[Rusha]

Originally Posted by Stripe

What would those be?

Do I really need to spell it out for your Stripe or are you just feigning ignorance?

A quick fix would mean making someone temporarily miserable enough to leave THAT day. Irritating someone who does not agree with you only means they will leave to avoid a confrontation. That does not mean they won't go elsewhere.

The goal should be reaching them with logic AND empathy so that their mind is permanently changed.

I see little difference. You're simply using "intimidation" as if it's a bad thing. Sure, it's intimidating to mothers going in to kill their children to find people who vocally oppose abortion outside the facility. But then there is hardly going to be a non-intimidating way to tell someone their plan amounts to murder.

Perhaps they will.

When intimidation is used rather than logic, empathy and support, then YES, it is a bad thing. My goal is that that the attitude in ALL of society changes so that soon2b moms are treated with decency and respect rather than stigmatizing them and making them feel more hopeless.

I don't care whether or not you agree with my softer, not in your face approach or not. The concern should be the birth and well being of the unborn child and mother both before and after giving birth rather than making Stripe feel all morally superior about himself.

[Lighthouse]

Originally Posted by Green Goblin

Do you truly believe that he's listening to you and respects you as sensible people with your signs and loudspeakers and FRIGGING CROSSES ON HIS FRONT LAWN?? (and don't even pretend you don't know what type of idea that kind of imagery brings up in people)

It's more likely to change his mind then knocking on his door and being timid.

No child killing with tranquility.

As for the cross, how big is it? Whenever I see a small white cross it signifies that someone died. And they are either found at a grave [as a marker] or the location of their death. Mostly on the side of the road to indicate deaths in accidents.

All the protestors are doing is being annoying. He went right back to the office the following week, and I bet he doesn't feel the least bit guilty about it either. I wouldn't either. If he logically disagrees with your philosophy on the matter, than explaining it in a loud and more annoying manner doesn't help in the least bit.

It's an attempt. And it will keep happening, until he stops. It also alerts his neighbors to the fact he's a murderer of children. Those who agree with us in his neighborhood will shun him upon this news. And may even join in the protests.

P.S.
The following week is next week. This protest took place on Monday. Also, he went back to work the following day [Tuesday].

[Granite]

Originally Posted by Green Goblin

Do you truly believe that he's listening to you and respects you as sensible people with your signs and loudspeakers and FRIGGING CROSSES ON HIS FRONT LAWN?? (and don't even pretend you don't know what type of idea that kind of imagery brings up in people)

All the protestors are doing is being annoying. He went right back to the office the following week, and I bet he doesn't feel the least bit guilty about it either. I wouldn't either. If he logically disagrees with your philosophy on the matter, than explaining it in a loud and more annoying manner doesn't help in the least bit.

This is really just a bunch of chest thumping to get noticed. And no, the symbolism is no accident.

Bringing intimidation to a neighborhood and involving perfec strangers who have no ties to the abortionist whatsoever is damaging, inappropriate, and simply twisted.

But there is no reasoning with zealots.

[Green Goblin]

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

It's more likely to change his mind then knocking on his door and being timid.

No. What might change his mind would be if you had conclusive scientific proof of something that his moral opinion could object to. In order to find that, however, you actually have to get to know the man, rather than simply focusing on the "baby killin'" part.

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

No child killing with tranquility.

Yeah, well, I suppose logic and reasoning are off the table...

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

As for the cross, how big is it? Whenever I see a small white cross it signifies that someone died. And they are either found at a grave [as a marker] or the location of their death. Mostly on the side of the road to indicate deaths in accidents.

You're an idiot. I honestly don't feel I even need to explain this.

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

It's an attempt. And it will keep happening, until he stops. It also alerts his neighbors to the fact he's a murderer of children. Those who agree with us in his neighborhood will shun him upon this news. And may even join in the protests.

This attempt did nothing more than disturb the peace. Honestly, if they were on my block, I'd be tempted to call the police and complain.

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

P.S.
The following week is next week. This protest took place on Monday. Also, he went back to work the following day [Tuesday].

Yeah, I got that. I think of the week starting with the first work day. I'm weird like that. You understand, right?

[Lighthouse]

Originally Posted by Green Goblin

No. What might change his mind would be if you had conclusive scientific proof of something that his moral opinion could object to. In order to find that, however, you actually have to get to know the man, rather than simply focusing on the "baby killin'" part.

And at what point will he allow that?

Yeah, well, I suppose logic and reasoning are off the table...

If he refuses to reason together they are.

You're an idiot.

How so? My question on the size of the cross makes it clear that I had yet to watch the video when I asked it. Assuming that I had watched the video and then proceeded to ask that question and make the following comments shows you to be an idiot.

Now, I have watched some of it, I'm waiting for it to lad to finish it, and I must ask, was the cross stuck into Mr. King's yard? Was it left there? Seeing as how stepping into his yard could get someone arrested I doubt it. the wheel on the bottom [for ease of transport] also makes it less likely to be stuck into the yard.

The protesters make it clear they are Christians. And the cross is a Christian symbol. Any assumption that it has racist ties, by anyone, in an event such as this is only made by morons.

This attempt did nothing more than disturb the peace. Honestly, if they were on my block, I'd be tempted to call the police and complain.

That's happened before. And it turns out these protests are not illegal. We all have the right to peaceably assemble.

Maybe you should look up the definition of 'disturbing the peace.'

[Green Goblin]

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

And at what point will he allow that?

Well, you would've had to establish a relationship with him BEFORE the whole protesting thing. They've most likely missed their chance.

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

If he refuses to reason together they are.

At that point then there's nothing you can do. To him individually anyways. Your message is falling on deaf ears and it's time to try another tactic.

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

How so? My question on the size of the cross makes it clear that I had yet to watch the video when I asked it. Assuming that I had watched the video and then proceeded to ask that question and make the following comments shows you to be an idiot.

Yes. how could i have been so dumb as to suspect that you'd actually take the time and watch the video that the entire topic is discussing. A topic that you have posted in repeatedly and given your opinion on. You're right. I'm the idiot. My mistake ¬_¬;

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

Now, I have watched some of it, I'm waiting for it to lad to finish it, and I must ask, was the cross stuck into Mr. King's yard? Was it left there? Seeing as how stepping into his yard could get someone arrested I doubt it. the wheel on the bottom [for ease of transport] also makes it less likely to be stuck into the yard.

The protesters make it clear they are Christians. And the cross is a Christian symbol. Any assumption that it has racist ties, by anyone, in an event such as this is only made by morons.

The Klan calls themselves Christian as well. I clearly don't think that anyone there has racist views. But the imagery it invokes is a clear drawback to the intimidation tactics used by the Ku Klux Klan. To deny that is to confirm your own stupidity.

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

That's happened before. And it turns out these protests are not illegal. We all have the right to peaceably assemble.

Maybe you should look up the definition of 'disturbing the peace.'

Yes. Peaceably.

Originally Posted by "Disturbing the Peace" Law Legal Definition

Disturbing the peace is a minor criminal offense that may be charged when someone makes excessive noise, especially in a residential area, such as by operation of any tool, equipment, vehicle, electronic device, set, instrument, television, phonograph, machine or other noise- or sound-producing device.

They're shouting (with megaphones) and singing in a residential area against the will of the residents. In my neighborhood, they'd be asked to leave by the police within 5 minutes.

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by Rusha

Do I really need to spell it out for your Stripe or are you just feigning ignorance?

I'm just wondering what you are suggesting might rightly fit as a comparison to these protests. Clearly it will be nothing legal, peaceful or right-minded.

A quick fix would mean making someone temporarily miserable enough to leave THAT day. Irritating someone who does not agree with you only means they will leave to avoid a confrontation. That does not mean they won't go elsewhere.

And a person who kept their child would be an example of a permanent fix.

The goal should be reaching them with logic AND empathy so that their mind is permanently changed.

OK. How do you suggest one go about that without "intimidating" people? Can you suggest a filter that would catch people as effectively as the one placed over the door to the abortuary?

When intimidation is used rather than logic, empathy and support, then YES, it is a bad thing. My goal is that that the attitude in ALL of society changes so that soon2b moms are treated with decency and respect rather than stigmatizing them and making them feel more hopeless.

Your goals are simply impossible. Why do you resist a group who has a similarly nice sounding but possible goal who are working within the law and getting results?

I don't care whether or not you agree with my softer, not in your face approach or not.

Your goal will never be achieved.

The concern should be the birth and well being of the unborn child and mother both before and after giving birth

What of that is not being done as well?

[Rusha]

Originally Posted by Stripe

And a person who kept their child would be an example of a permanent fix.

For that ONE person, yes. The goal should be saving ALL unborn children.

OK. How do you suggest one go about that without "intimidating" people? Can you suggest a filter that would catch people as effectively as the one placed over the door to the abortuary?

Unless AOD is overturned and made illegal, there is no way to filter people who might be considering abortion.

Your goals are simply impossible. Why do you resist a group who has a similarly nice sounding but possible goal who are working within the law and getting results?

Why are my goals any more impossible than your goals. The common goal should be to support these mothers in such a way that motherhood and the unborn is seen for what it is: a blessing. It is impossible to support a woman IF you are antagonizing them, demeaning them and intimidating them. That is bullying, and I don't know about you, but I personally do not bow down to bullies.

Your goal will never be achieved.

What of that is not being done as well?

And yours will? I don't think so. Pregnancy is currently seen as something to be stigmatized and feared. IF the goal is to support mothers in a way that they realize pregnancy is not the end of the world but rather a struggle that ends with the gift of a unique life, then as a whole, something has been achieved.

I want the pro-life movement to be seen in a positive light ... you know, one that wants to help and support women and their unborn babies. Have you missed the fact that a good portion of society sees pro-lifers as terrorist? As long as the majority of pro-lifers are seen as loons, the positive voices and forces will be ignored also.

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by Rusha

For that ONE person, yes. The goal should be saving ALL unborn children.

Is saving one child worthwhile, Rusha?

If a person's stated goal was to save a single child from being killed would you encourage them to achieve that goal? Or would you say that they should not act unless they wanted to save every child?

Unless AOD is overturned and made illegal, there is no way to filter people who might be considering abortion.

Yeah, there is. You can stand outside abortuaries and make your standards known in a peaceful and law-abiding manner.

Why are my goals any more impossible than your goals.

You will never achieve 100% compliance with your standards.

The common goal should be to support these mothers in such a way that motherhood and the unborn is seen for what it is: a blessing. It is impossible to support a woman IF you are antagonizing them, demeaning them and intimidating them. That is bullying, and I don't know about you, but I personally do not bow down to bullies.

There is no way to tell a mother that abortion is murder without intimidating her if she believes that abortion is not murder. Either you let go of your unwillingness to offend or you let go of your ideals for the sanctity of human life. You cannot have both.

And yours will?

You have no idea of what my goal is.

I don't think so. Pregnancy is currently seen as something to be stigmatized and feared. IF the goal is to support mothers in a way that they realize pregnancy is not the end of the world but rather a struggle that ends with the gift of a unique life, then as a whole, something has been achieved.

There's nothing wrong with that goal.

I want the pro-life movement to be seen in a positive light ... you know, one that wants to help and support women and their unborn babies.

OK, well .. you might not have heard this, but the opposition makes a living out of killing those children. It is in their best interests to continue to teach people that babies are not people.

And unfortunately their education system is very pervasive. So while you say things that sound nice, so do the abortionists. Sticking with your methods (whatever they are) will just see more of the same.

When change comes about it will be painful and difficult.

Have you missed the fact that a good portion of society sees pro-lifers as terrorist?

That's because it's easier to demonise the opposition rather than admitting your own culpability. If pro-lifers were to appear acceptable to pro-aborts the pro-lifer would have to stop standing for what he believed. Then he would no longer be a pro-lifer, right?

As long as the majority of pro-lifers are seen as loons, the positive voices and forces will be ignored also.

Or maybe they will win more people over with the facts.

If one child was saved would that not be worth the effort?

[Quincy]

Got to love protesters/boycotters. For every life they save they damned 10 more because of raising awareness. It's like a movie that gets boycotted. Everyone goes to see it to see what the fuss is about. Well, at least in the past before abortion exploded onto the scene. One has to wonder why it exploded onto the scene.

Anyways, I suppose people that do these things must feel warm and fuzzy on the inside after doing it? Forget the fact they make a mockery of their movement, I mean I would assume the dude is at work right now and has already forgot about this. I wouldn't waste my time doing this, I'll just vote pro-life when it matters if that is how I happen to see things at the time.

[Rusha]

Originally Posted by Stripe

Is saving one child worthwhile, Rusha?

Not if it prevents achieving the permanent goal of ending AOD. I believe these tactics enable the pro choicers to gain sympathy and aids them in their cause.

If a person's stated goal was to save a single child from being killed would you encourage them to achieve that goal? Or would you say that they should not act unless they wanted to save every child?

Nope, I would encourage pro lifers to save that one child, however, I have already stated that my approach is different. Why do you believe there is only one way to stop abortion? IF another way brings about a positive response in the pro-choice community, how would that not be THE desired outcome?

Yeah, there is. You can stand outside abortuaries and make your standards known in a peaceful and law-abiding manner.

You can believe that all you like, however, anyone that would leave due to protesters will just go elsewhere. I have debated this topic for years in other forums and one thing never changes: pro-choicers represent a unified front and are of one mind.

Should abortion be made illegal, they would work together to make an underground support system that would be responsible for getting woman across the borders into a place where abortion is legal.

Feel free to ask those on THIS forum if that is not the case, Stripe. Even if the law was changed tomorrow to make abortion illegal, it wouldn't matter. However, having a goal to prevent abortion by offering women and men who NEVER want to have children a permanent means of birth control (tubal ligation on demand) could make a difference.

Changing the way society treats women (as compared to men) who find themselves in unplanned pregnancies could also make a difference.

You will never achieve 100% compliance with your standards.

Your standards of intimidation have been used for the last few decades and the compliance level is minimal.

There is no way to tell a mother that abortion is murder without intimidating her if she believes that abortion is not murder. Either you let go of your unwillingness to offend or you let go of your ideals for the sanctity of human life. You cannot have both.

So instead of counseling women in regards to the joy of mother, the sanctity of life and the superior choices and rewards that motherhood represents, you prefer name calling and intimidation?

How's that working, Stripe?

You have no idea of what my goal is.

There's nothing wrong with that goal.

Unlike some people, I don't pretend to read other people's minds. However, by the way you represent yourself in this and other threads, I believe your goal has more to do with monitoring people's sex lives than actually saving the lives of the unborn.

OK, well .. you might not have heard this, but the opposition makes a living out of killing those children. It is in their best interests to continue to teach people that babies are not people.

Being as I see the opposition as being on the wrong side, I am unconcerned about what *their* goals are. I am concerned about the person (the mother) who can be strayed with positive support to change her mind and give life.

And unfortunately their education system is very pervasive. So while you say things that sound nice, so do the abortionists. Sticking with your methods (whatever they are) will just see more of the same.

Considering it's never been done, you have no way of knowing that. However, OTOH, we have been using YOUR methods for years and the support for abortion continues to grow.

When change comes about it will be painful and difficult.

That's because it's easier to demonise the opposition rather than admitting your own culpability. If pro-lifers were to appear acceptable to pro-aborts the pro-lifer would have to stop standing for what he believed. Then he would no longer be a pro-lifer, right?

What you mean is it is easier *for you* to demonize the opposition rather than admitting your tactics could be better. No ... pro-lifers would NOT have to stop standing for what they believe in just because they don't use a supportive and non threatening approach.

Or maybe they will win more people over with the facts.

If one child was saved would that not be worth the effort?

Facts doesn't require intimidation or emotional blackmail.

[Lighthouse]

Originally Posted by Green Goblin

Well, you would've had to establish a relationship with him BEFORE the whole protesting thing. They've most likely missed their chance.

My whole point in asking the question was to point out that it is highly unlikely Mr. King would have allowed that before any protesting took place.

At that point then there's nothing you can do. To him individually anyways. Your message is falling on deaf ears and it's time to try another tactic.

If he wants it to stop all he has to do is stop killing children. As you said it's annoying. And not allowing a child killer to have tranquility is a great tactic, if you ask me.

Yes. how could i have been so dumb as to suspect that you'd actually take the time and watch the video that the entire topic is discussing. A topic that you have posted in repeatedly and given your opinion on. You're right. I'm the idiot. My mistake ¬_¬;

I know a few of the people who were there. So I know what their intent was. And the discussion isn't about the video as much as it is about home protests.

The Klan calls themselves Christian as well. I clearly don't think that anyone there has racist views. But the imagery it invokes is a clear drawback to the intimidation tactics used by the Ku Klux Klan. To deny that is to confirm your own stupidity.

The tactics used by the Klan involve planting the crosses in yards at night and setting them ablaze. The cross was neither planted in the yard, nor set ablaze. And it was the middle of the day. And if the murderer is white you really have no leg to stand on.

Yes. Peaceably.

What was not peaceable?

They're shouting (with megaphones) and singing in a residential area against the will of the residents. In my neighborhood, they'd be asked to leave by the police within 5 minutes.

I didn't see a megaphone.

Any, anyway, they weren't doing anything illegal. The police have no reason to ask them to leave. There's nothing they could legally do.

