Posted on 05/28/2002 7:10:25 AM PDT by TroutStalker
Edited on 04/22/2004 11:46:33 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
DENVER -- As soon as he saw the blue minivan turning into the parking lot of Planned Parenthood's small abortion clinic here, Kenneth Scott grabbed his digital camera, clambered up his rickety metal ladder and started snapping pictures.
"You'll have nightmares about this day the rest of your life," he bellowed, photographing the blond woman gingerly leaving the minivan. Then he turned his camera to her escort. "Your sin won't be hidden or forgotten," he screamed.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Do you also feel this way about cities that post photos on the web of criminals (johns and prostitutes arrested by vice squads among other crimes)?
At least law enforcement is prohibited from "cruel" and "unusual" punishment. The posters of the abortion clinic photos are private citizens posting images shot from the public street. I agree that they shouldn't make any presumption that they are getting an operation I don't see that they are violating the law or "privacy" by photographing the people.
I question how they may be getting medical records but driver's license information is a matter of public record that anyone can obtain. Maybe we should be able to know the names/contact of all people/organizations/companies that obtain our DL information and such purchasers should be prohibited from selling this data but we all know that marketing firms (junk mail, telemarketers, and more) buy up this data and then sell in bulk to others.
Tracking down everyone that has "pinged" your driver's license data (to obtain DOB, home address, etc.) is impossible.
I've always let those in my circle of friends and those at the office always know, I'm going to the dentist this afternoon.
Wouldn't be a "big thing" to have my photo on the web for being "caught" leaving the dentist.
Those who are complaining that this is harassment must not believe those little lies that they tell themselves that it is just like going to the dentist and that there is nothing shameful about it.
You mean that Paul "Pee Wee Herman" Rubens was doing it "wrong"? Is that why he was arrested?
From abortionfacts.com
Sorry, the "emotional suffering" that women allegedly go through from abortion isn't enough to motivate them to keep their knees together and/or use birth control. I happen to think that women who abort their babies don't suffer enough. Abortion is all too convenient, inexpensive, and consequence-free.
From abortionfacts.com
Sorry, the "emotional suffering" that women allegedly go through from abortion isn't enough to motivate them to keep their knees together and/or use birth control. I happen to think that women who abort their babies don't suffer enough. Abortion is all too convenient, inexpensive, and consequence-free.
Abortion is different, and it's not just a liberal issue.
You're right, but studies have also shown that it's on the minds of 0% of today's drunk, horny teenagers.
She has an agenda ArGee, a reason to lie or otherwise distort. Her objective is not to provide unbiased facts about the day-to-day operation of an abortion clinic, but to see that those places are shut down. Taking her word at face value would be foolish.
Non-starter, Zero. Her knowledge may be what is driving her agenda. The fact that she cares passionately about something is not a valid basis for ignoring what she says. The information she provides may very well be (is, in this case) the reason she has the agenda.
In other words, her agenda may be based on the truth.
On what is your agenda based?
Shalom.
Possibly, but I'd need cooberation from an unbiased source before I took her word at face value. Part of the reason that I don't watch network news (FOX, CNN, etc.) is that I don't like my sources to have a bias. CNN has a centrist bias and won't report some stories, FOX has a right-leaning bias and while they might tell me what I want to hear, it's not always the whole story.
I think that you might be taking this woman's words at face value because she tells you what you want to hear, a little of the truth mixed with a little fabrication. An omission here, an addition there, all in the name of the cause; it's an easy trap to fall in to.
On what is your agenda based?
As much objective information as I can get my hands on. It's not easy, but I do the best that I can.
You don't own the "original." Nobody has to change any definition. You have yours, they have theirs. It is a perfectly reasonable position that a lump of cells is not yet a human in any meaningful sense -- no matter how high you crank your religion-based hate machines.
Excerpt from "Abortion-Breast Cancer Lawsuit Goes to Trial":" It is widely held among physicians and scientists acknowledging an abortion-breast cancer link that 26 out of 32 published studies on the subject worldwide and 12 out of 13 studies in the United States support the notion.
Contrary to your uninformed claim, the abortion-breast cancer link has the science on its side so far, though the issue is far from settled.
Unfortunately, in this age of PC science, where the conclusion is too often pre-ordained and the evidence is gathered/altered to fit the pre-ordained conclusion, I have to question anything coming out of Denmark without a great deal of further review, especially considering the following comments on the study from a California doctor (April 9, 2002):
This study was so full of holes that reputable medical journals are reluctant to run it any more, without some kind of a disclaimer. Dr. Joel Brind the author of the only comprehensive review and meta-analysis of scientificstudies concerning the link between induced abortion and breast cancer risk exposed the many flaws in it. When the flaws were removed, the study did show that abortions do increase the risk of breast cancer. When he shredded the Danish study to pieces, he pointed out the specific flaws. He showed where the math did not add up. He showed what was left
I will ask you again--What happens at conception if not life?
Publishing addresses and Drivers' License numbers is unwarranted harrassment in and of itself, and invites those with a screw loose to engage in further harrassment--all of which serves to hurt the pro-life movement in the long-run.
What an inane claim. Periodicals only published studies once.
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.