Jefferson demonstrators infringe on no one

Home » Opinion » Letters To The Editor

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Comment

Dear editor, I noticed a startling disconnect between Iris Barrie’s June 19 letter calling for the suppression of speech against abortion and the headline over it: “Demonstrators infringe on others’ rights.”

Despite misrepresenting the character and activities of anti-abortion protesters in Napa, Barrie failed to mention a single way in which they infringed on others’ rights. The pro-lifers’ messages are not in fact intimidating. They don’t contain such sentiments as, “You will go to hell if you support baby-killing!” Even if they did, however, they would not be infringing on the rights of clinic patrons or passersby. There is no right to be free of the free speech of others.

And, come to think of it, there couldn’t be. Such a “right” would be a complete negation of the actual right to free speech.

Barrie suggests that the free speech rights of pro-lifers need to be denied so that no one goes nuts and murders an abortionist. The fact is that far more violence in this country is associated with domestic disputes than with public protest on any issue. According to Barrie’s mildewed logic, we’d be well advised to outlaw marriage and cohabitation. If men and women didn’t live to together, all this domestic violence wouldn’t occur.

Of course, shutting down public protest is a far more practical possibility than outlawing cohabitation. The first modern government to legalize abortion — the Soviet Union, under Lenin, in 1920 — shut down lots of public protest over the years. But in these United States, we have a pesky little thing called the First Amendment.

Tom Riley / Napa

42 comment(s)

kevin wrote on Jun 25, 2009 4:51 AM:

" Excellent points, as usual Tom.

The Libs only believe First Amendment Rights apply to things THEY support, ie abortion, the homosexual agenda, support of countries and ideologies that want to kill us, etc... "

freeport56 wrote on Jun 25, 2009 9:09 AM:

" great letter Tom! Again, kevin hits the nail on the head. Libralism is much like a fundamentalist religion, there is no bending or open mindedness.

As usual, it is their way or the highway. "

Raven wrote on Jun 25, 2009 10:00 AM:

" having a nice dish of hyperbole there, are we? "

opiniagirl wrote on Jun 25, 2009 10:10 AM:

" You hit the nail on the head! Freedom for all; not a select few! "

random name here wrote on Jun 25, 2009 10:23 AM:

" I have absolutely no problem with anyone asserting their First Amendment right to free speech. Post signs stating whatever you want.

I do think it's disgusting when someone feels the need to post a poster-size photograph of a latex gloved hand holding a mangled human fetus. I'm more concerned about the person posting that picture in public than the doctor who performed the abortion.

How come I never see anti-firearm protestors waving giant photographs of a person who took a shotgun blast to the face? Or seatbelt advocates posting huge photos of body-mangling auto accidents? I think the proper term is "reasonable discretion". "

4gnapan wrote on Jun 25, 2009 10:35 AM:

" Ok, secret camera time...

Someone go record what happens to young women who attempt to go into Planned Parenthood, past this "blockade", but no "staging" the scene. "

napablogger wrote on Jun 25, 2009 11:18 AM:

" random name, good point about the anti firearm protestors. What if they took photos of babies heads blasted off by a shotgun and stood in a group in front of the entrance to a gun show? They could say, don't go in baby killers. Don't buy guns and bullets, you are committing a sin against God.

Wonder how long they would last out there? And how offended gun owners would be? I know as a supporter of the 2nd amendment I would be really mad.

The problem isn't that they are expressing their opinions, it is where they are doing it. The ought to go protest somewhere else. There is such a thing as poor taste and harassment. We need a more courteous society. "

Tom Riley wrote on Jun 25, 2009 1:16 PM:

" The reason you don't see gun grabbers holding pictures of dead babies is that guns very rarely produce dead babies.

Ditto automobiles.

But abortionists always produce dead babies. That's their job -- and they do it 100 percent of the time.

The fact that you find the image more offensive than the reality proves only one thing.

You're unwilling to face reality. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Jun 25, 2009 1:25 PM:

" Think of it as a fund-raising opportunity.

I donate money to Planned Parenthood when I see the demonstrators.

And when I read posts like this, I make sure to drive by and... sure enough, if they are there I donate again.

The more horrible the photos, the more I give.

~Ruff "

busymom wrote on Jun 25, 2009 1:37 PM:

" You can write your letters and carry your signs,but you will never tell me,my sisters,my daughter what to do with our bodies.We have rights too,and you can keep wasting your time because that is your right. "

Tom Riley wrote on Jun 25, 2009 2:04 PM:

" Once again, fellow pro-lifers, don't worry that you're inspiring contributions to Planned Parenthood.

Ruff Limblog, for all his enthusiasm, can't afford to give Planned Parenthood enough money to make a difference.

They're richer than Croesus over there, and they haul everybody's money in via government funding.

Ruff is just letting off steam -- and he's steaming because, once again, the reality is too much for him to take. "

random name here wrote on Jun 25, 2009 2:13 PM:

" Nowhere in my post do I connect guns with dead babies.

Mr. Riley is correct: Abortion doctors have one purpose, to take a life. Guns have a purpose too: Every gun was designed to kill something.

And as far as reality goes, the first time I witness a doctor perform an abortion on a city sidewalk in public view I'll retract my statement that I find a huge poster of the same event offensive.

I'm not responding to Mr. Riley's opinion to support abortion, I'm responding to protesting tactics that I find out of line. "

Raven wrote on Jun 25, 2009 2:50 PM:

" guns very rarely produce dead babies....

in 2002, more than 3,000 children were killed by firearms....according to the CDC. "

cab e-girl wrote on Jun 25, 2009 2:55 PM:

" napablogger- the difference between showing a mangled fetus after an abortion and a mangled child after a gun blast is that abortion is legal. Blowing the head off a child is not. There is a huge difference. Some citizens find abortion nothing more than legalized murder of a child and they have every right to protest against both the legalization of abortion and the government funding of abortion.

Random Name: Have you ever heard of peace through strength? If not, you must know that there are millions of gun owners who have never killed anyone, yet they have been able to use their weapons to defend their life and or liberties. Your comparison of doctors who perform abortions and gun owner's is seriously flawed. "

cab e-girl wrote on Jun 25, 2009 3:10 PM:

" Raven: The CDC includes children as ages 0-19. What is not broken out of your figure is the gang deaths because of illegal fire arms. "

savanna wrote on Jun 25, 2009 4:08 PM:

" Please,,,, everyone call Thomson's office and say "NO" to the Cap and Trade Bill. Our taxes are high enough. Call the Napa Offfice at 226-8989 "

winewoman wrote on Jun 25, 2009 4:46 PM:

" I'm so happy to see commenters here supporting people's first amendment rights to demonstrate, picket, rally and march. Oh wait, some of you were complaining (rather loudly) about same-sex-marriage supporters rallying, marching and speaking out. Hmmm, I wouldn't want to think there might be double standard with some of you commenters...... "

winewoman wrote on Jun 25, 2009 4:54 PM:

" Tom Riley, we are not denying your first amendment rights to demonstrate. We challenge your methods and tactics. As other commenters have already mentioned, the protesters need to demonstrate reasonable discretion and civility. Otherwise, you're viewed as just another religious fanatic/zealot. "

Raven wrote on Jun 25, 2009 5:34 PM:

" the source is of the firearm death is irrelevant, cab-e-girl...the statement made was "guns very rarely produce dead babies"

as for the difference between showing pictures, the act under discussion is the showing of the picture, not the act that produced the death...because you have no way of knowing if the source of the abortion foto was from and legal or illegal abortion. (btw, there is no such thing as legalized murder, it is is legal, it isn't murder.) "

Tom Riley wrote on Jun 25, 2009 5:50 PM:

" Raven, that total of 3,000 is what abortion -- even just surgical abortion -- kills in this country in a day.

I own three guns, and none of them has killed any children, or any human beings.

Alas, darn few game animals, either. "

Tom Riley wrote on Jun 25, 2009 5:53 PM:

" Winewoman, I never objected to gay-rights protesters. Indeed, when I spotted them, I went over and had a nice chat. "

John Richards wrote on Jun 25, 2009 6:05 PM:

" random wrote: "I do think it's disgusting when someone feels the need to post a poster-size photograph of a latex gloved hand holding a mangled human fetus."

Why? Is it so disturbing because it represents the truth of what happens during an abortion? Would you not want all parties to be fully informed before voluntarily engaging in that act? "

John Richards wrote on Jun 25, 2009 6:15 PM:

" Raven wrote "in 2002, more than 3,000 children were killed by firearms..."

The difference between 3000 children killed by firearms and 1,269,000 unborn children killed through abortion in 2002 is that most of the former were accidents, while all of the latter were done willfully. As you can see, one also greatly outnumbers the other. "

John Richards wrote on Jun 25, 2009 6:19 PM:

" winewoman wrote: "the protesters need to demonstrate reasonable discretion and civility."

Pray tell, what is so civil about taking the life of over one million unborn children every year? And that's just in the US. "

UpValleyReader wrote on Jun 25, 2009 7:41 PM:

" As soon as you mention Lenin and the Soviet Union in a debate, you have lost the argument. It is just another version of Godwin's Law. "

winewoman wrote on Jun 25, 2009 8:05 PM:

" Tom Riley - congratulations, you win a brownie point. I wan't referring to you - I was referring to other commenters.

This Planned Parenthood dispenses birth control, education and health care. Nothing more. There is nothing vile or disgusting about that. In fact, it is a good thing that our women are seeking health care, education and birth control. You are protesting the killing of babies. These women are just trying to get health care, birth control and education. Why block their access? Why frighten and intimidate them? Why lie to them? Want to make abortion illegal? Take it to the legal system, the courts. "

winewoman wrote on Jun 25, 2009 8:08 PM:

" Uh, JR - I seem to recall that you're the one always whining about "what is apprpriate in public" (same sex marriage conversations). Seems there a double standard going on here. "

Bauhausfan wrote on Jun 25, 2009 9:26 PM:

" If you are against abortions then one must conclude that you are for comprehensive sex education for children when they get to the appropriate age and birth control and easy access to it.

If you are against abortion and against contraceptives and sex education then, in my opinion, you are not credible at all on this subject. "

Raven wrote on Jun 25, 2009 9:55 PM:

" so its okay if a few babies are killed by firearms...and didnt you say...guns very rarely produce dead babies? "

Tom Riley wrote on Jun 25, 2009 10:35 PM:

" No, it's not okay. People should take better care of their kids -- and their guns.

But guns aren't nearly as deadly against babies as abortionists are. Period. "

Raven wrote on Jun 26, 2009 8:04 AM:

" So it is a matter of the numbers then, not the method that bother you? an capitol punishment, Tom, what about that?...you okay with that? "

wyngyrl wrote on Jun 26, 2009 9:20 AM:

" If your want to make some really effective posters, why don't you carry posters with the faces of the fathers of those unwanted pregnancies? Why are the demonstrations always, always, always directed at women? I assume they didn't receive visits from an angel telling them they would have virgin births. YOur protests are one-sided and never seem to address issues beyond a 30 minute medical procedure. I have no respect for the so-called pro-life movement because the viewpoints are so narrow. "

Tom Riley wrote on Jun 27, 2009 10:01 AM:

" Yesterday morning I went for a long walk and found that I was very disturbed by the tendency of the forums in which I had been participating -- not by anything that had been posted in response to me but by at least half of the thing I had posted.

It occurred to me that the points I really wanted and needed to make had been established in my early posts and in my own letter, and that afterward I had been only been bickering, taking cheap shots, trying to get the last word, repeating myself or worse. I had actually drifted into rudeness in an effort to prove myself -- what? -- supreme pro-life commentator of the week? It was all vanity.

I thought of Epictetus: “Yes, I must die, but must I die groaning?” I didn’t like the effect of all this rhetorical excess on my character.

So I stayed off the forums yesterday, didn't read any posts, didn't write any posts. I'm resolved in future not to get wrapped up in this game of trying to beat people in the posting realm. And I apologize for the times I slipped into rudeness. "

winewoman wrote on Jun 27, 2009 6:42 PM:

" How.......oddly insightful. Sadly, you have just become like the protesters in front of PP; just a quick hit result while others are left to deal with the aftermath. There were so many inconsistencies and contradictions yet to debate. Alas, farewell Tom Riley. Perhaps I'll see you in front of the PP - when I go to express MY First Amendment rights. :-) "

anticommie wrote on Jun 28, 2009 3:09 AM:

" random name here wrote on Jun 25, 2009 10:23 AM:

"I do think it's disgusting when someone feels the need to post a poster-size photograph of a latex gloved hand holding a mangled human fetus."

And I guarantee the protesters feel the picture is disgusting as well. But what they are showing is the truth behind what abortions are. I support abortions, but I understand where these protesters are coming from. Watch out though, you used the term "human fetus." If the left considered the fetus to be human, than abortion would have to be murder and outlawed.

Murder: the killing of another human being "

John Richards wrote on Jun 29, 2009 10:19 AM:

" winewoman wrote: "you're the one always whining about "what is apprpriate in public" (same sex marriage conversations)."

There is a difference between what conversation is appropriate when dining out in a fine restaurant as opposed to a street demonstration. "

John Richards wrote on Jun 29, 2009 10:30 AM:

" busymom wrote: "you will never tell me,my sisters,my daughter what to do with our bodies."

By that argument, prostitution should be legal also.
When you get beyond parrotting the simple minded slogans, you will find that society often has greater interests to protect that transcend the individual's rights. "

Raven wrote on Jun 29, 2009 1:34 PM:

" and how do you figure that, JR....busymom appears to be talking about legal procedures and practices...while I think that we should examine the de-criminalizing at the least of prostitution, don't see the connection between her statement and your conclusion,.....grasping at straws JR. "

winewoman wrote on Jun 29, 2009 7:00 PM:

" JR said, "There is a difference between what conversation is appropriate when dining out in a fine restaurant as opposed to a street demonstration. "

Huh? What? Oh, we're talking about you again and what you find personally offensive - well, as someone has already said, "that's a personal problem. Get over it."

"By that argument, prostitution should be legal also. When you get beyond parrotting the simple minded slogans, you will find that society often has greater interests to protect that transcend the individual's rights. "

Prostitution? Well, that's overreaching and irrelevant. It stands to reason that if society determined that individual rights were being violated, the action would be made illegal. Perhaps society IS protecting individual rights - the individual rights of women. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Jun 30, 2009 9:35 AM:

" Why ISN'T prostitution legal, anyway? It's only the women who get in trouble for it, not the men who perpetuate it.

Kind of like pregnancy, huh?

Okay, never mind. Another day, another debate. "

jodihernandez wrote on Jul 2, 2009 10:16 PM:

" OK I am pro choice all thought it is not my choice. I get both side of this debate. I respect both sides.

My problem is if a post size fetus is on the stree and i drive by and my 5 year old son sees it what do think that does. do only the unborn children count? I protect my child from the horrors of tv. I live in collier and protect him from riff raff every moment of every day. And my son will be attacked driving down the street. There is no way i can explain that to him at this age. The horrible dreams he will have because of it.

Think about the young children being raised today. A cute baby that says choose life has as much impact. And is safe for a child to see. No horror dreams at night. "

valleygirl wrote on Jul 8, 2009 12:04 PM:

" Seperation of church and state. "

Join the conversation

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Create an account

Comment Guidelines

The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.

What gets your comment posted?

• Staying on topic

• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less

• Avoiding name-calling

• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger

What gets your comment deleted?

• Personal attacks

• Derogatory remarks

• Name-calling of any sort

• Going off-topic

• Hate speech

• Racially-insensitive comments

• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict

• Posting e-mail addresses

• Posting comments of a commercial nature

• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS

• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.

The fine print

- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.

- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.

- Comments may take several hours to be posted.

- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.

- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.

- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.

Search: