortion in the first place or trying to conceal it from her husband. But the REAL bottom line is, you either haven't thought through the possible consequences, or you have and just don't care.
Again, thank you for correcting me.
No problem. I especially liked the photos on Lunatic Horsley's site that identified police officers. As if they can tell their boss, "No, sorry, I can't respond to a call there." Not and keep their jobs, they can't.
My significant other and his business partner/best friend volunteer one day a week as clinic escorts. They meet the patients in the parking lot, and make them aware that the screaming people with the signs might be taking pictures.
According to him, most of the women that he offers a blanket to conceal their identities to take him up on it. So the only pictures they could get even if they wanted to would be two very large men, one armed with a .45 and the other with a Mossberg 590A1, flanking a woman huddled under a blanket to hide her face.
I realize the plural of anecdote isn't data, but if nine out of ten women he escorts here ask for the blanket, I'm pretty sure there's a lot of women in other parts of the country who would object to having their picture taken.
Well, what can I say? If you are comfortable with the possible outcomes in the name of "baby-saving," then it's all good.
My SO has commented that the cameras make a lot of people think you guys are crazy, or just plain mean. But I've never met a "clinic-screamer" yet who really much cared about their public image, so again, it's all good.

reply from: yoda

What's wrong with shaming someone who is doing a shameful thing? If these people were killing born children, would you still object to "shaming" them by revealing their identities? Come on, answer that one if you don't answer anything else in my post.
"Revenge"? What a weird idea..... how can it be revenge when they haven't done anything to me?
Furthermore, you totally ignore the best reason for having the camera there, which is to stimulate their consciences. The sight of the camera may possibly cause some of them to pause and think about why it bothers them so much, and that may lead to the realization that they are really ashamed of being seen at a place where they kill babies. And that may actually save a life. Why isn't that at all important to you? Why are you only focused on the discomfort of the woman who is about to kill her baby? What prevents you from considering the fate of the baby to be more important?
And that's all the photos reveal, actually. They don't show what anyone is there for, or whether they are the customer or just there with the customer.
Are you really "glad"? What if someone had been there with a camera, and it had caused you to stop and think more clearly about what you were doing? What if it actually caused you to change your mind? Wouldn't you be willing to experience almost any kind of discomfort in order to save your baby?
I find it very odd that you'd say you're "glad" no camera was there, since you actually went through with your abortion. That sounds like you're saying that you're glad nothing stopped you from having your abortion "in comfort". Is that really what you're saying?
I KNOW it's legal, and I also know it's morally right to try to save babies, by any non-violent tactic.
WHY didn't you respond at all to what I said about having saved a baby with my photography? Are you implying that it means nothing to you that I have evidence that I actually saved one baby? Or are you calling me a liar?
I'm really disappointed at how closed minded you seem to be about this issue, and how evasive you are about your objections. I am spending my time out there doing my best to save babies, and I really could care less whether you object to my tactics or not, since I know of at least one baby that has been saved by them. The life of that one baby is worth more to me than the whining objections of a million people like you, carole.

reply from: yoda

Exactly. Never mind that this is the last possible moment when we may have any effect on a woman about to kill her baby, never mind that it is a non-violent tactic is known to work, never mind that there is no way it can possibly make a woman "more likely" to abort..... forget all that and attack anyone who make an abortion bound woman "uncomfortable" about the horrific thing she's about to do.
After all, we must make the killers "comfortable" while they do their killing, right?

reply from: yoda

You keep making your case worse and worse.
You won't even consider the other reasons for using photography, or the fact that I know it has saved one baby. You just keep ranting on and on about the "only purpose" as if you were reading my mind.
If you really think you are reading my mind, you ought to get yourself a refund for that mind reading course, because you really suck at it.
So now you are calling me a liar. What a lovely thing for you to do. How full of yourself you must be.
But the pictures are taken BEFORE they get the abortion, and they SEE the camera BEFORE they get the abortion.
But go right on, ignore everything I've said about why I take pictures, call me a liar, and satisfy your need to feel morally superior to others. You may not like abortion, but you are certainly supporting it by your actions.

reply from: yoda

Do we have your personal assurance of that, skippy-poo? Should we be really worried because you are worried? Oh my, just being there at the abortuary, just standing there silently might cause someone to go beserk and kill everyone, right? Wow, if only we had your ability to predict the future.....
That's "all good", skippy-poo. The clinics could stop photography any time by placing physical barriers between where photographers can stand, and where the customers walk between their cars and the front door. And that would be "all good" as well, because the women would get the same message as if the camera was still there..... that they were doing something that they were ashamed of. Same goes for the blanket thing, don't you realize that walking with a blanket over your head is something that only criminals going to jail or court usually do? Doesn't it occur to you that those women will understand that they are being protected from their own shame?
Oh wait, you really don't care how many babies get killed, do you?
Exactly. I'll willingly suffer the worst possible public image in the history of the whole world, if it will save one baby, skippy-poo.

reply from: carolemarie

What's wrong with shaming someone who is doing a shameful thing? If these people were killing born children, would you still object to "shaming" them by revealing their identities? Come on, answer that one if you don't answer anything else in my post.
"Revenge"? What a weird idea..... how can it be revenge when they haven't done anything to me?
Furthermore, you totally ignore the best reason for having the camera there, which is to stimulate their consciences. The sight of the camera may possibly cause some of them to pause and think about why it bothers them so much, and that may lead to the realization that they are really ashamed of being seen at a place where they kill babies. And that may actually save a life. Why isn't that at all important to you? Why are you only focused on the discomfort of the woman who is about to kill her baby? What prevents you from considering the fate of the baby to be more important?
And that's all the photos reveal, actually. They don't show what anyone is there for, or whether they are the customer or just there with the customer.
Are you really "glad"? What if someone had been there with a camera, and it had caused you to stop and think more clearly about what you were doing? What if it actually caused you to change your mind? Wouldn't you be willing to experience almost any kind of discomfort in order to save your baby?
I find it very odd that you'd say you're "glad" no camera was there, since you actually went through with your abortion. That sounds like you're saying that you're glad nothing stopped you from having your abortion "in comfort". Is that really what you're saying?
I KNOW it's legal, and I also know it's morally right to try to save babies, by any non-violent tactic.
WHY didn't you respond at all to what I said about having saved a baby with my photography? Are you implying that it means nothing to you that I have evidence that I actually saved one baby? Or are you calling me a liar?
I'm really disappointed at how closed minded you seem to be about this issue, and how evasive you are about your objections. I am spending my time out there doing my best to save babies, and I really could care less whether you object to my tactics or not, since I know of at least one baby that has been saved by them. The life of that one baby is worth more to me than the whining objections of a million people like you, carole.
1. I am glad that that young women changed her mind. But it wasn't because you took her picture, because you didn't. It was the long drive to the other clinic that gave her time to think. I am glad it worked that time.
I still think it is morally wrong no matter if it works occasionally. The ends don't justify the means.
I object to it because those pictures are around a long time after the abortion. I object to it because I know what it is like to live with the fear of discovery for something you regret, I lived in fear total fear that someone would run across photo's or films that I had made, it would have destroyed the life that I was rebuilding. We should consider the possible ramifications that could result from the tactics we choose to lose.
What's wrong with shaming someone who is doing a shameful thing? If these people were killing born children, would you still object to "shaming" them by revealing their identities? Come on, answer that one if you don't answer anything else in my post.
2. It isn't the same thing, because killing born children is against the law and they would be arrested and stopped. What is the point of having their pictures somewhere?
I find it very odd that you'd say you're "glad" no camera was there, since you actually went through with your abortion. That sounds like you're saying that you're glad nothing stopped you from having your abortion "in comfort". Is that really what you're saying?
3. Well, no. I guess because I don't see it as a deterrent. Maybe I am being closed minded about it... I will think about it some more.

reply from: 4given

I should have said, whatever works legally. I really do not view an individual in the open with a camera as a threat. I would feel differently if these women were being stalked and photographed without their knowledge from say the bushes or a bathroom stall.
Who looks for photos of women at the clinics? I looked at the photos but would not have if you did not provide the link. I don't know that I can say what those women "deserve". I can tell you what it is I feel they do not deserve. They do not deserve to have their womb opened again. Especially those that have repeat abortions. I have yet to read about anything negative coming from a photographed woman going in for an abortion. You are right that it never occured to me that there could be a possibility of violence against these women. I am concerned with the violence against their children.
I didn't look at very many of the photos. I did not see those. Were they there to provide protection to staff and customers at the mill? Why was their presence important?
I am pleased to hear that women reconsider an abortion because of the idea of public shame. We may never know how many women spared the lives of their children because of a moment of reconsideration. If the outcome is a spared life, then you are right. It makes it worth the time and effort involved. I don't think those with a camera are out there because they are being vindictive. I really feel it is to save lives- not destroy them. Not everyone has their intentions in check. I understand with all of the time, energy and resources involved,that the vast majority (and yet I only now know of 3 published clinic photos)truly have no intention but to save innocent lives.

I have yet to know a "clinic-screamer" myself. I do have friends that were pretty loud at animal rights protests. They were far more aggressive than any other pro-lifer I have met. And destructive as well.

reply from: yoda

Thank you for finally responding to that point. But why did you try to twist it so much? Are you not even willing to admit that my photography was what caused her to take that long drive? Why does it bother you so much to give me credit for JUST ONE SAVE???
Never said it did. But what you're saying is that the discomfort, the "intimidation" of the women about to have an abortion is WORSE than the killing of the "occasional" baby. Do you really believe that? Do you really value the lives of the babies so lowly?
I do consider the "ramifications". And the one "ramification" that I find MOST IMPORTANT is that the baby may have a chance to STAY ALIVE! And yet, the ramification that you find more important is the future embarrassment of the abortion bound woman, or the "destruction of the life she was building". Now you are using the word "life" in the same way the proaborts use it, to describe someone's "lifestyle". And you are elevating the concept of "lifestyle" above the value of the life of the unborn child.
Why won't you address my question directly? WOULD YOU OBJECT TO "SHAMING" SOMEONE WHO HAD KILLED THEIR BORN KIDS BY POSTING THEIR PHOTO ON THE INTERNET? YES OR NO????

reply from: yoda

Neal is the pioneer in the use of abortion clinic photos online, he was the first as far as I know. And he's taken a lot of flack over it. I disagree with him about the use of license plates on a website, and I don't use them on mine. I'm not aware of that practice having caused anyone to be harmed, or harassed in any way, but it leaves us open to proabort criticism that I think just takes away from the effort to save babies. So no, they can't point to any instance in which it's actually been used to "track down" anyone, but none the less they will harp on it and use it to change the subject away from the slaughter of babies. The only way to identify anyone from my photos is if you already know them, or if they are a "celebrity". So far, we haven't seen any of those.
Oh, and btw, the use of license plate numbers actually was instrumental in the arrest of a child molester a while back, the police were shown photos of the molester's license plate at the abortuary and made the arrest based on that photo.
So it's not all bad, that's one molester that will spend some time in jail because of license plate photos.

reply from: 4given

That is good news Yoda. Glad to have a molester put away. I am familiar with Horsley's protesting efforts. I was not aware of his website though. Anyway, my son has a question for Skippy. He wants to know why you are "making a deal" out of the possibility of a woman being shot and don't understand that the death by abortion is already happening and not as quick as if by a gun. He doesn't understand why you are talking about something that has not happened when abortions are happening while the pictures are taken. He wants to know if you thought being killed by a gun was worse than being extracted during an abortion. I can't answer for you or any other proabort. Do you have an answer for him?

reply from: joe

At least your side admits to using force to protect human life (the life of baby killers) unlike my cowardly side. Tell your large significant other who protects killers that he is a scumbag who should face the militants in the middle east where they carry AK-47's for fun, if he thinks he is so tough defending against peaceful protesters.

reply from: Skippy

At least your side admits to using force to protect human life (the life of baby killers) unlike my cowardly side. Tell your large significant other who protects killers that he is a scumbag who should face the militants in the middle east where they carry AK-47's for fun, if he thinks he is so tough defending against peaceful protesters.
Right, well, both he and his partner are former Navy SEALs, so they have already done their part fighting the bad guys. Can you say the same?
And, ya know, they wouldn't need to be armed if there weren't guys like you running around advocating shooting doctors and blowing up nurses. I'm just sayin'.

reply from: joe

How many American citizens did Al Qaeda kill? How many American citizens did Planned Parenthood kill? Who truly is our enemy?
In my opinion Al Qaeda should donate to Planned Parenthood...the return for their investment would be a lot higher.
I advocate the protection of human life, exactly what you advocate. The difference is I advocate defending the innocent.

reply from: Skippy

Sure.
I don't consider them related issues. Obviously, since I am pro-choice, I don't have a problem with abortions happening. If a woman has decided that terminating a pregnancy is her best course of action, I support her choice, just like I support her decision if she chooses to continue the pregnancy.
With the clinic pictures, I just see great potential for bad outcomes. You keep saying no one looks at the pictures, but if that's true, then why post them? No, your intent is to make women afraid to come to the clinic for fear of having pictures of them, their vehicle, and their license plate posted on the internet.
(And don't bother with the "not everyone takes license plate pictures" patter. A woman has no way of knowing which of the "clinic screamers" do and which don't.)
So let us ask ourselves, who is the intended audience for these pictures? I would say other anti-choice people is a good bet. And if you are an employer who sees a picture of one of your employees, will you just shrug and let it go, or will you fire the "baby-killer"? If you are a man who sees a picture of his wife, will you just say, "Wow, I didn't even know she was pregnant!" If you are an abusive estranged boyfriend, and you see a picture of that girl you just can't live without, are you going to drink some tea and do a little yoga until you feel better?
(That, of course, is where the license plate photos come in so handy. One call to the DMV, and ol' Bruiser has a current address for the lovely lady that fled in the middle of the night to get away from him.)
I am extremely sensitive to this issue because I was stalked as a result of photos of me that someone took without my knowledge and put up on the internet. You don't know these women, or their situations. You don't even know that nothing bad has happened yet, and you surely don't know that nothing bad WILL happen. All you know is that you want to intimidate them into not showing up for their appointment.
And once again, I can live with worrying more about women than I do about embryos and fetuses.
I hope that answers your son's question.

reply from: yoda

That's a proabort euphemism meaning "I really don't give a damn about unborn babies, so don't bother me about them".
With enough imagination, you might see little green men from Mars, too. But the 3,500 babies being killed every day in abortuaries are REAL, not "potential".... oh wait, I forgot.... you don't give a damn about them.
That's silly, who is saying that? And how do they know? My counter shows over 800 visits to my website since I put it up, so apparently someone is looking.
Who cares?
The public, skippy-poo. Who did you think?
Really? What state do you live in where anyone can call their DMV and trace a plate?

reply from: carolemarie

Thank you for finally responding to that point. But why did you try to twist it so much? Are you not even willing to admit that my photography was what caused her to take that long drive? Why does it bother you so much to give me credit for JUST ONE SAVE???
Never said it did. But what you're saying is that the discomfort, the "intimidation" of the women about to have an abortion is WORSE than the killing of the "occasional" baby. Do you really believe that? Do you really value the lives of the babies so lowly?
I do consider the "ramifications". And the one "ramification" that I find MOST IMPORTANT is that the baby may have a chance to STAY ALIVE! And yet, the ramification that you find more important is the future embarrassment of the abortion bound woman, or the "destruction of the life she was building". Now you are using the word "life" in the same way the proaborts use it, to describe someone's "lifestyle". And you are elevating the concept of "lifestyle" above the value of the life of the unborn child.
Why won't you address my question directly? WOULD YOU OBJECT TO "SHAMING" SOMEONE WHO HAD KILLED THEIR BORN KIDS BY POSTING THEIR PHOTO ON THE INTERNET? YES OR NO????
Okay OkayI give your photography credit for saving that young women's baby! And I think you probably changed the minds of many women who came to the clinic and saw your sign...I believe what you do works and I think it is a good thing to do. Not so sure about the pictures, but you raise some good points.
And I thought I answered your question about killing born kids, yes I woud object to it. I don't get what point would be served by doing that, unless they were roam the streets and posed a danger to other children it would seem to be a pointless thing to do.

reply from: yoda

Thank you.
You see no point in shaming someone who has deliberately and needlessly killed their born child? What in the world would be bad enough for you to think that they ought to be shamed, then?
Do you really not understand that "shame" has a legitimate role in the restraint of human behavior? Don't you know that some local courts make people "shame" themselves in public as a punishment, because they know it inhibits bad behavior? Don't you understand the value of "shame"?

reply from: faithman

Thank you.
You see no point in shaming someone who has deliberately and needlessly killed their born child? What in the world would be bad enough for you to think that they ought to be shamed, then?
Do you really not understand that "shame" has a legitimate role in the restraint of human behavior? Don't you know that some local courts make people "shame" themselves in public as a punishment, because they know it inhibits bad behavior? Don't you understand the value of "shame"?
How can she when she is SSSSSSOOOOOOO invested in avoiding her own shame for killing her own children. She is just emotionally invested in her denile, as bortheads are in killing the womb child. Either way the womb child suffers an unloving, unmerciful, unkind death. And anyone who would call killing womb children murder, are accused of being void of mercy love or kindness. How dare we actually advocate true protection and justice for the womb child. How dare we expose those who would do them evil. We have to bear the shame of being slandered as void of compassion, but real evil doers should never be made to feel ashamed of murdering innocent life. .....go figure........

reply from: yoda

There is great value in the human emotion of shame, for regulating behavior. In some ways, it is more powerful than going to jail. I really can't understand why anyone would dismiss it as a useful way to discourage bad behavior.

reply from: Skippy

How many American citizens did Al Qaeda kill?
Several thousand.
None.
Al Qaeda.
No. You advocate the putative protection of certain human life, even at the expense of other human life.

reply from: joe

None.
How is it possible that a mind can be this short sighted?
Planned Parenthood is killing millions of future Americans yearly, a feat that makes Al Qaeda seem trivial.
Fact: There would be American citizens standing here today (that are not) if it were not for abortion.

reply from: faithman

None.
Jjoe. check your private messages.
How is it possible that a mind can be this short sighted?
Planned Parenthood is killing millions of future Americans yearly, a feat that makes Al Qaeda seem trivial.
Fact: There would be American citizens standing here today (that are not) if it were not for abortion.

reply from: Skippy

None.
How is it possible that a mind can be this short sighted?
Planned Parenthood is killing millions of future Americans yearly, a feat that makes Al Qaeda seem trivial.
Fact: There would be American citizens standing here today (that are not) if it were not for abortion.
I bolded the word future, because embryos and fetuses aren't American citizens. They aren't citizens of any country. One must be born to acquire citizenship.
I find it interesting that you use the term "future Americans," yet the anti-choice often object to terms such as "potential person."

reply from: joe

Future American is the correct term, potential person is not.

reply from: 4given

Now that is an odd coincidence. How did you find them?
Not really. He asked, "Why?" You did not address his initial question about the gun, but it is likely he will not be waiting on the family computer reading forum posts tomorrow. He reads from time to time. He tried to join a few times. Maybe in a few years.. I find the idea that you were allegedly stalked to be quite strange. I suppose I am used to pro-choice stories. Are you being honest about that? How bizarre!

reply from: Skippy

Since the photos and the stalking incident had nothing to do with abortion, I'm not certain why you would call it a "pro-choice story." It could have happened to anyone, irrespective of their politics or beliefs.
I guess it's probably just more of that anti-choice compassion coming out, though.

reply from: 4given

It does have to do with this thread Skippy. I said " I really do not view an individual in the open with a camera as a threat. I would feel differently if these women were being stalked and photographed without their knowledge from say the bushes or a bathroom stall." I was simply asking you. You have seen it yourself I am sure. A few posters here have actually come up with some pretty good stories about why abortion is better than say the possibility of foster care. I can understand why you would oppose pictures of women being put up on a website for anyone to view. That (your stalking incident) helps to reiterate your initial assertion- It could pose a threat to the woman being photographed. Right?

