gadgetlady

{sigh} I never said these sites weren't pro-life; in fact, I indicated that they WERE. And I know there's rhetoric that many will disagree with. I wasn't asking anyone to believe or even listen to the rhetoric. The information that the NAF includes picketing in their description of "acts of violence" came from the NAF site. I also found it on pro-life sites, but it was confirmed on the NAF site. The count each picketer as an act of violence. The NPG website (Negative Population Growth) takes a very strong stance against illegal immigration. If I believed in supporting population control but also believed that illegals had a right to immigrate to the US, must I then take the stance that therefore all statistics on the NPG site about population are ludicrous? Just because you don't agree with the position doesn't mean you should ignore the evidence. The evidence about violence against pro-lifers doesn't require anyone believing it to become pro-life. Why can't we decry violence against a group if we don't believe in their philosophy? I don't believe in abortion. But I will stand side-by-side with those who do and say that violence against abortion clinics or abortionists is wrong.

When I was getting my Masters and PhD (which I never completed) in Political Science, my thesis was on abortion. I was consistently never able to find any documentation that was from an organization, group, or person without a bias. I learned to not throw out the baby with the bathwater, and to sift through information from both sides that was well documented. When I garnered information from the side with which I did not agree, I learned to ignore the rhetoric and focus on the facts.

They simply don't exist, or not from what I've found. It's either documentation from NAF or NARAL or similar groups, or documentation from pro-life groups. And the news organizations that regurgitate statistics are informed by the former, not the latter. I did, however, find documentation on a pro-abortion website clearly stating that they do include number of blockades, arrests made at blockades, and number of incidents of picketing in their statistics of violence -- all numbers, including the picketing "violence", were of course supplied by the NAF. www.abortionviolence.com has some interesting information, including a video demonstrating the calmness of one side and the violence of the other. It was not staged. For those concerned, the documentation on this site is also extensive and the verbiage much less inflammatory.

One of my pet peeves is people who don't respond to emails. I deliberately have an auto-response on my email all the time, indicating that I am away from my desk and if this is urgent to please call such-and-such. That way if I don't respond right away, they've been warned that it might not happen promptly. It might be that this student wondered if you had received or read her email and part of her frustration had to do with your lack of response. If you had responded to any of her emails, even the last one, with "Thank you for your email. It is my policy to disclose all grades in such-and-such a way on such-and-such a date; for privacy reasons I don't email grades." (or something along those lines) it might have shut her up. If someone doesn't know for sure if you've received their emails, they might send over and over again because of it because emails do go astray and get buried in inboxes. KWIM?

I stated at the beginning that a pro-life person wrote this report (specifically, I started my post with "While this article was written by a pro-lifer, it is very well documented and therefore should not be dismissed simply because one disagrees with her stand on the issues"). I agree that there is a purpose to the report and there is some verbiage in there that would be considered inflammatory by persons who are not pro-life. However, it is 180 pages long and extremely well documented, and despite the stated, clear position of the writer, there are facts in there that cannot be denied. I think one would be very hard-pressed to find a neutral organization in this matter. And even if one were able to, it's likely that that organization used statistics that were skewed in one direction or another by someone with a bias. As I've already stated, I have been a personal witness to violence perpetrated by abortion-rights advocates against pro-lifers. I have never, ever seen the reverse. And I've been involved for 24 years, at some periods of my life on a weekly basis.

Hi Patty, I was banded in Feb and I live in OC. It's surprising, but there aren't too many OC'ers here.

