Abortion Protesters Use Cameras, Raise New Legal Issues, Lawsuits

The Wall Street Journal ^ | Tuesday, May 28, 2002 | YOCHI J. DREAZEN

[TroutStalker]

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.

[mondonico]

As a new father, I'm very disturbed by abortion, and I certainly am opposed to government support and public funding of it. But, having visited abortioncams.com, I don't think this tactic is right. It may be legal, but seeing the pictures of these poor women made me sad and a little ashamed of intruding on them.

[ravingnutter]

My verdict:

The women entering the clinic are in a public place and therefore have no reasonable expectation to privacy. However, posting their personal medical records goes beyond the pale and is a gross invasion of their privacy. That practice should stop immediately.

[sinkspur]

Those of us that believe that there are truly babies being murdered in there, we should be doing more to stop it.

Like what?

[catonsville]

Hey, yeah, let's take pictures of people going into a weightloss clinic and post their pictures on the web -- we could call the site "God hates fatties too.

Let's also put cameras in front of all the strip clubs and gay joints in every town in America, than show the pictures of the customers on the internet.

[Frank Grimes]

whatever you think would help. I'm not recommending anything illegal, but if people feel strong enough that they would go to jail in support for their cause, then they have to decide if it is worth it to them.

[jlogajan]

You cannot have a 'difference of opinion' where killing is concerned.

Not only is it a reasonable belief that a small clump of cells is NOT a human in any meaningful sense -- any other claim is a matter of religious faith ONLY. So yes, there is a very REASONABLE basis to disagree on the morality or immorality of abortion. Only the self-righteous holier-than-thou's preclude any possible disgreement from their revealed truth.

[Cultural Jihad]

Only the self-righteous holier-than-thou's preclude any possible disgreement from their revealed truth.

What if someone thinks that murder liberates the bound soul, and is a good thing? Are you, a holier-than-thou libertarian, going to try to force your morality onto the murderer based upon your disagreement of their 'revealed truth'?

[VRWC_minion]

Only the self-righteous holier-than-thou's preclude any possible disgreement from their revealed truth.

FWIW, I was vehemently against abortion before accepting Christ. Based on a personal experience of driving a woman to an abortion clinic, who decided not to abort. Upon seeing the precious child later at four years old I could no longer look at abortion the same.

It was many years later that I accepted Christ and found that scripture is actually silent on the issue.

[moneyrunner]

You are a rather insignificant clump of cells yourself in a universe that does not care about you. Any other claim is either an act of incredible hubris, or a matter of religious faith. The morality of the decision to terminate your existence depends totally on the morality of the person who accomplishes this act since there appears to be no universal standard on this issue. Of course there are some self-righteous holier-than-thou's who would call that act wrong, but they are operating from a religious perspective which has no legitimacy in a logical universe.

[Diamond]

The simply do not agree with you about the definition of when a human becomes a human. That is a reasonable thing to disagree about.

When what becomes a human?

There is no rational, ontological or scientific basis for re-defining who is a human being, and your self-contradictory use of the word "human" proves it.

Cordially,

[jlogajan]

There is no rational, ontological or scientific basis for re-defining

You jumped to quickly to square number two. Forget "re-defining." Start with "defining." You are smuggling an assumption that YOU own the original definition. Prove it.

[jlogajan]

too

[JMJ333]

There is nothing self-righteous about having mercy on the innocent and defenseless.

And quit trying to redefine when life begins--it happens at conception there is no other honest answer. If it isn't a human life at conception, then a woman isn't pregnant. Period.

Intrinsic human dignity begin at that moment--quit trying to snuff this beautful truth out by championing a lie used to promote selfish free sex, which is never free. It has deadly consequences for many.

[=Intervention=]

Uhm....self-righteous hating whom? The woman? No...she is decieved and in store for a life of guilt and emotional, not to mention physical pain (most abortions are slapdash procedures). Not to mention the cancer and infection risks. Hating the child? That would be whom we're trying to save. The doctor? The Bible clearly teaches, "Love the sinner; hate the sin." Whom exactly would the pro-life people be hating again?

[=Intervention=]

Let's get this straight -- taking a picture is hate speech? Taking a picture (i.e. JOURNALISM) is hate? Better be careful then. You shouldn't read or sanction any kind of expose`s on companies or groups in your local newspaper. After all, they have photos and have definite opinions, some of which might inspire violence or protests...

[=Intervention=]

Why not? I'll bet that the newspapers of frontier towns did much the same in their day...

[jlogajan]

Not to mention the cancer and infection risks.

There is no link between abortion and breast cancer -- as shown by a massive Denmark study. Live birth is 8 times more risky to the mother than abortion.

[jlogajan]

You are asking whether there is hate? Or whether there should be laws against hat?

I'm saying these self-righteous holier-than-thous are filled with hate. Deal with it as you will.

[jlogajan]

hate, not hat

[jlogajan]

quit trying to redefine when life begins

You self-rigtheous holier-than-thou types think you own the only possible definition. Well, you don't.