Home - List All Discussions

What are your thoughts about abortion cams?

by: Faramir

I found an internet site, owned by Neil Horsley, that links to sites that are dedicated to taking pictures of people who go to clinics that do abortions:
http://www.abortioncams.com

Apparently not all prolife activists are happy with this tactic:
Apparently, the owner of this site favors the idea of abortion cams (at least that is what Mr. Horsley is claiming):
I watched the Fox video on this site, and was disappointed because they baited Mr. Horsley, insulted him, and didn't repsond to the valid points he was making. (Not that I agree with that tactics, but Fox could have been a lot more "fair and balanced" in their treatment of him).

reply from: SRUW4I5

I think any person that takes pictures of women at abortion clinics (without getting written consent from them that includes their signature, a date, and exactly where/when/how the picture can be used) should be arrested... It should be illegal.
People doing things like that outside Planned Parenthood clinics should be taught how mean, rude, and horrible of a thing to do that is.

reply from: Faramir

More from that site.
Women who abort must be punished, and some in the prolife movement have created confusion by giving them a break and calling them "victims":

reply from: Faramir

Video of Alan Keys discussing the issue with Neil Horsley:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSnuJkBkCXE

reply from: yoda

But you already know it isn't illegal, right? Or are you just blowing hot air?
Here's you chance.... come to Knoxville and report me to the nearest police officer, prosecutor, or anyone else you wish to report me to.
Too busy? All mouth and no action? Typical for a proabort, I must say.

reply from: yoda

I'm sure Neal appreciates your help in getting more publicity. I know I really appreciate your help in bringing attention to my type of activism, even though you intend it as a smear. I have to agree with him that it's rather confusing to call the perpetrator of abortion violence the "victim". There is only one victim in an elective abortion, the baby that is killed. The mother who does that is the perpetrator, not the victim.

reply from: faithman

I'm sure Neal appreciates your help in getting more publicity. I know I really appreciate your help in bringing attention to my type of activism, even though you intend it as a smear. I have to agree with him that it's rather confusing to call the perpetrator of abortion violence the "victim". There is only one victim in an elective abortion, the baby that is killed. The mother who does that is the perpetrator, not the victim.
SSSSSSOOOO I guess we need to take down all the pictures from post offices, and expunge them from the news papers, of criminals? People have the right to take pictures in public. [freedom of the press and all]. If folks don't want their picture taken publicly going into a clinic, then they shouldn't be going. If the are SSSSSOOOOO ashamed of what they are doing to not want to be seen doing it, maybe the shouldn't be doing it? And if they are proud of their actions, what harm is done by public display of those actions? Deep down women know that abortion is a betrail of maternaty. They are naturally ashamed of that betrail. One must napalm conscience to over come the guilt and shame of it. We have a conscience dead killer of 3 that proves that on a very regular basis.

reply from: micah

In one sense the cameras are really great news, because it shows the pro-life side is really getting desperate. Even with Bush they were impotent.
So they ask the question "are the cameras a deterrent to abortion?" I can't believe they even have to ask that. Let's think about that, which would you rather have, your picture on the Internet, or 9 months of pregnancy and 18 years of raising a kid? If what you were doing were truly a deterrent, people would be going after you.
Yodahater, can we get a link to your site?

reply from: Faramir

His affairs with barnyard animals aren't really relevant, though, as to whether or not what he is doing is ethical or effective, and doesn't invalidate everything he says.

reply from: ChristianLott2

I think those abortioncams are great and should get more attention. There also should be mug shots of the abortionists. They are all murderers. Any one who claims they are pro life should know this. I'm just surprised you've never seen this before Faramir.

reply from: BossMomma

I'd say the idiots who do this crap deserve it when someone finally gets fed up and kicks their ass. It is an illegal invasion of privacy and just as with perverts taking pictures of little kids in the park to masturbate over, they should be prosecuted.
Apparently, the owner of this site favors the idea of abortion cams (at least that is what Mr. Horsley is claiming):
I watched the Fox video on this site, and was disappointed because they baited Mr. Horsley, insulted him, and didn't repsond to the valid points he was making. (Not that I agree with that tactics, but Fox could have been a lot more "fair and balanced" in their treatment of him).

reply from: Faramir

It's new to me. Is this fairly well-known?
Why do you think mainstream prolifers condemn this tactic?

reply from: ChristianLott2

It's new to me. Is this fairly well-known?
Why do you think mainstream prolifers condemn this tactic?
Because they believe if they are perceived as disliking ANY women, even the ones they profess to be disagreeing with - everyone will accuse them of being anti woman.
It's the 'choice' way. They butcher women and their babies and everyone is supposed to feel sorry for the butcher and the one who hired the butcher. That way, no one will ever take action against them or treat them like what they really are - murderers.

reply from: ChristianLott2

That must be a personal fetish of yours - masturbating about abortion. I suppose it's a real turn on to a pro abort like yourself.
Sicko.

reply from: Rosalie

It's harassment and invasion of privacy. Hopefully these people will soon end behind the bars.

reply from: Faramir

It's harassment and invasion of privacy. Hopefully these people will soon end behind the bars.
According to the judge on Fox news, what they are doing is legal.

reply from: Rosalie

I don't see how, though. It's disgusting that our privacy is not protected. We have an actual right to that. It's just disgusting all around.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

That must be a personal fetish of yours - masturbating about abortion. I suppose it's a real turn on to a pro abort like yourself.
Sicko.
Post reported. Just to prove I'm not picking on Faithman alone. And yes, of course they're laughing about it. But it is the only thing I can do.

reply from: BossMomma

That must be a personal fetish of yours - masturbating about abortion. I suppose it's a real turn on to a pro abort like yourself.
Sicko.
Post reported. Just to prove I'm not picking on Faithman alone. And yes, of course they're laughing about it. But it is the only thing I can do.
I have ChristianSnott on ignore too lib, I really don't care to read his BS. Besides, he doesn't have a leg to stand on. No child ever died as a result of MY choices, too bad he can't say the same.

reply from: yoda

My photos have already saved one baby's life, and that's worth infinitely more to me than the opinion of a confirmed baby killer. Oh, and certain people are "going after me", they just don't have the guts to catch me.
No, babykiller, you can't. I don't want you to even see it.

reply from: yoda

Isn't that sad? And she claims to be "prolife"..........

reply from: SRUW4I5

But you already know it isn't illegal, right? Or are you just blowing hot air?
Here's you chance.... come to Knoxville and report me to the nearest police officer, prosecutor, or anyone else you wish to report me to.
Too busy? All mouth and no action? Typical for a proabort, I must say.
I know it isn't illegal, but it should be. I have better things to do than go to Knoxville, and my mom would get very mad if I did.

reply from: scopia19822

"It's harassment and invasion of privacy. Hopefully these people will soon end behind the bars."
I do not agree with it, but it is freedom of speech/press. They are in public view, hence they are legitment targets to be photographed. However I think that the same wouldnt be said of photographing minors.

reply from: yoda

YOUR MOM??????
Well if I'd known that moma's little boy was all upset and frustrated, I would've been more condescending to start with......
What a guy...... probably isn't out of grammar school, and he's telling me how wrong I am...... he probably just needs a nap.

reply from: Rosalie

Freedom of speech is not supposed to override anyone's right to privacy.

reply from: yoda

Yes, it would. I think it's unfortunate that the baby killers choose to bring their minor children right into the killing place, but they do. And I think that the fact that they do that is a legitimate thing to report.
Beyond that, no one has even bothered to try to make up a scenario in which my photographs might ever result in any harm, in any way, to them.
Do you want to try, or will you say what Faramir once said about this subject?
(He said "If you don't know, I'm not going to tell you".)

reply from: Faramir

Freedom of speech is not supposed to override anyone's right to privacy.
But it's a public street.
And they are not taking pictures inside--just of what anyone who would be in the area would see, anyway.
I don't like the tactic, but I don't see how it is illegal.

reply from: SRUW4I5

YOUR MOM??????
Well if I'd known that moma's little boy was all upset and frustrated, I would've been more condescending to start with......
I'm only 17, so I still have to listen to my parents. Oh, and I'm a girl. I wasn't saying that you're wrong, I was just saying it should be illegal.
Being mean doesn't help anything, it just makes you and the Pro-Life side look bad. Is that what you're going for?

reply from: scopia19822

"I'm only 17, so I still have to listen to my parents. Oh, and I'm a girl. I wasn't saying that you're wrong, I was just saying it should be illegal."
Your just a child yourself.
"Being mean doesn't help anything, it just makes you and the Pro-Life side look bad. Is that what you're going for?"
I dont agree with what Yoda is doing and he knows that, however it is perfectly legal under the 1st amendment.

reply from: Faramir

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Oh, c'mon...
His hero and role model is Neal Horsley - the guy who enjoys humping mules!
What does that tell 'ya?
On the one hand, I think that we could overlook his past, since he no longer molests innocent animals.
But on the other hand, if someone who had an abortion is supposed to be called a "murderer" forever, then to be consistent, I suppose they should always be referring to Mr. Horsley as the "muleraper" (unless it was consentual, though I think the lucky mule might have done better).

reply from: SRUW4I5

I know it's legal, I was just saying it shouldn't be.

reply from: scopia19822

I personally dont see what purpose it serves and I have said this privatly to Yoda.

reply from: SRUW4I5

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Oh, c'mon...
His hero and role model is Neal Horsley - the guy who enjoys humping mules!
What does that tell 'ya?
On the one hand, I think that we could overlook his past, since he no longer molests innocent animals.
But on the other hand, if someone who had an abortion is supposed to be called a "murderer" forever, then to be consistent, I suppose they should always be referring to Mr. Horsley as the "muleraper" (unless it was consentual, though I think the lucky mule might have done better).
I don't think an animal can consent to that with a human.
We could call him a "muleraper" but I won't. It doesn't help anything, and can be taken as mean or insulting. All calling him that would do is make us as bad as the people that call women murderers.