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Subject: Pregnant women going into Dr Tiller for late term abortion.
John 3:19-21 "Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God."
Do these women want their deeds exposed to the light of day, or are they trying to conceal their deeds in the shadows?

reply from: JosieCashew

Are ALL the protesters screaming? Sounds like another stereotype.

reply from: 4given

Not a single one I personally know.. Not at the clinics anyway. I can imagine how frustrated it must be to see these women going to kill their child, unable to reach them. If I had been involved in my youth, perhaps I could say it is true. Then again, maybe the death row walk births a battle of convenience vs. conscience? I don't know. It is a stereotype. I can't imagine my sons being silent if they saw a group of proaborts sporting their proud to support abortion spatter. I can not imagine that they will be silent when they see a woman entering the death pit at an abortion mill either. They aren't screamers though. They are articulate and loud speakers. That goes for praying as well. We will see. Stereotype? Yes!

reply from: yoda

Exactly.
In fact, all my camera does is to capture the "light of day" that is reflected off these people as they enter the door of death. Capturing light is not now, nor has it ever been, an immoral act. Nor is exposing baby killers and their associates online to the "light of day".

reply from: yoda

In my experience, yes.. absolutely.
Yesterday a female protester was telling the customers entering the mill that if they went through with it (the abortion), their baby's grave would be a sewer or a landfill. One woman who was still sitting in her car heard what she said, and drove a way in tears. She stopped at the entrance to tell another protester that hearing what "that woman" said caused her to change her mind, and she went instead to the CPC across the street.
So much for "screaming protesters".

reply from: carolemarie

Thank you.
You see no point in shaming someone who has deliberately and needlessly killed their born child? What in the world would be bad enough for you to think that they ought to be shamed, then?
Do you really not understand that "shame" has a legitimate role in the restraint of human behavior? Don't you know that some local courts make people "shame" themselves in public as a punishment, because they know it inhibits bad behavior? Don't you understand the value of "shame"?
No I don't think shame has any legitamate role. Shame is not healthy or good and any local court that would do that seems to be stepping over it boundries. If you break a law, there is a prescribed penalty. Shame shouldn't be part of it.
I don't think anyone should be shamed.

reply from: yoda

Suppose we substitute the word "guilt" for "shame". Would you then still have the same objection? Do you not think that women about to abort, or post abortive women ought to feel any guilt either? Do you think we ought to have ONLY positive feelings about some horrible thing that we have done?
We'll just have to disagree on that one. I think that when we have done, or are about to do something wrong, we ought to feel shame. I think that is a very healthy reaction to instances when our consciences tell us that we are behaving "badly". It allows us the opportunity to correct, or at least try to correct, our bad behavior. And it even gives us an incentive, a motive. And that's how we self-regulate in a healthy way, IMO.
Have you never heard the expression "Have you no shame"? How about "shameless hussy"?
Here's a quote from a female psychiatrist:
"shame-- in limited quantities and small doses--has facilitated civilized conduct and made both individuals and cultures behave more appropriately. But healthy shame, on the other hand, keeps us in touch with reality, and reminds us of our limitations, faults, and humanity. When experiencing healthy shame an individual may not be very happy to have embarrassing weaknesses and defects made obvious, but this awareness is insightful and humbling. As long as an individual is capable of self-doubt and self-reflection about his behavior; he is able to remain open-minded and willing to search for a better understanding of himself and others."
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2006/02/shame-guilt-muslim-psyche-and-danish.html [/a]
And here's a quote from a male therapist:
"Shame causes positive side effects as well. One of the beneficial elements appears to be a byproduct of the fear of being cast out of our family, group or culture. We endeavor to avoid the shame of exclusion by conforming to our cultural values and behaving in a manner that engenders culturally sanctioned approval. The urge to belong, not shamed, to want our family to be proud of our achievements is a positive component of shame. This desire to avoid shame encourages people to make efforts toward being accepted into the larger culture even to strive toward greatness. Herein lies an element of human nature; avoiding pain is often an incentive in directing our lives toward more positive goals that are difficult and sometimes fearful. "
http://www.findingstone.com/professionals/monographs/rageshameandthedeathoflove.htm [/a]
">http://www.findingstone.com/pr...deathoflove.htm
Just as shame will bring a child back in line when they step outside the boundaries of decent behavior, so it will do the same for adults at times. Kids (and adults) often seek the approval of their parents or peers, and when they are shamed they often self-correct bad behavior. And that's why some courts use it, and so far none of their "shame-centered" punishments have been declared unconstitutional.
"Shame" and "guilt" are closely associated, and some believe they are pretty much the same thing. In both cases, they modify behavior in a non-violent way. All societies use such means to restrain bad behavior.
Here are some links to discussions about shame (and guilt):
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2006/02/shame-guilt-muslim-psyche-and-danish.html
">http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2...and-danish.html
http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyan_theology/theojrnl/06-10/06-6.htm
">http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyan.../06-10/06-6.htm
http://shrinkwrapped.blogs.com/blog/2006/08/guilt_vs_shame.html
">http://shrinkwrapped.blogs.com...t_vs_shame.html
http://www.doceo.co.uk/background/shame_guilt.htm
">http://www.doceo.co.uk/backgro...shame_guilt.htm
http://news.thresholds.org/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=10284&cn=8
">http://news.thresholds.org/poc...c&id=10284&cn=8
http://www.greatbiblestudy.com/guilt-shame-sexual-sins.php
">http://www.greatbiblestudy.com...sexual-sins.php
And of course, the Bible is full or references to "shame", and none of them say it is a "bad thing". They all say that doing bad things causes shame, not that the shame itself is a bad thing.
To say that we should never feel shame is like saying that our bad behavior should never bother us, and that we should never punish ourselves for it. It just doesn't make sense.

