Posted on 12/02/2003 9:32:20 AM PST by nickcarraway
Sacramento, CA (LifeNews.com) -- Prompted by some local leaders, the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors is considering a proposal that would place "no protest zones" around area abortion businesses.
One local abortion facility, Women's Health Specialists, already has a 20-foot zone in place thanks to an order issued by a local judge. Now county officials are considering extending similar anti-protest zones around all local abortion centers.
Three members of the board staged a press conference at the state capitol to announce their support for the idea.
"Those who wish to offer a different opinion are able to do so, but they are not going to be permitted -- under this ordinance -- to do so in a way that interferes with the legitimate exercise of an equally important right," Supervisor Roger Dickinson told KRCA-TV.
Since the late 1980's there have been no major protests in California, such as those groups like Operation Rescue organized in the past. In addition, none of the five protesters that were involved in the original lawsuit that led to the original 20-foot zone around Women's Health Specialists have protested abortions in two years and three of the five haven't participated in a protest in more than a decade.
That prompts pro-life attorneys to say there is no need for the protest free area.
"The buffer zone is useless due to the non-participation of those enjoined and [abortion] clinic employees are desperate," says Dana Cody, Executive Director of the Life Legal Defense Foundation.
"Enter three pandering county supervisors beholding to abortion zealots," Cody added. "Now we will waste county resources debating a dead issue."
Another pro-life attorney, Cyrus Zal, argues such a law would limit the free speech rights of pro-life protesters and would cost the county because of expected lawsuits against it.
The supervisors will vote on the issue next Tuesday. San Diego and San Francisco have similar no-protest zones in place.
So good it deserves repeating! AMEN.
So lets get on the ball folks and send some more letters to our politicians and make sure they know that some of us aren't happy about 25,000 dead shredded aborted babies every week!
That's not what we do.
I don't have to "check the stats." I grew up around the corner from an abortion clinic. My brother and I used to have lunch at the Jack in the Box next door in the summertime. I got to know some of the staff, who claimed that they were threatened on a daily basis by Operation Rescue. Operation Rescue harassed a gynecologist nearby that performed abortions for his patients and after he moved due to said harassment, they harassed the people who bought his house. I've witnessed this harassment and I've seen the evidence.
And regrettably there have been a very few murders and bombings.
Regrettably? Do you think that it's OK to murder people in the name of saving embryos? I'm afraid that you and I disagree there.
But the media protrays it as more common than it is. There was a lot more violence by Vietnam protestors and civil rights activists, but no one suggests their rights should have been curtailed. They were generally able to get away with illegal acts.
I was born after the Vietnam War ended, so I don't know anything about that. I have, however, seen protesters harass and manhandle people and I think that in light of the threats that have been made at most clinics across the country and the isolated bombings and shootings, it's probably not a bad idea to keep the protesters out of arm's reach. They haven't lost their right to protest...just their right to protest within spitting distance. There's a difference.
A swing and a miss. Comparing abortion to the Holocaust won't win you any points with me.
I agree. Instead of caring about the children and being compassionate, a lot of pro-lifers just scream abuse at women and their partners, doctors, nurses, and anyone else who works in the building. There are some pro-life groups that work through churches, providing pre-natal care and help to pregnant women in desperate situations, proving that they actually care about these women and their unborn children. People who "protest" at abortion clinics are usually just zealous bullies.
I see what you mean. The Holocaust only took an average of one million people a year. No comparison.
Sorry. I'm pro-choice. Evidently I didn't make that clear. I'm not going to be dragged into an argument about abortion, so don't try. I used to be pro-life, then I listened to what the other side had to say...and changed my mind. I've seen the silent scream video and all the pictures of aborted fetuses...hell, I used to hand them out...so don't waste your time.
Interesting reasoning. You saw it happen at one clinic, therefore it happens at "most clinics". Is that the best you can do?
Pick up a phone book and start calling clinics. Ask them if they've ever been threatened or harassed. I bet you my left breast most of them will say "yes."
What "biological fact" are you referring to?
Maybe not, but there are groups that do that and end up playing right into the hands of the liberal media and pro-abortion groups.
If you lose the PR battle, you become a fringe minority and your attempts to prevent abortion become completely hopeless. In the long-run, this is a hearts-and-minds battle.
You said you listened to the pro-choicers' ideas, and changed your mind. What, exactly, were their ideas?
Yep...I know what goes on. I've even seen the tools. My old gynecologist in Texas did abortions for her current patients and I asked her to show me her instruments, which she did. I asked her to tell me exactly what happens, and she did. I know what happens, and I am fine with it.
You said you listened to the pro-choicers' ideas, and changed your mind. What, exactly, were their ideas?
Fair question. First, I agreed with them that no woman should be forced to bear a child she doesn't want. I don't think that any child that is unwanted should be born. One could make the argument that there are "lots" of families wanting to adopt children, but most of those families want babies only, and white babies at that...while many of the women having abortions are minorities...so their children, even if given up for adoption, would be just as likely to languish in homes or experiencing the disruption of constantly moving from one foster family to another as they are to be adopted by a "loving" family...and who says that family will be loving? Most parents who want to adopt are not open-minded enough to adopt a child of a different race. Would I rather a child spend his or her childhood feeling unwanted and unloved, or be terminated before ossification occurs? In that situation, I know what I'd want.
Also, a woman is a sentient being....a sentient being with rights. An embryo (which is usually what is aborted...it only becomes a fetus after the eighth week) is not a sentient being with rights. I believe that a woman's rights supercede those of the embryo.
In addition, women would seek abortions whether abortions were legal or not. Women would be forced to put their health at risk if abortion were criminalized...and it's hard to look at a young woman dying of sepsis on a gurney and think to yourself, "she deserved it." At least for me it is. Also, sometimes the embryo or fetus survives the attempted abortion and is born disfigured and deformed and lives the rest of its life in pain. I don't think anyone should have to go through that.
In the case of rape or health, I think no woman should have to bear the child of her rapist. I've heard theories about how pregnancies from rape are rare. They are, but pregnancies resulting from a single sexual episode are rare, whether a woman consented to it or not. Case in point...it takes most couples six months to a year of constant, regular intercourse to get pregnant. In the case of health, there are many congenital deformities and diseases that will kill a child in infancy, childhood, or adolescence. Anencephaly is a good example; it is the near-total absence of a brain and spinal cord. Proceeding with such a pregnancy unnecessarily puts the mother's life in danger, since the anencephalic child almost always dies days after being born...if it survives the pregnancy. Some couples may choose to abort a child with cystic fibrosis. You may think this is cruel, but as a child I had a babysitter with cystic fibrosis. She lived longer than her doctors thought she would...to the ripe old age of 23. Her life was a constant struggle with medications, hospital stays, infections, and watching her friends with C.F. die one after the other, knowing that she had the same disease and that it would kill her in the prime of life. I'd rather abort a baby than have it live that way. This girl was never happy.
I'll stop here. If you have more questions, bring them to me privately. I will refuse to answer further questions in public; I have spoken my peace and as I said before, I am not going to be dragged into yet another pointless argument about abortion.
Sorry, I didn't realize that someone forced you to read & reply to this thread against your will.
Excuse the $hit out of me for honestly answering a fair question and not wanting to hijack a thread.
I promise that as far as you're concerned, Sloth, it'll never happen again.
Would I rather a child spend his or her childhood feeling unwanted and unloved, or be terminated before ossification occurs? In that situation, I know what I'd want.
I find it rather presumtuous to make life-and-death decisions for another person based on our expectation of how good or bad their lives might be. And of course, ossification has nothing to do with it. If projected quality of life is a valid criterion for ending someone's like at the embryonic stage, it is just as valid when they are, say, three years old (aside from the sentience issue raised next). Putting a three year old to death could easily be done painlessly, at your local veterinary office.
Also, a woman is a sentient being....a sentient being with rights. An embryo (which is usually what is aborted...it only becomes a fetus after the eighth week) is not a sentient being with rights.
This presumes that sentience is a precondition for the possession of human rights, which is "begging the question" when it comes to abortion.
I believe that a woman's rights supercede those of the embryo.
So do I, just as any parent's rights supercede those of any minor child. However, those rights do not include killing with impunity.
In addition, women would seek abortions whether abortions were legal or not.
Men would commit rape whether it was legal or not. Irrelevant to public policy.
Also, sometimes the embryo or fetus survives the attempted abortion and is born disfigured and deformed and lives the rest of its life in pain. I don't think anyone should have to go through that.
My left arm has been paralyzed since birth. My wife was born with multiple congenital heart defects, including the virtual absence of a pulmonary artery, and several other problems, which still limit her abilities even after several surgeries. I suppose we should have been put out of our respective miseries back when we were too young to object. Sieg heil!
Anencephaly is a good example; it is the near-total absence of a brain and spinal cord. Proceeding with such a pregnancy unnecessarily puts the mother's life in danger, since the anencephalic child almost always dies days after being born...if it survives the pregnancy.
OK, but a child who is essentially brain-dead is quite different from CF:
Some couples may choose to abort a child with cystic fibrosis. You may think this is cruel, but as a child I had a babysitter with cystic fibrosis. She lived longer than her doctors thought she would...to the ripe old age of 23. Her life was a constant struggle with medications, hospital stays, infections, and watching her friends with C.F. die one after the other, knowing that she had the same disease and that it would kill her in the prime of life. I'd rather abort a baby than have it live that way. This girl was never happy.
Why didn't you kill her when you had the chance? Obviously one only has a right to live if they have a reasonable expection of being "happy." In the opinion of someone else, of course.
By the way, due to my wife's aforementioned health problems, we will be adopting rather than having children naturally. And we intend to accept children of any ethnicity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.