Sick bunch of anti abortion activists exploit death of girl against parents wishes!!

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,862
84
91
zealots...

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/7316756.htm

Flier angers woman's family
LIVERMORE 18-YEAR-OLD DIED AFTER ABORTION
By Barbara Feder Ostrov
Mercury News

The family of Holly Patterson, the Livermore woman who died in September after receiving an abortion pill believed to be RU-486, is criticizing an anti-abortion youth group for using her name and image without their permission.

The Virginia-based group, Rock for Life, which is affiliated with the American Life League, launched a ``Remember Holly Patterson'' campaign with fliers that show pictures of Patterson. The fliers, distributed around the Bay Area, take aim at Planned Parenthood, where the 18-year-old sought an abortion.

``We just find it so offensive and disturbing that they would take advantage of our tragedy,'' said stepmother Helen Patterson. The group never contacted the family, Patterson said. The family has not taken a stance on the abortion debate, she said, but supports legislation requiring parents to be notified if their child seeks an abortion.

The family also supports a bill, introduced by federal lawmakers and dubbed ``Holly's Law,'' that would withdraw approval of RU-486 until its safety can be re-evaluated, she said. RU-486, which allows women to terminate pregnancies without surgery, was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2000.

A preliminary report released by the Alameda County coroner in late October found that Holly Patterson died of septic shock after receiving a drug-induced abortion, although the report did not mention RU-486 by name. The Patterson family said they believe that is the drug she received.

Erik Whittington, 34, co-founder of Rock for Life, said the group did not contact the family before producing the fliers because it did not know how to reach them. The group meant no disrespect to the Patterson family, he said, ``but it's really shocking to me that they find it distasteful and offensive.''

Whittington said the group, at least for now, will continue to use Patterson's name and picture in its campaign. The group obtained photo rights from a yearbook photography company to use its portrait of Patterson and from a Bay Area newspaper to use a photo taken at her funeral, Whittington said.

``We need to do what we need to do in order to save lives,'' Whittington said. ``It's not in our plans to stop. It depends on them contacting us and explaining their concerns.''
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
They are not zelots..they think human life begins at conception and it's murder to kill it. I would'nt expect trivial stuff like consent decrees to get in the way of stopping murder.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,862
84
91
yea, running over fully formed living human beings in their path for their cause doesn't bother them:p zealots indeed.
 

Insane3D

Elite Member
May 24, 2000
19,446
0
0
Originally posted by: Zebo
They are not zelots..they think human life begins at conception and it's murder to kill it. I would'nt expect trivial stuff like consent decrees to get in the way of stopping murder.

Ok, so their views are fine and who the fvck cares about the opposing view right? I've been through this before with you, and just because they think it's murder doesn't justify everything they do. You are generaly a pretty level headed guy Zebo, but I have to strongly disagree with your stance on this.

 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
Last time I checked, you don't need permission to use someone's name, picture, or story when he/she is 18 or older. Too bad if the parent's don't like it.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: Insane3D
Originally posted by: Zebo
They are not zelots..they think human life begins at conception and it's murder to kill it. I would'nt expect trivial stuff like consent decrees to get in the way of stopping murder.

Ok, so their views are fine and who the fvck cares about the opposing view right? I've been through this before with you, and just because they think it's murder doesn't justify everything they do. You are generaly a pretty level headed guy Zebo, but I have to strongly disagree with your stance on this.

Not at all but I understand both sides of the debate and don't take either lightly. Just so happens thier view is stronger willed because they believe it's wrong period, while most pro-choice folks think it's basically wrong and feel bad about it but still should be a right. I guess thats what Orroooo means by Zealots in that they are unable to comprimise thier beliefs. And you should'nt expect them them to either if they feel so stongly about something. Would'nt you be perplexed if someone told you to comprimise on your belief that Jews should'nt be gased? Its the same feeling for them. At least try and understand the "pro-life" position is all I'm saying. There will never be a comprise which is why these threads go hundreds of posts.
 

Insane3D

Elite Member
May 24, 2000
19,446
0
0
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Last time I checked, you don't need permission to use someone's name, picture, or story when he/she is 18 or older. Too bad if the parent's don't like it.

Yeah...how noble....using another person's death for personal gain without any regard for the family who lost a loved one. How wonderfully caring and kind...
rolleye.gif
 

Insane3D

Elite Member
May 24, 2000
19,446
0
0
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: Insane3D
Originally posted by: Zebo
They are not zelots..they think human life begins at conception and it's murder to kill it. I would'nt expect trivial stuff like consent decrees to get in the way of stopping murder.

Ok, so their views are fine and who the fvck cares about the opposing view right? I've been through this before with you, and just because they think it's murder doesn't justify everything they do. You are generaly a pretty level headed guy Zebo, but I have to strongly disagree with your stance on this.

Not at all but I understand both sides of the debate and don't take either lightly. Just so happens thier view is stronger willed because they believe it's wrong period, while most pro-choice folks think it's basically wrong and feel bad about it but still should be a right. I guess thats what Orroooo means by Zealots in that they are unable to comprimise thier beliefs. And you should'nt expect them them to either if they feel so stongly about something. Would'nt you be perplexed if someone told you to comprimise on your belief that Jews should'nt be gased? Its the same feeling for them. At least try and understand the "pro-life" position is all I'm saying. There will never be a comprise which is why these threads go hundreds of posts.


I am not expecting them to compromise, and I do understand where their passion comes from. However, this does not excuse it, nor make their belief any more or less valid. This is a main problem I have with religous zealots, they decide they have God on their side, so any and all that feel different are just uniformed, or supporting evil...or some other crap.

Just because one side feels strongly does not excuse any and all behavior. As far as the gassing jews thing, I understood the point you are trying to make, but it's really an apples and oranges comparison. Just curious, you ask for me to try and understand the "pro-life" position, which is fair, but how about the "pro-life" people trying to do the same?


Edit:

Question for you. Instead of trying to make abortion illegal for any and all people, whether or not they feel it should be, why not try to convince people in a peaceful manner to decide on their own to not get an abortion, rather than flat out banning it. To me, this seems lazy. If it's such an important fight, why don't they do the legwork and try to change the minds of people who are considering it, rather than force their view on everyone, and have the law do their dirty work for them?
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: Insane3D
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: Insane3D
Originally posted by: Zebo
They are not zelots..they think human life begins at conception and it's murder to kill it. I would'nt expect trivial stuff like consent decrees to get in the way of stopping murder.

Ok, so their views are fine and who the fvck cares about the opposing view right? I've been through this before with you, and just because they think it's murder doesn't justify everything they do. You are generaly a pretty level headed guy Zebo, but I have to strongly disagree with your stance on this.

Not at all but I understand both sides of the debate and don't take either lightly. Just so happens thier view is stronger willed because they believe it's wrong period, while most pro-choice folks think it's basically wrong and feel bad about it but still should be a right. I guess thats what Orroooo means by Zealots in that they are unable to comprimise thier beliefs. And you should'nt expect them them to either if they feel so stongly about something. Would'nt you be perplexed if someone told you to comprimise on your belief that Jews should'nt be gased? Its the same feeling for them. At least try and understand the "pro-life" position is all I'm saying. There will never be a comprise which is why these threads go hundreds of posts.


I am not expecting them to compromise, and I do understand where their passion comes from. However, this does not excuse it, nor make their belief any more or less valid. This is a main problem I have with religous zealots, they decide they have God on their side, so any and all that feel different are just uniformed, or supporting evil...or some other crap.

Just because one side feels strongly does not excuse any and all behavior. As far as the gassing jews thing, I understood the point you are trying to make, but it's really an apples and oranges comparison. Just curious, you ask for me to try and understand the "pro-life" position, which is fair, but how about the "pro-life" people trying to do the same?

There are plenty of Pro-lifers that have no religious base for thier convictions. They think simply life begins at conception and no minister had to tell them that.

Just because one side feels strongly does not excuse any and all behavior.

Interesting thesis. How far would you go to prevent a murder? That's how far, and I don't excuse, I go to understand thier actions.

As far as the gassing jews thing, I understood the point you are trying to make, but it's really an apples and oranges comparison.

Not quite but it is different. Ones a living, brething, cognizant being..one will be in shortly.

Just curious, you ask for me to try and understand the "pro-life" position, which is fair, but how about the "pro-life" people trying to do the same?

Thier view is one of absolute conviction that a fundemental human right is being violated, life, by third party, mother. Really all you can expect is obstinace. The right to choose seems less punitive than that no? I think it's good though to remind them of other living they can help from homeless, to war victims, to adoption agentcies etc...seems most only care about the fetuses which confuses me.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Question for you. Instead of trying to make abortion illegal for any and all people, whether or not they feel it should be, why not try to convince people in a peaceful manner to decide on their own to not get an abortion, rather than flat out banning it. To me, this seems lazy. If it's such an important fight, why don't they do the legwork and try to change the minds of people who are considering it, rather than force their view on everyone, and have the law do their dirty work for them?

That would mean personal loving effort and risk of failure. Very tramatic for the type of personality who wishes thier will on others IMO.
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
So, a person dies from taking legal drugs and you expect everyone to cover it up? I would expect this to make front page news! Everyone should know the risks of this stuff.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Last time I checked, you don't need permission to use someone's name, picture, or story when he/she is 18 or older. Too bad if the parent's don't like it.
Check again.

There are all sorts of restrictions on how you use someone else's image and name. If you don't believe that, try printing up a bunch of fliers with Jack Nicholson's picture, or Alicia Silverstone, or Donald Trump. (Hint: get your legal team on retainer first.)
 

Insane3D

Elite Member
May 24, 2000
19,446
0
0
Originally posted by: XZeroII
So, a person dies from taking legal drugs and you expect everyone to cover it up? I would expect this to make front page news! Everyone should know the risks of this stuff.

Who is talking about cover up's? Someone dies, it's in the news..fine. Starting a statewide anti-abortion campaign named after the dead girl without so much as speaking to the family is quite another.

Thanks...drive through...
rolleye.gif


 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: XZeroII
So, a person dies from taking legal drugs and you expect everyone to cover it up? I would expect this to make front page news! Everyone should know the risks of this stuff.

The risks are being overhyped by the anti-abortion crowd for obvious reasons. Only 1 person has died from RU486.