reply from: Faramir

I'm joking about this.
BTW, are you prolife or prochoice?
I want to know whether I should be courteous or nasty to you.

reply from: SRUW4I5

I'm Pro-Choice, because I think women should be allowed to choose whether or not they want to have an abortion in 6 or 7 kinds of cases (health & life must be backed up by doctors IMO). I also think that the woman should carry the pregnancy to term if possible even in the cases I allow exceptions for.

reply from: scopia19822

"Im Pro-Choice, because I think women should be allowed to choose whether or not they want to have an abortion in 6 or 7 kinds of cases."
Would you please be kind enough to state those cases?

reply from: SRUW4I5

Sure heres a quote from where I said it in a different topic with the kinds of cases in bold.

reply from: scopia19822

The only one of your exceptions I find acceptable is to remove a dead fetus as it has to be done or infection could set in and kill the mother. And in the cases of ectopic pregnancy as the child is not going to survive anyway. I dont consider them "abortions' per se.

reply from: BossMomma

So the life of the mother is not a valid exception? That's rather unreasonable isn't it?

reply from: yoda

Ah, great, you're 17 and you're giving us the benefit of your opinion. How wonderful.... what more can you learn since you already know everything?
If you call defending a sincere effort to save babies being mean, then I suppose that would mean you think that killing babies is not mean. But as far as how the "prolife side" looks to you and other proaborts, what makes you think I actually care? Hey, I don't. Are you going to blame the babies for what you don't like in my posts, and say more of them should die?

reply from: scopia19822

"So the life of the mother is not a valid exception? That's rather unreasonable isn't it?"
There is so much that modern medicine can do to ensure that mom and baby get as close to term safely as possible. If a woman is in an accident and placental abruption occurs in the case of a previable fetus the child is already dead from the accident and has to be removed. However before the doctor does that they need to make every effort to save the pregnancy. In a post viable child all one would need to do is a Csection and place the child on life support if need be. But to purposly sacrifice one to save the other is wrong.

reply from: SRUW4I5

Ah, great, you're 17 and you're giving us the benefit of your opinion. How wonderful.... what more can you learn since you already know everything?
I don't know everything, and I've learned things from people on here.
If you call defending a sincere effort to save babies being mean, then I suppose that would mean you think that killing babies is not mean. But as far as how the "prolife side" looks to you and other proaborts, what makes you think I actually care? Hey, I don't. Are you going to blame the babies for what you don't like in my posts, and say more of them should die?
I think killing preborn children is very mean when it's for convenience. When it's for what I think are good reasons, I think it is mean, but its the nicer of the two options.
I'm for reducing the number of abortions. As far as I'm concerned there isn't a need for more than maybe 50-200 abortions a year at the most.

reply from: yoda

Why? What's wrong with elective abortions? And where did you come up with that number?
And how are you going to get all those doctors to see all those poor women who want abortions? Are you going to pay them, when the poor woman says she thinks she might suffer "psychological damage"?
And who is going to approve of the list of doctors they must see? Can an abortionist be on that list?

reply from: ProInformed

What do you think should be the criticism and/or punishment for pro-aborts who take photos of pro-lifers, and their children, without permission?
What should be done about the problem of angry, aggressive pro-abort lesbians showing up at legislative hearings to grant pregnant woment he patient protection right of Informed Consent, purposely trying to intimidate any post-abortive women who dare to testify about how they found out too late that the abortion clinic 'counselors' they trusted lied to them?

reply from: yoda

Some of the proaborts on occasion do take my picture, without my permission, of course. Are they violating my privacy? Should that be illegal?
Will you defend their photography, and not mine?

reply from: ChristianLott2

That must be a personal fetish of yours - masturbating about abortion. I suppose it's a real turn on to a pro abort like yourself.
Sicko.
Post reported. Just to prove I'm not picking on Faithman alone. And yes, of course they're laughing about it. But it is the only thing I can do.
Ah ah ah.. I wasn't the one to make an analogy between abortion and child pornography. It's not even funny.

reply from: Faramir

I don't think she was referring to "defending babies." She was referring to meanness.
But I love the "logic."
You say I'm "mean." Therefore you think I'm mean because I try to save babies. Therefore you think it's ok to kill babies.
But he has not considered that it is possible for someone to notice that someone is a nasty old so-and-so, and that it might have nothing to do with whatever beliefs he professes.
It's sad to see someone excuse rotten behaviour as if it's "for the babies," and to continually hide behind babies.

reply from: sheri

At our PP here in Utica we were constantly being harrassed by the police, PP would call them and they would come flying in to get after us, we were even taken to court over a few things that would not stick. It ended when we invested in a video camera, alot of women objected to being video taped ( we kept it on at all times) untill we pointed out that PP had cameras mounted on there building, trained on the sidewalk, taping 24/7. If PP can do it we should be able to also.

reply from: yoda

Frankly, vernon, I really don't give a d*m what she was referring to, I referred to exactly what I was trying to do.
So stick your whinney little nose where it will do someone some good.

reply from: ProInformed

Well given the fact that somany pro-aborts claim that there's nothing at all wrong with abortion, that it's nothing to be ashamed of, then what's the problem really?
Also, there are shameless videos (and jokes) posted online BY pro-aborts, acting as if abortion is just something amusing.
I have no more problem with abortion-related videos being taken than I do with the film footage which documented the Nazi holocaust.
I'm sure that if the Nazis who committed those crimes against humanity knew how history would have rembeed them they would have complained about the filmed evidence of their complicity too. Um, but who cares what THEY think?
It's so amazingly and majorly hypocritical for those who don't even respect the right to life of other humans to whine about their right to privacy to commit their hateful, vicious, violent acts against their victims.
Perpetrators of violent acts are often caught on video but we don't typically care much about the desire of those perpetrators to hide what they've done to their victims, do we?

reply from: yoda

Watch out!
Now vernon, carolemarie, and BM will jump all over you!! They will whine that PP doesn't put it's videos on the web, for all to see. Of course, the don't really know what PP does with them, but they know that PP is much nicer than me, right?
You've really stepped in it now.......

reply from: yoda

But carole says I'm "trying to shame them", even though all the proaborts say there's nothing to be ashamed of. She hasn't quite got the hang of the proabort lingo yet.
Yes, but carole might say that we ought not to "shame" the Nazis, we ought to be kind, loving, and friendly to them. And vernon would back her up.
Oh, but the camera haters say that the WOMAN is the victim in abortion, NOT the baby!!

reply from: Faramir

Do you play the videos publicly? If not, what you are doing is for totally different reasons than those who photograph women and post their images on the internet.

reply from: yoda

See sheri, I told you!!

reply from: sheri

Pro, I think the question with the others is more, what works. Or what works at your particular clinic.
Yodas tactic works for him, probably largly because nothing else does, he has no direct access to the girls and not enough help to carry signs or be noticed, the camera is something that may diswade a girl from keeping her appointment. There is nothing illegal about it otherwise, I assure you he would have been arressted years ago.
On the other hand Carols trump card is her powerfull testimony and compassion, A camrera would probably deter a girl from talking with her, so it wouldn't help in her outreach.
We would be held up in court if not for our camera, however the sidewalk counceler is usually taped, not taping.
The important thing is to do what works best for your situation.

reply from: sheri

Farimir, We are constantly being taped by PP. Think of the poperozzi ( i have no idea how to spell that, not that that has ever stopped me before.) movie stars hate to have their pictures published without their approval but it happens all day long.
The wider question is does it work. Yoda says it does, and i cant see were it hurts in his situation.

reply from: yoda

Oh no, now vernon will jump all over you for not being on his side! And besides, you're making way too much sense, and he doesn't like that.
But don't worry, some of us appreciate what you are saying. It's what I've been trying to convince prolifers of for years, but I seem to spend a lot of time defending what works for my situation, rather than comparing results with other tactics in a civil tone.
I'll bet the proaborts are really yucking it up at the show we're putting on for them...... and who knows, maybe sending some posters a little cash on the side....

reply from: Faramir

I don't know about his particular situation, but I do know that when I look at his website and Neal Horsley's I feel disgusted, and I totally agree with Alan Keys' opinion about it.
At any rate, you are taping for the legal purposes, am I right? You are not broadcasting the videos in the hope of "shaming" someone, I take it.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Lol! That's awesome XD

reply from: 4given

It is a good idea for anyone going to the clinics to have a video camera with them as evidence if needed. Pro-abort violence against pro-lifers is a common occurence. CM advised me to always have a video camera and another person with me at all times.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

That must be a personal fetish of yours - masturbating about abortion. I suppose it's a real turn on to a pro abort like yourself.
Sicko.
Post reported. Just to prove I'm not picking on Faithman alone. And yes, of course they're laughing about it. But it is the only thing I can do.
Ah ah ah.. I wasn't the one to make an analogy between abortion and child pornography. It's not even funny.
Did you not say "That must be a personal fetish of yours - masturbating about abortion. I suppose it's a real turn on to a pro abort like yourself."? I find that to be offensive. That's why I reported it.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Some of the proaborts on occasion do take my picture, without my permission, of course. Are they violating my privacy? Should that be illegal?
Will you defend their photography, and not mine?
Your photography is perfectly legal. Something doesn't have to be illegal to be tasteless.

reply from: faithman

Some of the proaborts on occasion do take my picture, without my permission, of course. Are they violating my privacy? Should that be illegal?
Will you defend their photography, and not mine?
Your photography is perfectly legal. Something doesn't have to be illegal to be tasteless.
Kinda like your existance.

reply from: yoda

Yeah, like I care about her idea of "taste".
She leaves a sour taste in my mouth, all the way from wherever she is.

