Pro-lifers scream bloody murder

Kathie Jackson

Fri Jun 12 2009 00:28

If YOU were that child, the one the picture that seems to repulse others, what would YOU want YOU to do? Forget the injustice done to YOU? Agree its ok to do this to other kids like YOU? Want someone to stop the maddness so kids like you could live? Its different when you put yourself in the place of the one you seem to repulse. Just things to think on!

Nino Baldino

Wed Jun 10 2009 16:15

of course the jailing of Japanese americans was on orders of FDR..J.E.Hoover of the FBI was against this unfair practice..as to the photos..as a former teacher I used to show the students pics of how the enemy in ww2 treated jews,and also our own men as prisoners..a pic is worth a thousand words! ..as to the slavery compariison..its also true..slavery is the ownership of one human being over another..when the temporary host of a developing baby can have that baby murdered because of ownership !!! that is slavery...no the south did win the war after all..enjoy

Nicole

Wed Jun 10 2009 12:51

I think it is definitely their right to express those pictures....The truth hurts....the only people it would offend are those baby killers, and those who are ok with it...compared to the holocaust?? Well, we can put pictures of that up cant we???? Same thing, whether you would like to think it or not. Quit being so ignorant.

bmmg39

Thu May 7 2009 18:58

And, yeah, while you can be pro-life and be for or against more sex education, abstinence actually does keep people from becoming pregnant, you know. How else are so many nice folks having babies? Naked samba lessons?

bmmg39

Thu May 7 2009 18:58

If abortion is such a public good, then what problem could you have with showing pictures of it? The Pro-Life Vegan Atheist is right: a picture says a thousand words, whether the object of your support is animals, unborn children, or the people of Darfur. Being pro-choice and objecting to these photos is a bit like seeing a heart-wrenching "Feed the Children" PSA on television, and deciding to do something about it -- by calling your station to get those "upsetting" pictures off the air. 'Cuz if you'd just stop taking pictures of it, the problem would go away, y'know?

Zorba Berra

Sun May 3 2009 15:54

Killing babies is wrong. Practice protected sex. Stop quoting bogus rape #'s. Girlss and women get pregnant because they enjoy sex and don't give a damn about the consequences. The issue is killing babies.

Mariana de la Noche

Sun May 3 2009 11:10

Again, the issue here is not whether or not anyone's attacking God. I'm sure God doesn't care one way or the other what we think about her, as long as we love and understand one another here on Earth. That was Jesus' ultimate message, was it not?

And to pro-lifeVA, I don't think you understand the concept of linear thinking. Linear thinking is a good thing. I didn't say they were suffering from linear thinking, I was implying that the person I was talking to was lacking in linear thinking. The response was the equivalent of me saying, "it's a nice day out," and getting "Watermelons don't eat beans," in response. What does one have to do with the other?

We shouldn't be pointing fingers at each other. We should not be shaming people who engage in recreational sex, and we should be increasing family planning availability, as well as properly educating our children about sex. That is how we will reduce unplanned pregnancy, and as a result, reduce the need for abortions.

Peace.

Joel Hawes

Sun May 3 2009 02:59

to anyone wishing to respond to this last comment, my name is Joel.

Your name

Sun May 3 2009 02:58

Pro-Life Vegan Atheist: See the top of this page? It says OPINION right above the title. That means it does not have to be unbiased.
Whether legal or illegal, the photos were unnecessary. There are as many, if not more, photos that a pro-choice group could have used to show when abortion should have been used to terminate a pregnancy that would endanger the mother or would result in a terribly mutated baby. Abortions are not always a safety net for irresponsible women. As the column states, rape victims should not be forced to proceed to have a baby conceived in that manner, think of the psychological impact that would have on a mother. Its hard enough to put a rape behind you, but when your baby looks at you with the same eyes or nose of a man who violently forced himself on you, i think that woman would have a lot of problems.
And by the way, " at least one-fifth of all recognized pregnancies are spontaneously terminated (miscarried) during the first 2 months, largely because of such monosomies and trisomies. (The actual proportion of spontaneously terminated pregnancies is certainly higher, because the earliest ones often go unrecognized.) "
A direct quote from Chapter 9, page 200 of Life: The Science of Biology by Sadava, Heller, Orians, etc.
Why don't you go yell at Mother Nature for aborting 20+% of pregnancies? Do you really think those abortions are pretty, simple, clean, etc? Your pro-life arguments are weak, so don't attack the author of an opinion column in a college newspaper. Why don't you write your own opinion column of the display and send us the link to it.
Yes, the pictures were disturbing and shocking, but so are pictures of a man being mauled by a bear, but you probably arent going to try to kill all the bears.
We have the abilities to know whether a baby will be healthy or if it will likely not make it one year. Why not strive to produce the healthiest offspring possible if we have the ability? I'm not talking Hitler here, but at some point it becomes inhumane to continue a pregnancy which will result in a baby with severe mutations causing it to live a more torturous life. Those situations take incredible tolls on everyone involved including psychological, emotional and financial disaster. If nothing else, abortions should be granted on a case by case basis by a team of experts because I will certainly not argue for someone who simply used poor judgment.

desensitized

Sat May 2 2009 14:59

Those aborted fetuses were entertaining. I didn't know gory photos were the norm nowdays.

Close your legs

Sat May 2 2009 12:23

Personal responsibiliy. Use it people.

Gregory Grimm

Fri May 1 2009 15:42

None were altered/manipulated by any photo-altering software or any other means.

Gregory Grimm

Fri May 1 2009 14:58

“…Manipulated pictures of severed fetuses and babies’ legs from illegal abortions.”
The photos were taken of legally aborted embryos and fetuses.

Gregory Grimm

Fri May 1 2009 14:50

“She did admit that they rented the space out.”
No money was given to CSULB in exchange for the use of the FREE speech area.

Gregory Grimm

Fri May 1 2009 14:50

Legality of being on campus: Public place, invited by an authorized CSULB club, free speech cannot legally be restricted based on content (with very few exceptions), group met with school officials before-hand to ensure everyone's safety

Your name

Fri May 1 2009 07:47

To "pro-life vegan atheist" the writer was referring to the university, and more notably ASI--the parent corporation of SLD-- as a "corporate greed structure" which it is. Do your own homework. To the ones attacking Mariana, while the pictures might not have depicted the "God" message per se, the group passing out the literature was clearly, visibly and audibly spreading the "Christian" WORD on both days. You would have heard that if you had spoken to any of them. Even the little group if idiots with the red tape on their mouths used as their complete supportive argument against abortion as "Because we love Jesus" While you might stand by the use of shock (schlock) to spread your message, it denigrates the message in the long run and eventually desensitizes most people. Perhaps the organizers need to step up their game and use actual butchered fetuses instead of manipulated photos. If you're going to rely on blood and gore, why not use actual blood and gore? If you want to make me puke, use something that will truly tickle my gag reflex, rather than less than credible pics. Using the Holocaust and lynchings, etc., as a comparison to abortion was a weak argument/display. A better comparison might have been the wholesale slaughter of dolphins as food; after all, they are mammals too. Learn a better way or go away.

I agree with mortygwhiz that there was no violation of the First Amendment, just as there was none with the Muslim Student Union's display, even though they also relied on mistruths and propaganda gleaned from one-sided sources. They clearly "overlooked" the Hamas-supported terrorist attacks on Israeli neighborhoods, ad infinitum, which undermined their informative integrity.

Your name

Fri May 1 2009 00:18

Mariana was that the response you really got? Just because a religious organization invited CBR to campus, I didn't see religion written all over those pictures. In fact, the attack signs the protesters used against the displays had nothing to do with the displays. I don't understand why people decide to attack God. I guess, when you don't have anything to say against those pictures, it's just more reasonable to attack religion. odd...

Ashton

Thu Apr 30 2009 19:05

Yeah they came to UCD one year. Totally nuts. They don't even want comprehensive sex ed! Less abortions but no sex ed, cause abstinence works so well (yeah right!)

(pro-life) Vegan Atheist

Thu Apr 30 2009 17:58

Good lord kid, you're a journalism major? Be hopeful a blog will hire you; your research skills are sketchy and you come off sounding irrational and aggressive, things that dying newspapers do NOT need. Your attempt to characterize The Center for Bioethical Reform as some part of the corporate greed structure is laughable - they're a non-profit organization! In fact, their Form 990 is displayed on their website, as well as documented proof that the photos they use are legitimate.

I'll stand by their technique, and have similarly used graphic images of dead animals, dead Iraqis, and dead Sudanese children in protest and outreach actions. The reason activists use them is because they net a higher response (both in interactions and changes minds) than a simple pamphlet or lettered-sign, Yes, we also receive a higher number of aggressive complaints (sometimes bordering on or leading to assault), but its worth it because an activist gives two damns what naysayers say, as long as others are being reached.

And Mariana, I'm an atheist. Your presumption that pro-lifers are merely religious individuals suffering from "linear thinking" is ludicrous and shows that you have a lack of healthy discourse with those who disagree with you (which interestingly enough can cause linear thinking as well).

Mariana de la Noche

Thu Apr 30 2009 15:18

There's no use talking to Pro-lifers. I asked one if we should instead team up to promote better sex education and better availability for family planning and contraceptives, so that people don't get pregnant to begin with (and don't even have to think about the possibility of an abortion) and I got, "Have you read the Bible?" in response.

Linear thinking? Anyone?