NVDAILY.COM | Opinion

Posted October 13, 2012 | comments 24 Comments

Letter to the Editor: Life Chain children were protesting for life

Editor:

This letter is in reply to the letter in your Oct. 10 issue ("Let children act their age") about the Life Chain on Oct. 7 in Woodstock.

What a crock...it's like the children were there every Sunday holding signs?

I think the children do know why they were standing there and they stand for life! It's quite obvious that the person who wrote this letter is very anti-life or as they like to call themselves "pro-choice." It ain't much of a choice for the unborn child!


Rosemary Sheering, Woodstock

24 Comments | Leave a comment

    The children were there as stage props for the emotional impact they are perceived to give. "Won't someone PLEASE think of the children!?" is the constant prompt phrase for those who exploit them most. No different than a politician kissing babies.

    It was exploitation, pure and simple.

    ...and after parading those kids in front of the public, be sure to allow plenty of time to get them to that "glamor competition" to further exploit them. Get those computer chips implanted so you know where they are at all times, particularly since there are "lurking predators" all over the news. Thank God for Facebook and its many American Values virtues.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo

    Cub Scouts on parade on Memorial Day "are there as stage props for the emotional impact they are perceived to give" by your strict standard of exploitation, Roy.

    Your displaced argument is meant to avoid the issue at hand: Witness to the realies of abortion.

    You don't need to agree with the premise -- but drop the nonsense.

    The couple of kids (ages 10 +) there among the 60 adults on the Life Chain were by no means "exploited" and know better than you why they were there.

    I know, because I was there.

      I have yet to see or hear of a single anti-abortion rally that actually showed the "realies of abortion" as you call it. NEVER. oh sure, there may be a couple people there that aren't complete and total whack jobs who feel the need to use false horror to pass along their propaganda. But they are far outshined by the liars.

      Separately, someone shared on FB a story about what a real abortion looks like, a container of blood, not a chopped up baby. Still disgusting, and I lambasted the original poster of the story. I understood their point in trying to show what the reality is vs the whack job horror show, but I still found it personally disturbing the way it was presented.

      The fight in this should leave the disturbing to the crazies. Everyone else pro-choice should just keep presenting that is should be between a woman, her doctor, and her judgement day. Then presenting that these same crazies that use the horror show are the same ones who want to deny every possible care they can to born children/people. Take a lesson from Nuns on the Bus.

    No matter ones opinion, topic 'abortion' is an explosive topic. Considering the potential for conflict, be it physical or verbal, I cannot understand any responsible parent purposely exposing their beloved child to such an unpredictable event.

    You're overstating the particular situation, Jane8.


    You're understating the particular situation, Dan (lipstick on pigs) Flathers, who himself now displaces the argument.

    I question the depth of reasoning capabilities Flathers ascribes to 10 year old sock-puppet children, graduates of 3rd grade grammar school.

    The exploitation (yours, theirs) for ulterior motive is unavoidably obvious.

      Actually, CaCaToRy, Flathers is probably right in this incident. The children probably were safe with these people, the children may have heard some profanity from passerbys...but, hey, who's to say they don't hear that at home on a regular basis anyway.

      After all. it is the anti-abortioners THEMSELVES that are violent:

      United States
      Murders
      In the U.S., violence directed towards abortion providers has killed at least eight people, including four doctors, two clinic employees, a security guard, and a clinic escort.[8][9]
      March 10, 1993: Dr. David Gunn of Pensacola, Florida was fatally shot during a protest. He had been the subject of wanted-style posters distributed by Operation Rescue in the summer of 1992. Michael F. Griffin was found guilty of Gunn's murder and was sentenced to life in prison.
      July 29, 1994: Dr. John Britton and James Barrett, a clinic escort, were both shot to death outside another facility, the Ladies Center, in Pensacola. Rev. Paul Jennings Hill was charged with the killings. Hill received a death sentence and was executed on September 3, 2003. The clinic in Pensacola had been bombed before and was also bombed subsequently, in 1984 and 2012.
      December 30, 1994: Two receptionists, Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols, were killed in two clinic attacks in Brookline, Massachusetts. John Salvi was arrested and confessed to the killings. He died in prison and guards found his body under his bed with a plastic garbage bag tied around his head. Salvi had also confessed to a non-lethal attack in Norfolk, Virginia days before the Brookline killings.
      January 29, 1998: Robert Sanderson, an off-duty police officer who worked as a security guard at an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama, was killed when his workplace was bombed.Eric Robert Rudolph, who was also responsible for the 1996 Centennial Olympic Park bombing, was charged with the crime and received two life sentences as a result.
      October 23, 1998: Dr. Barnett Slepian was shot to death with a high-powered rifle at his home in Amherst, New York.[10] His was the last in a series of similar shootings against providers in Canada and northern New York state which were all likely committed by James Kopp. Kopp was convicted of Slepian's murder after finally being apprehended in France in 2001.
      May 31, 2009: Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed by Scott Roeder as Tiller served as an usher at church in Wichita, Kansas.[11]
      [edit]Attempted murder, assault, and kidnapping
      According to statistics gathered by the National Abortion Federation (NAF), an organization of abortion providers, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, there have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion providers.[12] Attempted murders in the U.S. included:[8][13][14]
      August 19, 1993: Dr. George Tiller was shot outside of an abortion facility in Wichita, Kansas. Shelley Shannon was charged with the crime and received an 11-year prison sentence (20 years were later added for arson and acid attacks on clinics).
      July 29, 1994: June Barret was shot in the same attack which claimed the lives of James Barrett, her husband, and Dr. John Britton.
      December 30, 1994: Five individuals were wounded in the shootings which killed Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols.
      October 28, 1997: Dr. David Gandell of Rochester, New York was injured by flying glass when a shot was fired through the window of his home.[15]
      January 29, 1998: Emily Lyons, a nurse, was severely injured, and lost an eye, in the bombing which also killed Robert Sanderson.
      [edit]Arson, bombing, and property crime
      According to NAF, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs").[12] The New York Times also cites over one hundred clinic bombings and incidents of arson, over three hundred invasions, and over four hundred incidents of vandalism between 1978 and 1993.[16] The first clinic arson occurred in Oregon in March 1976 and the first bombing occurred in February 1978 in Ohio.[17] Incidents have included:
      December 25, 1984: An abortion clinic and two physicians' offices in Pensacola, Florida were bombed in the early morning of Christmas Day by a quartet of young people (Matt Goldsby, Jimmy Simmons, Kathy Simmons, Kaye Wiggins) who later called the bombings "a gift to Jesus on his birthday."[18][19][20] The clinic, the Ladies Center, would later be the site of the murder of Dr. John Britton and James Barrett in 1994 and a firebombing in 2012.
      May 21, 1998: Three people were injured when acid was poured at the entrances of five abortion clinics in Miami, Florida.[21]
      October 1999: Martin Uphoff set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, causing US$100 worth of damage. He was later sentenced to 60 months in prison.[22]
      May 28, 2000: An arson at a clinic in Concord, New Hampshire resulted in several thousand dollars' worth of damage. The case remains unsolved.[23][24][25] This was the second arson at the clinic.[26]
      September 30, 2000: John Earl, a Catholic priest, drove his car into the Northern Illinois Health Clinic after learning that the FDA had approved the drug RU-486. He pulled out an ax before being forced to the ground by the owner of the building, who fired two warning shots from a shotgun.[27]
      June 11, 2001: An unsolved bombing at a clinic in Tacoma, Washington destroyed a wall, resulting in $6,000 in damages.[22][28]
      July 4, 2005: A clinic Palm Beach, Florida was the target of an arson. The case remains open.[22]
      December 12, 2005: Patricia Hughes and Jeremy Dunahoe threw a Molotov cocktail at a clinic in Shreveport, Louisiana. The device missed the building and no damage was caused. In August 2006, Hughes was sentenced to six years in prison, and Dunahoe to one year. Hughes claimed the bomb was a "memorial lamp" for an abortion she had had there.[29]
      September 11, 2006 David McMenemy of Rochester Hills, Michigan, crashed his car into the Edgerton Women's Care Center in Davenport, Iowa. He then doused the lobby in gasoline and started a fire. McMenemy committed these acts in the belief that the center was performing abortions; however, Edgerton is not an abortion clinic.[30] Time magazine listed the incident in a "Top 10 Inept Terrorist Plots" list.[31]
      April 25, 2007: A package left at a women's health clinic in Austin, Texas, contained an explosive device capable of inflicting serious injury or death. A bomb squad detonated the device after evacuating the building. Paul Ross Evans (who had a criminal record for armed robbery and theft) was found guilty of the crime.[32]
      May 9, 2007: An unidentified person deliberately set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Virginia Beach, Virginia.[33]
      December 6, 2007: Chad Altman and Sergio Baca were arrested for the arson of Dr. Curtis Boyd's clinic in Albuquerque. Baca's girlfriend had scheduled an appointment for an abortion at the clinic.[34][35]
      January 22, 2009 Matthew L. Derosia, 32, who was reported to have had a history of mental illness[36] rammed an SUV into the front entrance of a Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Paul, Minnesota.[37]
      January 1, 2012 Bobby Joe Rogers, 41, firebombed the American Family Planning Clinic in Pensacola, Florida with a Molotov cocktail; the fire gutted the building. Rogers told investigators that he was motivated to commit the crime by his opposition to abortion, and that what more directly prompted the act was seeing a patient enter the clinic during one of the frequent anti-abortion protests there. The clinic had previously been bombed at Christmas in 1984 and was the site of the murder of Dr. John Britton and James Barrett in 1994.[38]
      April 1, 2012 A bomb exploded on the windowsill of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Grand Chute, Wisconsin, resulting in a fire that damaged one of the clinic's examination rooms. No injuries were reported. On April 3, the FBI arrested 50-year-old Francis Grady on charges of "arson of a building used in interstate commerce" and "intentionally damaging the property of a facility that provides reproductive health services".[39]
      [edit]Anthrax threats
      The first hoax letters claiming to contain anthrax were mailed to U.S. clinics in October 1998, a few days after the Slepian shooting; since then, there have been 655 such bioterror threats made against abortion providers. None of the "anthrax" in these cases was real.[13][40]
      November 2001: After the genuine 2001 anthrax attacks, Clayton Waagner mailed hoax letters containing a white powder to 554 clinics. On December 3, 2003, Waagner was convicted of 51 charges relating to the anthrax scare.
      (Source: Wikipedia)

      So again, I think, No matter ones opinion, topic 'abortion' is an explosive topic. Considering the potential for conflict, be it physical or verbal, I cannot understand any responsible parent purposely exposing their beloved child to such an unpredictable event.

    According to Mr. Papson's report, these children were, at the most, five years old. I must assume that the parents of these children thoroughly and patiently explained to these kids the whole process of the human reproductive system, including the orgasm: that incentive to reproduce. Such an explanation would naturally lead to a discussion about personal responsibility, that the orgasm has caused 85% of the population to make mistakes they later regret. Unless the parents have foisted the classic lie about "babies come from storks", then I have to assume those children were completely informed about the entire aspect of abortion.

    If not, then these children have a fragment of a truth, with which they have been coaxed to agree with, absent 85% of the entire story. And if the parents had to re-negotiate the Stork Lie, what a scrambled mind they're fostering. They'll look forward to 'fessing up to the Santa Claus Lie, too. It's tradition, you know.

    The compremise would have been to tell the kids the Evil Stork flies over insuspecting women and puts babies in their stomachs. This explanation could seriously affect sales down at KFC, thus hurting the economy. But if that happens, you can blame Obama.

    In any political situation where such vehement activity is put forth, I always wonder how much those individuals are doing to make themselves a better person, every day. When you're so focused outwardly, you necessarily have to neglect your own house.

    What daily honesty do these people practice? Are they Christians? Then Jesus wants to remind you to "Take the board out of your own eye before you remove the speck out of your brothers'." These same protesters, who think life is so precious, don't want to pay for food stamps or Head Start programs.

    Jane8; Concur.
    Thanks for the history. More reasons to use a screen name for protection from the unpredictable emotionally disturbed hair triggers who walk and talk among us.

    Well, I guess your minds are set.

    Not one reply has anything to do with what occurred last Sunday. ("Stork lie." Really?)

    None of you were there...or actually know anything about Life Chain (as none of us brought weapons with us.)

    Mr. Flathers, no one has offered that information.

    I'd be happy to hear you out, if you'd like to report about it.

    This makes me laugh. Somehow, taking kids out for a protest or march harms them, but tearing their legs and arms off during an abortion does not ... And then there are the people who say that the 10-week unborn baby is only a "blob." These untutored folks have never seen an embryology textbook showing that the heart is beating and the brain waves are active long before this time. Anyone who denies this is simply anti-scientific and is living in the Dark Ages. And, of course, we must speak of "pro-life violence." If you want to see the complete story, see http://www.abortionviolence.com, for accounts of hundreds of murders committed by "pro-choicers" (yes, hundreds). To those closed minds that simply deny this, take a look at the documentation on this Web site. All of it is documented, unlike the vague allegations made by "pro-choice" groups that say that 100,000 (170,000, 10,000,000, pick a number) acts of violence have been committed by pro-lifers. Wake up, people! Look at the facts and the documentation, and let go of your outdated, antiquated beliefs!
    Now watch -- I don't need a crystal ball to prognosticate that the "pro-choicers" will now sling insults and change the topic. And, unlike most of them, I am leaving my real name because I have the facts on my side ...

    Brian Clowes

      Mr. Clowes, there is much positive merit to raising the public awareness, it does indeed speak well of the intentions of those who bring such issues to the public's attention.

      There can't be much question regarding the horrors of abortion, or the implications to the human race, in general.

      Pregancies occur because of sexual activity. In our society, the topic of sex either sells products, ideas or beliefs...or it isn't spoken of at all. To speak of only a small aspect of it is to deny the full benefit of information.

      One aspect the pro-life group has right-on is the sacredness of life. I offer that if all aspects of life were regarded as sacred, there might be more respect and responsibility in sexual affairs. Abortion is an after-affect from the original act. It is, unfortunatey, a option some must choose.

      My objection to this topic is involving children in a subject they are way too young to comprehend the entire process of. It's great that they are experiencing the freedom of speech aspect, but the topic is one they won't grasp entirely for many years to come, yet. Our various medias play a detrimental role in the influencing of sexual behavior...for better or for worse...and discerning parents are the best asset to this influence.

      I propose that honest and candid sex education is the key to the solution, and regardless of pro-religion or anti-God, a universal acceptance of life, as sacred, can be established by simply respecting all.

      Mr. Flathers, we await your report.

      http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:Abortion_violence

      Has some information regarding your "fact" site. Here is a novel idea, how about providing a site not set up by the pro-birth crowd for factual information. *I wont wait.

      As to your little taunt, if you are crazy enough to lie about issues such as this then no one knows just how far you might take it to "prove" your point.

      BTW, while we have an HLI representative here, hows that whole exorcism case thing going? Honestly I'm truly surprised you took time from your normal homosexual bigotry to even comment. But to each their own.

    Like I said, "Katybug," nothing but insults, and no facts. Thank you for so capably proving my point. I hereby challenge you to find one "lie" on the Abortion Violence Web site. Don't worry; I won't hold my breath. And BTW, one of your insults was "homophobe." I don't fear homosexuals any more than the next person, nore do I hate them. Just more name-calling as I predicted. Finally, "Katybug," at least I have the courage to sign my real name.

    Brian Clowes

      Mr. Clowes you can taunt until you are blue in the face. You belong to a group associated with rapists and pedophiles, naturally I value my safety. My anonymity is just for people like you.

      You are unable to provide any information not created by your own little group of nutbags or others such, and the information you do provide is a bunch of oranges painted red that you are trying to sell as apples. Go figure.

      You called yourself a homophobe and accused me of it. Comical, but that's to be expected from charlatans. Distract, distract, distract right?

        "This makes me laugh. Somehow, taking kids out for a protest or march harms them, but tearing their legs and arms off during an abortion does not ."

        This statement says it all. He is one arrogate piece of work! Like Romney. he would't recognize truth if it starred him in the face! He makes claims that cannot be substantiated; but, hey, his website can sells lots and lots of books.

    Soooo ... Human Life International is associated with rapists and pedophiles? Evidence, please? And perhaps if you try very hard, you can leave off with the insults. You appear to be another liberal who prattles on and on about respecting all beliefs except those you happen to agree with. If you will bother check the Web site I keep mentioning and which you have probably not yet seen, you will see that all of the references regarding all of the incidence of pro-abortion violence are from such conservative "nutbag" newspapers such as the New York Times and the LA Times. Perhaps you would also notice the documentation on hundreds of women being murdered by their boyfriends and husbands because they refused to have abortions. But I suppose, according to you and people who think like you, those dead women are acceptable "collateral damage." All so the precious "right to choose" is preserved ...
    But why are we wasting everyone's time with this little squabble? You can call me at work (you know where to find me) and we can discuss this like two rational human beings. But you will probably say you are afraid; the usual dodge for people with no real facts to back them up.

    Brian Clowes

    Up front I will attest -- before God -- my Creator, I am NOT an advocate for abortion...however,

    10.9 million, YES, 10.9 million children under five die in developing countries each year. Malnutrition and hunger-related diseases cause 60 percent of the deaths.
    (Source: The State of the World's Children, UNICEF, 2007 repeat 2007)

    Yet this man, Clowes, brags about the fact that "Brian authored the report which helped sway legislators in the 2001 defunding of the UNFPA* ,
    * http://www.unfpa.org/public/ (Eleven year olds having babies.)

    29,000 Somali children have died in the last 90 days
    http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-202_162-20088015.html (DOI:2011)

    So, my friends -- considering the balanced scales -- in one hand I am holding an embryo who may be a victim of a painless abortion and in the other hand I am holding a little malnutritioned girl whose looking up at me eyes are bigger than she, and in two to five days she will be dead. Your choice hero (sic) Clowes, go ahead a tout for ego but in my opinion you are a piece of (fill in the blank beginning with "s"). You, McDonnel. Santorium and others will go out of your way for the unborn but screw the living.


    Agnes Bojaxhiu was very fond of saying that her work was religious and not humanitarian, that suffering and disease were gifts from God, that family planning was morally equivalent to abortion and that all abortion was murder. But, by some similar charismatic knack, she couldn't get anyone to believe her either.

    The so-called right to life movement is, generally speaking, led by people who support capital punishment, endorse imperialist war, fetishize nuclear weapons, and detest women's liberation. The abortion issue, in this analysis, is an opportunistic conscription of the emotions for the purpose of retarding or negating the gains made by women since the 1960s.

    The leading element in the 'right to life' movement is indeed composed of hypocrites, who are either indifferent to the suffering of others or in some cases positively enthusiastic about it; who are marketers of religious cretinism; and who have been thoroughly and revealingly unsettled by one of the century's most positive developments, the sexual autonomy of women. As has been said before, the 'lifers' pretend concern for humanity before it is born and after it is dead, and contribute mightily to the preventable bits of misery in between.

    As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even -- this was seriously maintained -- a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped, replaced by the ignorance suggesting women's bodies have ways of preventing conception by the sperm of rapists.

    Of the considerations that have stopped it, one is the fascinating and moving view provided by the sonogram, and another is the survival of "premature" babies of featherlike weight, who have achieved "viability" outside the womb. This is yet another way in which science can make common cause with humanism. Just as no human being of average moral capacity could be indifferent to the sight of a woman being kicked in the stomach, so nobody could fail to be far more outraged if the woman in question were pregnant. Embryology confirms morality.

    The words "unborn child," even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality. However, this only opens the argument rather than closes it. There may be many circumstances in which it is not desirable to carry a fetus to full term. Either nature or god appears to appreciate this, since a very large number of pregnancies are "aborted," so to speak, because of malformations, and are politely known as "miscarriages." Sad though this is, it is probably less miserable an outcome than the vast number of deformed or idiot children who would otherwise have been born, or stillborn, or whose brief lives would have been a torment to themselves and others. As with evolution in general, therefore, in utero we see a microcosm of nature and evolution itself. In the first place we begin as tiny forms that are amphibian, before gradually developing lungs and brains (and growing and shedding that now useless coat of fur) and then struggling out and breathing fresh air after a somewhat difficult transition.

    Likewise, the system is fairly pitiless in eliminating those who never had a very good chance of surviving in the first place: our ancestors on the savannah were not going to survive in their turn if they had a clutch of sickly and lolling infants to protect against predators. Here the analogy of evolution might not be to Adam Smith's "invisible hand" (a term that I have always distrusted) so much as to Joseph Schumpeter's model of "creative destruction," whereby we accustom ourselves to a certain amount of natural failure, taking into account the pitilessness of nature and extending back to the remote prototypes of our species.

    Thus, not all conceptions are, or ever were, going to lead to births. And ever since the mere struggle for existence began to abate, it has been an ambition of the human intelligence to gain control over the rate of reproduction. Families who are at the mercy of mere nature, with its inevitable demand for profusion, will be tied to a cycle that is not much better than animal. The best way of achieving a measure of control is by prophylaxis, which has been restlessly sought since records were kept and which has in our own time become relatively foolproof and painless.

    The second-best fallback solution, which may sometimes be desirable for other reasons, is termination of pregnancy: an expedient which is regretted by many even when it has been undertaken in dire need. All thinking people recognize a painful conflict of rights and interests in this question, and strive to achieve a balance. The only proposition that is completely useless, either morally or practically, is the wild statement that sperms and eggs are all potential lives which must not be prevented from fusing and that, when united however briefly, have souls and must be protected by law. On this basis, an intrauterine device that prevents the attachment of the egg to the wall of the uterus is a murder weapon, and an ectopic pregnancy (the disastrous accident that causes the egg to begin growing inside the Fallopian tube) is a human life instead of an already doomed egg that is also an urgent threat to the life of the mother.

    Every single step toward the clarification of this argument has been opposed root and branch by the clergy. The attempt even to educate people in the possibility of "family planning" -was anathematized from the first, and its early advocates and teachers were arrested (like
    John Stuart Mill) or put in jail or thrown out of their jobs. Only a few years ago, Mother Teresa denounced contraception as the moral equivalent of abortion, which "logically" meant (since she regarded abortion as murder) that a sheath or a pill was a murder weapon also. She was a little more fanatical even than her church, but here again we can see that the strenuous and dogmatic is the moral enemy of the good. It demands that we believe the impossible, and practice the unfeasible. The whole case for extending protection to the unborn, and to expressing a bias in favor of life, has been wrecked by those who use unborn children, as well as born ones, as mere manipulable objects of their doctrine.

    Finally, one religious doctrine attempting to impose its will on other religions -- and even the non-religious -- is a violent recipe for conflict and confrontation.


Copyright © The Northern Virginia Daily | nvdaily.com | 152 N. Holliday St., Strasburg, Va. 22657 | (800) 296-5137