I'm revisiting my earlier post about the potential that this information was skewed, because now I've done some research. For a full report (long), go to http://www.geocities.com/kekogut/miscellaneous/Jan1995.pdf. I will cut and paste some excerpts here. While this article was written by a pro-lifer, it is very well documented and therefore should not be dismissed simply because one disagrees with her stand on the issues. Firstly, not all violence can be blamed on pro-lifers. There are many verified examples; here are two (I have replaced a few words because I know they will offend some): Los Angeles, California, 1988: Pro-abortion activist Frank Mendiola pleaded guilty to charges of telephoning a series of bomb threats to local abortion [clinics], abortion-rights organizations, and his own home. Mendiola said he made the calls to arouse public sympathy for abortion rights. and to motivate the media to "come down with a harder line on [pro-lifers] who [were] harassing the clinics." Concord, California, 1990: After a Planned Parenthood abortion [clinic] was severely damaged by arson, the [clinic] immediately pinned the blame on "anti-abortion terrorists." A month later, police arrested David Martin, who lived across the street from the [clinic]. Martin told the "Contra Costa Times" he was "p__d off" by the pro-life protesters who he hoped would be blamed for the fire. Second, the instances of violence against pro-lifers is much higher than by pro-lifers; statistically, this includes the conviction rates as well. (this grid doesn't copy well; the first number is reported incidents; the second number is convictions) Incidents by pro-life against pro-abortion 164 12 Incidents by pro-abortion against pro-life 218 15 Incidents by police against pro-abortion 0 0 Incidents by police against pro-life 29 11 Total 411 38 Third, and I'll let these points speak for themselves: • There have been more bombings of religious facilities than all types of medical facilities combined. • Bombings and attempted bombings of any type of medical facility have been rare. There have been 230 times as many against other industries, homes, and other buildings. • Only thirty-five one-thousandth of one percent of all U.S. arsons can be attributed to pro-life. • Only one one-thousandth of one percent of all U.S. homicides can be attributed to pro-life. • The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms has never connected any act of violence to any pro-life organization. • The Federal Bureau of Investigation does not list any pro-life organization as terrorist. • There are many very significant reasons for the abortion industry to deceive the public. • The abortion industry has been unwilling and/or unable to substantiate their accusations against pro-life. • There are many reasons for violence against abortion facilities other than pro-life activism. • The media rarely portrays violence by pro-abortion, but rarely doesn't portray violence by prolife. One other thing that I found interesting was that was correct in my first surmisal of these numbers. If 100 people peacefully picket a clinic, the National Abortion Federation counts that as 102 incidences of violence: 1 for each person, 1 against the clinic, and 1 incident in and of itself. I have been involved personally with pro-life groups since the age of 16. I have never once witnessed violence by pro-lifers against anyone, but I have seen it the other way around -- numerous times. I have never heard a pro-lifer talk about violence against an abortionist or a clinic, nor have I ever heard anything but disgust and disdain when people who support violence are mentioned. The formation of our opinions has a lot to do with the information we are provided. I would sumbit that because the media are sensationalist and need the news in exciting snippets, you don't often receive the whole story -- you receive a story that's not only easily-digestible, but also contains the bias of the people involved. I have personally witnessed local news reporters deliberately fabricating stories about what goes on at clinic pickets. I am not surprised people have the opinions they do. The guy who stands out on the street with a sign saying "God hates fags" (which, by the way, is as offensive to most Christians as it is to other people) makes for a good story, a quick snapshot, an easy target. Notice, however, that he is generally alone or with a very small group. There's a reason for that. Anyone who reads the Bible knows he's flat-out wrong. I attend a church that is considered a mega-church. The outreach there is voluminous and ongoing (if you're interested, go to www.rockharbor.org or http://www.rockharbor.org/content/contentpage.aspx?pageid=138). Don't overlook the real, good work that churches do because you're watching the guy on the news who's standing alone with his sign.

:cry That makes me want to cry. I get so upset when people hurt children. It's unthinkable what people do. And we wonder why kids are mean to each other? It's what they learn at home. :cry

My guess is that they're including things in this number that the average person wouldn't normally classify as "violence" (such as pamphlets on the car, picketing that results in arrest, etc.). Don't get me wrong; I absolutely do not condone any violence against abortionists or clinics. But just like the statistics on rape can be artifically inflated by including statutory rape in the numbers, so also is this number inflated (I suspect).

About 8 years ago I was on a health kick and decided to start buying natural, organic foods. I went to a local store and loaded up. I left my kids with a friend and went to work. I took one of the "organic" cookies and left one with them. My friend called me in a panic and told me not to eat the cookie -- she had broken hers in half and there were worms inside. Of course I would never have broken mine, but rather just taken a big worm-filled bite. It was at that point that I decided that I preferred pesticides to worms or other unknown critters in my food! I know this isn't everyone's experience and I have a very good friend who swears by organic food, but that incident scarred me.

Well, that shows you where MY head is! I thought it was going to be about how to get over a PB! It seems to me you could measure how much Water goes into one empty ice cube mold and go from there.

Thanks for your honest response, Pam. I agree with you about the comment about being scared to meet Jesus, but I also know that 1) that may have been intended to be inflammatory, and 2) there are some people who are so anti-Christian that it really doesn't matter how you behave; you will still get attacked for not representing Christ properly. That's why I asked for input from other Christians. I would appreciate some more if anyone is willing! Feel free to PM me if you prefer.

Well said, everyone. I have a question for the Christians on the board who have read this thread. Have I been out of line? I've asked my husband, who is very honest with me and lets me know when I'm stepping over the line, and he said no. But I'd like the opinion of others here. If an apology is owed, I'm certainly not above proffering one.

What were they angry about? I can't imagine anyone so upset over lap band surgery that they would murder someone. Soooo sad.

And one other thing. Why is commenting about your husband's religion "attacking [you] below the belt"? The implication of attacking someone below the belt is that one is bringing dirty tactics or possibly even emotional blackmail into the conversation. I don't consider your husband's religion of any consequence in this discussion, and quite frankly I don't know why you do! To me, the fact that your husband is Jewish doesn't make you or he superior or inferior in any way. It's just a statement of fact. But your verbiage and your reaction makes me wonder -- really wonder now -- what is behind your vehement reaction on this matter. If someone came up to me and said "Your husband is a fundamentalist Christian" (or, for that matter, "Your husband is of Nordic descent" or "Your husband is 5'6""), my response would be "Yes, he is." I wouldn't jump up and down about how I was being attacked below the belt.

You're allowed to call a group of people with a certain belief about childbearing "idiots" and "dumb", and no one else is allowed to call you on it? And if we do, we're called nasty, obnoxious, and unable to have an intelligent discussion? I never said you were a racist. I don't give a flying leap if your husband is Jewish. And yet you have said it several times, many of which you've deliberately bolded. It made me wonder if you were trying to make a specific point about being married to a Jewish man. I didn't know what that point might be, but you went to great lengths to wave your arms wildly about it. Maybe it's important to you that we know you're married to a Jewish man so we know you're not a racist? I don't know. And I really don't care. I don't think defending a group of people or a lifestyle that you've disparaged makes me nasty or obnoxious. But if you think it does, feel free to continue judging me. But wait -- don't open-minded, tolerant liberals never judge?

It is unfortunate that you have only come into contact with Christians who don't understand the totality of Jesus' teachings. That is not universally the case, I can assure you. It is also why we don't follow or profess to follow other Christians, but rather God Himself. I've examined the Bible carefully for many years now and have yet to find internal inconsistencies. I have heard many non-Christians blithely claim that there are such inconsistencies, but I've never had any demonstrated to me. Perhaps that's because not all non-Christians have examined either the framework of their beliefs or the Bible itself. Members of every group cherrypick. I've never met a consistent liberal in my entire life. And I've known quite a few. For example, I have a family member who is a rabid environmentalist. Yet when he had children, they used disposable diapers. Why? Because it was easier than using cloth. When it suited his needs, he bent his ideology. When there was a tree in the wildlife preserve below his house which blocked his view, he asked my husband to assist him in cutting it down. My husband suggested a chainsaw, but he didn't want to use one because he was afraid the neighbors would hear. So they chopped it down. This Greenpeace-donating tree-hugger had no problem "bending the rules" when it suited his needs (or his property value). He does not stand alone; as I said, I have NEVER met a consistent liberal. I doubt you will find a more avid proponent of democracy than myself, and I am also a Fundamentalist Christian.

Well, I think based on the last few posts from the children of "idiots", some people feel "scorned" and "attacked". I sincerely doubt that you never intended it that way. When you make a blanket statement to a huge group of people that people who choose to have large families are "dumb" and "idiots", you must know that some of the people in that group either come from or have large families. I believe you were savvy enough to know that your words would offend, but you wanted to broadcast your disdain for Christians so much that you didn't care who you offended.

By the way, Wheetsin, I've been meaning to tell you your story about the gingerbread men is priceless. What your "neighbors" did to you was out of line, and what you did back was just hilarious.

I think the point is that Sunta claims to be "open-minded and tolerant" when she clearly is not. No one is denying her right to free speech. But for her to attempt to mask her judgmental, intolerant, disdainful, hateful statements with the claim that she is open-minded and tolerant is just plain disingenuous.And no, Sunta, I'm not referring to your position on that ridiculous statue. And I don't care that your husband is Jewish, as you've been drilling in many of your posts (making me wonder if YOU care that he's Jewish????). I'm referring to the very first post (and the ones that followed) that started this thread. If you truly believe you are open-minded and tolerant, as you have stated many times, you need to have your head examined. You are neither. Declaring a group of people to be idiotic and dumb is judgmental, closed-minded, and intolerant. No two ways about it. You don't save face by claiming you don't want to regulate them.

How very sad. Does anyone know why this happened or is it random violence?

I agree completely. And anyone who tells you you are going to hell is way out of line. It is not the right or the purvue of any fellow human being to judge or determine anyone else's salvation. My apologies for those in your life who have presumed to do so.

Whatever floats your boat.

I'm sorry, wasn't it you who started this thread with "Some of these idiots have 12, 18 and 20 kids. Dumb, dumb, dumb." I never mentioned the statue. Quite frankly, the picture made me laugh, it seemed so ridiculous. And I'm not surprised it offends. I, too, support the right of people to erect it. But I certainly wouldn't pay for it!

I find "fundie" derogatory, especially when in a phrase like "wouldn't it screw with the fundies' heads". I'm sure you don't hold an esteemed opinion of fundamentalists. I also find "breeder" derogatory as it equates people with animals. And I think everyone reading this thread knows everyone with negative things to say is aiming them at Christians. Further, I know a lot of families with a lot of kids. And they sleep fine. They don't "farm out" their children. The children are part of a family, and they all love and care for each other. I know plenty of "more educated people who have fewer kids" who truly do "farm out" their children to day care, public and/or private schools, after-school care, camps, and others. No one here seems to be criticizing them. Personally, I feel that kids who are part of a loving family unit develop better than those who are farmed out to people whose only reason to care for them is their paycheck.