reply from: sander

The whole response is brillant, Yodavater. The last sentence is a great summation, but Yodavater, shame must be done away with...how else can a society cope with the hideous facts of abortion and how can any individual cope with the truth that aborting kills another human being?
Everyone knows that shame really can't be irraticated, but if we say it often enough the consience is soothed if only for a short while. Truthfully, how can anyone percieve punishment as having no element of shame? You're 100% correct, "it just doesn't make sense".
Any society that looses it's sense of shame is in deep doo-doo.

reply from: sander

Another quick thought, don't sociopaths lack a sense of shame? Just asking.

reply from: yoda

Yes, doing away with the cause of the shame is the only thing that will remove it from a person with an active conscience.
And you're right, there are lots of individuals that can't deal with the truth about abortion, so that's why we see such a major effort by proaborts to give them lies to cling to. And believing in a lie is a temporary fix, at best.
About the sociopaths, they say a sociopath has no conscience, so I don't suppose they would ever feel shame.

reply from: sander

So, the whole "no shame" argument is a fallacy. Yet, proaborts cling on....stunning.

reply from: carolemarie

I think there is a function for guilt, before you do something wrong and afterward. It is kinda like a prompt for your conscience and that is a legitimate role.
Shame is something else. It is destructive and destroys the person.
Shame makes people feel so flawed that they don't deserve to exist, That is never good.
I guess it is a matter of definitions....

reply from: yoda

Yes, there is a difference in the two concepts, as the articles linked to in my post mentioned several times.
But think of this: suppose someone (with a normal conscience) has been lied to, or has lied to themselves, and has gone into such a deep state of denial that they feel no guilt about their elective abortion. In such a case, the normal function of guilt is thwarted, at least temporarily.
But if that same person's actions are exposed to the "light of day", and they find them self the subject of public disapproval, would that not possibly shake them out of their denial? Or if they even sense the possibility of public disapproval (shame) before their abortion, might it not bring them to their senses before it's too late?
Shame, in the form of public disapproval, has a real and useful role in our lives, even if we sometimes claim "I don't care what anyone thinks". Because in truth, we all do care, at least a little.

reply from: sander

I'm wondering if you're confusing the overall shame that one should not feel after they have repented and put their trust in Jesus with the shame that people who are still in their sins should indeed feel?
Jesus felt the shame of our sins, so to cancel out shame all together, IMO, at the very least removes a tool that God and society can use to correct unacceptable behavior.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics