. . . because action speaks louder than words.
League history, NOW v. Scheidler, Action News, Joe Scheidler, League staff
Q & A on abortion, the unborn child, where we stand on the issues and more
Helping abortion-bound women choose life for their babies
Unmasking the truth about abortion in the public square
Our youth outreach, raising up a new generation of pro-life leaders
Abortion industry converts tell the inside story
News and commentary from the Pro-Life Action League
News and commentary from the Pro-Life Action League
Do you recognize this man? This is the student from the School of the Art Institute of Chicago who attacked our signs and tried to steal my camera, right after I shot this picture of him.
As I distributed literature in downtown Chicago last week, I heard some crazy excuses for not taking my pamphlet (and thus educating themselves about abortion).
My top two favorites were, “I’m too old to have children” and “I’m not an American, so I try to stay out of it.”
It’s like people think they’re not allowed to take a position on abortion because they’re not planning to have one. This is one of the pro-aborts favorite arguments: “If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one.”
I like the answer given by author Jamie Whyte in his book Crimes Against Logic:
Begging the question is especially common in disputes about prohibition… [T]hose on the liberal side often appeal to some general principle of tolerance, despite the position of their prohibitionist adversaries being precisely that the behavior at issue is intolerable. The most egregious example occurs in the abortion debate, where a common riposte to those who would criminalize it runs, “If you believe abortion is wrong, that’s fine, don’t abort your pregnancies. But show tolerance toward others who don’t share your beliefs.” Surely everyone, whatever their personal views, ought to be pro-choice…
Anti-abortionists don’t think abortion is some kind of lifestyle faux pas, like serving white wine with beef or driving a 4×4 despite never having seen the countryside. They think it’s murder. They think killing a fetus is no different morally from killing an adult…
Tolerance is irrelevant in the abortion debate. If abortion isn’t murder, toleration isn’t required; if it is murder, tolerating it would be a vice. (p. 109-110, emphasis added.)
Like Whyte explains, pro-lifers are against abortion because abortion is intolerable. It is an issue of morality and of basic human rights. This is something everyone needs to take a stand against because it is immoral.
And yet people think they can stay out of the debate by simply saying they don’t have a preference!
The funny thing about tolerance as a liberal virtue, though, is that those who claim we should tolerate all abortions are the same people flinging our signs into the street.
I continue to find it sadly ironic that people who call putting a crucifix in urine “art” are the same people who cannot bear to see the reality of one of America’s most common medical procedures.
Shouldn’t a student of the School of the Art Institute of Chicago be one of the most liberal, tolerant people in the world? Instead, he’s the one tossing our signs in the street and trying to steal my video camera so I can’t record his illegal activities.
In order to charge this young man with his crimes, though, the Chicago Police must first know his identity. If you recognize this man, please call Officer Glen Lorenty at 312-744-8263 regarding case HS408508.
One particularly angry man came by on Tuesday while we were showing our signs to the evening commuters. I’ll call him “Mr. Pinstripe.”
Since he was swearing at our volunteers and at me, I trailed him, keeping my video camera on to document anything illegal he might do. Mr. Pinstripe posed for a picture, giving me the bird.
As he walked down the street, he spit on the ground so I’d have to walk through it (but with the sidewalk being ten feet wide, I easily sidestepped it). Then he farted so I’d have to smell it behind him—it was very reminiscent of the Monty Python skit, “I fart in your general direction.”
This man was unique among all the people I’ve met doing Face The Truth over the years, and that’s saying something.
The debate I captured between Mr. Pinstripe and a pro-life teen, Alex, was priceless. Unfortunately the streets of Chicago are pretty loud, but you should be able to hear enough to hear Alex schooling this man. The actual exchange was over 15 minutes long (talk about pro-life patience!), but these excerpts should give you an idea of their discussion.
Mr. Pinstripe was very angry that someone under the age of 18 would even be holding a sign—referring several times to the teenage girl he spoke to before confronting Alex. The funny thing is, when she told him that she was old enough to have aborted a baby like the one she was holding a picture of, he couldn’t handle her answer and walked away.
The man said he thinks a person has sole dominion over his or her own body, thus no one should be able to tell a woman not to have an abortion. I answered that argument above: It’s murder, so we do get to have an opinion on the subject.
And of course Mr. Pinstripe made the usual argument about the unborn baby not being able to care for itself. Alex replied by saying that if his eight year old brother was left completely to his own devices he’s not sure his brother would survive either: Does that make his eight year old brother less than human?
My favorite moment, though, comes when Know-It-All tries to answer Alex’s argument that abortion is deadlier than childbirth, but…um…but…
Priceless.
When Mr. Pinstripe’s friend called to ask where he was and why he was late, he bragged that he’d been “harassing the anti-choice protesters.” I’ll bet he forgot to mention to his friend that he was out-debated by a teenager.
Thank you to our tireless volunteers who came out to our 24 stops, showing the truth of abortion last week and thank you to all who prayed for our work.
You know the value of this mission, and you know that we do need to have an opinion about the murder of over a million children each year in America.
[Back to Top]Note: Visitor comments do not necessarily reflect the views of the Pro-Life Action League.
We welcome a free and open exchange of ideas on the Pro-Life Hotline, from all points of view, but we request that you restrict your remarks to the topic(s) presented in the entry above.
To ensure constructive dialog, the following will not be tolerated:
You may use HTML code to style your comments.
‘[T]hose on the liberal side often appeal to some general principle of tolerance, despite the position of their prohibitionist adversaries being precisely that the behavior at issue is intolerable.’ - I find this statement to be self-serving. Those of us who are pro-choice find anti-abortionist behavior intolerable. The Taliban consider educating women intolerable, do you support their right to take the heinous actions they often do in regard to their position on this and other factors?
Spitting, rude gestures and grabbing and throwing signs is unacceptable behavior. So is displaying large graphic images of fetuses in a public place, aborted or not.
The current controversy within the catholic church in regards to sex abuse is unacceptable. To equate that with the ordination of women priests in their hierarchy of ’sins’ is intolerable.
The point is, there is no firm basis on which you can claim to be ‘right’ and the rest of society ‘wrong’.
Posted July 20, 2010 at 6:02 pm
to eric: How is this for a firm basis? A life is a life is a life. Is it wrong to take the life of an innocent child for any reason? A woman does have free will and the right to make choices regarding “her body” but what the issue is here is the “life of the baby - in her body.” Does she have the right to destroy that life? That is the question.
Posted July 20, 2010 at 7:05 pm
Yes she does. That is the answer.
Posted July 20, 2010 at 7:57 pm
to Eric,
Does she also have the right to not destroy that life?
Posted July 20, 2010 at 8:28 pm
I have heard said that just because we can, does that mean we should? I don’t read any one bring up the Natural Law. An existing law or action is never right if it offends against certain self-evident principles of the natural law.
A woman exercising her free will by taking the life of her child is not really free at all. Human life has great value.
Posted July 21, 2010 at 3:56 am
Fran, there are innumerable laws which offend against certain self-evident principles of natural law, some of which you would approve and some I would. But is there a clearly defined and agreed set of them anyway?
‘A woman exercising her free will by taking the life of her child is not really free at all’ - is this statement anything more than subjective?
Posted July 21, 2010 at 4:35 am
Eric — You’re making assertions without backing them up. You seem to admit in comment 3 that the baby is a separate entity and the mother has the right to take its life. Why? On what basis does the baby not have the same human rights as the mother, starting with the right to not be killed?
As for natural law, the principles behind it have been the principles holding up our justice system and government as a whole since its founding. Our constitution is based on principles that the founding fathers saw as self-evident. If it’s not self-evident that human beings ought not to be killed for other human beings’ convenience, I’m not sure we have much of a basis for dialog here.
Let’s start with the basis of human rights, if you want to start somewhere. Do all humans deserve the same rights? If so, why? If not, why not?
All the best,
Matt
Posted July 21, 2010 at 9:35 am
I am a student of SAIC and I am offended that you have lumped my consciousness with that of the other hundreds of students at this institute as though we were one entity. I try to listen to many points of view, but I am also able to be critical about my environment. The signs that you held up were simply for shock value. These posters do not inspire me to initiate a thoughtful discussion about abortion with you. They make me upset at YOU for being disrespectful to me by shoving pictures of mutilated fetuses in my face. Maybe if you had visual studies you would understand that this is not a useful way to gain new audiences. On the other hand Serrano’s art is effective because on first glance, the image is beautiful. Then, you learn that the color is urine and are shocked. And then, a critical viewer is encouraged to contemplate the relationship between religion, the body, and society. It is a complex image, not simply shock and gore. Please be more cognisant of complexity. Things are not so black and white as your article and posters propose.
Posted July 21, 2010 at 10:27 am
Amelia — Nobody was lumping all SAIC students together as one entity. Corrina was pointing out that, if you’re tolerant of Serrano, who’s work offends a great many people, you ought to be tolerant of pictures that offend you.
What ought really to offend you is that one of your fellow students would resort to violence rather than deal with his anger in a rational manner.
And, for what it’s worth, the pictures may not inspire you to engage in dialog with pro-lifers, but they do inspire many people to dialog and, more importantly, they inspire many women to choose life for their babies.
Yours Sincerely,
Matt
Posted July 21, 2010 at 4:52 pm
Matt, I did not admit that the ‘baby’ is a separate entity. That is not my position.
You accuse me of making assertions without backing them up. Would you care to specify exactly where I did so, especially in light of your subsequent paragraph claiming self-evident principles.
Amelia, perhaps someone should stand on the sidewalk near catholic churches holding huge graphic images of people who have died as a result of the pedophilia and homophobia entrenched in that organisation.
Posted July 21, 2010 at 5:46 pm
Pictures of aborted fetuses are found offensive - the pictures are the consequence of abortion. What do you think happens when a woman has an abortion? The pictures show you. Why do people find the pictures offensive, but not the act that created them?
Eric, why do you find it necessary to go off on tangents? There are all sorts of topics to be discussed, but if this topic is abortion, stay with it. As for the other topics, we are all human and we all sin. I am not justifying or condoning wrong doing, but I am saying as long as there is man there will be evil.
I find it interesting that so many people can exclusively critique priests for pedophilia and homophobia. The same wrongs are done by ministers and rabbis and plumbers and carpenter, lawyers and doctors and sadly by mothers and fathers. It is not a sin that exists only in the Catholic Church.
Posted July 21, 2010 at 6:33 pm
Kay, have you ever seen footage of a hip replacement? Now that is a violent and gory image. What about a heart and lung transplant? Would you like to see huge graphic images of that on the street? Just because its ‘ugly’ or ‘gross’ doesn’t mean its not necessary and beneficial.
Abortion, yes. And all the associated campaigning that you conduct against it. Driven by the same factors which color your position on many other aspects of society.
In the catholic church it is institutionalized and systems and processes have been put in place to hide it and protect its perpetrators. A global organization which attempts to tell people how to live yet it has done what it’s done. Quite different to individual offenders like carpenters, doctors and lawyers.
If you acknowledge that god does not exist then satan cannot exist.
Posted July 21, 2010 at 7:39 pm
Eric:
Matt is referring to this exchange when he says you admit the baby is a separate entity:
Kay (Comment 2): “but what the issue is here is the “life of the baby - in her body.” Does she have the right to destroy that life? That is the question.
Eric (Comment 3): Yes she does. That is the answer.
It sure seems to me like you’re admitting the baby is separate and that the woman has a right to kill the child.
I went to the Museum of Science and Industry with my nieces a few months back, and the thing they remember most is the disgusting lung that they have on display to show what smoking does to your lungs. Now when you mention smoking, that’s what they bring up. There’s value in teaching by using pictures. Yes, a hip replacement is probably gross–but if I thought there was value in showing pictures of it, I would (but I don’t see value to it, so I won’t).
There’s a great value in showing people what abortion does to the unborn child, because it saves lives. And so, despite being assaulted, I will continue to show these photos.
Posted July 22, 2010 at 9:17 am
Well to be clear Corrina, I’m not. I just answered the question as it was couched in Kay’s terms. Perhaps I should have been clearer. It is not ‘a baby’, it is a fetus, it is not breathing on it’s own. And she does have the right to ‘destroy it’.
Posted July 22, 2010 at 5:57 pm
Is it a human fetus or a non-human fetus?
Posted July 22, 2010 at 6:28 pm
I think what he did was appropriate. You people are sick and deluded. You attack troubled, vulnerable young women and bully them. In giving children a right to life you forget that they require money to live. Many of these young women do not have the money to raise them. If they have these children they will be on the food stamps and WIC supplied by your tax dollars for the rest of their children’s lives and struggle but they gave their child life, right? Oh and then there is the arguement about adoption. What if the child doesnt get adopted and is in the foster system forced performing sexual favors for older, more damaged children. Bottom line, abortion needs to be an option.
The problem with you folks is that you only hear your side of things. A number of years ago I found myself a girl in trouble. I was with a man who refused to work and that was abusive. I had a drug problem, alcohol problem, and an eating disorder. The way the relationship was going to bring a child into it would have been a greater sin than having the abortion. The relationship ended with me taking legal action against the father and having to move and get a seperate mailing address. Could you imagine bringing a child into that?
Also, since I was a drug abuser, alcoholic, and bulimic, my child would have been born with numerous birth defects. To bring a defective child into this world is a bigger sin than your so called murder. Especially if I was going to give it up for adoption. I would have three people paying for my mistakes, the innocent child and his adoptive parents. Don’t think having this baby was going to spark love in my heart either. I was sick and wasnt about to stop using at anytime for anyone, including a child.
Well in case you are wondering I didn’t get to choose because I lost the baby. I guess you could say God took it away from me. I wasn’t eating, was doing a lot of drugs, and then miscarried which was more painful than you could ever imagine. According to people like you I killed my child. Maybe I did. At ten weeks old he went to heaven and that is probably the best place for him. I was too young, I wasn’t ready, and my life was too big of a mess. Since the breakup involved my ex trying to make an attempt on my life and me having to enter a drug program it was best that there wasnt a child involved.
If God hadn’t taken my child I would have gotten an abortion. I don’t regret saying this. A mother’s job is to make sure her child succeeds against all odds, and the odds of my kid doing well weren’t good. I knew that and in my heart that would have been the best decision for my child.
You folks have a tendency to be very closed minded and to point fingers. You have not had to walk the road that I and many other young women have had to walk. You do not know the pain of having to go through this alone. Why not refocus your energies to the living, breathing children who are being neglected and abused right now?
Gosh I hate to know what you people think of those with actual breathing problems like the people with AIDS? I know Mother Theresa was pro-life but she was about helping these women, not terrifying them into doing her will or else. She also was on the street ministering to the untouchables of India. Maybe just refocus your energies. Just saying….
Posted July 23, 2010 at 8:20 am
“Why not refocus your energies to the living, breathing children who are being neglected and abused right now?”
A child aborted is “neglected and abused” …….its denied life!
Our focus is to save its life.
Posted July 23, 2010 at 9:00 am
You know what amazes me about you people? You could care less about the millions of crack babies born to drug addicted mothers. You think those children are better off because they are given life? They are born forever impared and the most they will ever be able to do is bag groceries in the local supermarket in between drool sessions if they are lucky. What about the women who give birth to children whom they know have a disability like Downs Syndrome who when the mother dies the state will ultimately be responsible and that means your tax dollars. Do you want to finance someone who has an IQ of 60? What if a woman is raped and abused for hours and hours on end and gets pregnant because of that? Is it right for her to bring that child into the world.
Another thing that amazes me is that most pro-lifers are male. The father of my baby conviently walked away. Those who are pro-life assume a woman can just pop a child out. They are people who do not care that this vulnerable woman is financially stranded without any resources as her dead beat partner walks the land possibly impregnating more women. She also gets the curse of being labeled for one mistake she makes. That should not be the woman’s cross the bear. Abortion eliminates this hederosexual male double standard you work so hard to perpetuate.
Lastly, what is most disgusting about the pro-life movement is the way you intimidate vulnerable, troubled women who made one mistake by telling them to “take responsibility.” We all make mistakes. However a baby is a costly mistake. Parenthood is a big step and a huge task. If you aren’t ready to do it don’t do it. There are millions of young women victim to your propaganda that bring children into this world and aren’t ready and are on welfare for generation after generation. That in itself is a sin and is unforgivable.
The disgusting thing is that you would kick an AIDS patient for being gay because that goes against God or a needle junkie who was probably neglected by someone like myself in their using days because she ultimately decided to listen to your horrible advice and bring the child into the world. Mother Theresa ministered with love and with kindness. You minister with terror. I am so sorry you have preverted her message with your photos of dead fetuses et al. According to you I am destined to go to hell. But you are judgemental and according to the Bible Jesus did not judge. If there is a hell I am sure you have a square next to mine. See you there.
Posted July 23, 2010 at 2:20 pm
“A mother’s job is to make sure her child succeeds against all odds, and the odds of my kid doing well weren’t good. I knew that and in my heart that would have been the best decision for my child.”
——————————————————————————-
I beg to disagree…a mother’s job is to love and raise the child as best as she can with the proper guidance ..whether the child does good or not in life will not be up to you. But with Life there is Hope.
Murdering an innocent, helpless unborn child is NEVER a good decision and kills all hope.
…and we fight for the life of the unborn since they have no voice…without life, the rest of the problems you spoke of will be moot.
Posted July 23, 2010 at 2:26 pm
Ella — Thanks for commenting. You raised a ton of issues in your two posts, most of which you can find answers or more information on at our FAQ page if you’re interested.
But I must take issue with your insistence that assaulting a teenager, and old woman and battering another woman (these are the police’s terms for what this man did, not mine) is appropriate action, even if you vehemently disagree with our viewpoint.
Is violence really the best way to express your disagreement with someone else’s opinions?
Yours sincerely,
Matt
Posted July 23, 2010 at 4:27 pm