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by Rusha

Not if it prevents achieving the permanent goal of ending AOD. I believe these tactics enable the pro choicers to gain sympathy and aids them in their cause.

So on the basis that you believe your ideas are better you discourage others from action.

Nope, I would encourage pro lifers to save that one child, however, I have already stated that my approach is different. Why do you believe there is only one way to stop abortion? IF another way brings about a positive response in the pro-choice community, how would that not be THE desired outcome?

Which is it? Is there more than one way or is there only THE way?

You can believe that all you like, however, anyone that would leave due to protesters will just go elsewhere. I have debated this topic for years in other forums and one thing never changes: pro-choicers represent a unified front and are of one mind. Should abortion be made illegal, they would work together to make an underground support system that would be responsible for getting woman across the borders into a place where abortion is legal.

So?

Feel free to ask those on THIS forum if that is not the case, Stripe. Even if the law was changed tomorrow to make abortion illegal, it wouldn't matter. However, having a goal to prevent abortion by offering women and men who NEVER want to have children a permanent means of birth control (tubal ligation on demand) could make a difference.

You've just accounted for about 1% of the children killed. At best.

And you're willing to stand by and watch while millions are killed .. waiting for this ideal of yours to maybe get enforced .. somehow...

Your standards of intimidation have been used for the last few decades and the compliance level is minimal.

They're not my methods. And they're not intimidation any more than any other form of protest is.

So instead of counseling women in regards to the joy of mother, the sanctity of life and the superior choices and rewards that motherhood represents, you prefer name calling and intimidation?

No.

Unlike some people, I don't pretend to read other people's minds. However, by the way you represent yourself in this and other threads, I believe your goal has more to do with monitoring people's sex lives than actually saving the lives of the unborn.

Gee, there's a useless thing to say, Why would you say that?

Considering it's never been done, you have no way of knowing that. However, OTOH, we have been using YOUR methods for years and the support for abortion continues to grow.

And yet, still, some are saved.

What you mean is it is easier *for you* to demonize the opposition rather than admitting your tactics could be better. No ... pro-lifers would NOT have to stop standing for what they believe in just because they don't use a supportive and non threatening approach.

You've just gotten finished telling us about how pro-lifers are called terrorists. Now you're trying to turn it around?

And you didn't answer the question. If pro-lifers were to appear acceptable to pro-aborts the pro-lifer would have to stop standing for what he believed. Then he would no longer be a pro-lifer, right?

Facts doesn't require intimidation or emotional blackmail.

The truth is intimidation to those who reject it.

[PlastikBuddha]

How many of you on this thread would be inclined to take someone seriously on an issue that you feel you are in the right on just because they come to your house and harrass you and your neighbors in an attempt to coerce or intimidate you into adopting their viewpoint?

Show of hands, please.

[Rusha]

Originally Posted by Stripe

So on the basis that you believe your ideas are better you discourage others from action.

Action that I believe is harmful to the pro-life movement, of course I do.

Which is it? Is there more than one way or is there only THE way?

Of course there is more than way ... as long as your goal is limited to momentary results that are quickly forgotten once you are out of eyesight.

So?

You've just accounted for about 1% of the children killed. At best.

And you're willing to stand by and watch while millions are killed .. waiting for this ideal of yours to maybe get enforced .. somehow..

No ... I would much rather be like you and stomp my feet and temporarily intimidate people so I can pat myself on the back and pretend that a difference has been made.

They're not my methods. And they're not intimidation any more than any other form of protest is.

No.

Gee, there's a useless thing to say, Why would you say that?

And yet, still, some are saved.

You've just gotten finished telling us about how pro-lifers are called terrorists. Now you're trying to turn it around?

And you didn't answer the question. If pro-lifers were to appear acceptable to pro-aborts the pro-lifer would have to stop standing for what he believed. Then he would no longer be a pro-lifer, right?

Pro lifers could ABSOLUTELY make a stand for what they believe in without resorting to in your face tactics. Why is it that you believe that the only way to get your point across is being overly aggressive and obnoxious?

The fact of the matter is, Stripe, is that pro-choicers have the law on THEIR side. Unless your tactic appeals to their emotions and needs favorably, they have absolutely no reason to listen to anything you say.

The truth is intimidation to those who reject it.

No, intimidation is for those who have limited social and reasoning skills. Because you are unable to present your POV reasonably, your ideas are rejected. Yelling and intimidating the opposition just serves to make you feel like you have accomplished something.