Thursday, April 28, 2011

GAP at Kennesaw State, November 8 & 9, 2010

Some of the foot and pedal traffic.

The girl in the green jacket.

Some kind of officers.

One half of a conversation.

GAP at UTK, November 16 & 17, 2010

One moment in the busy foot traffic passing the display.

Friday, April 22, 2011

Representative Susan Fisher: "Overkill"

Interview with NC Representative Susan Fisher of Buncombe County

On The Morning Report with Jerri Jamison of WWNC, April 22, 2011

The relative section on HB 215, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, begins at about 6 minutes and 07 seconds.

Jamison: "The unborn violence act has been through both chambers, it’s now waiting for the governor’s signature. Any thought on whether or not she’s gunna sign it. Do you know?"

Fisher: “I really don’t know. Ah, but, ah . . . I just want to say that, ah, I think that is a case where we are looking at, ah, a bit of, if you will, overkill. Ah, we know that if someone is murdered by another person and you can prove that, that they’re going to be punished, and, ah, they’re gunna likely to have a very, ah, a very, stiff sentence . . . death, possibly. And this, just sort of compounds that and I think it also opens the door to looking at questions of, ah, women’s choice. I think we have to look at that in light of this legislation.”

Representative Fisher, who voted against the measure,* demonstrates how extreme the classic “pro-choice” position is. If a pregnant woman is against abortion, if she believes that what is in her womb is a person, a child, and if she is attacked either with intent to destroy the child or not, that child, from the “pro-choice” perspective, should not have a right to life, should not have a right to protection under the law. In the “pro-choice” universe, that wanted and loved child—that possibly named child, that pre-born child who can inherit property under North Carolina law—should have no legal protection whatsoever.

Fisher says that if a woman is murdered, there will be a stiff sentence, but what if the woman is only punched hard and the baby dies?

Overkill? She said overkill? Abortion is overkill. “Pro-choice” is overkill.

For the text of the ratified bill, HB 215, go to:

*Final passage in the NC House came at a vote of 77-40. In the NC Senate it was 45-4 with our own Martin Nesbitt voting “nay” with the other three. Patsy Keever of Buncombe County also voted against the measure as did Phillip Haire of Jackson, Macon, Swain, and Haywood counties. (Do the people in those counties know this about Haire?)

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

The Genocide Awareness Project, University of Kentucky, April 6 & 7, 2011

Notice how the students are looking, and they are probably thinking also.

Class change. Note how all heads are turned in the distant group of students on the left. (Click on any photo if you want to see a larger image.)

My role at GAP is Onsite Manager. Also, when the opportunity arises, I enjoy philosphical discussions as well as talking about the relationships between abortion and genocide. Taking photographs . . . I do that as well.

I'm not sure if this medical student understands the full message of the visuals, her with the images behind.

Another photo of traffic in this location during class changes. The images are an ongoing argument that people will remember. We are criticized, sometimes with exuberant emotion, for using "pathos" rather than reason. As those critics illustrate, emotion is important--really it is essential--for decision making. I myself first opposed abortion only after seeing gruesome images at the Clark County fair (WA State) in 1972. Later I developed a rational framework for the position and only much later I became active. The purpose of GAP is to move people a step toward being more pro-life, wherever they may be on the spectrum. Be sure to see the next two blog postings for more photos of GAP at UK.

Conversations at UK GAP

Two observers who . . .

. . . came closer to talk.

This fellow walked around the display several times one afternoon. His sign said, "Quit using abortion as an insurance policy for your irresponsibility." He was not connected with the Genocide Awareness Project.

Fletcher Armstrong, SE Director of the Center for Bioethical Reform is speaking to a class.

Below: Sean, President of UK Students for Life.


Planned Parenthood had a table both days not far from the GAP display.

Also, PP and the Gay/Straight Alliance held a rally outside of the Student Center on the second day. Their crowd wasn't this large the whole time. One of their participants was a large fellow who had bellowed and cackled madly at us at the GAP display. He also bellowed and roared at the open air preacher. I suggested to the GSA girl that they try to talk him down.

Here is the open air preacher right next to the PP rally. He and the rally people often dueled with their loudspeakers. The girl with the GSA sign told us three times that she appreciated the quiet respectful tone of GAP. I pretty much agreed with everything the preacher said, but I felt that he was not communicating with his audience. On a college campus I think it is better to explain rather than proclaim.

Traffic passing the PP rally AND one of our 3x4 handheld "Choice" signs.

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

A Blast from the Past, As They Say

Just as stories like this about the failed bomb in Asheville will never have not existed, the children who have been killed at "Femcare" over the many years will always have existed.

Monday, April 18, 2011

"Let's Call a Truce" (That is, You lose.)

In response to a 4/14/11 editorial "Abortion debate is a stalemate" in the Eastern Progress, the newspaper of Eastern Kentucky University, I posted the following comment: nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn 'Neutrality between neutrality and non-neutrality is impossible. This editorial is a work of art. It begins with an appearance of neutrality, of impartially, of reasonableness, and then step by little step ends in the classic pro-abortion choice position! It's a work of art, but as a work of philosophy and rational thought, it's . . . well, it's not elegant at all. If abortion is a moral grey area; if the discussion/debate can never be settled; if we never can know when an individual human being begins, and if we as a society are not willing to live with knowingly allowing women to abort children who they consider to be unwelcome occupants of their womb, then wouldn't it be morally required to error on the side of humanity and prohibit abortion? Is it morally acceptable for a contractor to level a building if there is any chance a child is in that building? Is it enough for a workman to say, "Well, its grey . . . dark inside and I looked around, but I couldn't see too good. Some of us say there's a child inside and some say not. Let's stop bickering and bring her down. After all, the owner is the only one who can make that decision and he wants it done. The company ought to make a contribution to some historical preservation society so we don't have to blow up so many buildings." No. That would not be morally (or legally) acceptable. The demolition company must have absolute certainty that there are no children, or any people, in the building. So, if abortion indeed is grey and uncertain, shouldn't we prohibit it and take care of women another way until we know better? Because if the anti-legal-abortion people are right, if we are not just crazy, extreme kooks with a need to control women, if an individual human being (a person) begins at fertilization, then we as a society have already blown up millions upon millions of children.' nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
We were at EKU with the Genocide Awareness Project on April 4 & 5. To see the editorial, go to: