Teen Exposes Planned Parenthood
by
Ted Slater
on May 18, 2007 at 10:03 AM
A couple of months ago 18-year-old Lila Rose, a sophomore at UCLA, decided that she had had enough of Planned Parenthood's deception. Thought by many as merely a friendly resource for those wanting information about birth control, family planning and unplanned pregnancies, Lila knew better. And she wanted to show the world what she knew -- that Planned Parenthood was primarily in the business of facilitating abortion.
She went undercover, taking on the role of a pregnant 15-year-old, and walked into a Los Angeles Planned Parenthood office.
In the course of the conversation with a staff member, she was told to lie about her age so that there would be fewer roadblocks on her way to abortion bliss. She got everything on tape, and uploaded it to YouTube (which has since removed the video). You can hear excerpts of the audio here (clip) and here (extended).
Of course, Planned Parenthood was grateful that the illegal activities of one of its staff members was exposed, so that they could remain an organization characterized by integrity.
Not.
Instead, the organization is threatening legal action against the young whistleblower.
This situation brings up some interesting issues. First, is it acceptable for someone to use deception in order to expose a greater evil. I think Jesus shows us that in some cases it is acceptable. Second, now that it's irrefutable that Planned Parenthood is all about seeing more mothers kill their babies, what are you going to do about it?
HT: The Rebelution
1. Justin had the following to say on May 18 at 10:22 AM:
Good for Lila. And I wonder why YouTube took her video off. I'm not one to buy into the liberal media conspiracy, but that seems a little sketchy.
2. Heather had the following to say on May 18 at 10:40 AM:
I completely disagree with the very dubious proof-texting Ted used to indicate that Jesus was not opposed to using deception to expose a greater evil. This verse has to do with Jesus and the disciples on the road to Emmaus, and Jesus "appeared" to be traveling further because, for all we know, he was. He was testing the hearts of his disciples, who did not recognize him. The next verse is a beautiful passage that should characterize our response to Jesus's presence: "Stay with us, for it is toward evening and the day is now far spent." Jesus's "deception" (which I think is completely the wrong thing to call this) led these disciples to do something good--entreating their Lord to remain with them. This is hardly a good example of Jesus condoning deceptive behavior. To claim that it does really damages your argument and your integrity.
Regarding lying, it is always wrong for a Christian to say what is false. Even in a much more difficult ethical situation, such as hiding Jews during the Holocaust, I believe that prominent Christians such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer did not advocate lying to the authorities. If the Nazis knocked at your door and asked if there were Jews in your basement, and there were, the best a Christian could do is refuse to answer, because they did not have a right to that information.
Back to the main topic, it isn't like no one knew before this girl's actions that Planned Parenthood is all about abortion. That's hardly a news flash, so I'm not sure what was accomplished by her actions. Her time would be better spent in prayer outside an abortuary, rather than saying and acting out a lie and behaving in a way that only reinforces both sides' dislike of each other. And I am sure the PP folks would be happy to point out the hypocrisy in her Christian witness!
3. Ted Slater had the following to say on May 18 at 10:54 AM:
Thank you Heather. I appreciate your kind words.
;-)
You wrote, "I believe that prominent Christians such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer did not advocate lying to the authorities." The truth is that Bonhoeffer was in on a plot to assassinate Hitler. Surely this plan included some deception on his part.
Would you consider Jesus' keeping some people in the dark about what He was communicating to be a type of deception? He spoke in parables, for example, in order that some would understand and others would not. For all the "others" knew, He was just talking about planting a garden, rather than about how the Word of God functions in our hearts. He was intentionally obscuring "the truth."
It may be beneficial to differentiate "lying" from "deception." Let's consider arguments by Immanuel Kant and Sissela Bok, for example, people considered scholars in the field of communication. Kant applies his "Categorical Imperative" to the issue of lying, saying that if he were to lie, "I act against the right of mankind, since I set myself in opposition to the condition and means through which any human society is possible." Kant proposes, though, that "untruths" (what Bok labels "deceptions") are acceptable.
To illustrate this idea, Kant wrote, "To attack a man on the highway is less vile than to attempt to poison him." Telling an untruth is like attacking a man who is able to defend himself; lying is like poisoning a man’s food — he must eat, and so is defenseless against the poisoner/liar. Admittedly a seemingly offensive choice in either case.
Bok explains the difference between deception and lying this way: Deception includes "messages meant to mislead ... [to] make them believe what we ourselves do not believe." Lying, however, is "any intentionally deceptive message which is stated." Super-subtle difference.
In the end, Bok emphasizes, Kant-like, that "truthful statements are preferable to lies in the absence of special considerations." Special considerations indeed.
I agree that differentiating between deception and lying feels a bit weasely. In the end, while I believe there are times for godly deception (seemingly a contradiction in terms), our policy should be to speak the truth.
Perhaps Paul made it most clear when he wrote, "Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer everyone" (Colossians 4:6). Just as salt is not the staple of a meal, but rather an ingredient which makes eating certain foods more pleasant, so guarding one’s speech is secondary to speaking the truth clearly. Although saltless food is often bland, you would not last long if your diet consisted of salt alone. Similarly, your dialogical health would be impaired if your speech were pleasant, but insubstantial and consistently deceptive.
It appears that lying — leading others to believe something which you don’t believe in your heart — though often bad, can sometimes be acceptable, according to certain Bible passages (which I frankly haven't gotten into in this comment, due to time constraints; others such as Justin below will have to point those out).
Perhaps the best way to reconcile the inconsistencies which the Bible appears to have is to redefine, or specify, terms, as Kant and Bok have done. For the Christian, however, it would be ideal to gather deontological support for the use of deception instead of relying on the more teleological approach which Kant and Bok appear to have adopted.
So there you go. Enjoy the rest of this conversation....
What do you think, by the way, of undercover military operations meant to protect us from terrorists? I'm all in favor of them.
4. Justin had the following to say on May 18 at 11:01 AM:
Regarding lying, it is always wrong for a Christian to say what is false.
If only that were true.
Check out the Story of Rahab.
Joshua 2:2-7
5. Holly had the following to say on May 18 at 11:40 AM:
To conflate Jesus teaching through parable with entering a medical facility under false pretenses and repeatedly lying about one's name, age, circumstances, and reason for being there -- and furthermore putting it all on tape, which is illegal in some jurisdicitons -- borders on blasphemy.
This teenager used fraud and deceit to confirm something that every thinking adult in the country already knew. This is noteworthy only as an extraordinary waste of time. Invoking the Lord's name in her stunt is shameful.
6. Sarah Cool had the following to say on May 18 at 11:47 AM:
"Second, now that it's irrefutable that Planned Parenthood is all about seeing more mothers kill their babies..."
It's this kind of overwhelming bias and broad statements that have caused me to almost entirely stop visiting this blog. I have pretty conservative viewpoints on politics and cultural issues like this, but I am still very turned off by your presentation.
7. Heather had the following to say on May 18 at 11:52 AM:
Well, quick response to Justin would be that Rahab was not a Christian, and she lived in the Old Testament. Hence, she was not under the New Covenant. Just because the Bible records a fact does not mean it is an example for us to follow. If we're going to proof text, how about Jesus saying "let your yes be yes and your no be no?" Or the commandment against bearing false witness? Seems pretty clear that Lily Rose bore false witness at PP.
Ted, I am sorry if I came across too harshly, but to go about proof-texting like that is dangerous. and I note that your extensive comment did not try to rely any longer on that verse, or really on Jesus's example as much as on Kant and other philosophers. I do not have the time to research my answers, so it is possible that I was wrong to refer to Bonhoeffer, but I thought he'd be a safe choice since he's a Protestant. =)
I essentially agree with your definition of lying as leading others to believe something which you don’t believe in your heart. I'm not sure I think the distinction being made between lying and deception is legitimate. And, per Bok, the question for a Christian is not whether telling the truth is "preferable"--it is whether it is sin. I don't see any basis for a Christian saying it is not sin.
8. Greg had the following to say on May 18 at 11:54 AM:
Justin: As for YouTube removing the videos, they probably got a C&D notice from Planned Parenthood. YouTube, like nearly every other community website of its sort, generally doesn't want lots of legal battles, so the "safe" thing for them is simply to take down a video if they get a halfway-credible request to do so. It's just a pragmatic thing.
Ted and Heather: That's a tough issue. There are occasions in scripture where God uses a deception for good (e.g., Rahab; the tactics in the second battle of Ai; Paul getting himself out of trouble by claiming, falsely, that a conflict was because of the "resurrection", something he however later implied was a "misdeed" - because it was a deception or because it stirred up a hornets nest we don't know for sure). There are other times when an "innocent" lie destroys someone's witness (e.g., Abraham calling Sarah his sister, and like father like son Isaac doing the same thing to Rebekah). In all cases, though, we must remember not to build our theology based on history, even the inspired recording of history in Scripture. Because something happens doesn't necessarily make it right. There are lots of things recorded in scripture which are examples of what not to do, or which are a part of God's specific plan for someone but not a normative pattern for everyone else.
In the NASB, the verse reads "... He acted as though He would go farther". That actually brings up an interesting discussion regarding God's sovereignty and omniscience. Obviously Jesus knew that he would be staying with them that night (unless one is into the "open theism" nonsense). But He obviously wanted their request (for Him to stay with them) to be an integral part of His plan. From a human perspective, if they hadn't asked, He would have gone on. But He knew that they were going to ask (and gave them the opportunity to freely do so). So was it a deception? Man, that gets into some serious semantics that I certainly don't feel I can decode on a blog post :)
9. Heather had the following to say on May 18 at 11:55 AM:
I just saw Holly's comment. I completely agree.
10. Greg had the following to say on May 18 at 12:08 PM:
Holly said:
While I didn't read Ted's original post as a conflation of the two, I do agree that they are different animals. I personally don't think what the teen did was right; even if perchance the deception itself wasn't wrong, the image projected was (it was not "above reproach"). It is good to remember though that the police, FBI, etc., all do exactly the same thing on a very regular basis to catch criminals. Even that bothers me a bit though.
11. Josh B had the following to say on May 18 at 12:22 PM:
Also see 1 Kings 13:18-26... An old prophet engages in deceit, which God uses to test his messenger...
12. chizadek had the following to say on May 18 at 12:42 PM:
While it may be true that "Planned Parenthood is all about seeing more mothers kill their babies" I don't see how the intentions of the organisation can be proved by the actions of 1 of its staff members, but it certainly provides some evidence in that direction.
13. Matt had the following to say on May 18 at 1:19 PM:
Also, there is a reason that Rahab is mentioned in the "Hall of Faith" in Hebrews 11. I think I'm correct that Jesus was also descended from Rahab.
I really dislike when people just dismiss the OT because it was "old covenant". Jesus was a practicing Jew. We should stop trying to pretend like he wasn't.
14. Megan had the following to say on May 18 at 1:45 PM:
Also see how God blessed the Israelite midwives who lied to the Egyptians about delivering Israelite babies in order to save their lives...first or second chapter of Exodus, I think.
15. Lewis had the following to say on May 18 at 2:00 PM:
I agree with Heather's and Holly's posts, that lying for any reason, as a Christian is wrong. Absolutely. The proof-text passage is a misuse of the Bible.
Lying as an agent of the government is a little different. I do a double standard here, but we live in two kingdoms, the Kingdom of the Right (God's law) and the Kingdom of the Left (Man's law). If I were an agent of the government, I would suppose I might have to do some things that might not be so good. But I'm not, so I don't have to make that choice, thank God.
Bonhoeffer was indeed involved in a plot to assassinate Hitler. And if you read his writings, he was constantly tormented by it. Also, he did not consider it a Christian activity and by engaging it and by what he wrote, it becomes clear that we see a man plagued by insincerity and doubt, a man who didn't really consider himself Christian and always doubted if he was going to heaven. Poor guy.
16. Tomi had the following to say on May 18 at 2:05 PM:
Abortion bliss? I'm sorry, I must have forgotten that the gut-wrenching decision on whether to abort or carry your baby to term is just TONS of fun! Remind me to join in!
Hmmm last time I checked, abortion was legal. The restrictions on abortion regarding age that PP circumvents are not really legitimate safeguards in the best interest of the girl/woman involved, but rather attempts by conservative lawmakers to make a perfectly legal procedure that they think is immoral more difficult to obtain for the only women they can legally control and restrain, minors.
Um, I don't get how it surprises anyone that Planned Parenthood provides abortions, they don't exactly try to hide it. However, the numbers may surprise you: Only 9% of all PP clients receive abortions among their myriad of other services, and abortion makes up 3% of all their health services overall. I actually have non-sexually active friends who use PP as their primary health care.
17. Joseph had the following to say on May 18 at 2:09 PM:
Something I have come to believe about the Christian faith is "what is sin?" is not so much a black and white "this is sin, while this is not", being that sin is a separation from God and we are in an intimate relationship with God, such concerns really do depend on the person and the attitude behind the actions that may or may not be questionable.
I look to Mark 11:15-29 and how was it that Jesus could act in such a way, I surmise with a level of passion that would appear very close to anger and yet be righteous still. I think it was because Christ did those actions not for selfish reasons but for the respect of his Father. Where I am going with this, what she did whether it was sin or not, is between her and God. Her motivations for what she did are paramount.
If we want to be critical of other Christians doing questionable things in the name of God we could also look at ministries like xxxchurch. However, I don't see how that uplifts our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.
18. Heather had the following to say on May 18 at 2:13 PM:
I never pretended that Jesus was not a practicing Jew. Yes, Rahab is in his family line. But again, just because the Bible records activity does not mean it is condoned or an example for us. David was a man after God's own heart and an adulterer and murderer. Obviously not everything David did is an example for us to follow. Even saints of the faith were regular sinners, too. What Rahab is honored for is being the only person in a heathen land to recognize and come to serve the true God of Israel.
If you want to argue that lying is ok, please set forth a logical argument. Don't just say someone in the Bible did it.
19. Tomi had the following to say on May 18 at 2:14 PM:
As far the ten commandments goes, the Bible says not to "bear false witness against your neighbor." In my opinion I think lying is wrong, but I think the verse means don't lie about somebody else. This means other forms of lying might be okay--no need for all the deep philosophical arguments, although one could use other parts of the Bible to prove either point.
20. Ted Slater had the following to say on May 18 at 2:28 PM:
Heather and Lewis -- you both use the term "proof-text" to describe what I did in referencing Luke 24:28 as evidence of the acceptability of sometimes being deceptive.
I don't see how that is proof-texting at all, frankly. If you take that verse in context (verses 13-35), you'll get the sense that Jesus was being "deceptive" with these men pretty much the entire time. It's a theme in that passage. He obscures who He is so that they don't recognize Him. He acts as though He isn't aware of the events of the previous few days (Jesus' crucifixion). He acts as though He's going to a different town, all the while knowing He's going to be going with them.
While I could understand your coming to the conclusion that I'm "proof-texting" because I mentioned but one verse, in fact I am not proof-texting because the entire context has Jesus obscuring the truth so that *in time* the full truth would become known.
Apology accepted, preemptively.
21. John M. had the following to say on May 18 at 2:48 PM:
To all of you who are being absolutist about telling the literal truth, wait until you're married. If your wife asks "Do I look fat?", and she does, you better lie. And no, saying something like "Dear, you have internal beauty" will just hurt her feelings worse.
22. Rachel had the following to say on May 18 at 2:53 PM:
Tomi,
If someone over the age of (I believe) 18, has sex with someone who is "underage" (different states have different laws, but 16 is pretty common), it is considered statuatory rape. The teen in question pretended to be 15, and I have read in other reports that she told the Planned Parenthood employee that her boyfriend was 20 or older. Unless there's a way of becoming pregnant that I don't know about, that's considered rape. Are you really prepared to argue that this law is not in the best interest of girls?
-Rachel
23. Jethro had the following to say on May 18 at 3:04 PM:
Ted,
I second what Sarah Cool said. Snide remarks like 'abortion bliss' indicate to me that you are so keen to score points against the 'baby killers' that you haven't bothered to take into account the feelings of those going through what is often the hardest decision in a person's life.
Something tells me that if a non-Christian stumbled across your blog post all it would do is reinforce all the negative stereotypes people hold of conservative Christians.
I saw no love, no compassion and no understanding in your post. Only judgment and an approval of deceit.
24. Mandi had the following to say on May 18 at 3:09 PM:
Tomi -- you can't cherry-pick your Commandments. There's one about murder too, regardless of whether a society decides it's "legal" or not. As for false witness, whom was this teen accusing of raping her? Did she actually *name* someone? If so, did she name someone *real*? I'd only have a problem if she did because then she would have crossed the line into false witness against an actual neighbour...and to men, even when acquitted of crimes like this, the mere accusations can often lead to irreparable harm to their names. But it doesn't appear she did that.
Heather, Holly, et al. of this opinion -- only until Ted's last comment did I kind of see why he was using that example at all. I can *kind* of see why now, and I'm not clear how parables fit the bill here...
...BUT I think you're jumping on this girl unfairly. As I said, it doesn't appear she actually named names in terms of a rapist, so you cannot say that she falsely accused anyone of anything.
What she did is no different from police officers posing as online predators, drug dealers, even terrorists, to nab people whose actions create grave harm to innocent people every day. Do you condemn those tactics too??? If so, how can you justify that to yourselves when we have evidence that these tactics have caught people who deserve to be behind bars, and put them there? Are you saying that abortionists are better somehow than child molesters, drug dealers and terrorists?
If law enforcement officials, for whatever reason, refused or neglected to nab PPF people breaking the law as they do terrorists, et al., well, hat's off to this young teen.
And she's not the first to do so. LifeDynamics out of Texas has been compiling this kind of evidence for *years*. People just don't like to report it.
And that's the thing: you jump on her for using tactics law enforcement use to protect *you*, and you're assuming she's added nothing to the knowledge base of the general public about PPF, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Most people who aren't ardent pro-lifers -- i.e., the majority in the "mushy middle" -- don't know what active pro-lifers do about PPF. Unfortunately, it's *news* to a lot of people that PPF is not a big American do-gooder.
25. Ted Slater had the following to say on May 18 at 3:58 PM:
Heather -- Matt is correct in pointing out that Rahab's deception is noted not merely as permissible, but as *honorable*.
Note Hebrews 11: 31: "By faith Rahab the prostitute did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had given a friendly welcome to the spies."
What did that "friendly welcome to the spies" look like? It looked like *deception*, according to Joshua 2:2-7. Instead of speaking the truth about the Israeli spies, that they were hidden on her roof, Rahab said that they had left the night before. By telling an untruth, Rahab was honored by the Lord.
This is a tricky issue. Scripture is not encouraging lying. But Scripture does indicate that something **like** lying is permissible -- even honorable -- under certain circumstances. Let's wrestle with this so that we understand Scripture rather than take the simple route and say that anything that strikes us as "like a lie" is always wrong.
That said, if you lie and your conscience knows it's a lie, you are sinning.
26. Ted Slater had the following to say on May 18 at 4:09 PM:
Sarah Cool and Jethro -- it's not my intention to pile on the guilt that mothers who've had abortions already experience. There is forgiveness for what they've done. The blood of Christ is sufficient to cover their sin. The Lord loves them dearly despite what they've done. His love for them is no more than the love He has for me, someone who has also sinned greatly.
That said, it cannot be argued that Planned Parenthood is pro-choice. They are adamantly pro-abortion, primarily because of how much money they make from the procedure, but also because of an ideology inspired by their founder, Margaret Sanger, who once wrote, "The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your points. Is your concern that I'm opposed to Planned Parenthood, or that I consider abortion to be the killing of a pre-born baby? Is it really a "negative stereotype" to say that shedding the blood of a pre-born baby is wrong, and that those who encourage it are in the wrong? And that both those who facilitate it and those who have it done to their children can receive forgiveness for their sin? Sometimes the truth is painful. This is the truth.
27. Heather had the following to say on May 18 at 4:35 PM:
Ted,
Ok, I will revise my comments regarding Rahab just slightly to say that the issue of telling the truth or practicing deception is more difficult to discern when it involves protecting the life of someone who would be murdered by evil men. Hence, Christian plots against the Nazis, etc. All the same, we are to walk in the truth, and to speak the truth. That does not mean we must always blurt out truths that might lead to harm or endanger someone, but we are restrained from speaking untruth. Any particular story in the Bible must be read in context of the whole Bible before we conclude that we should emulate any given action.
And while abortion is murder, what Lily Rose did, by intentionally lying, saved not one life from abortion. PP's vile activities are legal. Yes, she caught a worker encouraging her to lie, but Miss Rose only discovered this by committing flagrant lies herself. And to anyone who might have seen her enter, she gave the appearance of being a party to PP's activities. Also, given that Miss Rose knew she was lying about her age and her alleged pregnancy, how is that not sin, in light of what you wrote in your last post?
Finally, about proof-texting. Sorry, no apology here. I stand by what I said. You did expand a little bit on a possible interpretation of the whole road to Emmaus story, but to take away from that story the moral that Jesus practiced deception is a serious mistake. According to the translation you used, it said that the two disciples were unable to recognize him, presumably for some supernatural reason. God can certainly come to us in disguise if he chooses, and most likely, he often does. Also, based on the stories about Jesus after his resurrection, it seems that he was not quite the same as he had been before--he could walk through walls, and after dining with the two on the way to Emmaus, he "vanished." He also had to tell the disciples not to be afraid of him. And even in his conversation with the two disciples, he did not lie to them, but simply asked them questions he knew the answer to--what are you talking about? what event are you talking about? This is a common method of teaching in Jewish rabbinic culture, I believe. All of this is pretty far afield from the main point of this post, however. And that is why your citation was a proof-text: you grabbed a verse and used it to suit your argument, and not for the reasons the verse was written.
28. k. had the following to say on May 18 at 4:41 PM:
Ugh, I've had it--Boundless produces some of the most sanctimonious, self-righteous, self-satisfied postings around. It's embarrassing that you're associated with Focus on the Family.
I'm pro-life to the bone, but your reference to "abortion bliss" is disgusting. I would hardly rank Jesus' "deception" with Lila's. I have no doubt that Lila was well-intentioned, but that doesn't mean what she did was particularly savvy, necessary, or praiseworthy.
29. Lewis had the following to say on May 18 at 5:24 PM:
Ted,
God, meaning Christ as well, does not deceive. If we believe He is doing so, we are sinful and we cannot possibly comprehend anything in His plan. To suggest that Jesus deceived the two on the road to Emmaus is not only ridiculous, but borders on the heretical. And before anyone focuses on the word "acted," it's a mistranslation. The word in the Greek means "appeared." That could mean anything. An extra cloak, a heavy cloak, a travel bag. Who knows? The Gospel doesn't say. But use Scripture to interpret Scripture. Does God deceive elsewhere? I think what we find is that God does not deceive... anywhere. He may not make His plan fully known, but that is His prerogative. Not mine. To think that He deceives people to bring them to Himself is sinful and a horrible misuse of the Bible. We'll leave it there. Blessed day.
30. Seraphic Single had the following to say on May 18 at 5:28 PM:
I stand with Heather. As does St. Augustine. St. Augustine is a great saint and hero for all Western Christians, Catholic and Protestant, so I encourage everyone to read what he has to say about lying. He wrote two works on it "On Lying" and "Against Lying."
St. Augustine banned the lie absolutely, and he also addresses all the scriptural passages where there are lies or seem to be lies. For a very quick synopsis, please visit my site:http://seraphic-singles.blogspot.com/2007/05/st-augustine-on-lying.html Or find St. Augustine's works translated on line.
As you will all see in the comment section, I once found myself in a situation where I deceived clinic staff at a protest. At the time, I thought I was a great (if accidental) hero. Now I don't think I was. It is wrong to tell lies, especially in the name of Jesus Christ. Satan is called the Father of Lies.
31. josh had the following to say on May 18 at 6:43 PM:
I don't see why youtube took it off, being too sensitive... Weren't the 12 deceptive when they went in to Jeruselum? I don't even think that's spelled right... What an awesome thing this girl did!
32. BDB had the following to say on May 18 at 7:09 PM:
So...Lila wants to be an investigative reporter? Perhaps the more important issue is whether Lila accurately represented what happened. To accurately represent what happened would not bear false witness. False witness would be if she went in saying she was 18, then edited the video after the fact to make it sound like she said she was 15.
The local CBS station did this to my church once - without any regard for accuracy. There is a provision in California State Law for child-care workers to get a waiver for certain felony convictions and still work with children. They sent someone undercover to ask if there were any "criminals" working there. The receptionist said "no" on hidden camera.
They came back and wanted to talk to the pastor. He granted them a 2-hour interview. When he found out what they were after, he asked the staff member in question if he could share the information, which he did. One staff member had a DUI conviction a few years earlier; the individual was in a non-driving position. It was done in full compliance with state law. A receptionist should not be expected to know all aspects of state law.
Unfortunately, when the station reported the overall story on this state waiver program, the station failed to mention that our pastor had granted them an interview, they failed to disclose that it was a DUI conviction for someone in a non-driving position, and they failed to allow the church to respond with a statement. They deliberately broadcast partial truths without allowing the other side to be heard. THAT is false witness.
YouTube should not have removed the video. They should have allowed Planned Parenthood to post a rebuttal video. That's what a free press is about. There was no free press during Biblical times, so I think we need to adjust our theology to allow for journalism, just like we adjusted our theology to allow voting instead of relying on the divine right of kings.
33. P&P had the following to say on May 18 at 7:11 PM:
To me, the "abortion bliss" remark just proves that a so called loving Christian can be just as snarky as your every day secular humanist. Thanks for re-inforcing a negative stereotype.
Also, why not look at predicament of the counselor? If you sat down with people in these groups, they will tell you horror stories about teen girls who have been beaten or even thrown out on the street by parents who go ballistic when they discover the girl is pregnant. They'll tell you stories about young women who have been assaulted and terrified of going to the authorities because they don't want to experience the "blame the victim" syndrome (they do encourage them to go to the police, btw). The'll tell you stories about street kids who have been in and out of the "system," which has failed them and they're living on the street or with foster parents who just don't care.
Like it or not, these people are in the trenches and see things most of us can't imagine. I'm not saying that the counselor should have told her to lie about her age, but perhaps you could show some compassion for the people working in thse clinics. They see more misery in five days than most of us see in five years.
34. Sarah Cool had the following to say on May 18 at 7:14 PM:
Ted -
The point I made was obvious, and I do not appreciate your attempt to feed the fire of the disagreement by adding all sorts of context and statements that I did not make.
I keep away from this blog because I find that you make over-arching judgements on political & cultural issues that I find to be done in a very harsh, distasteful way. I feel that my comment was clear, and made no reference to the morality of having an abortion.
Truth is saying to a woman: having an abortion is killing a child. Let me show you another way.
Truth is not writing a propaganda-like post about Planned Parenthood.
Most of the time, I don't disagree with the theology of what is written here. But I almost always disagree with the self-righteous manner of writing. I am surprised at your lack of compassion and respect for those who disagree with you.
Apology accepted, preemptively.
Where does sarcasm fit in with this discussion? How is that an appropriate way to explain how you are feeling? I would suggest erring on the side of graciousness in responding, as you are representing an organization quite bigger than yourself.
I'm quite disappointed in how these discussions/disagreements are handled by certain of the Boundless staff. As leaders and employees of Boundless, you are held to a high standard.
35. Mike Theemling had the following to say on May 18 at 7:46 PM:
If I could add something which doesn't necessarily validate Lila Rose's actions but is something to think about:
Remember all those news shows and documentaries which try to uncover some scam or illegal activity using a hidden camera? In just about every case, the poser isn't interested in the product or service, but just wants the perpetrator to confess on camera to his/her true intentions.
For this, I don't see a general outcry of "deception/lying/etc". I rather see from the masses approval that this two-faced person/organization got exposed for what it really is.
The issue here it seems was not that PP consoled her on getting an abortion (some pointed out that it's general knowledge they do that) but that they told a client to lie and break the law to obtain it.
But that's one issue. The bigger question/issue is "Is it OK to break a law/rule for a greater good?" This of course is tricky. First, what is "the greater good"?. Also, how do we reconcile God's commandments to us and examples in the Bible?
My (very) condensed version: Jesus says that ALL laws hang on two basic laws: Loving God first, and loving others. The Bible also makes it clear that when the two are in conflict, loving God takes priority.
Take the Nazi sheltering for example. The "loving people" law would be encompessed under the obeying the government. It's also "loving people" to not see them dragged off into boxcars to ultimately get gassed. You could however make a strong argument that lying would be a the greater love or at least "loving God" because God clearly throughout the Bible emphasized valuing life, helping your neighbor, etc. In this case, lying would be justified.
By the way I don't buy the "just refuse to answer" option because that's a dead giveaway that you are probably hiding something, at least in that situation.
And in closing on the Nazi example, remember that the Nazi's were found guilty at Nurenburg despite the defense of "being ordered to commit atrocities". Basically, it validated the notion that a greater love/law was at work that they should've followed.
In the Bible, there were times where Jesus Himself said that certain laws were meant for man and not vice versa such as the Sabbath. He healed on the Sabbath and also cited and validated actions taken by David and his men for eating consecrated bread which were only for the priests. And of course there are all the other examples given of deception/rule breaking (God telling Samuel to lie to Saul, Rahab, etc.). I agree we must tread carefuly lest we justify any and everything for our own convenience, but I do not believe that we should blindly follow all laws without consideration for the circumstances.
Unfortunately, many situations in real life are not clear cut. In regards to abortion most Christians would agree that killing doctors to save unborn lives is not justified. But then the lines get fuzzier. How about picketing in front of abortion clinics? Or pushing for legistlation to put restrictions on it? Or what this lady did to expose what she believed was hypocracy?
A difficult issue for sure. But again, the point I think Ted is trying to make is that if abortion is as serious and a travesty as most of us say that it is, what is a proper response?
Personally, I need to listen to the entire thing (or as much as I can) to make a final judgement, but on the surface I don't see that much to get worked up over. And remember, Roe v. Wade was based in part on a lie to begin with (she claimed she was raped when in fact it was entirely consentual). Something to chew on.
36. Ted Slater had the following to say on May 18 at 8:34 PM:
Lots of heated exchanges. Let me sum up what I think the various threads are:
1) It's either acceptable or unacceptable to deceive others in order that a greater good can result (similar to the way that killing, for example -- something prohibited in the Ten Commandments -- is acceptable in the case of self-defense).
2) Planned Parenthood is overall either a good organization or a bad organization.
3) Some people (including myself) have either said hurtful things toward those who don't deserve it or truthful things about those whose deeds should be exposed.
I've made my positions clear. While I believe lying is wrong, in some instances "deception" can in fact be honorable. Jews on my roof? Nah, they left during the night.... I believe Planned Parenthood -- the largest provider of abortion (AKA "murder") in the U.S. -- is a terrible organization hell-bent on making money by killing the babies of uninformed (and some informed) mothers. There's a lot of hurt among those being "served," and I sympathize, but killing a baby (other than in self-defense) is absolutely wrong, and those who encourage it are absolutely wrong. I'd be happy to see them lose their tens of millions in federal funding and be shut down.... And I believe I haven't attacked any individuals at all, merely pointed out the evils of a murderous organization and pointing out that forgiveness is freely available for those who've suffered from a decision to dispose of their baby.
This may come across as defensive, but I have to admit that I'm honestly a bit confused by those who are saying that I'm failing to meet a high standard in the things that I write. It's not my intention to come across as self-righteous and uncompassionate. I want to come across instead as compassionate -- I don't want to see innocent babies' heads crushed, for example, and I don't want to see mothers go through the pain and guilt of abortion -- something PP facilitates for profit.
Those who are offended by my words -- please tell me where I've erred and provide examples of how I could do better. I am eager to see my words seasoned with salt, to see my heart motivated more and more by a godly desire to love others as Christ does.
Ah, for what it's worth -- what Lila has recorded is just the tip of the iceberg. This article by the UPI shows that such law-breaking by Planned Parenthood is rampant -- 91 percent of the 800 facilities investigated agreed to illegally conceal a girl's age as depicted in the example illustrated by Lila's investigation. 91 percent is not an "isolated incident" -- it's a policy.
PP has to go. Now, before more babies are murdered and more girls are abused.
37. Tomi had the following to say on May 18 at 8:54 PM:
Mandi-I was actually defending the girl regarding my comments about "false-witness," I'm not sure what you're getting at.
Ted: I'm sure you know this but the basic premise of a not-for-profit organization is not that they do not make any profits, but that after paying bills, any money made is put right back into the organization. That said, PP makes far more money on multiple prenatal visits than on single abortion procedures. While there's nothing wrong with being against PP, it has been around for almost 91 years, and its mission has certainly evolved and expanded with the times. To say that profit is PP's primary motivation for providing/defending abortion is inaccurate--all one needs to do is take a look at their mission statements on their website.
Rachel: I'm a little conflicted on the mandatory reporting laws regarding statutory rape. While what the PP worker did was definitely illegal, the vast majority of statutory rape cases reported never even make it to the point of charges being charged--usually after the girl, her reputation, and privacy have gone through hell. Teachers, coaches, and counselors are often faced with hard choices, especially when dealing with abuse at home. Often teens don't seek prenatal care, contraceptives, or STD/STI testing due to fear for their information not being confidential. While I think that the premise of mandatory reporting is good, I wonder if ultimately more harm is done in the end, and if there is a better way to protect these girls.
38. Leah had the following to say on May 19 at 3:40 AM:
Heather- the road to Emmaus is not the only time Jesus has done something like that. See John 7:1-12. He told his brothers "now is not the time" for him to go to the feast- yet he went anyway, simply without their knowledge.
Sarah Cool, while I don't agree with the way Ted handled comments with you, I don't see this post as "propoganda-like". Propoganda for what? That Planned Parenting condones abortions? We don't need propoganda to tell us that- Lila Rose did that job.
39. Charles H. had the following to say on May 19 at 8:17 AM:
I've seen a number of posts here say "PP's activities are legal," as if legality implies that the activities are in any way defensible. That troubles me. Slavery was legal at one point. Racial discrimination was legal until (comparatively) recently in history. In many places it's legal to discriminate against Christians. Does that make those things right?
40. Jonathan from Canada had the following to say on May 19 at 8:44 AM:
Hang in there Lila! They prefer to attack you than to attack your arguments because theirs are vacuous.
PP is the modern equivalent of a 18th century colonial slave trader's port. It's hard to imagine how many deaths they've facilitated by telling Americans that certain living things are not real human beings.
41. Adam had the following to say on May 19 at 9:21 AM:
Hey Everyone!
As far as the morality of the situation, I don't see anything wrong with what she did. I mean, obviously, she risked getting caught, but, I don't see anything wrong with taking that risk upon yourself.
However, I do have a thought. Would a person have to have some evidence that they think something is going on in such a situation to justify their actions? For instance, might it have been more justifiable if she had younger friends who had been told to lie about their age in order to get an abortion? I think that I might have problem with what she did if she just went blindly into the PP office without any evidence that this was going on.
However, as far as what she found out, I am ROTFL! Lie about your age!!!!!??????? "Abortion Bliss"??????!!!!!!!!! I think that this about says it all. What does it say when you have engage in this kind of behavior to murder an unborn child. Not only that, but the hypocracy of this situation is just unbelievable. They say this violates the "invasion of privacy act." Well, I suppose it would be a volation of the "invasion of privacy act" if someone did something similar to expose an organization that was selling drugs, or supporting the murderious rage of a gang. Where do you draw the line? If I were her lawyer, I would push this very, very hard.
Rose, if you are reading this blog, don't back down. These folks are just bullies who are trying to intimidate you into getting rid of embarrassing evidence against them.
Also, the evidence goes far beyond this. Rose posed as a 15 year old girl for a reason. She told PP that the father was 23:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200705/NAT20070516d.html
In other words, this was an issue of statutory rape, and PP failed to report it. However, as the article says, PP might now come under investigation for their actions. Hence, even if Rose looses her legal battle, it would be like paying 5,000.00 to put PP out of buisness. Sounds like a fair trade to me. I should think we would be sending in donations so she can pay the $5,000.00 to PP if she looses, and let them be investigated, and closed down for their actions.
BTW, might I suggest to her that she might not get her video removed if she posts it on "GodTube?" It is like YouTube, only it is ran by Christians. Just a thought.
God Bless,
Adam
42. raj had the following to say on May 19 at 4:09 PM:
Ted,
I have a suggestion for your next blog.
With friends like these, who needs enemies.
God Bless Lila Rose!
43. BDB had the following to say on May 19 at 4:20 PM:
>>she was told to lie about her age so that there would be fewer roadblocks on her way to abortion bliss.<<
Perhaps instead of "abortion bliss," it could be phrased, "lie about her age to circumvent parental notification laws designed to ensure parents aren't surprised when life-threatening complications occur with their daughters, as they often do with surgical procedures like abortion."
I don't know anyone who has experienced "bliss." But I do know people who had abortions as teenagers without telling their parents - not because they feared abuse or being thrown out - but because they were young and didn't want their parents to know. A decade later they realized that it was dumb to think their parents would react that way. Teenagers make lots of dumb choices - they are not mature enough to consent to surgery. That's why there's a law.
44. Paul had the following to say on May 19 at 4:27 PM:
Surely the more important point here is what does this lying, deception, or whatever else you want to call it actually achieve? Does it reduce the abortion rate, or does gloating about points scored against pro-abortionists just make the most vulnerable of women's lives more painful and make them less likely to seek Christian counsel?
It really does drive me nuts when we rant about how welfare is a bad thing and that governments should leave charity to us, but then we expect them to legislate for our high moral standards. That seems to be the wrong way around, governments have the ability to create an economy that is just and fair, but humane and compassionate, while churches should be there to celebrate and encourage positive personal morality.
In reality, for all the words that have been said for "life" or "choice", the change in abortion rates has been roughly the same under Bush as it was under Clinton (a slight decline, but far too little). If we want to see a serious reduction in the abortion rate, then we need some serious action. We need to encourage governments to provide better financial support to everyone raising children (irrespective of how ideal their family structure is, because life is more important than that), and as a church, we need to provide positive counseling, advice and emotional support to individuals facing difficult challenges. Primarily, we should be stepping in where we see Planned Parenthood as failing, and offering something better.
45. Shannon had the following to say on May 19 at 5:52 PM:
I find it interesting that from the comforts of a modern American home and on a computer, without a face, we can debate whether or not lying/deception is wrong in the face of certain death or for the sake of revealing crimes being committed.
Whether we want to realize it or not, the fact remains that abortion murders. It is the equivalent to a holocaust - indeed, more atrocious and heinous - but we've been numbed to it, much like we've been numbed to extramarital sex and homosexuality. Should there be compassion? Yes. But there were times when Christ was hard. He was compassionate to the broken in spirit, but had hard words for the arrogant.
Postmodernism has seeped into American evangelicalism and instead of being united on the front that Planned Parenthood, along with any other facility that allows abortion, should be stopped.
Someone cited the stats on how much money PP makes off of abortions - the truth is that they shouldn't be making any. How would it sound if I said (assuming this were the case) that the tortures on Jews made up only 3% of the Nazi's advancements in medicine. See the connection?
Compassion is needed for those who are broken, but for those that arrogantly push forward for death, we need to stand firm and stand tall and fight.
46. k. had the following to say on May 19 at 6:04 PM:
First a random point I'm curious about: where is the biblical mandate is for killing someone in self-defense? While doing so is completely logical to me, and I'm all in favor of it, I can't think of any NT passages supporting it off the top of my head. I was also perplexed by your saying that "killing a baby (other than in self-defense) is absolutely wrong." This smacks of homicidal infants wielding axes, which is obviously ridiculous. Were you referring to "life of the mother" cases, such as an ectopic pregnancy? Because I don't think that's self-defense. Self-defense implies an "only-ONE-of-us-is-walking-away-from-this!" element that is simply not present in many health-of-the-mother cases. For example, with an ectopic pregnancy, no matter what you do or don't do, the baby is going to die: the only question is whether the mother's Fallopian tube, fertility, or life goes with it.
Second: while I do not agree with Planned Parenthood, it IS an organization providing a legal service. Let's get a grip--they're not dealing crack cocaine or participating in organized crime. And many of its members strongly believe that they are helping disadvantaged women. Have you ever spoken to any of these PPers, or had any interaction with them? It doesn't sound like it. My mom was a leader in a pro-life organization when I was a kid. She actually invited the local PP president to meet her for lunch, and the other woman accepted. While neither of them changed their minds, of course, they did come away with respect for each other. I think my mom's reaching out was much more illustrative of Jesus than you are right now (you're demonizing them by referring to their "murderous," profit-driven, "abusive" behavior). It's important to remember that, in PPers' minds, they are performing a safe, legal, and socially desirable service.
I think what's bothered a lot of people about this posting (including me) is your hyperbole and angry tone. "Abortion bliss?" Oh come on. I have NEVER heard of a woman in "bliss" at having an abortion. Relief, sure. But bliss?? No. "Evils of a murderous organization?" PP is not an evil monolith -- it provides birth control and reproductive health information to women who might otherwise not obtain it. And, "A decision to dispose of their baby," as if these women viewed their baby as a dirty paper plate after a picnic? I've never had an abortion myself, but I know two women who have. And I promise you, they were NOT over there thinking, "Oh goody, I get to dispose of my baby!" I agree that they did cause the deaths of their unborn children...and so do they, as both later became Christians. But at the time, that was not their mindset. They felt trapped and like this was their only way out.
While I agree that the death of innocents is something to be righteously upset about, I think you're directing your anger in the wrong direction. Breathing fire about PP and its supporters is not going to make it go away. You mention that "I don't want to see mothers go through the pain and guilt of abortion," but NOWHERE in there do you express your grief that many of these women feel like they have no alternative, that at least some have abortions because of relationship problems with the baby's father, and that sometimes women who have abortions are economically and emotionally on their last leg and are *desperate.* And that, I think, is the difference between handling this situation compassionately and coming across as a self-righteous prig, to be totally honest.
Oh, and I applaud your desire to love others as Christ does, and I'm sure it's genuine...I just think your execution is a little off. I'm late to meet friends and don't have time to re-read this--apologies if I was unclear about anything.
47. Megan had the following to say on May 19 at 7:20 PM:
Regarding God and lying:
I think there are definitely times where lying - not telling the truth in order to shield or protect others - is called for. The Hebrew midwives lied to Pharoah about letting the Hebrew babies live and God blessed them for it. If this undercover work found people actively encouraging illegal abortions, isn't it the same thing? Innocent lives being protected?
Yes, circumventing the age laws makes for illegal abortions! A 15 year old isn't allowed to drive a car alone in my state because it's known that 15 year olds often don't have the reflexes and maturity to be making life and death decisions called for by handling a car.
Those laws aren't only in place because "anti-abortion conservatives" are trying to place barriers in the way of murdering children: they are also there because young girls are in a terribly dangerous position making this decision on their own. Think of it: without their parents' knowledge, the only people they're getting advice from are folks who think it's good to murder the baby!
I guess I have a hard time understanding why it should be so controversial that a young woman did undercover work to expose an illegal activity - again, this was blatantly illegal! - and considered un-Christian to tell a lie in the interest of saving lives.
48. DannieA had the following to say on May 19 at 9:37 PM:
The 18 year old UCLA student was trying to make a point.
She wasn't selling drugs or conspiring to kill someone.
As a 28 year old looking back at my college years, being 18 and wanting to "save the world"...I don't fault her.
Does anyone even remember what it is like to be 18 and 'fight for a cause?' You know we didn't act in the most thinking of ways.
gimme a break. ya'll act like she's a felon.
I don't think her actions were necessarily in the right, but neither am I convinced she was in the wrong. I'm really tired of people shooting 'evil bullets' at pro-life people.
Both sides should take this incident and learn their lessons from it
49. Mark Willard had the following to say on May 19 at 10:30 PM:
In regards to the morality of lying question, Desiring God recently posted John Piper's answer to that on their blog, for what it's worth.
While I'm as pro-life as can be, regardless of whether or not lying is ever justifiable, Lila Rose also broke the law. And I think it's clear from the Bible that the only time that's ever OK is when not doing so would put you in violation of God's law. (Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17) Again, I'm 100% pro-life and despise the murdering of babies that Planned Parenthood is responsible for, and therefore can really appreciate and understand where Lila's coming from. But Lila lied and broke the law to accomplish something of dubious value.
Finally, Ted, I think the reason that so many people are offended is that (in my humble opinion, at least) Boundless has a habit of coming across as very forceful in its views -- including in relation to things that aren't necessarily black and white according to Scripture. Examples would be global warming, seeing/not seeing particular movies, and the morality of lying, among others.
50. P&P had the following to say on May 20 at 10:52 AM:
Ted:
"It's not my intention to come across as self-righteous and uncompassionate. I want to come across instead as compassionate..."
A woman who chooses to have an abortion is not in a blissful state, especially when she has to walk through protest lines blocking a PP clinic with people holding crosses and calling her a sinner and a whore. I've seen it. It's sickening. Words like "abortion bliss" are on par with those people.
What bothers me about this topic is that people are so focused on the "pre-born" that they lose sight of the already living. If you want to see abortions eliminated, why not provide better economic opportunities, education and medical care to women and men? That would show compassion.
The one thing that I find interesting is that as conservative as this blog is, no one wants to admit that the number of abortions performed in the US dropped during the Clinton administration. Many credit this drop to better federal funding (which you oppose) and educational initiatives that extended beyond "abstinence only."
The one question I've never seen addressed here is what will happen if abortion were made illegal in the US? Do you honestly think all children will be brought joyfully into the world? Do you think the pracice will be eradicated and all women living in the US will see the light?
Sadly, I don't think so.
51. Phoebe had the following to say on May 20 at 1:29 PM:
Hmm. It doesn't seem to me that Lila bore false witness. The deception question is harder, but as for false witness, everyone agrees that she has portrayed the truth of the situation through her camera, including the PP leadership.
Maybe what she did wasn't the most diplomatic, safe, legal action. But it took a great deal of courage and passion and it was done with the intention of exposing the true behavior of an organization which purports to have women's best interests in mind. It caused people to pay attention, and to think.
I can see myself making a mistake like that -- some kind of legal uh-oh which would get me in a lot of trouble. But I am no where close to demonstrating the hard work and passion Lila has for her campus pro-life organization.
I hope Lila Rose's action will plant a seed of distrust in the public's mind against Planned Parenthood and its motivations. I hope that her desire to influence the abortion debate will be successful. I hope that her newspaper will succeed in helping young people make wise lifestyle choices, and in the end, to save babies and protect mothers.
52. Ted Slater had the following to say on May 20 at 1:31 PM:
P&P, Jethro, Tomi, k., BDB and others have complained about my use of the term "abortion bliss." I'm afraid you've misunderstood my intention in using that phrase, perhaps overlooking the context in which I used it. Here's the full sentence from the original post:
"In the course of the conversation with a staff member, she was told to lie about her age so that there would be fewer roadblocks on her way to abortion bliss."
Note, please, that the context indicates that I've put this term in the *staff member's* mouth. *I* am not calling abortion "bliss"; I don't think the mother would consider abortion to be "bliss"; and while the staff member probably didn't use the term "abortion bliss," by his/her actions, he/she is exalting abortion over other options. My choosing the term "bliss" is a satirical literary technique intended to draw attention to the aburdity of Planned Parenthood's advocacy of abortion, a terrible procedure that snuffs out a life and deeply hurts a mommy.
Again, if by exposing Planned Parenthood's actions and methodologies we are able to see alternative crisis pregnancy centers receive more federal funding (and PP receive less), and more mothers thereby choose adoption over abortion, life over death, then it's worth the effort. Remember that the scenario exposed by Lila is not the exception, but is standard practice, as shown in the UPI article I referenced above.
Some people complain that "people are so focused on the 'pre-born' that they lose sight of the already living." That may be the case somewhere, but not where I live and work.
To see just a bit of what Focus on the Family is doing in this arena, check out Option Ultrasound and Voice of the Orphan.
For what it's worth, half of the 4-member Boundless staff are in the process of adopting children. We don't just talk about loving unwanted children; we act out our faith in love.
53. Daniel from the Maritimes had the following to say on May 20 at 4:10 PM:
This seems like a good opportunity to make a sort-of-relevant plug for an awesome ministry I know of. The International Justice Mission (www.ijm.org) is an organization dedicated to combatting oppression: human trafficking, slavery, child prostitution, etc. They deal with such situations in countries where these things are illegal, but often the local police are complicit. IJM performs an undercover investigation (hence the relevance to this post)then takes the case to authorities in that country who are willing and able to deal with it.
I wrestle with the idea of using deception to achieve a good end; I think that we should be obedient in the present and leave the future in the capable hands of the Lord our God. However, I have no qualms about supporting IJM as they seek to free precious children from sexual slavery. Even if they have to lie to pimps--who are also precious in God's sight--to do it.
If I remember the story of Bonhoeffer correctly, he thought that assassinating Hitler would be a sin, but he decided that he would rather do it and then seek forgiveness than to be guilty of doing nothing.
54. xeres had the following to say on May 21 at 12:42 AM:
I'll be frank. A lot of you guys are really adverstial with each other. This is bad testimony period. This spiritual elistism and cynicism needs to stop. Abortion is such a hard issue to tackle. This story just makes thing complicated now with the whole lying ehtics thing. Stop burning each at the stake. I'm horribly disappointed in a lot of commentors and even some of the staff members.
>>Those supporting Jethro and Sarah Cool, I understand the many of the staff member can be too confrontational especially Ted at times. That's not always cool. However, they are very passionate and concerned about the worldviews of everything. At least that they didn't sit around and just accept the way things are in the culture and let it be. There are so many things that nobody should be okay with at all. In fact, it's perfectly alright to not be okay with everything. So therefore, self-righteous isn't really truly who they really are.
>>Those supporting Ted's stance/line of reason in the post, it is great that we are upset about immorality. However, we can't be so comsumed by it either. This is ironic because Matt Kaufman just wrote an article in April called "When Anger Rules". It is so easy to feel that need to take matters into your own hands when injustice occurs without God's counsel. We need to step back before we ran our mouths. Otherwise, we might done more harm than good ragardless on how good the cause maybe since the passion for justice ended up being tainted by our un-dealt with anger and outrage that was never taken to God.
55. Loris had the following to say on May 21 at 7:11 AM:
I was always taught that I don't owe anybody the truth if I know that it will be used in a harmful way. Now I'm not talking about turning in a Christian who is harming him or herself by doing something contrary to Scripture. Once I have spoken to that person directly, I would feel no compunction about going to a church authority to get him or her help. But if a malicious person/organization/government, etc. wants information from me that I know it will use wrongly, I wouldn't feel obligated to give it, and I wouldn't be sorry if I put them off the scent.
56. lewsta had the following to say on May 21 at 3:37 PM:
The thing that appears to have overshadowed the intent, and success, of Miss Rose's actions really has little to do with abortion per se. What she intended to, and succeeded in, demonstrating is that PP, in that instance, attempted to conspire in failure to expose and prosecute a (fictitious) 23 year old male who had (alldegedly) impregnated a (n alledgedly) 15 year old girl. This conduct (i.e., of the 23 year old) is felonious in California and needs to be prosecuted as such. PP, in conspiring to prevent the bringing to bear of the sword on this (admittedly fictitious) person is NOT doing goood service to the people of that state. Similar actions in Oklahoma have some under scrutiny, and it was only the result of change of office that has (hopefully only temporarily) stalled a noble attempt by the AG of Kansas to seek prosecution against adult males known by PP, and not reported (as legally required in that state as well) to authorities. If statutory rape is not reported and prosecuted in a jurisdiction, the message being sent to the general population is that any male of any age can freely persue sexual predation on underage girls of any age with no consequences. Does this promote the well being of young girls in our culture? I rather think not. PP's performing abortions at will is one issue-and as has been mentioned, this is no secret. What HAS BEEN a secret, however, is their protection by refusing to report for prosecution those adult males sexually involved with young girls. THIS must stop...and if it takes a thousand more Lila Roses going into PP clinics with hidden cameras and posting the results on You Tube, CBS, wherever, to enlighten the American taxpayers as to PP's complicity in this criminal conduct, than I say someone needs to start a fund to finance this sort of expose. Killing unborn babies in one issue. Complicity (by refusing to report) in sexual predation of young girls by adults is a totally different issue. The former is, at present (and sadly so) legal. The latter is not legal in any state. In the interest of protecting young girls from sexual abuse, this latter, illegal activity needs to be exposed and dealt with. PP should have criminal prosecutions brought against it wherever and whenever this illegal conduct can be proven. Refusal to report and/or prosecute known cases of this conduct (whether in California or Kansas) is the same as perpetrating the sexual abuse in the first place. Miss Rose has taken a stand against such immoral/illegal conduct, and in favour of the young girls who may fall victim to such conduct in future, and is to be commended and encouraged in her endeavours. It used to be, when sexual abuse (including "consensual" intercourse) with a girl under 16 would guarantee serious prison time, that this was a rare occurrence. Thanks to the attitudes/practices of PP (and others), jail time for such conduct is rare now....and so such conduct itself is far more common. This needs to be reversed.
57. josh had the following to say on May 22 at 8:29 AM:
hmm, so many long posts. Mayne we should not forget about the moral implications. To kill an unborn child is wrong. Yes, she decieved them but think of other things. Our government sends a lot of peopl undercover to get into drug rings, criminal organizations, gangs, etc. So is it wrong to be deceptive in those cases? I would find it hard to make a case in that choice.
How do you start a business? Well, you study your competitiors: you go to trade shows and check out your competition, you pose as a customer to see their strong points...
How awesome is it that this girl took on PP in such a way? very...
58. Mandi had the following to say on May 22 at 9:55 AM:
Yeah, josh, I agree. If we're going to condemn Lila, we should also do that to the police and journalists who use the same tactics to protect us from everyone from terrorists and sexual predators to vendors making dishonest claims about their products. We all benefit from people being as wise as serpents in trying to expose those who would defraud or destroy us. After all, such people are not going to be the most forthcoming with their motivations or truthful about their actions. The only way we could make an exception in this case is if we're to say that what PPF does is somehow less evil than other activities mentioned exposed in this way. It's not. Lila did not, to my knowledge, specifically identify a man and accuse him of anything.
As for the hysteria about "abortion bliss", let's look at what PPF *itself* claims is the state of a woman after she goes through this: "Most women feel relief after an abortion. Serious emotional problems after abortion are much less likely than they are after giving birth." You can read their whole answer here: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/sexual-health/ask-dr-cullins/ask-dr-cullins-abortion-5516.htm. It smacks of disrespect to those women, whatever their numbers (and I'm not predisposed to believe PPF that they are so few) who *do* suffer after abortions.