reply from: carolemarie

I did tell you to do that. We do that. We train the camera, not on people, but on the property line, to prove that we are not criminal trespassing. It also is there if a clinic customer gets agressive. Knowing that they will show up on camera if they assault someone calms down situtations.
But there is a big difference in doing that and posting peoples pictures on a website. One is legally protecting yourself and the other is attempting to shame and intimidate people.

reply from: scopia19822

I personally dont see what it will accomplish. I am going to Roanoke Va again on Saturday with some women from the parish. I just pray to God I dont have another woman being forced into an abortion by there significant other.

reply from: ChristianLott2

Imagine, trying to intimidate people not to have abortions.
Imagine - trying to shame people into NOT murdering.
pro aborts just can't figure it out.

reply from: ChristianLott2

Lol! That's awesome XD
.. for sheri but not for yoda.. got it, the female centric double standard.

reply from: scopia19822

." for sheri but not for yoda.. got it, the female centric double standard."
If sheri was doing the same thing yoda was doing I would stil disagree with it. Yoda is doing something perfectly legal, I just dont see what he hopes to accomplish. But it is a good idea to have a camera and video camera for ones own legal protection when doing clinic protest.

reply from: ProInformed

Yea, we've all heard that before... but even though polls consistently show that the majority of the citizens are opposed to the majority of the abortions being committed... they haven't even bothered to start any organizations or intitiate any legislative efforts to restrict the abortion industry in any way... in over THREE DECADES! I guess they're all just too busy bashing pro-lifers to actually DO anything to speak up against the abortion industry, eh?

reply from: sheri

Take a different pespective, if someone were taping you going into sunday mass and posting it on a web sight " parisheners at st Josephs" would you be shamed? probably not, maybe angry at the intrusion but feelings of shame come from being where you are not supposed to be.
Think about it.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Lol! That's awesome XD
.. for sheri but not for yoda.. got it, the female centric double standard.
How Sheri films is completely different from how Yoda does. He specifically takes pictures of chosen targets and then posts about them, name-calling them and deriding them. That is completely different from aiming a camera in the general direction of the clinic and filming EVERYONE that passes by. Secondly Sheri does not post those videos on line and then make fun of the people in them. Yoda does it to get kicks; Sheri does it for completely different reasons. Sheri documents. Yoda takes photos as if they are naughty dirty little secrets.

reply from: micah

Okay, Yodahater. Does the site exist? How many pictures of women do you have on there?
No, babykiller, you can't. I don't want you to even see it.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

No, babykiller, you can't. I don't want you to even see it.
Of course he won't let you see it. Actually he did post a link to it somewhere. Try the thread where he keeps talking about donuts, I believe the link is in there somewhere.
He won't let you see it because he doesn't want to reveal the dirty truth to you. I can't currently think of the word for a person who likes to take naughty pictures of people without their consent/knowing. I keep getting exhibitionist stuck in my head, and it's like the opposite of that.
On top of that, he then ridicules and derides the people he photographs, humiliating them. He makes fun of their weight, their apparent social status (yes, coming from the man who called ME arrogant), their ages, on and on.

reply from: micah

I'm unsure if it's illegal, but I wouldn't surprised if it there were a civil lawsuit or two. When they post pictures of women at Planned Parenthood, the photographer is implying the woman is getting an abortion. Suppose she is there for another reason. She could then sue for libel, and I'm sure our courts would award a handsome judgement.
I wouldn't get too bent out of shape about this. At the first sign of legal trouble, pro-lifers will scatter like cockroaches when the light is turned on. They are far from brave and sincere, and won't risk civil or criminal penalty.

reply from: micah

If that is true, I hope one of them sees the pictures and sues him.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

It's not illegal as long as they are in plain view and above a certain age (depends on the state). You cannot take pictures of children for instance, if they are sitting on their own front porch. But any public place is considered "public domain" for photography. How do I know all this? I took several photography courses in college and one of the major things we were taught were our legal rights as photographers. It's sickening to have someone like Yoda despoiling laws put in place to protect artists and real journalists, but there you have it.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

They could sue for defamation of character or emotional distress I suppose. Or they could request he remove the photo and if he doesn't, THEN he has violated a law and could be arrested. Until then though, the photos and his hate-speech are perfectly legal.

reply from: yoda

Gosh, I thought I had already mentioned this, I know for a fact I have saved one baby by the use of the camera..... isn't that enough? Doesn't that count?

reply from: yoda

Be careful, vernon and his groupies may read you out of the "always make 'em feel good, no matter what they do" club if you keep on making sense like that. They don't like that.

reply from: yoda

No, there is no such thing. It's all an unfounded rumor, baby killer.
Well gee, why don't you have the courage to "turn on the light", baby killer?

reply from: faithman

It's not illegal as long as they are in plain view and above a certain age (depends on the state). You cannot take pictures of children for instance, if they are sitting on their own front porch. But any public place is considered "public domain" for photography. How do I know all this? I took several photography courses in college and one of the major things we were taught were our legal rights as photographers. It's sickening to have someone like Yoda despoiling laws put in place to protect artists and real journalists, but there you have it.
HEY!!!! I have seen Yoda's donuts, and he is quite the ARTEEST with doe. I am sure he is with the camera as well.

reply from: ProInformed

IMHO the video cams should be primarily focused on the pro-aborts who take the pregnant women to the abortion mill, the abortion industry employees, and the 'clinic escorts' who are there to make sure the pregnant women can't receive the info and the help the pro-lifers are there to offer, there to protect the abortionists profits by making sure none of the mothers change their mind, there to assist the pro-abort bullies, rapists, and pimps who are pressuring the pregnant females to go in and abort.
The tactics of those vile, hateful, violent, anti-choice/anti-woman/pro-aborts should be documented and exposed at every opportunity.
It's bad enough that women are lied to and told that they can trust the abortin clinic staff to tell them the truth, and that the so-called 'pro-choice' groups, leaders, and activists don't seem to mind at all that women are frequently pressured and bullied into aborting, but to then also have 'clinic escorts' there to keep those women isolated from the pro-lifers who are there to tell them the truth and help them stand up to those pro-abort bullies, is disgustingly anti-woman and anti-choice.
When the Jews were being rounded up and shoved into boxcars, and then lined up to go into the gas chambers, were there volunteers there to make sure they all got in, that nobody interfered with the slaughter, pretending they were there to help the Jewish victims when in reality they were helping the Nazis?!?
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/nov/07113002.html

reply from: yoda

Since we are kept as such a distance, the local abortion mill doesn't need any escorts. They don't even have a "security" guy out front any more. (He was a big joke) But I do have a special page for the staff at the mill.

reply from: SRUW4I5

What do you think should be the criticism and/or punishment for pro-aborts who take photos of pro-lifers, and their children, without permission?
What should be done about the problem of angry, aggressive pro-abort lesbians showing up at legislative hearings to grant pregnant woment he patient protection right of Informed Consent, purposely trying to intimidate any post-abortive women who dare to testify about how they found out too late that the abortion clinic 'counselors' they trusted lied to them?
Anyone who tries to intimidate anyone should be stopped. Force should be used when necassary...
It should be covered in the same thing as the Pro-Lifers taking the pictures, it's equally horrible.
That shouldn't be legal either. It's equally as bad as the Pro-Lifers that take pictures. The same thing should be done to anyone that does that kind of picture taking.
Some people are too lazy to start anything and others don't know how to. People have worked to get things on the ballot that would limit abortion more, but it doesn't pass. Just because people don't like something happening it doesn't mean that they think it should be illegal. Some people think abortion should remain illegal so that it's safer, even though they don't think it should ever happen.
People have started organizations. They just aren't as known about as the ones that work to remove abortion restrictions.
Do you really think if people did nothing to get more restrictions and bans on abortion that there would be spousal notification/consent laws, parental notification/consent laws, attempts to get paternal notification/consent laws (one passed in Ohio and was shot down in the court as unconstitutional supposedly), or organized groups that try and get women to change their mind about having an abortion?
I agree with you that it is bad when that happens. Do you think it's bad when the staff at Crisis Pregnancy Centers lie to women?

reply from: yoda

So then, all picture taking without permission ought to be illegal?
When do you start campaigning for that legislation? And will you be trying to recruit everyone who takes outside photos, like at football games, etc.?
What will you call the crime? Do you have a name made up yet? Have you given it any thought, or is this just a knee jerk reaction? And are you related to carolemarie and/or vernon?

reply from: ProInformed

Some people are too lazy to start anything and others don't know how to. People have worked to get things on the ballot that would limit abortion more, but it doesn't pass. Just because people don't like something happening it doesn't mean that they think it should be illegal. Some people think abortion should remain illegal so that it's safer, even though they don't think it should ever happen.
People have started organizations. They just aren't as known about as the ones that work to remove abortion restrictions.
Do you really think if people did nothing to get more restrictions and bans on abortion that there would be spousal notification/consent laws, parental notification/consent laws, attempts to get paternal notification/consent laws (one passed in Ohio and was shot down in the court as unconstitutional supposedly), or organized groups that try and get women to change their mind about having an abortion?!
Um, EVERY effort you described above was done BY pro-lifers - NOT those who call themselves 'pro-choice' or 'moderates'
WHAT specific legislative efforts have those who claim to be 'pro-choice' rather than pro-abortion sponsored in order to grant pregnant women patient protections?!? Um, none.
WHAT specific legislative efforts to monitor, regulate, or restrict the abortion industry to at the very least put into effect the promised health and safety protections that would make legal abortions safer than illegal abortions were sponsored by the so-called 'pro-choice but not pro-abortion' citizens? None.
WHAT organizatons have been started by those who claim to be 'pro-choice' rather than pro-abortion, that really are pro-choice organizations rather than organizations that defend the abortion industry and the status quo of abortion-on-demand throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy?!? None.
"Some people are too lazy to start anything and others don't know how to."
And some people, apparently a LOT of people, are just content to pretend they are not endorsing the killing of thousands of innocent babies per day, mostly for no better reason than the parents of those innocent babies didn't even bother to use bc and just want to have 'free sex' minus any responsibility or restraint.
The truth is they really don't mind at all whatever the abortion industry is up to, how many babies or mothers are killed by abortionists, how late in pregnancy, or how lame the excuse for the killing. It's really not something they care enough about to stop being lazy about, to LEARN how htey can change the status quo.

reply from: faithman

Since we are kept as such a distance, the local abortion mill doesn't need any escorts. They don't even have a "security" guy out front any more. (He was a big joke) But I do have a special page for the staff at the mill.
We used to have deathcorts. But my name calling ran them off, now all we have is armed guards [managed to run a few of them off as well]. Wish I could be ashamed of causing planned parenthood employment problems, but I am not.

reply from: scopia19822

"Gosh, I thought I had already mentioned this, I know for a fact I have saved one baby by the use of the camera..... isn't that enough? Doesn't that count?"
I am glad if that is the case. It isnt a tactic I would choose to use, however your perfectly within your legal right to do so.

reply from: Rosalie

You're a true psycho if you're proud of THAT.

reply from: faithman

You're a true psycho if you're proud of THAT.
psycho it is then!!!! so glad there's no shame.......

reply from: yoda

You're a true psycho if you're proud of THAT.
psycho it is then!!!! so glad there's no shame.......
You OUGHT to be ASHAMED!!

reply from: faithman

You're a true psycho if you're proud of THAT.
psycho it is then!!!! so glad there's no shame.......
You OUGHT to be ASHAMED!!
You can't be what you don't have... just ask the profetii killers....

reply from: yoda

Hmmm....... "If you ain't got it, you can't feel it", eh? Sounds like something that some famous person would say, don't it?

reply from: jujujellybean

Neil horsley is weird. enough said.

reply from: faithman

Since we are kept as such a distance, the local abortion mill doesn't need any escorts. They don't even have a "security" guy out front any more. (He was a big joke) But I do have a special page for the staff at the mill.
The real Operation recue causes employment probs by picketing clinic workers homes. That is where the bloody pictures work very well indeed. 17 clinics in San Diego are closed primarily due to that tactic. Missionaries to the pre born have also had success closing clinics in Wisconsin. These 2 groups are some of the most effective anywhere, and should be supported by real pro-lifers. The simple display of preborn life, as well as death, changes hearts and minds on abortion. I would place their efforts 2nd only to those who take development pictures into schools. The most important pro-life activity is educating the young. IAAP is dedicated to getting educational materials into the hands of folks who do that kind of work. If you know someone who does, I still have a display board I will get to them. Silent no more, Bears for life [Baylor university], and our local CPC, as well as 2 other school speakers are using it with great success. The imagry we use can be viewed [and bought] by clicking the address in my sig.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Some of the proaborts on occasion do take my picture, without my permission, of course. Are they violating my privacy? Should that be illegal?
Will you defend their photography, and not mine?
Nobody should be taking photos of anyone else without the subject's permission. It doesn't matter what the reason is for taking the pictures - it's just an invasion of privacy. I would not defend ANYONE who takes photos of people without their permission and, especially, without their awareness that they are being photographed. And, of course, nobody's photo should be published or appear on the internet without them signing a release form.
In another post, someone mentioned picketing at a church and posting photos of "Parishioners at St. Joseph's." What if the picketers were holding signs that said, "Catholics are going to Hell" and "Priests are Pedophiles?" Or photographing individuals going into church along with their photos entering a bar, strip club or other embarassing place of business?
Because nobody knows WHY women are going into PP, and most of them are NOT there for abortions anyway, should it be morally acceptable to picket St. Joseph's with images of Catholic-related "tragedies" like witch-burning, the Crusades, helping Hitler, raped altar boys, wars, etc.?
Should photos of the parishioners appear on a website accusing them of incest, rape, shoplifting, murder, theft or ANY crime for which they MIGHT be guilty? Nobody knows what they are admitting to in confession - and people go into the church building for a variety of reasons. You simply cannot insist that ALL women going into PP are there for abortions, and you simply cannot insist that ALL Catholics entering the church are there to confess horrible sins.
Does anyone run a website where photos of prolife activists are posted along with their addresses, phone numbers, places of employment, family members, etc.??? If WE were the ones being harassed by prochoicers, wouldn't we be upset? I know I certainly would be. I don't want to be judged by engaging in legal activities or patronizing legal places of business.

reply from: Faramir

Some of the proaborts on occasion do take my picture, without my permission, of course. Are they violating my privacy? Should that be illegal?
Will you defend their photography, and not mine?
Nobody should be taking photos of anyone else without the subject's permission. It doesn't matter what the reason is for taking the pictures - it's just an invasion of privacy. I would not defend ANYONE who takes photos of people without their permission and, especially, without their awareness that they are being photographed. And, of course, nobody's photo should be published or appear on the internet without them signing a release form.
It makes sense to take photographs to have on record for legal purposes.
Posting them publicly is a different issue, so it's not just about photography, but what happens with the images.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Some of the proaborts on occasion do take my picture, without my permission, of course. Are they violating my privacy? Should that be illegal?
Will you defend their photography, and not mine?
Nobody should be taking photos of anyone else without the subject's permission. It doesn't matter what the reason is for taking the pictures - it's just an invasion of privacy. I would not defend ANYONE who takes photos of people without their permission and, especially, without their awareness that they are being photographed. And, of course, nobody's photo should be published or appear on the internet without them signing a release form.
That is now how the free laws of photography work. Anyone can take a picture of anyone in a public place they want without their permission. Saying you can't is like saying "no one can look at me without my permission"! However, if you do see your image posted somewhere and you wish to have it removed you have the right to demand that. Any photograph you take is YOUR property and you have permission to do with it whatever you wish until the person in it says otherwise. The photographer gets first rights to it by law.

reply from: yoda

Well, there go all those photos on the post office wall, none of them give their permission, do they? And all those photos of crowds at sporting events, concerts, etc., will have to be destroyed. NO ONE should object to their photo being taken in a PUBLIC PLACE, or being made available to public view.... UNLESS someone is making money off that photo. Most people are flattered, in fact. The only valid reason to object is if you are in a "compromising situation" which you wanted to keep a secret. You have no leg to stand on, morally.
What of it? I don't understand your point. Do you have one?
And that's precisely why displaying their photo is not an accusation, is it?
"Accusations" against an individual are a totally different matter. My website contains none.
Names, addresses, phone numbers, etc.???? What the hell are you talking about?
And I am quite happy to be "judged" by engaging in a legal activity and/or patronizing a legal place of business. Why aren't you? Do you feel guilty about something that you want to confess to here? Are you ashamed of something? What on earth are you talking about?

reply from: yoda

Yep.
And mine are used to try to save the lives of innocent babies. And I know that in at least one case, I have been successful. But I'm sure you're not interested in that, are you?

reply from: Skippy

I know a fellow who volunteers as a clinic escort a couple of days a week. When he's not actually escorting anyone past the lunatic brigade, he photographs them and, when possible, records their license plate numbers. He then turns the information over to the clinic, so that if anything happens (to the employees or the facility), the police know where to start looking.
The place where he volunteers hasn't had much trouble with the lunatic fringe taking pictures of patients. I'm not certain why. Maybe because they don't want a big scary-looking guy like him mad at them.

reply from: yoda

I get photographed fairly often. I try to smile and show them my "best side".
We don't scare easily, skippy. You'll have to do better than that.
Oh, btw, I'd much rather be called a lunatic than a baby killer. How about you?

reply from: micah

Yes you do. You willing to break the law and face legal consequences?

reply from: yoda

What law is that, baby killer?

reply from: RedTaintedRose

I think this may be my favorite thread ever.
During its course, we had a discussion between SRUW4I5 and yodavater...and if you didn't know their ages, you'd swear the former was older, as she maintained her composure and posted in a fairly polite and mature manner, whilst the latter raved, namecalled, begged the question so often he probably broke something, and basically behaved like a jackass. If it wasn't for yoda's ageist remarks a newcomer might never have guessed.
Seriously, it's like they switched ages. The guy who's, what, 3-4 times as old, behaved how a teenager is expected to behave, and the teen acted how older people are expected to behave.
If I didn't know better I'd swear it was subversive performance art.
Instead, it is a perfect example of just what kind of person so many on this board kowtow to, suck up to, and all but worship. Thus, my adoration for it.
For added fun, place bets with your friends on the following possible responses:
-Yoda will thank me for the compliment and possibly make up a preschool-level name for me based on my name (and, of course, refer to me as "baby-killer")
-Faithy will scream gibberish, including the words "skanc," "prodeath," "borthead" or "bortie", and of course "Sssssssooooooo..."
-Someone will defend yoda's actions here yet again

reply from: ChristianLott2

because when you murder a baby you're not a murderer and you didn't murder a baby. thanks.

reply from: Rosalie

Currently, they are taking turns in insulting CaroleMarie for everything she's ever done in her life, including basically her very existence, and excusing ChristianLott's desire to abuse women because he thinks abuse is okay if it means it will prevent them from getting an abortion.
But they still have time to do all these things you mentioned, too.

reply from: ChristianLott2

and how have I abused women?
you should talk though. Abortion is abuse of both mother and child.

reply from: ChristianLott2

It's just like someone to abuse someone else after they've been abused and call themselves justified because they were abused first - even if the one who they're abusing is completely innocent.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

YodaHater - "Well, there go all those photos on the post office wall, none of them give their permission, do they?"
Those photos in the post office are criminals and missing children. The government (police, FBI, Homeland Security, etc.) is allowed to post the wanted posters in government offices, such as the post office.
As for the photos of missing children, their parents gave permission to post their childrens' pictures in public in the hope that their children will be found.
So, YES, permission was given for all of those photos.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Permission by the person THEMSELVES. That's what you're complaining about, and the law states you DON'T need someone's permission to post their photo - not initially. I'm pretty sure those criminals didn't give permission for their images to be released.
IF someone sees their photo and complains, OR if you are using a specific person's image (like a portrait) to advertize or make money, then you have to take down the photo OR, in the second case, obtain modeling rights from the person in the photograph.
But if you just want to take a bunch of pictures and post them online, you have full rights to do so.

reply from: Rosalie

and how have I abused women?
you should talk though. Abortion is abuse of both mother and child.
I didn't say you've already done it. But you said yourself you'll have no problems doing that if your next partner refuses to take your orders.
And no, abortion is not abuse. Stop trying to divert the attention from your desire to abuse. You are sick.

reply from: yoda

No, I just want to thank you for showing me once again the value of the iggy button.

reply from: yoda

And yet you claimed "Nobody should be taking photos of anyone else without the subject's permission."
Changed your mind already? Or just trying to squirm out of your own words?
The "subject" (criminals) did NOT give their permission, did they?

reply from: carolemarie

I don't care who does it. It is still wrong. It is mean.

reply from: micah

I wonder if people are ashamed of abortion as you think. I've actually had several people tell that they've had abortions.

reply from: carolemarie

People are not proud of them, they just are there, parts of your past.
But even if you are okay with it, do you want people filming you to attempt to emotionally blackmail you?
It is counterproductive

reply from: micah

These guys are like lions without teeth and claws. The first time a woman sues one of them, it'll be the end of their fun.

reply from: Banned Member

"Get it all on record now - get the films - get the witnesses - because somewhere down the track of history some a****** will get up and say that this never happened!"

reply from: Teresa18

RedTaintedRose, you used to post as Scarlett (can't remember if there was more to the name) on Pro-Choice and Pro-Life talk, right? Someone had outed you here a while back.

reply from: MotherForLife

The name 'Vernon' rings a bell too - I'm sure I've seen that name on another abortion forum a while back. It's a small world lol!

reply from: sk1bianca

funny how women don't mind a guy taking pictures of them leaving the dentist's, mcdonald's, the supermarket, a spa, a tatoo shop, a church, a friend's place...
but they are "offended" if they are caught entering an abortion clinic.
if abortion is legal, ok, acceptable, bla bla... why feel offended?

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Are those photographs being posted online??? I don't recall seeing photos taken at the place you mention being posted on the internet.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

And yet you claimed "Nobody should be taking photos of anyone else without the subject's permission."
Changed your mind already? Or just trying to squirm out of your own words?
The "subject" (criminals) did NOT give their permission, did they?
It is quite legal to publicly post photos of WANTED criminals and MISSING children because people are searching for those people.
Why post anonymous photos of anyone who is NOT missing or wanted by the police? You are doing it to shame people. Do you also photograph women coming and going at the local plastic surgeon? That would be a great way to expose women who are having face lifts, breast augmentation, rhinoplasty, etc.

reply from: yoda

All you need to do is look at the photos on my website, and see the number of people hiding their faces. On the other hand, if they're not ashamed, what's the problem?

reply from: yoda

Excellent question. If they have nothing to be "ashamed of", then why should they care where their photos are posted? They should be flattered, right?

reply from: yoda

Still dodging? Why won't you confront your ACTUAL STATEMENT? You said "Nobody should be taking photos of anyone else without the subject's permission", DID YOU NOT????
That's part of it, yes. The other, more important part is to awaken their conscience as they walk in the door, and make them think about why they are ashamed to be seen there. I hold out some hope that they might realize that they really are ashamed of what they are about to do, and change their minds.

reply from: yoda

But what it has prevented (abortion) is not "mean" in your opinion, is it?
And YOU are NOT ashamed of your three, are you?
How can you be emotionally blackmailed if your are "okay with it"? Are you okay with your three abortions?
It has saved ONE baby, and has not caused the death of ANY babies.
How is that "counterproductive"? Do you consider "production" to be the killing of babies? Is that how you figure it?

reply from: yoda

Yeah, I had my claws removed years ago, and my teeth have all fallen out.
On the other hand, I'm still taking photos, and no one has ever been successfully sued (or even sued, as far as I know) for taking photos at an abortion mill, in the 15 years that it has been done.
So, who's really "toothless" here? I'd say it's you "hot air bags" who keep running your mouth about something they know nothing about, and are not willing to do anything about.
You just sit safely at your computer, typing away with your toothless BS, while I keep going down to the abortuary with my camera.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Maybe he is, but that doesn't make it illegal. He has not broken any laws that I know of.
I am sure there are people who do that.

reply from: Skippy

Personally, I object to all photographs taken of me without my consent. I understand that it is legal (at least until some harm results from it), but creepy stalkers really are a drag no matter where they do their thing.

reply from: scopia19822

"Personally, I object to all photographs taken of me without my consent. I understand that it is legal (at least until some harm results from it), but creepy stalkers really are a drag no matter where they do their thing."
I agree with you Skippy. I would Object to my pic being taken without my consent. I would be more inclined to go grab the camera out of their hand, throw it on the ground and smash it to pieces. I may be arrested for assault and battery and destruction of property, but its the principal of the thing. Sometimes what is legal isnt moral, such as abortion.

reply from: scopia19822

"like killing three"
I went to a local church about 6 months ago to get some help with food as money was short that month and we had to get our car fixed. This was an assembly of God church and they of course make people particpate in a bible study before hand. The lady that was teaching it was talking about self rightousness among Christians. She brought up a point that even if someone was promisocious in their past, had an abortion or done other very sinful things in their past, but had repented and gave their life to Christ, hence their past sins were washed away. That often in every congragation you have a person or persons who will not let that person live down what they did before their conversion and that self rightousness and condemnation is a very grave sin itself.

reply from: Rosalie

If you took a picture of me going into McDonald's and your goal was to shame for eating meat or for eating unhealthy stuff, I'd have a problem with that, too.
So much for your theory, genius.
I don't know anyone who would be ashamed of their reproductive decision. Probably because the people I'm friends with are educated in this matter and actually made their own choices and they are aware that there's nothing to be ashamed of.

reply from: Faramir

That's where all this stuff about "shaming" has gone off course. The repentent post abortive woman, especially the activist who is saving many babies from the fate of abortion, no longer needs to "be shamed," and those who continually rub her nose in it are now committing the greater evil.

reply from: scopia19822

"I don't know anyone who would be ashamed of their reproductive decision. Probably because the people I'm friends with are educated in this matter and actually made their own choices and they are aware that there's nothing to be ashamed of."
It depends on the persons worldview. I have done alot since my forced abortion to educate myself on the matter. Some women abort of their own freewill with no remorse or shame as they dont see abortion as wrong. Others feel they had no choice because of circumstances beyond ones control. Others regret their choice and become prolife. Other for some reason do everything they can to rationalize and justfy their choice, often becoming rabidly proabortion. Women who have aborted are just as diverse group as any other.

reply from: scopia19822

"That's where all this stuff about "shaming" has gone off course. The repentent post abortive woman, especially the activist who is saving many babies from the fate of abortion, no longer needs to "be shamed," and those who continually rub her nose in it are now committing the greater evil."
Carole has repented of her abortions and is doing what she can to discourage women from aborting. I do however feel she is misguided about "exceptions". One has to be prolife for all and I feel she is misguided about the so called exceptions. A child concieved out of rape has just as much right to have their life protected. The health of the mother excuse has been stretched so much that a woman can say her swollen ankles are endangering her health and be allowed to abort. As far as the mothers life goes, unless its an accident where the child has to be removed or a tubal pregnancy there are many treatment options to get both safely as close to term as possible. But while I pray that she will realize that she is wrong in that department, I dont think calling her a killer of three and other nasty names is going to accomplish that. Patience and prayer will do that.

reply from: yoda

Yeah, they really are, aren't they?
But I wonder, how do you stalk an abortion clinic? Or the front door of an abortion clinic? Or people going in that door? I mean, if you're not allowed to go in, how do you "stalk" them while you're standing still?
Doesn't a stalker have to move, at least a little?

reply from: yoda

Then my advice to you is to not go into the abortion clinic where I take photos on Saturday morning. I think I'm big enough to protect myself, but I'd hate to hurt you.

reply from: faithman

What the bortheads, and the false pro-lifers do not understand, is that there is more to life than this physical world, and our physical bodies. Our bodies are merely the containers of the precious substance Called life. Life has to have that container to express itself in the natural world. Even if the container is flawed, it still makes it possible for the miracle of life to be expressed. Our common value is not found in the container, but what is contained. The life of a womb child is equal to the life contained in all of us. The only legitimate breaking of this container, is if it has the compunction to smash other containers without cause. When you take way the ability to express life, you loose the great privilege to express your own. Evil aggression must be subdued, or no container can have any security from unjust breakage. To take away the possibility of this wonderful spark of life to be expressed, makes this world a darker place, and the rest of us containers a little more impoverished, and alone. Though the womb child is a small container, it does not lessen the value of the life it contains. If fellow containers do not value the life of the womb child container, then they have placed their personhood container in great jeopardy. Anyone who does not see that womb children are fellow human containers, containing life of equal value to their own, is a self destructive fool, drunk on the power to kill, and must be stopped for the sake of the rest of us life containers. It is the life in us that makes us equal, not our degree of ability to express it.
If you took a picture of me going into McDonald's and your goal was to shame for eating meat or for eating unhealthy stuff, I'd have a problem with that, too.
So much for your theory, genius.
I don't know anyone who would be ashamed of their reproductive decision. Probably because the people I'm friends with are educated in this matter and actually made their own choices and they are aware that there's nothing to be ashamed of.
What the bortheads, and the false pro-lifers do not understand, is that there is more to life than this physical world, and our physical bodies. Our bodies are merely the containers of the precious substance Called life. Life has to have that container to express itself in the natural world. Even if the container is flawed, it still makes it possible for the miracle of life to be expressed. Our common value is not found in the container, but what is contained. The life of a womb child is equal to the life contained in all of us. The only legitimate breaking of this container, is if it has the compunction to smash other containers without cause. When you take way the ability to express life, you loose the great privilege to express your own. Evil aggression must be subdued, or no container can have any security from unjust breakage. To take away the possibility of this wonderful spark of life to be expressed, makes this world a darker place, and the rest of us containers a little more impoverished, and alone. Though the womb child is a small container, it does not lessen the value of the life it contains. If fellow containers do not value the life of the womb child container, then they have placed their personhood container in great jeopardy. Anyone who does not see that womb children are fellow human containers, containing life of equal value to their own, is a self destructive fool, drunk on the power to kill, and must be stopped for the sake of the rest of us life containers. It is the life in us that makes us equal, not our degree of ability to express it.

reply from: carolemarie

But what it has prevented (abortion) is not "mean" in your opinion, is it?
The ends don't justify the means..
And YOU are NOT ashamed of your three, are you?
??? I regret making those choices, as i have said over and over.
How can you be emotionally blackmailed if your are "okay with it"? Are you okay with your three abortions?
I am okay with it now. I have been healed of the scars and set free. Life is pretty darn great for me now...
It has saved ONE baby, and has not caused the death of ANY babies.
How is that "counterproductive"? Do you consider "production" to be the killing of babies? Is that how you figure it?
I find it telling that out of all the positive things you could do to try and interact with the clinic customers, you opt for trying to shame women.......

reply from: Banned Member

Planned Parenthood is an abortion clinic which also provides other services. Every supermarket offers something in the checkout lanes. The abortion supermarket of the world just happens to offer other services in addition to abortion. If abortion were made illegal, how long do you think that Planned Parenthood would remain in business? If movie theaters only sold popcorn, how long would they stay in business?

reply from: Faramir

It's evil to rub someone's nose in their past sins over and over and over.
I don't think a Catholic could use this "technique" in good conscience. The way I see it, it would be the sin of "detraction." It is a sin to share someone's fault or sin with someone else who would not have otherwise known it. "Mary Smith's" neighbor might not have known she had an abortion, but she will if she looks at the "abortion wall of shame." There would be no justification for posting Mary's photograph from a Catholic perspective, because the deed had been done, and it can no longer be said it would have helped prevent her abortion. Plus there is a very real possibility that not all the women that are photographed are there for an abortion, as what happened with BossMama. In that case, by posting a photograph of a woman, implying she had an abortion, when in fact she did not, it would be the sin of "calumny."

reply from: micah

Let him post the picture and then sue him.
Then my advice to you is to not go into the abortion clinic where I take photos on Saturday morning. I think I'm big enough to protect myself, but I'd hate to hurt you.

reply from: scopia19822

"Then my advice to you is to not go into the abortion clinic where I take photos on Saturday morning. I think I'm big enough to protect myself, but I'd hate to hurt you."
Well you dont have to worry about that as you know how I feel about it. I will never step foot inside the door of one again.But do you really think its worth going to jail for a camera? Wouldnt the better thing to do be what the paparazzi do and back off, let the objector be the "offending " party thus compelling any police who would witness take them in for assault and battery and sue them for the damages and injuries. And are you saying that you would lay hands on a woman? What you do is legal and keep doing it if you feel it is somehow beneficial, but I object to being photographed without my consent under any circumstances. If those women catch you photographing them and ask you not to publish them and you do anyway, you can open yourself up to a civil suit. News media both tv and print will not publish a pic or show their image in anyway without their consent.

reply from: yoda

In this case, the means don't need to be justified, and the end (saving a baby) is worth whatever hurt feelings the means create. A human life has more value that "feeling good", IMO, but I see that you don't think so. What if I invited a crowd of people to witness who was going into the mill? Would that be "mean" to you?
And yet you will not say whether you are "ashamed" of them. You dodge and dodge and dodge.
So if your photo had been taken and put on the web at your first one, you would've gone right on and had the other two?
I find it really telling that you don't know anything about the other things I do, and yet you want to try to "shame me" for trying to open women's eyes at the last possible moment they can change their minds. It's like you don't really care about changing their minds, you just want them to be "happy" before their abortion. And of course, after it too.
Happiness is worth more than a human life to you, isn't it?

reply from: yoda

True, and from what I read, the KKK is a lynching organization that also provides other services to the community. So that makes them worthy of our support, I suppose?

reply from: yoda

You're awfully brave to sit there at your computer and urge someone else to do something. Why don't you come down to Knoxville and go in the front door of the abortuary on Saturday morning? Then YOU can sue me! What, you're too busy? COWARD!!

reply from: yoda

I don't think I'd have to go to jail for defending my property, do you?
No, I will defend myself and my property. And that IS my right.
I will defend myself and my property against ANYONE. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend? Do you think that women get a free pass to abuse other people? Just because they have the right to kill their babies does not give them the right to attack other (born) people or their property. Where did you get such an idea?
News media and tv make money of the photos they take. They can be required to either get a release OR share the money they make. They cannot be forbidden from using the photos, no matter what.
You seem to have a very confused concept of legality. First you say what I'm doing is legal, and then you claim I can be successfully sued. If something is legal, you can't be successfully sued for it.

reply from: sk1bianca

rosalie, how exactly can someone "shame" you if what you are doing is perfectly harmless and ok? sounds like you're being a little oversensitive...
if women SHOULDN'T be ashamed for certain "reproductive choice" they make, than there's nothing wrong with having their picture taken.

reply from: yoda

Isn't that strange? It's as if they are saying that being "shameless" is a good thing.

reply from: faithman

In this case, the means don't need to be justified, and the end (saving a baby) is worth whatever hurt feelings the means create. A human life has more value that "feeling good", IMO, but I see that you don't think so. What if I invited a crowd of people to witness who was going into the mill? Would that be "mean" to you?
And yet you will not say whether you are "ashamed" of them. You dodge and dodge and dodge.
So if your photo had been taken and put on the web at your first one, you would've gone right on and had the other two?
I find it really telling that you don't know anything about the other things I do, and yet you want to try to "shame me" for trying to open women's eyes at the last possible moment they can change their minds. It's like you don't really care about changing their minds, you just want them to be "happy" before their abortion. And of course, after it too.
Happiness is worth more than a human life to you, isn't it?
At least a pre-born life anyway. If this killer is the voice of "pro-life" then the womb babies are doomed. A whole chain of killer camps were resently put out of business in Califoria using tactics this profetii killers says are not effective. I guess she would rather the clinics reopen because the woman abortionist got her feelings hurt, and is now facing jail time for killing womb children without a government license. She is dishonest about being pro-life. She is pro killer.

reply from: Rosalie

Did you even READ my post? This is what I said:
"If you took a picture of me going into McDonald's and your goal was to shame for eating meat or for eating unhealthy stuff, I'd have a problem with that, too."
I have problems with people being arrogant and rude and attempting to shame people for something that is not shameful or wrong at all.
That was the entire point, which you obviously missed.

reply from: faithman

Did you even READ my post? This is what I said:
"If you took a picture of me going into McDonald's and your goal was to shame for eating meat or for eating unhealthy stuff, I'd have a problem with that, too."
I have problems with people being arrogant and rude and attempting to shame people for something that is not shameful or wrong at all.
That was the entire point, which you obviously missed.
Killers have to blur that line to justify their evil deeds. Darkness avoids light, because it is exposed for what it is in light. The borties want to cover their issue, and as the profetii killer has said herself," fight tooth and toenail" against the light of personhood for the womb child. Personhood is the light. The line drawn in the sand. The distinction between false and true. If things seem shadowy, it is no time to compromise. It is time to turn up the light of personhood until there is no more "what if" shadows. Just the simple fact of womb child personhood, and the final judgment of citizen jurist as to what punishment for those who destroy the preborn. That is the way it is for the born person, that is the way it should be with the womb child person.

reply from: yoda

Yeah, those awful prolifers out there made her feel ashamed of herself. How could they be so cruel?
What is this world coming to when an illegal abortionist can't count on prolifers to help her keep her secret?

reply from: faithman

Yeah, those awful prolifers out there made her feel ashamed of herself. How could they be so cruel?
What is this world coming to when an illegal abortionist can't count on prolifers to help her keep her secret?
It's not really abvout keeping it as feeling good and shameless about it...

reply from: scopia19822

"I don't think I'd have to go to jail for defending my property, do you?"
If you assault someone even if they took your camera you will be arrested for assault.
"I will defend myself and my property against ANYONE. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend? Do you think that women get a free pass to abuse other people? Just because they have the right to kill their babies does not give them the right to attack other (born) people or their property. Where did you get such an idea? "
Ok I understand you feel that way. It is the rules of our society that a man doesnt lay hands on a woman, no matter what she does. Any man that would lay hands on a woman isnt a man. You can call the police and have her arrested for destroying your property and assaulting you. You may detain her until the police arrive, but you never lay hands on a woman.
"You seem to have a very confused concept of legality. First you say what I'm doing is legal, and then you claim I can be successfully sued. If something is legal, you can't be successfully sued for it."
No I think you misunderstood. Its perfectly ok to photograph them, however if that person asked you not to publish them and you do anyway then you can be sued as that would be seen as violating their right to privacy. Hence you can take all the pics you want but legally you cant publish them if the person in the pic tells you not to post them.

reply from: faithman

Sorry kid but you are wrong about this one. Folks do have the right to defend themselves and their property. If someone assaults you, doesn't make beans about gender, then you have the right to fatten them to make them stop. Missionaries to the pre-born had such a case. A pro-abort woman asaulted them, and one of the men flattened her. She went to jail, and the fella walked free as it should be.

reply from: BossMomma

You're awfully brave to sit there at your computer and urge someone else to do something. Why don't you come down to Knoxville and go in the front door of the abortuary on Saturday morning? Then YOU can sue me! What, you're too busy? COWARD!!
What, are you too busy to go to Micah's home and openly confront him about being pro-choice? Why don't you do some traveling? Or are you afraid of going home with your camera shoved up your butt? Coward! There are a lot of people who will knock the crap out of you for slandering them and quite frankly I think you are due for such a consequence.

reply from: scopia19822

"Sorry kid but you are wrong about this one. Folks do have the right to defend themselves and their property. If someone assaults you, doesn't make beans about gender, then you have the right to fatten them to make them stop. Missionaries to the pre-born had such a case."
So you are saying that if a woman was to simply take yodas camera and throw it, but not lay a hand on him that its ok to hit her and use means of violence to "defend" his property. I dont know where you live, but here in the Commonwealth of Virginia and Im sure in the State of Tennesee as well. Yoda would be charged with assault and battery because he would have used excessive force. She of course would be charged as well with destruction of property. Im sorry I dont care what a woman does no man no matter what has a right to put a hand on a woman. He can block her blows or use methods to restrain similar to what the police would use to restrain a suspect until the police arrive, but anything else would be assault and battery. Combatting violence (abortion) with violence isnt going to solve anything.

reply from: yoda

You're not going to "take" my camera without assaulting me. Is that what you think you're going to do? You will look pretty foolish.
I have two words for you: HORSE HOCKEY!! Any woman who tries to take my property or assault me is an EQUAL, as far as I'm concerned. You're living in the Victorian age, there are no such rules anymore.
You are completely full of it. It is also LEGAL to post photos anywhere you want to. It's been happening for 15 years now, and NO ONE has been sued!

reply from: yoda

Self defense is the right of every individual, no matter the gender.
Don't try and attack me, you will be treated just like any man who attacks me.

reply from: scopia19822

"Self defense is the right of every individual, no matter the gender.
Don't try and attack me, you will be treated just like any man who attacks me."
I have no intention of ever coming to the abortion clinic where you photograph women. I was originally saying that if anyone took a pic of me what I would do, it would be even worse if someone did that to my son. So how would you defend yourself? Would you punch a woman? Kick her? Please clarify what you would alledgly do to me if I 'attacked " you. Any man that would attack a woman is a coward, I dont care what she does. You can defend yourself without assaulting someone. You say that you cant be sued becauase you have not been in 15 years of doing this. Let me make it very clear if a woman asked you not to publish the pics you can be sued, nobody has tried to sue you, I wonder if most of these women know you put them online. You can be sued. You can take the pics and keep them and even publish them if the woman doesnt ask you not too. But if she asks you not too and you still do than you are opening yourself up for a lawsuit.

reply from: scopia19822

"I have two words for you: HORSE HOCKEY!! Any woman who tries to take my property or assault me is an EQUAL, as far as I'm concerned. You're living in the Victorian age, there are no such rules anymore. "
Oh really than why does society, especially decent men despise men who hit/beat women no matter what the circumstances are. Why do we have domestic violence laws, why not just make it simple assault and battery.? If a man ever hit me no matter if I may have "deserved" it or not every male relative (and I have several of mine) would be right there to kick that SOBs ass. It is clear to me now that you have zero respect for women if you advocate any form of violence on them. Men are supposed to be better than that. While taking those pics is legal and I would protest it anybody tried to take it from you. However I thinks its immoral and unethical. You can attack me all you want too, but I thinks its wrong. Even here in the modern age hitting/assaulting women is a major taboo no matter what she may have done. As a close male friend of mine once said there are 3 kinds of people that he despises the most, child molesters, child abusers and woman beaters. Im just glad that most of the male population does not think like you that its ok to hit a woman even under limited circumstances.

reply from: sk1bianca

rosalie, would you be ashamed for eating unhealthy stuff? would you start feeling ashamed if someone took your picture? that's just silly...

reply from: yoda

I have neither the inclination nor the obligation to run from you or any other woman. And I'm not going to describe how I would defend myself, because that would give you an advantage, wouldn't it? Just be aware that women DO NOT have any license to attack men without taking the consequences. This is the age of EQUALITY...... where have you been???
Two words: HORSE HOCKEY!!

reply from: yoda

I'm just glad that most of the female population does not think they have a free pass to attack men and get away with it. In fact, most women know that when they resort to physical violence, all pretense of chivalry is thrown out the window.
You seem to think that you have a license to be violent without suffering the consequences. You do not. When YOU resort to violence, you are just as bad as any man who does so. There is NO MORAL DIFFERENCE between a woman's violence and a man's violence. They are EQUALLY WRONG...... and I don't understand how someone who calls themself a prolifer could advocate such VIOLENCE. That is a very ugly picture you are painting of yourself.

reply from: scopia19822

"I have neither the inclination nor the obligation to run from you or any other woman. And I'm not going to describe how I would defend myself, because that would give you an advantage, wouldn't it? Just be aware that women DO NOT have any license to attack men without taking the consequences. This is the age of EQUALITY...... where have you been???"
Give me the advantage? I just wanted see how far you would be willing to go. The age of Equality? Its still a big no no to hit a woman. Any man who would attack a woman even in "self defense"is a coward and does not deserve to be called a man. I dont want your precious camera but its only a matter of time before some irate women or worse there husband or boyfriend is going to take that camera and put it where the sun doesnt shine. Are you willing to go to jail for that camera? Are you not aware that in Tennesse that you can be compensated for property loss and buy a new, even better camera if you were to prosecute ? Or do you just have such a low opinion of women in general? Usually this day and time ever who wins the fight even in self defense goes to jail.

reply from: yoda

Self-defense is NOT an "attack". It's called self-defense because it's a DEFENSIVE action, not an offensive action. And I don't really give a rat's patoot what YOU call me, I don't expect any respect from a woman who thinks it's okay for women to attack men because men "aren't supposed to defend themselves or their property against women". That is a nasty, illogical, insane attitude.
You're a lot like that other proabort who constantly tells "someone else" to sue me, or whatever. You're all talk a no action. You're just blowing hot air to warm yourself up.
The old scopia had a different number (1982) after her name, and I think she is gone forever. She constantly told us how her porabort husband was bugging her about being online, and so you finally got her offline, didn't you? And now you're using her name, but you didn't get her password, did you? So that's why you have new number with an extra "2" on it, right? You're "Mr. Scopia, the proabort".

reply from: scopia19822

"I'm just glad that most of the female population does not think they have a free pass to attack men and get away with it. In fact, most women know that when they resort to physical violence, all pretense of chivalry is thrown out the window."
BullShyte! Most men I know and they are not sissy by any means would not hit a woman, they would take the blows before raising hand to a woman.
"You seem to think that you have a license to be violent without suffering the consequences. You do not. When YOU resort to violence, you are just as bad as any man who does so. There is NO MORAL DIFFERENCE between a woman's violence and a man's violence. They are EQUALLY WRONG...... and I don't understand how someone who calls themself a prolifer could advocate such VIOLENCE. That is a very ugly picture you are painting of yourself."
I could take that camera out of your hands and throw it on the ground without laying one hand on you. All you could get me for was destruction of property, not assault as my hands would not touch your body. However if you put hands on me or anyother woman you would be arrested for assault. Are you familar with Aikido? Its a martial art similar to Hepkido which are taught to the cops when it comes to restraining a suspect, mostly joint locks and pressure points. That would be valid self defense. My husband taught me well on how to take down an attacker and use means that will not get me arrested. It is also that which taught me how to disarm someone who would have a knife or other weapon on them. I could use those maneuevers to snatch a camera from anybody before they even knew it was gone. and not one finger would touch your person.

reply from: yoda

Then they are wimps, not men.
Like I said before, don't try it. You may not like the results.
It's a hallmark of immorality to brag about your ability to impose violence on others. No person of conscience would make such a brag.

reply from: scopia19822

"The old scopia had a different number (1982) after her name, and I think she is gone forever. She constantly told us how her porabort husband was bugging her about being online, and so you finally got her offline, didn't you? And now you're using her name, but you didn't get her password, did you? So that's why you have new number with an extra "2" on it, right? You're "Mr. Scopia, the proabort"."
Nice try Yoda, but its not going to work. I explained to you that my PC crashed and lost all of my stored passwords as my memory is faulty, my husband may not be comfortable with my work in the prolife movement, but he at least understands now w. Didnt Christian Lott come back on here with a "2 " on his screename? I have been on this board for almost 4 years have stuck my neck on the line and defended you even when others were attacking you just like you attacked me. I will call out when I think someone is wrong, no matter what side of the issue they are on and you are wrong in this case. I did that not so long ago and got deleted from your private forums, not that I care. My husband is more concearned about saving the mantees than abortion. I may talk about him and how much he irritates me, because I m married to him and its my perogative. But for you to attack him is low even for you. Im the same person whos been on here for 4 years, think what you may in your delusions. I dont give a shyte what you think of me or who you even think I am. Why not put that camera down and actually do some real prolife work?

reply from: yoda

"Work"? Do you think I expected you to confess who you really are? Hardly.
Why not put your mouth to rest and get out and do half of what I do?

reply from: scopia19822

"Then they are wimps, not men. "
No you would be the wimp, only a coward puts hands on a woman Yoda.
"It's a hallmark of immorality to brag about your ability to impose violence on others. No person of conscience would make such a brag."
I would not be imposing violence on you as I would not lay a hand on you, but you or anyone who takes a pic of me without my consent will not get away with it. If anyone takes pics of my son that is where I may get what you call violent as in that case its usually only a sick pervert who would take pics of children at random.

reply from: yoda

Anyone who tries to take or damage my property is attacking me, and you would have to become violent to get to my property. I have warned you of the consequences of that, so you are forewarned. Of course, I'm 99.9% sure that you are nothing but hot air, running your mouth off like a typical proabort. I will now add you to my list of fauxlifers.

reply from: scopia19822

"Why not put your mouth to rest and get out and do half of what I do?"
And what is that? I do a hell of alot more than you do. I donate money when I have it to my local CPC even though they want let me volunteer because Im Catholic. I donate to the local battered womens shelter. I also donate clothing and baby items to the local CPC and battered womens shelter as well. Im now in the process of trying to get a safe house established with help of my parish to give pregnant women and teens who may have been victims of abuse or kicked out of the family home a safe place to go where they can get the prenatal care they need and a safe place to stay. Of course with the economy that is in the dream stages as I would have to be able to acquire a house etc. But I hope that in 5-10 years God willing Sabrinas place will be a reality. I wish I could do more , but I cant. Ive tried the sidewalk counsling thing and I dont think its my calling, but if the women in my parish need my help I will go. Those are some brave women to endure the insults, the elements to try and offer tangible resources and compassion to women coming into that clinic. Your right when you say you cant save them all, but if they can save one its worth it. What do you do other than take pics and post them online?

reply from: yoda

I've already posted a general description of my prolife activism several times. Either you don't keep up, or your memory is very, very short. But with your attitude about attacking people I don't think I would want you to be involved in any prolife activities anyway. We don't condone violence, by either gender.

reply from: scopia19822

"I will now add you to my list of fauxlifers."

Thank you Yodahater, that is what Im going to call you from now on as you are so full of hate. BTW you put my name is my zodiac sign. Us "faux lifers" are more prolife than you and the other haters will ever be. I hope I never have the misfortune of meeting you in person. Im not scared of you and the fact that you would lay hands on a woman shows what kind of "man" you really are. Its men like you that will be the downfall of the prolife movement not the proaborts.

reply from: yoda

Then why did you go into a long, boring description of what you were going to do to me? What was the point of that? Were you trying to frighten me, or what?

reply from: scopia19822

"But with your attitude about attacking people I don't think I would want you to be involved in any prolife activities anyway. We don't condone violence, by either gender."
Dont take my pic without my consent and everything will be just fine and yes my memory is faulty, due to a head injury I recieved in an auto accident in my senior year of high school as well as a severe back injury. No I dont think I would "attack" unless you were taking pics of my kid, however I would call the cops on anyone and report them for suspicious behavior. Im not scared of you or anyone else and if I was pissed off enough I would get that camera by NONVIOLENT means.

reply from: faithman

Spoken like a true undercover borthead. Twist what was said into something that wasn't. If someone first lays hands on you or your property, or threatens you by word or actions, then you have a right to defend yourself. You don't want yoda breaking your nose, don't act like you intend to assault his. Pretty simple actually.

reply from: yoda

Ah, you're changing your tune now....... whatever, I'm not impressed.
Keep your hands to yourself if you want to be treated like a "lady". Real ladies do not steal, or attack, or destroy other people or their property.
Act like a thug and you will be treated like one. Count on it.

reply from: scopia19822

"Then why did you go into a long, boring description of what you were going to do to me? What was the point of that? Were you trying to frighten me, or what?"
When I originally brought up this point it was what I would most likely do to ANYONE who was taking pics of me without my consent. It could be you or Joe the Plumber. You were the one who said you would attack me or anyone else who took your camera. You said it would be self defense and I pointed out to you that I could take the camera without laying hands on you, hence you couldnt get me for assualt, just destruction of property. But if you used excessive force to attack me or anyone else you could be arrested for assault and battery. Im not trying to frighten you, I just said that I would not let someone in general take pics of me without my consent and get away with it and I could do so without physically attacking or hurting them.

reply from: yoda

Just can't stop lying, can you? Typical undercover proabort, "Mr" scopia.

reply from: scopia19822

"Spoken like a true undercover borthead. Twist what was said into something that wasn't. If someone first lays hands on you or your property, or threatens you by word or actions, then you have a right to defend yourself. You don't want yoda breaking your nose, don't act like you intend to assault his. Pretty simple actually."
Then maybe he shouldnt be taking pics of women without their consent. Yep Im a proabort, even though I think abortion under any circumstances is wrong. I was forced to have an abortion, so I guess Im a murderer like Carole. You call yourself a Christian, yet the stuff that comes out of your mouth is anything but Chrisitan.

reply from: faithman

You can believe that crap if you want to but you are wrong. It is a right to defend yourself, AND your personal property. How can you not assault someone by yanking their property from their hands? That can get you legally shot in Texas. So come on down and try it!!!

reply from: scopia19822

"Just can't stop lying, can you? Typical undercover proabort, "Mr" scopi"
Your so delusional its pathetic Yodahater. If you dont like what I have to say, why not use the iggy button you tell others to use. Im almost at the poing of using it, but right now your bizarre behavior is amusing.

reply from: scopia19822

"That can get you legally shot in Texas. So come on down and try it!!!"
Are you threatening to do that, to shoot me?

reply from: yoda

Then MAYBE they shouldn't be going into a place that kills babies!
Photography is entirely a passive action. It only captures light that comes into the camera, it does not reach out at all. And it has saved ONE baby that I know of. Your nasty attacks have saved how many?
Posting the resulting photos online is my constitutional right, and does nothing but reveal the truth. "Pictures do not lie", is an old saying, and my photos don't lie either. If you want the truth about who is killing their babies hidden, then you are friend of the baby killers, and that makes you one of them.

reply from: scopia19822

What's a "poing"?
Point. It was a typo, Mea Culpa.

reply from: faithman

Not at all. Just a freindly warning. Don't come here and think you can assault people and their property. It just might get you 6ft under. I merely stated a fact. No threat at all.

reply from: yoda

Texas does have some pretty permissive laws for property owners. I saw where that new law says that a home owner can legally shoot anyone who is trespassing on their property without proving any threat to their own safety, just defending their property. I think in Tennessee we still have to drag them into our house after we shoot them.

reply from: scopia19822

"Then MAYBE they shouldn't be going into a place that kills babies!"
I agree they should not be there
"If you want the truth about who is killing their babies hidden, then you are friend of the baby killers, and that makes you one of them"
I guess I would be a baby killer since I had an abortion. I just think there are more productive ways to bring out the truth of what abortion is. Life Dynamics undercover operation of exposing clinics covering up child sexual predators is one, maybe infiltrating these clinics and taking pics of how unsanitary they are is another way. And of course the best way of all is to get people who have had an abortion and regretted them such as the Silent No More Campaign. Getting Former clinic workers to talk about what really goes on. I think that the big key to exposing the truth of abortion is to bring down the abortion industry and the testamonies of post abortive women. Also educating the public on the humanity of the unborn and fetal development. Sad reality that most American are ingnorant on those things.

reply from: yoda

And you would attack me and/or my camera just because you think my way isn't the "most productive"? Strange reaction to low productivity.....
Ask Mark Crutcher what he thinks about abortion cams. He has no problem with them at all.

reply from: faithman

It also covers you when you take action for your nieghbor. We had a man aquited for giving a 12 gage enema to three men who were breaking into his next door nieghbor's home. SSSSOOOO don't mess with Texas is all I can say, or your blood just might litter the ground.

reply from: nancyu

Anyone who tries to take or damage my property is attacking me, and you would have to become violent to get to my property. I have warned you of the consequences of that, so you are forewarned. Of course, I'm 99.9% sure that you are nothing but hot air, running your mouth off like a typical proabort. I will now add you to my list of fauxlifers.
...what took you so long?

reply from: nancyu

Let's frame this and hang it on the wall for ChristianLott.
This is exactly what a faux lifer looks like. Watch for the keywords

reply from: faithman

Anyone who tries to take or damage my property is attacking me, and you would have to become violent to get to my property. I have warned you of the consequences of that, so you are forewarned. Of course, I'm 99.9% sure that you are nothing but hot air, running your mouth off like a typical proabort. I will now add you to my list of fauxlifers.
...what took you so long?
We always hold onto hope that what we know isn't true. But after one is given every chance...

reply from: Skippy

This is kind of an interesting point.
When I took the class to renew my concealed carry permit, we did a little "demonstration." The instructor told me to grab another person in the class, a really big dude, by the shirt and holler, "I'm going to kick your ass!" Then he told Big Dude to do the same thing to me.
Then he turned to the rest of the class and asked, "In both of those situations, who's going to jail?" They all agreed that in both cases, it would be Big Dude who ended up in handcuffs.
May not seem fair or right, but perception is what decides these things. And the perception is generally that any man who puts his hands on a woman is scum, and if a woman puts her hands on a man, she probably has a good reason for doing so.

reply from: faithman

Take a glass of milk, and add a few drops of arsnic. Now how much of the glass is milk, and how much is poison? Just a few drops of pro-death poison makes one pro-death, no matter how much good pro-life milk is in your glass. To vow to fight personhood for the womb child, for what ever reason, is deadly borthead poison. It is no act of "compassion" to ignore that fact.

reply from: yoda

Anyone who tries to take or damage my property is attacking me, and you would have to become violent to get to my property. I have warned you of the consequences of that, so you are forewarned. Of course, I'm 99.9% sure that you are nothing but hot air, running your mouth off like a typical proabort. I will now add you to my list of fauxlifers.
...what took you so long?
We always hold onto hope that what we know isn't true. But after one is given every chance...
Yep. I held out as long as I thought there was a chance....

reply from: yoda

I'd say she dam well better have a good reason before putting her hands on me or my camera down at the mill.......
And this discussion kinda shows the hypocrisy of the feminazis, doesn't it? All that screaming about equality, and then "I'm a woman, I get to hit men and it's okay".


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