News
Anti-abortion protester attacked outside City Hall
An anti-abortion protester, who is a regular fixture on Route 66 in front of City Hall, was attacked by two women during the lunch hour Friday.
According to information from the Flagstaff Police Department, the 69-year-old victim was standing in front of City Hall with a graphic sign of an aborted fetus when he was approached by the two women. According to witnesses, the two women began to yell profanities at the victim. One woman kicked the sign and tried to take it. The victim tried to protect the sign and took the woman to the ground. While the two were on the ground fighting, the second woman joined the fray and tried to take the sign. The victim had to fight the other woman off as well.
Paramedics arrived on scene to treat minor injuries.
The two women, both 48, were cited and released on misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct and criminal damage.
The charges will be heard by a Flagstaff Magistrate Court judge.
-- Larry Hendricks, Arizona Daily Sun
»Subscribe to the Arizona Daily Sun
Ads by Yahoo!
Obama Gives $31 Billion for Student Aid
Students Can Now Qualify For Pell Grants and Tuition Tax Credits.
www.ClassesUSA.com
Readers' Favorites
-
H1N1 vaccines now for wider population
(15 ratings)
-
Two GOP lawmakers halt budget process
(15 ratings)
-
Food banks burdened by high demand in sour economy
(15 ratings)
-
Palin savors a fine whine
(52 ratings)
-
School closures, teacher layoffs on fast track
(51 ratings)
Most commented stories
- FUSD mulls high school closures (62)
- Army: 12 dead, 31 hurt in attack at Fort Hood (54)
- Kirkpatrick to vote 'yes' on health care bill (51)
- Canyon camping reservations due changes (47)
- Labor pains at City Hall (45)
- Sledding proposal collapses (41)
- Unions for city OK'd (40)
- Snowbowl construction still in limbo (39)
- Few churches take up homeless cause (38)
- Due process being ignored in handling of Snowbowl's permit (36)
Leave your comments below:
unbiased wrote on Oct 16, 2009 6:41 PM:
" And here is the proof that Freedom as we know it is inherently problematic. Only those who possess the power are allowed to define Justice. And they too have an opinion…..unfortunately. "
juror wrote on Oct 16, 2009 6:18 PM:
" "The victim tried to protect the sign and took the woman to the ground."
OK, Which is it? Protect the sign, or tackle the woman. "Well your Honor...when she tried to take my sign away she forced my pimp hand, so naturally, I took her down"
Give me a break! Whats next? "
OK, Which is it? Protect the sign, or tackle the woman. "Well your Honor...when she tried to take my sign away she forced my pimp hand, so naturally, I took her down"
Give me a break! Whats next? "
Suzn wrote on Oct 3, 2009 8:50 AM:
" Although this story's focus is the inappropriate scuffle with someone displaying an even more inappropriate anti-abortion sign in public but got to say it's strange to read that people equate "Pride in the Pines", "public drunkenness and women with their butts hanging out" or that some think (?) a gay or lesbian couple holding hands is unsuitable viewing for children. There are many terrible things in the world from which protecting children is a good thing. Seeing that people are proud of who they are and feel affection for other human beings is not in that category. As the song says "You've got to be taught to hate and fear". Shame on anyone who so teaches their children. "
Conservative wrote on Oct 1, 2009 11:58 AM:
" I am a middle of the road conservative. The subject of abortion is an adult conversation. The protester may have first amendment rights, but he has no right to force his view on children. That is a parent's decision as to when and if that subject should be addressed. I applaud these women. Maybe if we all stood up to this self appointed ******** he would consider doing something constructive with his time. Although, I can't imagine he would be much use to a non-profit since he most likely would "preach" instead of work. There is a time and place for everything. The side of a pubic roadway is not the place for such a graphic sign. I'm thinging of protesting next to him with a sign of my own, voicing my opinion of him. "
kr wrote on Sep 30, 2009 8:59 PM:
" Kevan Taylor-Perry wrote on Sep 29, 2009 7:00 PM:
" So, adoption is the answer to abortion? How many of the anti-abortion folks support gays adopting, raise your hands? Uhhh...raise your hands? Anyone? Hello? "
Consider my hand raised. I know many gay couples that I think would make truly outstanding parents. I would love to see babies being saved not killed and to do that we either need to quit making them in the first place. (Contraception, abstinance) or get more people to adopt and care for them. I think a combination of both would be the best answer. "
" So, adoption is the answer to abortion? How many of the anti-abortion folks support gays adopting, raise your hands? Uhhh...raise your hands? Anyone? Hello? "
Consider my hand raised. I know many gay couples that I think would make truly outstanding parents. I would love to see babies being saved not killed and to do that we either need to quit making them in the first place. (Contraception, abstinance) or get more people to adopt and care for them. I think a combination of both would be the best answer. "
K wrote on Sep 30, 2009 1:33 PM:
" I wont go into detail about my position on abortion however I do disagree with the picture. I have two children and don't feel they need that image in there heads. It is freedom of speech and to each there own. "
D wrote on Sep 30, 2009 12:04 PM:
" Although the sign is graphic, the bottom line is these women attacked a man who was demonstrating his 1st Amendment rights. Two lefty-liberals (just a guess) attacking someone over their freedom of speech is downright hypocrisy.56mt9 "
km wrote on Sep 30, 2009 9:04 AM:
" I personally do think that his sign is very graphic. However that is reality. I agree that he should not be displaying that particular sign but just as I believe that it is wrong to attack abortion clinics and their staff it is also wrong to do the reverse. I understand being upset by the sign but there are a ton of things in flagstaff for one to be offended by. Pride in the pines, public drunkeness, girls wearing clothing where their butts are hanging out. I am offended by all of that . They are not things I want my small children seeing. I still would never go up and hit a girl for wearing a shirt wear her top was hanging out. Violence is not ok that is why we have laws! "
Pro-choice wrote on Sep 29, 2009 9:15 PM:
" Life is not like any other right or freedom. There is no guarantee of life. The choice of life is the child bearer's and no one else’s. Just like the choice of one's own life is their own and no one else’s. "
Kevan Taylor-Perry wrote on Sep 29, 2009 7:00 PM:
" So, adoption is the answer to abortion? How many of the anti-abortion folks support gays adopting, raise your hands? Uhhh...raise your hands? Anyone? Hello? "
HaFlag wrote on Sep 29, 2009 5:16 PM:
" "Anti-abortion protester attacked..."
Awesome, we don't see enough of these headlines. I would love to see a protest in front of a church (I understand some churches aren't as close-minded and ignorant as others)! Having views and opinions, that's nice... imposing your religious view and opinions on the community, well, you get the point. "
Awesome, we don't see enough of these headlines. I would love to see a protest in front of a church (I understand some churches aren't as close-minded and ignorant as others)! Having views and opinions, that's nice... imposing your religious view and opinions on the community, well, you get the point. "
Jew wrote on Sep 29, 2009 10:22 AM:
" I don't see why my fiancee and I have to give up our religious rights, which are supposed to be protected. Many religious (especially Judaism and Islam) have very specific conditions regarding abortion. I'm getting tired of people and governments trying to get involved in a personal decision, and calling into question religious objections that are not part of the argument (i.e. "Do not kill", which is actually "Do not Murder" but that is a separate issue).
Examples:
In Judaism, it has to be in the first 30 days, and you MUST abort if there is a risk to the mother.
In Islam, unless there is a heart beat, it is not alive. If there is a risk to the mother, see above. "
Examples:
In Judaism, it has to be in the first 30 days, and you MUST abort if there is a risk to the mother.
In Islam, unless there is a heart beat, it is not alive. If there is a risk to the mother, see above. "
dont get it wrote on Sep 28, 2009 10:40 PM:
" how is wanting the gov't to regulate my body viewed as conservative? "
Franklin Szygby wrote on Sep 28, 2009 2:45 PM:
" I believe that a woman should have the right to terminate a pregnancy under some circumstances. Now, having said that, I am appalled at the reprehensible behavior of these two women who attacked the anti-abortion protester. The anti-abortion protester, whom I do not entirely agree with, was exercising his Constitutional rights. The women were committing a crime. I despise what they did. They are thugs. "
Butch wrote on Sep 28, 2009 5:46 AM:
" ....one more thing.... Strange isn't it, that those supporting abortion have already been given their gift of life? "
Butch wrote on Sep 28, 2009 5:11 AM:
" "well"... wrote "....there are children in this town".
That is correct "well", the same children that are forced to see men walking hand in hand, or two women kissing, particularly during the gay-pride festival. "
That is correct "well", the same children that are forced to see men walking hand in hand, or two women kissing, particularly during the gay-pride festival. "
FMS mom wrote on Sep 27, 2009 10:21 PM:
" The story was reported differently on the other website because it's on Operation Rescue. They are saying that the Arizona Daily Sun got the story wrong and are basically misrepresenting the story. I'd like to stand next to this guy with a sign saying he should be out helping single mothers who chose to have their child or doing something constructive. Holding up pictures on the side of the road is just pissing people off. It's not really helping anyone. I don't think when a woman is making the terrible choice to terminate her pregnancy she's going to say to herself - oh wait, I shouldn't have an abortion because that guy on the side of the road had those terrible pictures of aborted babies. "
j. wrote on Sep 26, 2009 7:25 PM:
" I think that all women who have had abortions, and the men and women who support them, should plan a gathering at the City Hall area where this clearly delusion man stands and judges. Let us support one another, there is no shame in having an abortion, but there is shame in lousy birth control, shame in picketing in front of Planned Parenthood, shame in preventing women from taking control of their own bodies.
And I think that I will begin this movement. Anyone interested? Address your support to this link, and I will try and post a letter to the editor on its own, supporting such a movement.
Enough, already! "
And I think that I will begin this movement. Anyone interested? Address your support to this link, and I will try and post a letter to the editor on its own, supporting such a movement.
Enough, already! "
aor wrote on Sep 26, 2009 3:22 PM:
" The bottom line is those women violated the victim's constitutional rights, and I hope he throws a civil lawsuit at them both. Everyone has an opinion, and just because you happen to not agree with another person's opinion, doesn't give you the right to attack him/her. The man was expressing his opinion. Graphic? Perhaps. Untrue? Probably not. Protected under our constitution? Definitely. If he threw any blows, it sounds like he was defending himself, which he also has a right to do. I actually know this man, and he believes very strongly in the anti-abortion stance. Would he go to blows over it? I seriously doubt it, unless he was attacked first. In that case, he has every right to defend himself and his property. "
Obey wrote on Sep 26, 2009 2:40 PM:
" Christian abortion protesters need to realize that according to their apostle Paul, the right to an abortion is given by God:
"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves." Romans 13:1-2 NIV.
The Supreme Court is our highest authority and as Paul says, "there is no authority except that which God has established" therefore, our Supreme court is acting in accord with the will of God and it has been decided that, under certain circumstances, abortion shall be permitted. To protest, speak against or refuse to accept the decision of our authorities is rebellion against an Inspired decision and we can see where Paul says that leads. "
"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves." Romans 13:1-2 NIV.
The Supreme Court is our highest authority and as Paul says, "there is no authority except that which God has established" therefore, our Supreme court is acting in accord with the will of God and it has been decided that, under certain circumstances, abortion shall be permitted. To protest, speak against or refuse to accept the decision of our authorities is rebellion against an Inspired decision and we can see where Paul says that leads. "
Ed wrote on Sep 26, 2009 1:29 PM:
" I wonder if two men had attacked a woman in public if they'd been let go on misdemeanor charges of criminal damage... "
aveteran wrote on Sep 26, 2009 12:27 PM:
" David R wrote on Sep 23, 2009 2:45 PM:
" I still haven't gotten an answer. One person wrote that it can harm a child to see a picture of an aborted baby. Why? If there is nothing wrong with the abortion itself, why would seeing a picture of an aborted baby harm a child? "
By that reasoning, it should be perfectly acceptable to display posters from Hustler or something more hardcore. Why would seeing a naked body harm a child?
Graphic abortion pictures are obscene. Period. "
" I still haven't gotten an answer. One person wrote that it can harm a child to see a picture of an aborted baby. Why? If there is nothing wrong with the abortion itself, why would seeing a picture of an aborted baby harm a child? "
By that reasoning, it should be perfectly acceptable to display posters from Hustler or something more hardcore. Why would seeing a naked body harm a child?
Graphic abortion pictures are obscene. Period. "
Concerned wrote on Sep 26, 2009 11:34 AM:
" The purpose for showing what abortion looks like is to show that abortion is killing a human being. If someone were to show intestines, yes, it would look bloody and gross, but intestines by themselves do not look like a human being. The "product" of abortion looks like a human being, has unique human DNA like no other human being and IS a human being. This man was trying to open the casket on abortion so that people can see what (or who) they are really killing. One must dehumanize something before he can justify killing it. This man and his picture are showing the humanity we are allowing to be killed everyday in this country. Do we want the truth or not because sometimes reality is disgusting. We must face this as a nation. "
amanda wrote on Sep 25, 2009 7:22 PM:
" ka, I'm so sorry that you encountered such coldness, such a lack of love. Please know that not all Christians are like that. I'm horrified that they reacted to you in that way. I truly wish that your rapist be punished to the full extent of the law, too many go unpunished. I'm so sorry that you felt trapped into having an abortion, I know several families personally who have adopted, or who are willing to adopt. I am willing, but I'm single and putting myself through school, and can't support a child at this point. I'm so sorry that you were never adopted by earthly parents. You said that you are a Christian, I hope you find comfort in the adoption by your Heavenly Father. I also have been adopted by Him. Please know that you are in my prayers. May the God of all peace and comfort, give you His peace and be your comforter. Your sister in Christ, Amanda "
Padraig Houlahan wrote on Sep 25, 2009 4:45 PM:
" A wrote on Sep 24, 2009 2:36 PM:
" It is fairly obvious to me that he is the one that threw the first blow, but the two women are the ones being charged?"
Could you share with us how this is "fairly obvious" to you? Are you assuming he must automatically be wrong because he takes a moral position you strongly disagree with? Were you an eye-witness? "
" It is fairly obvious to me that he is the one that threw the first blow, but the two women are the ones being charged?"
Could you share with us how this is "fairly obvious" to you? Are you assuming he must automatically be wrong because he takes a moral position you strongly disagree with? Were you an eye-witness? "
Padraig Houlahan wrote on Sep 25, 2009 4:36 PM:
" c wrote on Sep 24, 2009 3:21 PM:
" I hope to see more protestors on all sides of the issue start protesting. We need to continue debating this issue, because we must make democracy work for us when the policies do not. "
I strongly disagree. You seem to think there is merit in merely protesting every issue as long as both sides participate. Should we revert to civil rights protests? Women's rights? Slavery? Of course not. Take current affairs; I have never seen americans so intolerant of each other's opinions as they are right now, and this has created a toxic atmosphere where people are only too willing to believe the absolute worst (no matter how idiotic) about the other - the teaparty express being a good example. This unwillingness to give the election winner a fair turn at bat is incredibly destructive to our democracy.
[c] "...we must not feel sorry for the protestor, or hate the attackers. "
Nonsense. The abortion protester deserves the right to make his case and hence has earned empathy for being 'attacked' by those who were upset at him. The attackers crossed a line when they got physical and tried to destroy his poster. "
" I hope to see more protestors on all sides of the issue start protesting. We need to continue debating this issue, because we must make democracy work for us when the policies do not. "
I strongly disagree. You seem to think there is merit in merely protesting every issue as long as both sides participate. Should we revert to civil rights protests? Women's rights? Slavery? Of course not. Take current affairs; I have never seen americans so intolerant of each other's opinions as they are right now, and this has created a toxic atmosphere where people are only too willing to believe the absolute worst (no matter how idiotic) about the other - the teaparty express being a good example. This unwillingness to give the election winner a fair turn at bat is incredibly destructive to our democracy.
[c] "...we must not feel sorry for the protestor, or hate the attackers. "
Nonsense. The abortion protester deserves the right to make his case and hence has earned empathy for being 'attacked' by those who were upset at him. The attackers crossed a line when they got physical and tried to destroy his poster. "
H. T. wrote on Sep 25, 2009 3:36 PM:
" Lisa Rayner wrote on Sep 19, 2009 10:12 AM:
" Another idea would be to find out which church(es) the anti-choice protesters attend and picket the churches on Sunday on the public sidewalk outside with graphic, bloody signs of women who died during an illegal abortion pre-Roe vs. Wade. "
So it was the churches that got the women pregnant and the churches that told the women that they had to use the coat hanger? This would be like acusing the government for drug violence due to the illigalities of drugs. Not very smart!!! "
" Another idea would be to find out which church(es) the anti-choice protesters attend and picket the churches on Sunday on the public sidewalk outside with graphic, bloody signs of women who died during an illegal abortion pre-Roe vs. Wade. "
So it was the churches that got the women pregnant and the churches that told the women that they had to use the coat hanger? This would be like acusing the government for drug violence due to the illigalities of drugs. Not very smart!!! "
SuNguyen wrote on Sep 25, 2009 1:27 PM:
" The Pro-Life protestor was carrying a sign that shows images of the unspoken and ignored truths. Society wants to approve of certain acts and then turn away in hopes that if it's not seen then it doesn't exist. Acts of cruelty are happening here in this country to helpless unborn children. Their body parts are being sold to the highest bidder from Canada and other countries for "research". Can you really say you're pro-choice if you have all the facts and the hidden truths of these acts?!! Keep in mind, "planned parenthood" was created by a woman that believed and publicly voiced that the Black, Irish, "minority" populations need to be CONTROLLED BY ABORTION as these groups of people were multiplying to fast. "
gina wrote on Sep 25, 2009 9:23 AM:
" If noise is considered "disturbing the peace" per Arizona Revised Statues, then "visual depictions" should also be considered "disturbing the peace". Maybe the protestor could use other efforts to persuade the public.......attending forums, researching late term abortions and their occasional need. "
Greg wrote on Sep 25, 2009 4:59 AM:
" While I do not like the display of distasteful and graphic signs, the protester had every right to peacefully protest the attrocity of abortion.
If the two muggers did not like it they had the right to disagree, but not attack the protester. They acted in a disorderly fashion and were appropriately arrested and charged. "
If the two muggers did not like it they had the right to disagree, but not attack the protester. They acted in a disorderly fashion and were appropriately arrested and charged. "
Amy wrote on Sep 25, 2009 4:56 AM:
" So, people are upset about water boarding terrorists who will behead/kill people with no remorse. However, its fine to assault a man trying to save an innocent child? Hmmm The image on the signs are exactly what happens to the unborn. Is water boarding worse than abortion? "
c wrote on Sep 24, 2009 3:21 PM:
" I admire the protestor's dedication to the issue and appreciate that our city government does not shut him up. Abortion is a gross and contentious issue but we must not insulate ourselves. Let us not forget that we all have blood on our hands. The attackers went about their protest in a wrong way, but I do not think it was in vain. I hope to see more protestors on all sides of the issue start protesting. We need to continue debating this issue, because we must make democracy work for us when the policies do not. This is a human rights issue that must be addressed as that. This is not about liberals and conservatives. We are more than our labels and should realize that people are angry. There is a thin line between anger and action, but we do not cross it enough. We must not feel sorry for the protestor, or hate the attackers. We can be thankful that the protestor was not seriosly harmed so that we can all stand out there together to fight another day. "
Padraig Houlahan wrote on Sep 24, 2009 2:49 PM:
" David R wrote on Sep 23, 2009 2:45 PM:
" I still haven't gotten an answer. One person wrote that it can harm a child to see a picture of an aborted baby. Why? If there is nothing wrong with the abortion itself, why would seeing a picture of an aborted baby harm a child? "
OK, here's an answer: because some images can be disturbing even though they are not immoral. Graphic war movies are inappropriate for young children as would be images of a cow being slaughtered. For this kind of reason, movies can have ratings, even if there is no criminality behind them. "
" I still haven't gotten an answer. One person wrote that it can harm a child to see a picture of an aborted baby. Why? If there is nothing wrong with the abortion itself, why would seeing a picture of an aborted baby harm a child? "
OK, here's an answer: because some images can be disturbing even though they are not immoral. Graphic war movies are inappropriate for young children as would be images of a cow being slaughtered. For this kind of reason, movies can have ratings, even if there is no criminality behind them. "
A wrote on Sep 24, 2009 2:36 PM:
" Holdon, yourejokingright?, D, and readitcarefully. . .
You all have hit the nail ont the head. I'm very shocked that the Daily Sun would print such a biased article. The two women were in the hospital due to the injuries they recieved from the "elderly man", who was in decent enough shape as he sat on the wall talking to paramedics as we drove by during our lunch break. It is fairly obvious to me that he is the one that threw the first blow, but the two women are the ones being charged? It's a little amusing to me that such a self righteous man is also a woman beater, seems a little hypocritical. "
You all have hit the nail ont the head. I'm very shocked that the Daily Sun would print such a biased article. The two women were in the hospital due to the injuries they recieved from the "elderly man", who was in decent enough shape as he sat on the wall talking to paramedics as we drove by during our lunch break. It is fairly obvious to me that he is the one that threw the first blow, but the two women are the ones being charged? It's a little amusing to me that such a self righteous man is also a woman beater, seems a little hypocritical. "
CJ wrote on Sep 24, 2009 1:46 PM:
" David R said: "I still haven't gotten an answer. One person wrote that it can harm a child to see a picture of an aborted baby. Why? If there is nothing wrong with the abortion itself, why would seeing a picture of an aborted baby harm a child?"
Some people would suggest that showing photographs of mutilated Iraqi children, Afghani children, and the mutilated bodies of soldiers could harm a child. Why? If there nothing wrong with war itself, why would seeing a picture of a horribly mutilated Iraqi child harm a child? "
Some people would suggest that showing photographs of mutilated Iraqi children, Afghani children, and the mutilated bodies of soldiers could harm a child. Why? If there nothing wrong with war itself, why would seeing a picture of a horribly mutilated Iraqi child harm a child? "
CJ wrote on Sep 24, 2009 1:36 PM:
" I find it interesting that the same kind of people who are vehemently opposed to abortion, and are OK with showing the public graphic images of mutilated fetuses, are also vehemently opposed to comprehensive sex education in our classrooms and don't want their children exposed to comprehensive sex education information because they find it offensive and against their beliefs. Yet, they are perfectly OK with displaying graphic images of aborted fetuses and when someone claims they find it offensive, the response of the anti-abortionists is basically, deal with it.
Seems a little hypocritical to me, especially when you consider that comprehensive sex education has been proven to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, which would reduce the number of abortions being performed in the first place. "
Seems a little hypocritical to me, especially when you consider that comprehensive sex education has been proven to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, which would reduce the number of abortions being performed in the first place. "
Stop with the Extremes wrote on Sep 24, 2009 12:27 PM:
" David R wrote:
" I still haven't gotten an answer. One person wrote that it can harm a child to see a picture of an aborted baby. Why? If there is nothing wrong with the abortion itself, why would seeing a picture of an aborted baby harm a child? "
I suspect you don't actually want that answer for two reasons -
1. I find it really difficult to believe that an actual adult could not comprehend why something like that might emotionally scar a young child.
2. You have made the illogical leap that those who don't want their young children viewing something like that must be parents who are pro-choice.
That leads me to believe that you are more interested in debating abortion, rather than the concern over children viewing graphic pictures such as that. I won't debate abortion with you, but I will address this thing over children because these attitudes have left me seriously irked...
Parents on this blog have expressed concern over young children seeing those pictures, and people automatically assume that they must be pro-choice, and being pro-choice means you must be ok with viewing such a thing. How can you make that leap? Especially when some of these people blatantly admitted they were pro-life? It's not about whether you are pro-choice/pro-life - it's about whether it's ok for young children to see things like that. We don't allow children (we shouldn't, at least) to watch R-rated movies for a reason - they are too young to see such graphic sex and violence, and doing so can mess with a child psychologically. But we should let them look at REAL graphic pictures? Young children cannot grasp the concept of conception, but we should expect them to understand abortion? Seriously? One person even went so far as to suggest that "all children should know that there are people who support the murder of unborn children." That is seriously disturbing. Parents have every right to be concerned about this issue, and I believe that people on both sides of the debate should have a little more respect for that. Sometime it's about more than you and how you feel.
I chose my screen name because I am sick of the extremes people go to when they debate issues such as this. I'm not singling out one side - I believe people on both sides of this debate go to extremes. And those extreme attitudes and actions cause innocent people to get hurt - in this case, children. Parents should get to decide when and how they discuss this with their children, but in this case (and others - this guy is not the first to do something like this) that decision was made for them. There is a time and place for everything. Trying to explain a picture of a dead baby to a horrified four year old during rush hour traffic is not the the ideal time or place for any parent. And when these parents express their concern on this blog, other people use those comments to further their own argument about abortion! I'm not going to take a stance on abortion in this post, but I will say I find it extremely ironic (and sad) that some people in this blog can express such concern for the unborn child, yet in the same breath express such a callous attitude toward parents who are concerned about their own children.
Admitting that graphic pictures like these can harm a child does not, in my opinion, weaken your argument, no matter which side of the debate you are on. If anything, it makes you seem a little more human. "
" I still haven't gotten an answer. One person wrote that it can harm a child to see a picture of an aborted baby. Why? If there is nothing wrong with the abortion itself, why would seeing a picture of an aborted baby harm a child? "
I suspect you don't actually want that answer for two reasons -
1. I find it really difficult to believe that an actual adult could not comprehend why something like that might emotionally scar a young child.
2. You have made the illogical leap that those who don't want their young children viewing something like that must be parents who are pro-choice.
That leads me to believe that you are more interested in debating abortion, rather than the concern over children viewing graphic pictures such as that. I won't debate abortion with you, but I will address this thing over children because these attitudes have left me seriously irked...
Parents on this blog have expressed concern over young children seeing those pictures, and people automatically assume that they must be pro-choice, and being pro-choice means you must be ok with viewing such a thing. How can you make that leap? Especially when some of these people blatantly admitted they were pro-life? It's not about whether you are pro-choice/pro-life - it's about whether it's ok for young children to see things like that. We don't allow children (we shouldn't, at least) to watch R-rated movies for a reason - they are too young to see such graphic sex and violence, and doing so can mess with a child psychologically. But we should let them look at REAL graphic pictures? Young children cannot grasp the concept of conception, but we should expect them to understand abortion? Seriously? One person even went so far as to suggest that "all children should know that there are people who support the murder of unborn children." That is seriously disturbing. Parents have every right to be concerned about this issue, and I believe that people on both sides of the debate should have a little more respect for that. Sometime it's about more than you and how you feel.
I chose my screen name because I am sick of the extremes people go to when they debate issues such as this. I'm not singling out one side - I believe people on both sides of this debate go to extremes. And those extreme attitudes and actions cause innocent people to get hurt - in this case, children. Parents should get to decide when and how they discuss this with their children, but in this case (and others - this guy is not the first to do something like this) that decision was made for them. There is a time and place for everything. Trying to explain a picture of a dead baby to a horrified four year old during rush hour traffic is not the the ideal time or place for any parent. And when these parents express their concern on this blog, other people use those comments to further their own argument about abortion! I'm not going to take a stance on abortion in this post, but I will say I find it extremely ironic (and sad) that some people in this blog can express such concern for the unborn child, yet in the same breath express such a callous attitude toward parents who are concerned about their own children.
Admitting that graphic pictures like these can harm a child does not, in my opinion, weaken your argument, no matter which side of the debate you are on. If anything, it makes you seem a little more human. "
matthew wrote on Sep 24, 2009 8:25 AM:
" nordic chic- before you pass judgement on me you might want to understand who I am. I am not a supporter of abortion. Although, there are instances such as rape and incest in which an early abortion might be acceptable. I do not feel that abortion and especially late term abortion (like the one displayed on the poster) is acceptable. I am an educated man and can fully grasp the concept of what an aborted fetus looks like. And when my kids are old enough I will explain it to them. I do not need some self-righteous man forcing his beliefs on my children.
Since I oppose the war, would it be acceptable of me to stand on the corner by city hall displaying pictures of dead soldiers that have been mutilated by IED's. No, I do not think it would. And as a veteran myself I would respect the dead enough to not use them as a catalyst for my cause. I think the ladies in black who oppose and protest the war get the message across about the tragedy of war respectfully. And they do it just by standing there. Would it be acceptable for the KKK or Aryan Nation to hold posters of a lynched black man while protesting. No, it would not and they would get arrested or forced to remove that poster. On TV it is required by the FCC to provide a disclaimer that the images in the show could be violent or of a sexual nature. Why is that not required by this man who holds an offensive poster? Your double standards do not stick with me. We are not all mindless sheep who cannot grasp the concept of what an abortion looks like. I do cherish life and that is way I oppose your tactics. "
Since I oppose the war, would it be acceptable of me to stand on the corner by city hall displaying pictures of dead soldiers that have been mutilated by IED's. No, I do not think it would. And as a veteran myself I would respect the dead enough to not use them as a catalyst for my cause. I think the ladies in black who oppose and protest the war get the message across about the tragedy of war respectfully. And they do it just by standing there. Would it be acceptable for the KKK or Aryan Nation to hold posters of a lynched black man while protesting. No, it would not and they would get arrested or forced to remove that poster. On TV it is required by the FCC to provide a disclaimer that the images in the show could be violent or of a sexual nature. Why is that not required by this man who holds an offensive poster? Your double standards do not stick with me. We are not all mindless sheep who cannot grasp the concept of what an abortion looks like. I do cherish life and that is way I oppose your tactics. "
um wrote on Sep 24, 2009 5:28 AM:
" It is NEVER ok to assault someone exercising their 1st amendment rights in a peaceful manner. I can't stand the anti-war protesters and/or the Women in Black, yet assaulting them would rightfully land me in jail. What part of assault isn't clear here? If you disagree with the message, assault the individual?
Where have the Women in Black gone anyways? Where have the war protesters gone? Our troops are dying at a 15/1 ration (Afghanistan compared to Iraq), we'll soon be sending 30k more troops to Afghanistan, yet no one is protesting! No bumper stickers or t-shirts either. "
Where have the Women in Black gone anyways? Where have the war protesters gone? Our troops are dying at a 15/1 ration (Afghanistan compared to Iraq), we'll soon be sending 30k more troops to Afghanistan, yet no one is protesting! No bumper stickers or t-shirts either. "
Anonymous wrote on Sep 23, 2009 3:31 PM:
" Personally, I do not like the picture of the aborted fetus. I would not dream of abortion personally and to have to look at what another has done is sickening. I had a child die in utero and needed to have this baby surgically removed. While greiving for the loss of this child I happened to come across this gentleman's sign driving along 66 and it ripped my heart out even more to think that this is probably what my child would look like after the procedure. I felt angry that this person felt justified in showing death to people who really did not need to see it. That being said, however, I don't feel this man should be attacked for voicing his opinion. And while I wish this man would consider the feelings of other people, he certainly deserves to be treated with common decency. "
ka wrote on Sep 23, 2009 2:57 PM:
" I feel harrased and verbaly stoned by the far right by these images and the rage that is expressed with them. I had an abortion. I was 20--- a former foster child with no means to support that child--- the man who date raped me called me names in public to cover his gulit. I went to my small towns church to see if someone would adopt my child before it was born. NO ONE !!! NO ONE!!! stepped forward before the abortion date. I got the abortion--- finshed my tour of duty at that town ---went to college and have taught for 22 years in physical science. Thank god for the GI bill or I would be just another homeless former foster child. I am a christian and I have complete confidence that GOD forgave me. As for my "fellow christians" who would not take my child of rape -- I have noticed a very hard heart indead!!! I forgave but never forgot that NO ONE at my church adopted my unborn child. That I was never adopted. Quick to throw verbal stone short on the acts a a good samaratin! "
David R wrote on Sep 23, 2009 2:45 PM:
" I still haven't gotten an answer. One person wrote that it can harm a child to see a picture of an aborted baby. Why? If there is nothing wrong with the abortion itself, why would seeing a picture of an aborted baby harm a child? "
Padraig Houlahan wrote on Sep 23, 2009 2:36 PM:
" I dont get it wrote on Sep 23, 2009 8:17 AM:
" Help me understand....when an abortion doctor is killed, a life is lost. When an abortion is performed, a life is lost. What circumstances can possibly make one ok and the other not ok???? "
Assuming you are sincere and not posturing, the answer is some people believe not everything human that is alive is sentient or capable of making moral choices or deserving of absolute protections. The issue is not 'human life' but 'sentient human life.' This is why it is permissible to let a comatose patient die - there is 'human life' but no sentience. "
" Help me understand....when an abortion doctor is killed, a life is lost. When an abortion is performed, a life is lost. What circumstances can possibly make one ok and the other not ok???? "
Assuming you are sincere and not posturing, the answer is some people believe not everything human that is alive is sentient or capable of making moral choices or deserving of absolute protections. The issue is not 'human life' but 'sentient human life.' This is why it is permissible to let a comatose patient die - there is 'human life' but no sentience. "
Padraig Houlahan wrote on Sep 23, 2009 2:27 PM:
" MT wrote on Sep 23, 2009 9:07 AM:
"On another note, I’m quite surprised and moreover shocked by the comments of the liberal left to condone this violence, regardless of severity or of their political views."
You are being very unfair in tarring the 'liberal left' with the reactions of a few. I certainly think the 'assault' was unreasonable and deserves condemnation. "
"On another note, I’m quite surprised and moreover shocked by the comments of the liberal left to condone this violence, regardless of severity or of their political views."
You are being very unfair in tarring the 'liberal left' with the reactions of a few. I certainly think the 'assault' was unreasonable and deserves condemnation. "
MT wrote on Sep 23, 2009 9:07 AM:
" To “Flagstaff City Code on Picketing”-
It would behoove you to try and get at least a basic understanding of a law before you try and argue it as a defense. The city code you cite refers to PICKETING at a place of business (more commonly known as labor strikes.) You see, the victim didn’t try to intimidate, threaten or coerce any person or employee from entering city hall to conduct business or labor. This man was not picketing at city hall but simply exercising his freedom of speech. After all, if this law were enforced as ignorantly as you understand it, what would happen to the Women In Black, political activists or countless other groups that protest some cause on the lawn of city hall? To enforce a law, one must break or attempt to break the law first.
Furthermore, it seems evident the law was enforced when the two women were charged criminally for their conduct.
On another note, I’m quite surprised and moreover shocked by the comments of the liberal left to condone this violence, regardless of severity or of their political views. I remember on previous blogs when violence occurred against an abortion doctor and when conservatives condemned the violence they were arrogantly accused of secretly condoning it. Yet, here we see the shoe on the other foot and some how all is well and congratulations are in order for these offenders. It’s rather interesting so see some true colors show.
“The use of violence as an instrument of persuasion is therefore inviting and seems to the discontented to be the only effective protest.” - Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas "
It would behoove you to try and get at least a basic understanding of a law before you try and argue it as a defense. The city code you cite refers to PICKETING at a place of business (more commonly known as labor strikes.) You see, the victim didn’t try to intimidate, threaten or coerce any person or employee from entering city hall to conduct business or labor. This man was not picketing at city hall but simply exercising his freedom of speech. After all, if this law were enforced as ignorantly as you understand it, what would happen to the Women In Black, political activists or countless other groups that protest some cause on the lawn of city hall? To enforce a law, one must break or attempt to break the law first.
Furthermore, it seems evident the law was enforced when the two women were charged criminally for their conduct.
On another note, I’m quite surprised and moreover shocked by the comments of the liberal left to condone this violence, regardless of severity or of their political views. I remember on previous blogs when violence occurred against an abortion doctor and when conservatives condemned the violence they were arrogantly accused of secretly condoning it. Yet, here we see the shoe on the other foot and some how all is well and congratulations are in order for these offenders. It’s rather interesting so see some true colors show.
“The use of violence as an instrument of persuasion is therefore inviting and seems to the discontented to be the only effective protest.” - Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas "
I dont get it wrote on Sep 23, 2009 8:17 AM:
" Help me understand....when an abortion doctor is killed, a life is lost. When an abortion is performed, a life is lost. What circumstances can possibly make one ok and the other not ok???? The fact is my God is not ok with either one! When you meet you God, someday, what opinion do you suppose he will have? "
human rights wrote on Sep 23, 2009 7:01 AM:
" Abortion is a question of human rights; the unborn are human,yet we recognise few of their human rights. We did the same with blacks and it cost us a civil war. "
itsdifferent wrote on Sep 23, 2009 5:23 AM:
" Get Real... wrote on Sep 22, 2009 7:07 AM:
" This isn't an abortion issue it is a first amendment issue. Does the man have the right to protest? Yes. Does he have the right to display distasteful images publicly? No. If his poster had shown images of a child being raped because he was protesting against child sexual abuse you wouldn't be protecting his first amendment rights... "
Ah! Here's the difference my friend... rape is illegal.... killing unborn babies is not. What he is showing is not illegal to do, so why, especially for you pro-abortion folks, do these pictures of "mutilated" babies bother you. I'm confused. If abortion is okay, then a better comparison would be like showing pictures of wart removal... somewhat gross yes.. but not disturbing for you or your kids right? Step back for a second... maybe your conscience is trying to tell you something. "
" This isn't an abortion issue it is a first amendment issue. Does the man have the right to protest? Yes. Does he have the right to display distasteful images publicly? No. If his poster had shown images of a child being raped because he was protesting against child sexual abuse you wouldn't be protecting his first amendment rights... "
Ah! Here's the difference my friend... rape is illegal.... killing unborn babies is not. What he is showing is not illegal to do, so why, especially for you pro-abortion folks, do these pictures of "mutilated" babies bother you. I'm confused. If abortion is okay, then a better comparison would be like showing pictures of wart removal... somewhat gross yes.. but not disturbing for you or your kids right? Step back for a second... maybe your conscience is trying to tell you something. "
Matthew Quigley wrote on Sep 23, 2009 4:33 AM:
" mrb writes: "I definitely don't like this man's signs and it has nothing to do with my beliefs. It has to do with the children that have to see them every day he is out there".
All children should know that there are people who support the murder of unborn children. The man is supporting the rights of those who have no voice.
When does life begin? Anybody whos ever bought a condom knows when life begins. "
All children should know that there are people who support the murder of unborn children. The man is supporting the rights of those who have no voice.
When does life begin? Anybody whos ever bought a condom knows when life begins. "
j.t. wrote on Sep 22, 2009 9:03 PM:
" This country was made great because of the 1st Amendment. If you don't like what he is doing call the police department and file a complaint. This is a country of laws. We are not animals. Both of those women should be charged with assault and battery. jt. "
ignorance is HUH wrote on Sep 22, 2009 8:59 PM:
" Ignorance wrote on Sep 22, 2009 10:51 AM:
" Sounds like a hate crime, These women should do some prison time. "
It's a misdeamenor Charge!! How are they going to do time in prison Time??? DUH!!!. Think People before you blurt, or Type. This isn't the Republic of China here. This is the United States. We have a choice, and these women went too far, and it also had a catalyist, the guy holding the sign. If he is breaking the law by illegal picketing, then he shouldn't have been there to begin with. Second, The women are extremists, and like the quote given above, didn't think before they acted. Come on people think!!!! There is always going to be a case of "church and state" at war. You readers are at each others throat, with no real arguement. Educate people and let everyone lead a FREE LIFE to do what they choose. I can't force you to vote Democrat, and I can't force you to vote Republican, but you have a choice. WHY SHOULD "I" BE FORCED TO DO WHAT YOU TELL ME TOO, OR BE FORCED TO BELIEVE WHAT YOU BELIEVE??????????? THINK PEOPLE THINK!!!! You are all playing into what others want you to believe is right. I don't agree with some of the modern music, the way people dress, or what religion you practice, but I don't force my opinions on others. I find things here in Flagstaff disgusting in lifestyles but I don't attack people because they are different or for voicing their opinions in public, nor do I tell you how to dress, what tatoos you should wear, what car to drive, what food to wear, what foods to eat. You have fallen into the DRAMA of the world, and you are conformed to this world. READ the bible ROMANS:12:2 . Adolf Hitler pressed his beliefs upon this world and see where that got us!!! SAME THING "
" Sounds like a hate crime, These women should do some prison time. "
It's a misdeamenor Charge!! How are they going to do time in prison Time??? DUH!!!. Think People before you blurt, or Type. This isn't the Republic of China here. This is the United States. We have a choice, and these women went too far, and it also had a catalyist, the guy holding the sign. If he is breaking the law by illegal picketing, then he shouldn't have been there to begin with. Second, The women are extremists, and like the quote given above, didn't think before they acted. Come on people think!!!! There is always going to be a case of "church and state" at war. You readers are at each others throat, with no real arguement. Educate people and let everyone lead a FREE LIFE to do what they choose. I can't force you to vote Democrat, and I can't force you to vote Republican, but you have a choice. WHY SHOULD "I" BE FORCED TO DO WHAT YOU TELL ME TOO, OR BE FORCED TO BELIEVE WHAT YOU BELIEVE??????????? THINK PEOPLE THINK!!!! You are all playing into what others want you to believe is right. I don't agree with some of the modern music, the way people dress, or what religion you practice, but I don't force my opinions on others. I find things here in Flagstaff disgusting in lifestyles but I don't attack people because they are different or for voicing their opinions in public, nor do I tell you how to dress, what tatoos you should wear, what car to drive, what food to wear, what foods to eat. You have fallen into the DRAMA of the world, and you are conformed to this world. READ the bible ROMANS:12:2 . Adolf Hitler pressed his beliefs upon this world and see where that got us!!! SAME THING "
holdon wrote on Sep 22, 2009 7:41 PM:
" Well folks, read the story again! ..one woman "kicked the sign and tried to take it away"... the man "took her down trying to protect the sign" Sounds like those of you crying that he was assaulted aren't paying attention. If the Sun is accurate, there was definitely a scuffle over a sign, but the man was the first to attack another person. Maybe you should be concerned about the "rights" of the sign. Perhaps those of you screaming for prosecution should allow the investigating officers and the judicial system to perform the job they are trained for. "
Mark Aug wrote on Sep 22, 2009 7:09 PM:
" It is sad that the public is more offended by these pictures than by the murders of these innocent victims. During WWII in Germany our troops made the town's people march through the extermination camps and even bury those victims. Our troops understood that a community that allows such atrocities bears some responsibility and guilt. "
John wrote on Sep 22, 2009 6:34 PM:
" It seems the most virulent reaction in these comments are from those who support abortion or at least are against protests against abortion (just count them up). These are very odd reactions for a portion of the population who propose 'freedom to choose.' I guess you are free to choose, as long as you choose only their way of thinking. What kind of freedom is that? "
Merry wrote on Sep 22, 2009 5:41 PM:
" I think these women should do a little time for assault & the protester should not. From the way this story reads, he was only protecting himself & his property.
I personally think abortion should be kept legal & no the graphic sign would not bother me. It is his right to protest peacefully. It doesn't matter if we agree with him or not.
The women have the right to voice their thoughts as well, but when they touched, they crossed the line. "
I personally think abortion should be kept legal & no the graphic sign would not bother me. It is his right to protest peacefully. It doesn't matter if we agree with him or not.
The women have the right to voice their thoughts as well, but when they touched, they crossed the line. "
local wrote on Sep 22, 2009 5:09 PM:
" Today, Flagstaff is a sad Mtn. Town. Choice is good, Violence is bad. "
kr wrote on Sep 22, 2009 4:13 PM:
" Does anyone know if the women were Pro-choice, or why they attacked him? The assumption seems to be they are Pro-choice but do we know that for a fact? Can the daily sun do some further research? Also, there are conflicting reports as to the sign he was holding at the time. Can someone verify which one? "
kr wrote on Sep 22, 2009 4:08 PM:
" Ty wrote on Sep 21, 2009 5:10 PM:
" I'm not picking a side cause I don't feel I have all the facts. I read this story on another site that reports it quite differently:
http://www.operationrescue.org/archives/elderly-pro-life-activist-attacked-injured-in-flagstaff/
I will make one observation. Many posters here have expressed their feeling that seeing a graphic abortion sign is violent, obscene, disgusting, etc.
Yet I daresay they will all defend their RIGHT to visit this upon the innocent unborn to the bitter end.
If you truly feel abortion is NOT the destruction of life, viewing a graphic picture of it should be no worse to you than a graphic close-up of an abscessed tooth or an infected toenail. "
So what about those of us who do oppose abortion and also oppose this man's picture. I do not allow my child to watch TV because I do not want to him to see violent and bloody pictures. Now, I cannot drive to the library by a normal route in order to avoid seeing a violent and bloody picture. He has every right to protest, he does not have the right to poison my child with this imagery. My child understands that lives, all lives, are precious without having to show him a brutally murdered baby. I understand that without having to see it. His attempt to shock people is just a cry for attention not an actual protest. There are better ways to fight abortion. "
" I'm not picking a side cause I don't feel I have all the facts. I read this story on another site that reports it quite differently:
http://www.operationrescue.org/archives/elderly-pro-life-activist-attacked-injured-in-flagstaff/
I will make one observation. Many posters here have expressed their feeling that seeing a graphic abortion sign is violent, obscene, disgusting, etc.
Yet I daresay they will all defend their RIGHT to visit this upon the innocent unborn to the bitter end.
If you truly feel abortion is NOT the destruction of life, viewing a graphic picture of it should be no worse to you than a graphic close-up of an abscessed tooth or an infected toenail. "
So what about those of us who do oppose abortion and also oppose this man's picture. I do not allow my child to watch TV because I do not want to him to see violent and bloody pictures. Now, I cannot drive to the library by a normal route in order to avoid seeing a violent and bloody picture. He has every right to protest, he does not have the right to poison my child with this imagery. My child understands that lives, all lives, are precious without having to show him a brutally murdered baby. I understand that without having to see it. His attempt to shock people is just a cry for attention not an actual protest. There are better ways to fight abortion. "
nordic chic wrote on Sep 22, 2009 3:30 PM:
" Seriously, Matthew! Why is it the same people who believe abortion is an inalienable right have such difficulty with the reality of the "procedure"? The idea is fine - but no one is willing to acknowledge that it is a brutal procedure with the goal being to end the life of that child and that someone actaully has to get their hands "dirty". It's not humane - it's not like euthanizing your labroador retriever. Guess what - it's so awful you can't even stand to view the end results. Oh wait - it's just tissue, right? So why are you so apalled if it's just a mass of cells? For all those parents out there who are concerned about protecting their children from graphic photos, violent movies, explicit sex - how about showing a little concern for those children still in the womb who don't have any protection at all from a world that chooses selfish, barbaric immorality over the life of a child. Oh by the way, this would have been the same child that the NICU would fight to save at 24 weeks if they were lucky enough to have parents that loved it. Your illogical arguments don't stand up. "
Padraig Houlahan wrote on Sep 22, 2009 2:55 PM:
" alan wrote on Sep 22, 2009 6:43 AM:
" this guy is a hero he would not have to carry those signs if abortion was not allowed if you dont like the graphic sign stop abortion its called freedom of speech. "
So, pictures of abortions are ok, but pictures of flag draped coffin are not?
Did the mothers give permission for the pictures to be used this way?
Did you defend Dan Frazier's freedom of speech?
Oh that's different I bet... "
" this guy is a hero he would not have to carry those signs if abortion was not allowed if you dont like the graphic sign stop abortion its called freedom of speech. "
So, pictures of abortions are ok, but pictures of flag draped coffin are not?
Did the mothers give permission for the pictures to be used this way?
Did you defend Dan Frazier's freedom of speech?
Oh that's different I bet... "
Padraig Houlahan wrote on Sep 22, 2009 2:47 PM:
" norine wrote on Sep 19, 2009 9:49 AM:
" Instead of calling this man names, people should be angry that he was attacked for standing up for his beliefs. "
Agreed.
[norine] "Why weren't the two women charged with assault? When did our freedom of speech right get repealed? or is this a right only when the belief isn't as controversial as abortion. "
Good questions. As best I can gather, the assault didn't appear to be terribly serious, but this in no way excuses it, hence it might not have risen to a level requiring incarceration. "
" Instead of calling this man names, people should be angry that he was attacked for standing up for his beliefs. "
Agreed.
[norine] "Why weren't the two women charged with assault? When did our freedom of speech right get repealed? or is this a right only when the belief isn't as controversial as abortion. "
Good questions. As best I can gather, the assault didn't appear to be terribly serious, but this in no way excuses it, hence it might not have risen to a level requiring incarceration. "
NAU99 wrote on Sep 22, 2009 2:36 PM:
" Freedom of Speech also includes pictures... it's not just words. You can be for or against abortion all you'd like, but at the end of the day unless the man was threatening people and/or physically harming them he is practicing his 1st Amendment right.
If people disagree go out there and hold signs 10 feet from him saying that you disagree - and why. Drive by and tell him he's wrong. Go out and debate the individual. By resorting to violence and/or name-calling you degrade yourself down to the level of thug... and at that level no one will respect anything you say. "
If people disagree go out there and hold signs 10 feet from him saying that you disagree - and why. Drive by and tell him he's wrong. Go out and debate the individual. By resorting to violence and/or name-calling you degrade yourself down to the level of thug... and at that level no one will respect anything you say. "
markg wrote on Sep 22, 2009 12:52 PM:
" To Flagger. Let me know when you make you sign and when you will be there. I will be there too expressing my right to freedom of speech with you!! Well put. "
Ignorance wrote on Sep 22, 2009 10:51 AM:
" Sounds like a hate crime, These women should do some prison time. "
matthew wrote on Sep 22, 2009 8:21 AM:
" I am fine with the fact that this person spends endless hours protesting abortion. What I am not okay with is the fact that I have little kids who I have to distract everytime we drive by City Hall because I do not want my kids to see a picture of a mutilated baby. Thanks for taking my kids innocence. These types of abortion protesters are self absorbed jerks, who really don't care about kids. "
Get a life wrote on Sep 22, 2009 7:57 AM:
" Alan....this guy is NOT a hero, he is a pain in everyones, you know what!! The real hero's are the ones fighting two wars and sacrificing their lives!! So don't call him a hero, it is disgraceful for those who truly are hero's.
Stand with a sign, saying what you want it to say..fine. But don't have that nasty picture on it!! That picture that he holds is wrong and you all know it!! You are not getting your point across with it, so try a new point of view! I don't feel a bit sorry for they that man, he deserved it! I am thankful for the women who finally stood up and did something about it, too bad we all don't have the strength to do the same thing, instead we all drive by and look the other way. "
Stand with a sign, saying what you want it to say..fine. But don't have that nasty picture on it!! That picture that he holds is wrong and you all know it!! You are not getting your point across with it, so try a new point of view! I don't feel a bit sorry for they that man, he deserved it! I am thankful for the women who finally stood up and did something about it, too bad we all don't have the strength to do the same thing, instead we all drive by and look the other way. "
Stop with the Extremes wrote on Sep 22, 2009 7:25 AM:
" To A Speaker - do you actually have children? Because an image like that can ABSOLUTELY harm a child. Just because you think it's the "truth" does not make it easy to stomach. Images like that can most definitely give a child nightmares (among other things). Many are too young to comprehend the "truth" behind your feelings about abortion. People can be opposed to graphic pictures such as that and be against abortion as well. Not everyone who opposes abortion believes in such extreme protest. Which sounds worse here - shielding your young child from seeing such a horribly graphic picture, or pointing it out to them and explaining that it's a dead baby and that's the reason they should never have an abortion? Only one of those options puts the well being of your child first. "
Get Real... wrote on Sep 22, 2009 7:07 AM:
" This isn't an abortion issue it is a first amendment issue. Does the man have the right to protest? Yes. Does he have the right to display distasteful images publicly? No. If his poster had shown images of a child being raped because he was protesting against child sexual abuse you wouldn't be protecting his first amendment rights... "
alan wrote on Sep 22, 2009 6:43 AM:
" this guy is a hero he would not have to carry those signs if abortion was not allowed if you dont like the graphic sign stop abortion its called freedom of speech. "
Desert Rat wrote on Sep 21, 2009 9:54 PM:
" 2-1 on attack on a 69 year old retiree? Great PR for his side.
May they get jail time and sued as an example of what not to do in reaction to a protest you disagree with. "
May they get jail time and sued as an example of what not to do in reaction to a protest you disagree with. "
Ty wrote on Sep 21, 2009 5:10 PM:
" I'm not picking a side cause I don't feel I have all the facts. I read this story on another site that reports it quite differently:
http://www.operationrescue.org/archives/elderly-pro-life-activist-attacked-injured-in-flagstaff/
I will make one observation. Many posters here have expressed their feeling that seeing a graphic abortion sign is violent, obscene, disgusting, etc.
Yet I daresay they will all defend their RIGHT to visit this upon the innocent unborn to the bitter end.
If you truly feel abortion is NOT the destruction of life, viewing a graphic picture of it should be no worse to you than a graphic close-up of an abscessed tooth or an infected toenail. "
http://www.operationrescue.org/archives/elderly-pro-life-activist-attacked-injured-in-flagstaff/
I will make one observation. Many posters here have expressed their feeling that seeing a graphic abortion sign is violent, obscene, disgusting, etc.
Yet I daresay they will all defend their RIGHT to visit this upon the innocent unborn to the bitter end.
If you truly feel abortion is NOT the destruction of life, viewing a graphic picture of it should be no worse to you than a graphic close-up of an abscessed tooth or an infected toenail. "
Flagstaff City Code on Picketing wrote on Sep 21, 2009 4:34 PM:
" SECTION 6-01-001-0019 PICKETING:
It shall be unlawful for any person to picket or to walk back and forth, loiter or remain upon the streets, sidewalks or alleys adjacent to any place of business within the City, or to enter said place of business for the purpose of intimidating, threatening or coercing or in any manner to intimidate, threaten or coerce any employee or any person from entering or being on said place of business for the transacting of business or the performance of labor therein.
If this guy is a nuisance then why doesn't someone enforce the LAW!!!!!!! "
It shall be unlawful for any person to picket or to walk back and forth, loiter or remain upon the streets, sidewalks or alleys adjacent to any place of business within the City, or to enter said place of business for the purpose of intimidating, threatening or coercing or in any manner to intimidate, threaten or coerce any employee or any person from entering or being on said place of business for the transacting of business or the performance of labor therein.
If this guy is a nuisance then why doesn't someone enforce the LAW!!!!!!! "
youre joking right wrote on Sep 21, 2009 4:18 PM:
" I saw that guy today. He's a 6 foot plus sized guy weighing 200 pounds. Not a scratch on him. Who got charged with assault???? "
David R wrote on Sep 21, 2009 1:57 PM:
" Reading through the comments, I saw a number of them to the effect that the man's sign was offensive. But they never say, exactly, what it is about the picture that is offensive. The idea that the abortion itself is not offensive, but a *photo* of the abortion is offensive, ought to make one ask why. "
D wrote on Sep 21, 2009 1:17 PM:
" Well, to weigh in, I HATE that guy's pictures. However, I drove by on my way back to work and was 10 minutes late from lunch with all the hoop-la this caused downtown. However, the guy was not getting put into the ambulance- he was holding his sign. Rather, it must have been one of the women- I couldn't tell because the person was in a c-spine. Obviously, these women didn't do much damage to him as he was sitting there, sweet as pie. "
Grateful 2B Alive wrote on Sep 21, 2009 12:08 PM:
" The liberal-leaning media likes to point out the minuscule number cases where a deranged "pro-life" person shoots or harms an abortionist. Well, recently I was shocked to find records from around the country of *many* instances where abortion doctors or activists have committed violence- even handgun violence and murder on others- especially on those who oppose them. However, this information was gathered by the Catholic Church (and confirmed by local news at the different sites) NOT the mainstream media, because they don't like to cover things objectively. If this violence had been done to: an abortionist, a pro-abortion person, any minority, a gay person, a liberal activist- the media would run it all over the country! "
parkay wrote on Sep 21, 2009 10:56 AM:
" The number of criminal homicides committed by abortionist quacks and pro-abortion advocates is now 95, since the horrible shootings in Owosso, MI on 09/11/09.
Pro-life demonstrators may be encouraged to protest with at least one other pro-lifer to serve as a witness, to carry cell phones and cameras, and to bear arms for self defense. They cannot, however, consider curtailing their protest activities, unless more abortion mills close.
Related:
Pro-abortion vandals smashed a statue, defaced a Jackson Right to Life sign, and painted satanic upside-down crosses on St. John Catholic Church in Jackson, MI. "
Pro-life demonstrators may be encouraged to protest with at least one other pro-lifer to serve as a witness, to carry cell phones and cameras, and to bear arms for self defense. They cannot, however, consider curtailing their protest activities, unless more abortion mills close.
Related:
Pro-abortion vandals smashed a statue, defaced a Jackson Right to Life sign, and painted satanic upside-down crosses on St. John Catholic Church in Jackson, MI. "
A Speaker wrote on Sep 21, 2009 10:11 AM:
" As I read the comments I ask people as to why they don't want to see the graphic pictures? Why they don't want their children to see it? I carry graphic signs and there are many young children in the groups. These children are not 'harmed' because they have been given the TRUTH to abortion. As a society we hate violence but we look the other way at the slaughter of the unborn. I ask all of you would you have any surgery done without something to ease the pain? Well, these babies are fully formed. They have a beating heart, a full nervous system and when the abortionist rips them apart in the womb piece by piece they are in agony. They scream in the womb but we say it is none of our business, it is legal, etc. We have so many excuses but when we stand before God our excuses have run out. We will be held accountable for looking the other way. We say we hate war and will show graphics of dead people of war but we don't want to see pictures of the "WAR of the WOMB." The reason we don't want our children to see these pictures is because we cannot give a reason that after 50 million dead babies we are no closer to ending this. Who will speak for those that cannot speak for themselves. "
A not so old Hippy wrote on Sep 21, 2009 8:56 AM:
" First amendment for all wrote on Sep 20, 2009 4:56 PM:
" I haven't had the time yet, but I had already planned to create a couple of large signs showing the burnt, dead bodies of Afghan and Iraqi children to display standing right beside this man. Seems like if we're gonna assert atrocities we should make sure all of them are represented... and the first amendment assures us that we have this right.
For these women to stop and express their opinion, even with profanity is well within their rights. When they tried to take this man's sign and got in the physical altercation, that is where they crossed the line. "
If you are going to do that, I think I will find as many people as I can to go stand out in front of your signs in the skimpiest swimsuits I can find to block the view of your graphic images. My group could all hold Make love not War signs, and hand out birth control. What would people rather see on the City Hall lawn? "
" I haven't had the time yet, but I had already planned to create a couple of large signs showing the burnt, dead bodies of Afghan and Iraqi children to display standing right beside this man. Seems like if we're gonna assert atrocities we should make sure all of them are represented... and the first amendment assures us that we have this right.
For these women to stop and express their opinion, even with profanity is well within their rights. When they tried to take this man's sign and got in the physical altercation, that is where they crossed the line. "
If you are going to do that, I think I will find as many people as I can to go stand out in front of your signs in the skimpiest swimsuits I can find to block the view of your graphic images. My group could all hold Make love not War signs, and hand out birth control. What would people rather see on the City Hall lawn? "
pepper wrote on Sep 21, 2009 8:05 AM:
" what if some young exploited girl saw the results of her choice and changed her mind? what if you were the child saved? Fifty million babies have been destroyed in America in the name of choice and out of this we have committed national suicide. This "old man" will be richly rewarded in heaven for trying to save an innocent baby. "what God has joined together, let no man put asunder" THOU SHALT DO NO MURDER is a direct commandment from God! "
Rev Donald Spitz wrote on Sep 21, 2009 7:19 AM:
" If two pro-lifers had physically attacked a babykilling abortionist do you think they would only be charged with disorderly conduct? No. It is more bias towards pro-lifers.
This man was doing a good job exposing the truth about abortion. "
This man was doing a good job exposing the truth about abortion. "
Shame on Flagstaff wrote on Sep 21, 2009 4:01 AM:
" It is a shame that an elderly retired fire fighter, who is a veteran would be attacked in broad daylight in the middle of rush hour traffic. If a lone elderly "Woman in black" was attacked by two 48 year old men, the town would be in an uproar. So much for "tolerance" and "co-existing". I guess violence against elderly men is OK in Flagstaff.
My wife and I used to stand with Johnny out at City Hall when we lived in Flagstaff. I doubt that two women would have attacked three people. If you agree with Johnny, you should stand with him out at City Hall. If you disagree with his message but respect his freedom of expression, you should stand with him.
This must never happen again! "
My wife and I used to stand with Johnny out at City Hall when we lived in Flagstaff. I doubt that two women would have attacked three people. If you agree with Johnny, you should stand with him out at City Hall. If you disagree with his message but respect his freedom of expression, you should stand with him.
This must never happen again! "
Marshall wrote on Sep 20, 2009 9:36 PM:
" We have enough people wandering around and screwing up this planet! We don't need more! I'm pro-choice. "
Peter wrote on Sep 20, 2009 7:59 PM:
" Perhaps the women should not have done what they did, but you'll have that in this sort of situation, and they will get what the justice system dishes out for their mistake (as long as you believe in the justice system that we have). However, this old guy has some sort of Robin Hood Complex. He's not helping anybody, just fulfilling some need that he has to feel important, and adding flames to a fire that is already near inextinguishable. Freedom of speech?Abortion? Neither is the real issue here. He's being a selfish jerk by exposing children to this graphic content. I mean, would you condone some stranger showing a child to an r-rated movie to prove some point that the child can' t even comprehend? Come on. Sometimes jerks are confronted by people who are sick of it. This guy is lucky that it wasn't some full grown man that had a rough day and decided to take it out on the jerks he encountered. Have you seen the movie "Falling Down" with Michael Douglas? "
flagstaff for 0 growth wrote on Sep 20, 2009 7:26 PM:
" abortion should be legal and retroactive till the age of 18 "
First amendment for all wrote on Sep 20, 2009 4:56 PM:
" I haven't had the time yet, but I had already planned to create a couple of large signs showing the burnt, dead bodies of Afghan and Iraqi children to display standing right beside this man. Seems like if we're gonna assert atrocities we should make sure all of them are represented... and the first amendment assures us that we have this right.
For these women to stop and express their opinion, even with profanity is well within their rights. When they tried to take this man's sign and got in the physical altercation, that is where they crossed the line. "
For these women to stop and express their opinion, even with profanity is well within their rights. When they tried to take this man's sign and got in the physical altercation, that is where they crossed the line. "
A Worker wrote on Sep 20, 2009 4:49 PM:
" I think attacking this man was totally wrong. This man provides a very valuable public service. He illustrates perfectly the kinds of clowns that inhabit the anti-abortion movement. "
CRW wrote on Sep 20, 2009 3:51 PM:
" Using violence like these women did was wrong. Period. However, just like his form of protest is extreme and doesn't necessarily represent all conservatives well, neither did the womens actions represent the main stream liberal opinion. So, please, stop making sweeping accusation of groups of people (i.e. Liberals and Conservatives) based on the actions of these three nut jobs. It does not serve your purpose well and makes you appear reactionary and ignorant. The liberal equivalent of this mans sign would be an image of two men engaged in a graphic sexual act as a way to support gay rights. This would not be appropriate to display in public either and it would not be surprising if some other nut reacted the way those women did. They are all just a meaningless distractions from real, productive dialog. Don't fall for it. "
Flagger wrote on Sep 20, 2009 11:55 AM:
" Can I go out there and stand next to him with a giant sign that says "@$$****" with an arrow pointing to this guy? It's my freedom of speech, right? "
maiden53 wrote on Sep 20, 2009 10:52 AM:
" I so totally agree with america! It would make so much more sense to have women protesting this issue... And I, also, agree that he is entitled to his opinion but the signs are sooo ugly and offensive, especially for children... the ones that he is speaking up for. "
optional wrote on Sep 20, 2009 9:57 AM:
" Is this a vigilante lynch blog or what? Everyone screaming "criminals" " They are Guilty" Let the courts decide. I see this guy holding his signs but I choose to look the other way no matter what my beliefs are. I don't support violance, or vigilanty group with opinions. Most of you are no better than if you were holding the signs, or if you were the attackers. Look at yourselves!!! Practice what you Preach! "
A good Christain wrote on Sep 20, 2009 9:40 AM:
" The anti-abortion protester was certainly within his First Amendment rights even though he was guilty of very poor taste and lack of civility. There are better and more covincing ways to express one's view than highly offense signs.
Suppose an antiwar protestor paraded with photographs of dead and mutilated bodies of American servicemen and women. The anti-war protestor feels just as stongly about the unneccessary,un-American, and immoral Iraq war as the anti-abortion protestor about his cause.
Suppose an over zealous free speech nut stood on the corner shouting the worst types of obsenties as
women and children walked by.
Please fellow citizens try to exercise common sense,civility,and respect for sensitivities of others while you express your free speech rights. "
Suppose an antiwar protestor paraded with photographs of dead and mutilated bodies of American servicemen and women. The anti-war protestor feels just as stongly about the unneccessary,un-American, and immoral Iraq war as the anti-abortion protestor about his cause.
Suppose an over zealous free speech nut stood on the corner shouting the worst types of obsenties as
women and children walked by.
Please fellow citizens try to exercise common sense,civility,and respect for sensitivities of others while you express your free speech rights. "
readitcarefully wrote on Sep 20, 2009 9:30 AM:
" I agree. The women attacked his property, but it was the male protester that turned it into a physical fight, taking the woman to the ground. He should be charged with assault as well. "
Dan Frazier wrote on Sep 20, 2009 8:28 AM:
" I believe in a woman's right to choose what's best for her body and her life. I also believe the man with the signs has a right to stand there and hold his signs without being harassed or attacked. He is giving up his time and part of his life to make a point that he obviously believes is important. Those who disagree have a right to make their own signs and stand out there with him, or wherever they please. Or, those who disagree can write letters to the editor, or letters to their elected representatives. There are many ways to get your message out in a free country. You could even print some T-shirts if you were so inclined. You do not have the right to attack someone physically. It will be interesting to find out who these attackers were. I will be surprised if they are well-known activists in Flagstaff's liberal community. It seems more likely that they are from out of town. Generally, experienced activists, especially activists as old as these women, would know better than to resort to violence. "
Pay attention wrote on Sep 20, 2009 8:12 AM:
" The article said that these women were charged with disorderly conduct and criminal damage. There is no mention of assault. "
mother of 3 wrote on Sep 20, 2009 7:52 AM:
" I could care less what signs people hold out there, but when that guy has those anti-abortion signs with the graphic pictures on them....it's just not what I want my 4 year old daughter to be looking at when we drive by. She's too young to be putting those images in her head. "
flag native wrote on Sep 20, 2009 7:24 AM:
" While I don't like his politics or his emotionally laden signs, the women were wrong. Bottom line: I will protect everyone's right to free speech even if I don't agree with the way they speak. If you don't like the way he's trying to make a point, look the other way when you drive by. That's what I do. "
so wrote on Sep 20, 2009 5:13 AM:
" I don't agree with the Women In Black, but assaulting them is not an option. It would be a criminal act. I recall the city's outrage when a gay guy was hit, therefore, is it ok to hit someone if they share a differing point of view? ...The comments from our citizens are repulsive, what kind of city is Flagstaff? "
David Beger wrote on Sep 19, 2009 11:37 PM:
" Since these women (and obviously many others) don't see a problem with abortion, then why do they get so upset? I mean, if the man was holding pictures of a kidney, would they (or you) have cared? They know they are guilty and reacted defensively. "
Kita wrote on Sep 19, 2009 9:29 PM:
" It is disgusting that some of you would promote violence...Doesn't matter what your take is on abortion..It IS wrong to attack people!!! Wow, you people are impressive. "
dsa wrote on Sep 19, 2009 9:18 PM:
" Horrifying, this is shameful. Would it be ok if it was an anti-war protester? This makes me ashamed of our city. "
flag mom wrote on Sep 19, 2009 8:35 PM:
" Violence doesn't solve anything, but this man has infuriated me since I first saw him with that brutal poster. I have a toddler who will one day (inevitably stuck in traffic right in front of the guy) see that poster and be traumatized by such a graphic, violent image. Although I agree on some level with his message, I absolutely disagree with his delivery. I also believe child abuse and child sex exploitation are the most hideous crimes, but would I force people to look at pictures of it? What would that do besides further exploit and further hurt? This man forces a violent image upon us and by doing so, puts more violence into the world. His message (of peace? of compassion?) is lost. Still, he doesn't deserve violence. I just wish he would try to spread his message in a way that doesn't hurt people. Maybe next time I see him, I'll get out of the car and kindly tell him myself. I wish other people would, too! "
R D wrote on Sep 19, 2009 8:04 PM:
" The women could be charged with property destruction, sure, but he was the one who started the physical assault that caused the other woman to jump in and help her friend. Clearly the guy can't handle people disagreeing with him, and should be taken off the streets. What is he trying to accomplish? Sounds like he's a religious nut who wants any excuse he can get to beat up someone who disagrees with him. Wonder if he would have attacked them if they had been pregnant.... "
andy wrote on Sep 19, 2009 6:43 PM:
" odd how alot of flagstaff residents are unfamilar with concepts like peaceful protest and freedom of speech when it doesn't fit into their leftist worldview. sad.
also, I am a little surprised at the daily sun revealing the paper's bias by publishing comments advocating violence. "
also, I am a little surprised at the daily sun revealing the paper's bias by publishing comments advocating violence. "
RC wrote on Sep 19, 2009 6:29 PM:
" I feel this man has a right to hold his sign. It is a shame that people would stoop as low as this, to attack this man. We live in America, and thank GOD! We have freedom of speech, the liberty to express opinions and ideas without hindrance, and especially without fear of punishment. That is our freedom! These ladies just got a slap on the hand, shame on our officers. If this is what he chooses to do, then that is his right. "
Paul wrote on Sep 19, 2009 5:14 PM:
" I simply don't think there is enough of what either side might believe to be common ground in the debate for either side to make any ground.
I have a harder time understanding the pro-choice argument unless pro-choice folks believe abortion should be used as an alternative, after-the-fact form of contraception (which would contradict the definition of the word - which may be why I seem to have difficulty understanding this argument). In that case: if they do not believe a fetus is actually alive (of which there is no question the fetus meets all the qualities of 'life'), then I guess I see their point; I just don't agree with their fundamental premises. The choice folks believe they should have a right to choose to abort their pregnancy.
The anti-abortion folks seem to believe a person should not have a right to 'choose' to kill someone because they see the fetus as clearly alive. They would rather either: see more responsibility and forethought by sexually active people; or, see the child adopted if it is born to unwanting or irresponsible parents.
I guess the common ground might be the value either side places on life. Both sides seem to have some significant strengths and weaknesses in their arguments on this ground. "
I have a harder time understanding the pro-choice argument unless pro-choice folks believe abortion should be used as an alternative, after-the-fact form of contraception (which would contradict the definition of the word - which may be why I seem to have difficulty understanding this argument). In that case: if they do not believe a fetus is actually alive (of which there is no question the fetus meets all the qualities of 'life'), then I guess I see their point; I just don't agree with their fundamental premises. The choice folks believe they should have a right to choose to abort their pregnancy.
The anti-abortion folks seem to believe a person should not have a right to 'choose' to kill someone because they see the fetus as clearly alive. They would rather either: see more responsibility and forethought by sexually active people; or, see the child adopted if it is born to unwanting or irresponsible parents.
I guess the common ground might be the value either side places on life. Both sides seem to have some significant strengths and weaknesses in their arguments on this ground. "
flag livin wrote on Sep 19, 2009 4:51 PM:
" Only in America is it legal to kill babies, but you will get thrown in prison for fighting dogs and selling eagle feathers. The animals in our nation are more protected than our unborn children. We are such an advanced smart nation!
Maybe we need Elmo to teach us some more! "
Maybe we need Elmo to teach us some more! "
Thumper wrote on Sep 19, 2009 4:50 PM:
" Freedom of Speech is a Constitutional Right. These women should be prosecuted federally for violating his civil rights. How pathetic! "
Jason George wrote on Sep 19, 2009 3:03 PM:
" How would these commentors, who have reacted with joy at this attack, react if this man was out there holding pro-homo sexual signs when he was attacked? I'm sure there would be outrage! Screams of hate crimes would echo through the streets. Why the anger at this man? You're saying he has no right to free speech? Or, is it that it bothers you deeply to see the results of abortion? The truth hurts huh? "
Better idea wrote on Sep 19, 2009 1:51 PM:
" KIDS SEE THIS IMAGE EVERYDAY!!! We don't need some old man to throw this graphic image in our childrens faces. And then you are forced to have to discuss this with children that are not ready to understand this. Also, that old man can never know how it feels to have to make a decision about an unplanned pregnancy. The fear that so many women face everyday. He would do better if he could spend his time doing some POSITIVE volunteer work! "
Once Again wrote on Sep 19, 2009 1:14 PM:
" Once again "Matthew Quigley" has displayed a complete lack of knowledge. Could you please indicate to which protected group the man who was attacked belongs? After all, that is what is required for a hate crime...
"Matthew Quigley", if this was a hate crime, then what do you call all the hate and discontent you display on these boards every day? "
"Matthew Quigley", if this was a hate crime, then what do you call all the hate and discontent you display on these boards every day? "
Leann wrote on Sep 19, 2009 12:55 PM:
" How this newspaper interpreted this story is Wrong! These women did not touch this man nor did they scream profanities, yes one of them kicked a sign that was unnecessarily graphic and had racist comments written on it, but it was the anti-abortionist who attacked these two small women. These women had to go to the hospital! One of these women was knocked unconscious and they both are incredibly beaten up, they look terrible! This man should be charged for assault! One would hope that a person who claims to be an anti-abortionist would not try to attack and kill life that already exists! I am disgusted that the real problem is not being addressed, it has nothing to do with freedom of speech or protest; the problem is an adult man attacked and badly injured two defenseless women! What are we doing and how are we responding to that?! "
Geezer wrote on Sep 19, 2009 12:26 PM:
" Hallelujah. These two women did what many of us have wanted to do for some time now. Thanks for the public service! "
me wrote on Sep 19, 2009 11:44 AM:
" This really is a "liberal hate crime" (M. Quigley). I guess these women don't believe in the freedom of speech when it is directed against a life style that they endorse. Also, I think if it had been two men attacking a 69 year old woman and trying to take something from her, the charges would have been more like: assault, battery and attempted robbery rather than mere disorderly conduct. I honestly don't think these women should be locked up, so maybe a good punishment would be for them to have to stand silently in front of city hall all day with a sign that says, "I promise I won't assault and rob the elderly again". At least, they need to be made to understand that while violence against their fetuses is legally protected, a 69 year old is not a fetus. "
Anne wrote on Sep 19, 2009 11:33 AM:
" Those claiming to want Tolerance show No Tolerance at all. Hey, are we still in America where we have freedom of speech and the right to assemble or not?
Please prosecute these women to full extent of the law. "
Please prosecute these women to full extent of the law. "
CJ wrote on Sep 19, 2009 11:23 AM:
" Jason George,
How about, there won't be any peace until anti-abortionists stop killing abortion doctors. I guess in your mind murder is justified to stop an alleged murder of the unborn.
Lets face it, our society defines what is, and is not, murder. Under the law, abortion is not considered murder. Killing an abortion doctor is. If you think that killing an unborn child is murder, you have the right to believe that. I also have the right to believe that killing (an estimated 1.2 million) innocent civilians due to an illegal war (Iraq) is murder. That being said however, do I support killing people who perpetrated that illegal war, no I do not.
You don't find it surprising that this anti-abortionist was attacked. Well, I'm not surprised given the kind of rhetoric and sentiment of extremist anti-abortionists that abortion doctors are constantly being threatened and killed. These people should be considered domestic terrorists for what they do. If we consider people who torch SUVs eco-terrorists, it seems logical to call extremist anti-abortionists terrorists also.
Lastly, I do not condone in any way what these women did to the victim. Just because they strongly disagree with his position does not warrant assault. Violence is not the answer to our problems. "
How about, there won't be any peace until anti-abortionists stop killing abortion doctors. I guess in your mind murder is justified to stop an alleged murder of the unborn.
Lets face it, our society defines what is, and is not, murder. Under the law, abortion is not considered murder. Killing an abortion doctor is. If you think that killing an unborn child is murder, you have the right to believe that. I also have the right to believe that killing (an estimated 1.2 million) innocent civilians due to an illegal war (Iraq) is murder. That being said however, do I support killing people who perpetrated that illegal war, no I do not.
You don't find it surprising that this anti-abortionist was attacked. Well, I'm not surprised given the kind of rhetoric and sentiment of extremist anti-abortionists that abortion doctors are constantly being threatened and killed. These people should be considered domestic terrorists for what they do. If we consider people who torch SUVs eco-terrorists, it seems logical to call extremist anti-abortionists terrorists also.
Lastly, I do not condone in any way what these women did to the victim. Just because they strongly disagree with his position does not warrant assault. Violence is not the answer to our problems. "
umm wrote on Sep 19, 2009 11:00 AM:
" He was exercising his constitutional rights, assault is never legal. These women are criminals, period!
As sick as the assault was, those who defend it seriously need help too! "
As sick as the assault was, those who defend it seriously need help too! "
Tanya wrote on Sep 19, 2009 11:00 AM:
" Thank God!! I've had it with these pro-lifers! I've had to drive by them and my kids have seen those signs-it was very disturbing to a 3 and 5 year old. I confronted the man once and he basically told me to f-off but please can I have a moment of your time? I told him that he was such a hypocrite because he had a twisted way of caring about the well being of children here and now by exposing them to these violent photos. He was taking my right away, as a parent, by keeping me from protecting what my children see-you never know where this man might be with that horrid photo. "
Robert Stephens wrote on Sep 19, 2009 10:48 AM:
" Can anyone give me a moral rationale as to why the women did not recieve the same treatment from the Sun and the police as the four men who were accused of attacking two gay men last summer? "
Flag Lifer wrote on Sep 19, 2009 10:48 AM:
" How understanding and compassionate. It's enlightening to see how when circumstances are reversed liberals come unhinged at the thought of freedom of speech and assembly by people who don't think like they do. I don't like the signs either and when my kids were younger made it a point not to drive past Planned Parenthood while there were protestors and had the kids in the car. Sounds like this guy needs to get a permit to carry a gun to protect himself from rabid liberals who are foaming at the mouth. "
Flag Native wrote on Sep 19, 2009 10:43 AM:
" Prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. What kind of society thniks these behaviors are ok. I thank God everyday abortion wasn't available when my mother was pregnant, I would not be alive today. "
HATE wrote on Sep 19, 2009 10:40 AM:
" Sounds lke these two women HATE FREE SPEECH. I hope the pro-lifer gets a lawyer and sues them! "
He deserved a swift kick wrote on Sep 19, 2009 10:40 AM:
" I am not pro-abortion. In fact I am heartily against it and I wanted to go kick that man. That type of graphic horible sign does not belong out where young children might see it. Or for people who are recovering from miscarriages or stillbirth. There are better ways to fight abortion, starting with handing out birth control instead. That being said, there are better ways to deal with someone standing there with horrible offensive signs. I seem to remember that Varsity Gasser got into some trouble with the law for having a young attractive woman in a bikini holding a sign outside their business. Why is it okay to show a horrible mutiliated baby but not okay to show a girl in a bikini? "
well... wrote on Sep 19, 2009 10:31 AM:
" Violence is never the answer. However, it can serve as a good bandaid for a bigger issue sometimes. I'm sorry that these ladies were the ones who found themselves in this situation - you know this guy has been waiting for the day when he could press charges against someone who tried to attack him. I have daydreamed often about letting my frustrations out on this fellow - but he's always going to come back. I agree that there should be more signs to demonstrate the opposite point (some not so graphic, though, there are children in this town) and they should be held proudly next to this man! He won't waiver, but he can't live forever! "
Mom of 3 wrote on Sep 19, 2009 10:18 AM:
" How dare ANYONE attack a peaceful protester.
If you're offended by the graphic pictures depicting the TRUTH, perhaps you should look inward and rethink some things.
You think that killing an innocent, unborn child is okay?
You think it's wrong to tell you what to do with "your" body?
Well, it takes a village to raise a child.
And I'm standing up for the rights that you refuse to give your child.
I am appalled that doctors encourage selective killing if your child comes back with a higher risk of a genetic defect.
My first-born child was born with severe disabilities, and we were able to enjoy his life almost until his 7th birthday. He had two siblings who learned so much from him, and we are better for having had him in our lives. I can't imagine if anyone had asked me if I wanted to abort him just because he wasn't going to be a typically-developing child!
God bless the unborn children who have been killed and will be killed in the future.
God know I'm trying to do my part to save you all!
ADOPTION, not abortion! "
If you're offended by the graphic pictures depicting the TRUTH, perhaps you should look inward and rethink some things.
You think that killing an innocent, unborn child is okay?
You think it's wrong to tell you what to do with "your" body?
Well, it takes a village to raise a child.
And I'm standing up for the rights that you refuse to give your child.
I am appalled that doctors encourage selective killing if your child comes back with a higher risk of a genetic defect.
My first-born child was born with severe disabilities, and we were able to enjoy his life almost until his 7th birthday. He had two siblings who learned so much from him, and we are better for having had him in our lives. I can't imagine if anyone had asked me if I wanted to abort him just because he wasn't going to be a typically-developing child!
God bless the unborn children who have been killed and will be killed in the future.
God know I'm trying to do my part to save you all!
ADOPTION, not abortion! "
Lisa Rayner wrote on Sep 19, 2009 10:12 AM:
" Another idea would be to find out which church(es) the anti-choice protesters attend and picket the churches on Sunday on the public sidewalk outside with graphic, bloody signs of women who died during an illegal abortion pre-Roe vs. Wade. "
mrb wrote on Sep 19, 2009 10:11 AM:
" I definitely don't like this man's signs and it has nothing to do with my beliefs. It has to do with the children that have to see them every day he is out there. Of course he has freedom of speech rights, but to me it is like being allowed to put an R-rated movie on Nickelodeon or ABC. There's a time and a place. That being said, violence is not the answer and it cheapens your argument when you take the low road. As somebody else said, counter-protests or fighting for him to have signs without the images on them would have been more effective and appropriate. It's sad that these two women stooped to the level this man wanted. "
SadDayInFlag wrote on Sep 19, 2009 10:03 AM:
" What sad and disgusting comments. This man who cries for the unborn and does the only thin he knows how, using is right to free speech, is violently attacked, and it is cheered by fellow residents. Tell me where the hate is here. These attacks are becoming more frequent, resulting in a recent death of another protestor. Before you say "Good - an eye for an eye" because one or two abortionists have been killed (also abhorent), look at yourself, look at what we've become. You hate his speech so you hate him. We're all still part of this community, we have to stop the hate. And we can't abort free speech. "
america wrote on Sep 19, 2009 9:58 AM:
" nothing pisses me off more than an old man standing outside protesting something that he will never understand or have to go through. "
norine wrote on Sep 19, 2009 9:49 AM:
" Instead of calling this man names, people should be angry that he was attacked for standing up for his beliefs. Why weren't the two women charged with assault? When did our freedom of speech right get repealed? or is this a right only when the belief isn't as controversial as abortion. "
Lisa Rayner wrote on Sep 19, 2009 9:43 AM:
" I know that this guy has been really annoying for a couple of years now, but violence against someone using his First Amendment rights is wrong, no matter the message. I only support non-violent tactics.
What would be more useful is for people to document the anti-choice protesters at Planned Parenthood doing illegal things like using their bullhorn, following people onto the shopping center's private property, entering the clinic to harass people inside, etc.
Another useful project would be for young women to go undercover to the Hope Crisis Pregnancy clinic, with recording devices, and say they are pregnant and thinking of having an abortion and see what the clinic staff/volunteers do. Crisis pregnancy clinics are known for giving out false medical information to women:
Exposing Anti-Choice Abortion Clinics, By Amanda Marcotte, AlterNet. Posted May 1, 2006, www.alternet.org/rights/35545. "
What would be more useful is for people to document the anti-choice protesters at Planned Parenthood doing illegal things like using their bullhorn, following people onto the shopping center's private property, entering the clinic to harass people inside, etc.
Another useful project would be for young women to go undercover to the Hope Crisis Pregnancy clinic, with recording devices, and say they are pregnant and thinking of having an abortion and see what the clinic staff/volunteers do. Crisis pregnancy clinics are known for giving out false medical information to women:
Exposing Anti-Choice Abortion Clinics, By Amanda Marcotte, AlterNet. Posted May 1, 2006, www.alternet.org/rights/35545. "
liberalhypocrisy wrote on Sep 19, 2009 9:39 AM:
" Once again, we see that those who scream loudest about the right to free speech do not honor free speech when something they do not agree with is said. "
Greg wrote on Sep 19, 2009 8:56 AM:
" I disagree with the protester but I support his first amendment rights. Funny how the left keeps talking about their fear of violence from the right but time and time again it's the left who is committing violent acts. "
amy wrote on Sep 19, 2009 8:50 AM:
" Assaulting someone who is trying to protect the life of an unborn child, disgusting. The is a non defensible act against someone exercising his constitutional rights. "
Sick of It wrote on Sep 19, 2009 8:11 AM:
" "I'm sick of it and I'm not going to take it anymore," -- that's from a movie where ordinary people started yelling out of windows. The Tea Parties think that's them. Wrong, it's the rest of us. We're sick of extremist interpretations of our Constitution, both on and off the U.S. Supreme Court, and the hate-speech that comes from the extreme right, or in this case, the hate-filled photos. These women were wrong to attack this fellow (unless he incited it by threatening them?). They, and the rest of us, should be showing up on his schedule with our ownsigns: Women lying in pools of blood with coat-hangers beside them; starving and abused children; uniformed bureaucrats standing over women in consultation with their doctors and taking women off to 24-hour isolation rooms. We have our own horrible images, and we are the majority. Silent and posterless too long. "
Joseph wrote on Sep 19, 2009 8:02 AM:
" Thank you women. I've been wanting to do the same thing for months now however I would of really hurt the man. "
Jason George wrote on Sep 19, 2009 8:01 AM:
" It is no surprise this Pro-Life protestor, (not anti-abortion) was attacked! Abortion is a violent procedure, why would the pro-abort people approach in a peaceful way? People claim to want peace but there will be no peace until we stop aborting our most defenseless class of citizens! "
Harmony wrote on Sep 19, 2009 7:51 AM:
" I thought that Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. taught us that violence solves nothing. The seething anger that is more and more apparent in our society over the past several months is a great disappointment. These are dark times for our society. Yet I still believe that we will achieve greatness once again when we remember that we are inter-dependent on each other. "
Par Tay wrote on Sep 19, 2009 7:37 AM:
" Sounds like a personal reaction. Maybe they didn't like seeing what their abortions looked like. "
Joe wrote on Sep 19, 2009 7:25 AM:
" This is so sad. Many of us see this poor pathetic old man out there every day, making a fool of himself. Hes truly harmless and there was absoilutely no reason to heap violence on him. Every small town needs a person like him, that you can smile and shake your head at. Kinda like-"hes a moron, but hes our moron". When did Flagstaff become so intolerant ? I certainly hope to see that old codger back out there soon. "
Matthew Quigley wrote on Sep 19, 2009 6:09 AM:
" These two women are guilty of liberal hate crimes and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. "
wastin time wrote on Sep 19, 2009 6:02 AM:
" Just think, all this time, standin' around, tryin' to make a point, this guy could have been playing ball or baking cookies or hiking with all the kids he's adopted and saved from a life without parents. Instead, he tries to become the sidewalk "shock jock" version of Howard Stern or that idiot Rush Limbaugh.
People don't listen to or learn from those who are unable to articulate their beliefs and have to rely on "fringe antics" to attempt to make a point. They just end up looking like the "idiot fringe" you see at political rallies on both sides.
For the record, I don't believe in abortion as a rule, either. I'm sure there are circumstances where it might become necessary, but... "
People don't listen to or learn from those who are unable to articulate their beliefs and have to rely on "fringe antics" to attempt to make a point. They just end up looking like the "idiot fringe" you see at political rallies on both sides.
For the record, I don't believe in abortion as a rule, either. I'm sure there are circumstances where it might become necessary, but... "
All comments will be reviewed before being posted. Comments that contain profanity or are obscene, resort to name calling, are libelous in nature, or make personal attacks won’t be approved. Criticism should focus on the ideas or arguments presented — not the person.
Comments are not always reviewed immediately, especially when posted on weekends or nights.
We reserve the right to delete any comments that, upon further review, fail to meet our guidelines.
Do we edit user comments? No. The writers are responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide.
Click to see the complete policy
Advertisement
News Photos Slide Show
Advertisements
Site Index
[ About Us |
Contact Us |
Job Opportunities |
Advertise |
Terms of use |
Privacy policy |
Legal Statement ]
The Arizona Daily Sun, Copyright 2009 © 1751 S. Thompson, Flagstaff, AZ
The Arizona Daily Sun, Copyright 2009 © 1751 S. Thompson, Flagstaff, AZ
Royer wrote on Oct 20, 2009 11:07 PM: