North Dakota’s abortion laws have been at the center of controversial debate recently, as three anti-abortion bills were signed into law by Gov. Jack Dalrymple in March, and a 2011 anti-abortion law is currently being challenged in the Cass County District Court.
In the face of this law making, some Concordia students and faculty are engaged in the dialogue by volunteering as escorts at the Red River Women’s Clinic in Fargo, N.D., the only clinic in the state that provides abortions.
Junior sociology major Courtney Gasner-White and sociology Professor Natalie Peluso both volunteer as escorts to ensure patients and couples can safely enter the clinic.
“The duty of the escorts is, essentially, to act as a buffer between the (people) who are using the services of the clinic and the people who are protesting at the clinic,” Gasner-White said.
While the nation’s abortion rate has dropped, North Dakota’s abortion rate has remained stable, according to an article posted in The Forum on Nov. 28, 2012.
Students from Concordia College make up the vast majority of student escorts at the RRWC, said Tammi Kromenaker, director of the RRWC. She believes this is because of the service value the campus promotes.
“Concordia instills that sense of community involvement,” Kromenaker said.
Not all patients or couples prefer to be escorted. If they do prefer an escort, conversation between the escort and patient or couple is usually minimal, Gasner-White said.
Even if the patient or couple doesn’t acknowledge the escort, it is still important for escorts to be present, Peluso said.
“The added commotion can be overwhelming and intimidating,” Peluso said.
Before they are able to volunteer, escorts are required to read a manual that contains rules they must follow while acting as an escort, Kromenaker said.
One of these rules is to not engage with protestors while wearing the neon green vest that identifies volunteers as escorts. The focus should be on the patient or couple entering the clinic.
“It is a time for you to be a supportive, welcoming person with people entering the clinic,” Kromenaker said.
However, if escorts choose to take the vest off, Kromenaker said, they are able to engage with the protestors as fellow citizens.
Normally, Gasner-White won’t take off her vest to engage with the protestors. However, when protestors make comments she considers especially disrespectful, Gasner-White isn’t afraid to take off her vest and speak her mind.
“I would say that I’m way more vocal in comparison to a lot of other people,” Gasner-White said.
In Peluso’s case, she never takes off her vest while she is volunteering because she doesn’t believe anything would be accomplished.
“At the end of the day, what we’re there for (are) the clients,” Peluso said.
Verbal remarks are aimed at the patient or couple entering the clinic, as well as the escort, and range from religious messages, including Bible verses to racial slurs, Kromenaker said.
Singing, praying the rosary, and signage is also common, Peluso said.
Sometimes, protestors try to hand paper information to the patient or couple entering the clinic. Peluso tells the people she is escorting that they don’t have to take the information.
“These signs and symbols can potentially be detrimental to the person going into the clinic that day,” Peluso said. Verbal threats or physical assault will result in staff members or volunteers calling the police; however, arrest is rare.
At the end of their time spent escorting, volunteers leave with mixed emotions.
Sometimes, Gasner-White leaves feeling inspired because of the love and compassion she feels from the other escorts. Other times, she leaves feeling disheartened because of hateful behaviors she witnesses from more hostile protestors.
Peluso added, “(The way the) protestors are behaving will impact how we feel at the end of the day.”
Regardless of fluctuating feelings, Gasner-White and Peluso continue to return to the RRWC to escort.
Kromenaker believes part of the reason individuals are attracted to the experience is because it is an immediate action that people can take to channel their emotions.
“I’m really passionate about women’s issues,” Gasner-White said. “I think that access to contraceptive services is really important for women. I would like to aspire for a world where every child is a wanted child.”
I think they are called accessories.
To write that Concordia is in violation of some order of God or are anti Christian because they have chosen to protect others against people who chose to abuse and violate the civil and personal rights of another. Protestors at these clinics make no sense, you attack physically, verbally and abusively repeatedly. You choose to use these means to push your personal agenda regardless of the harm you cause.
I applaud the students of my alma mater for once again as they have many times in the past, choosing to protect someone who is in danger and be the wall between them and the evil doers. Yes you read that right. it is not the women choosing to “kill their unborn child” that are committing the evil, but those of you who choose to spew the name of God in your hatred and abuse.
I am less than surprised to see so many commenters smear the entire Concordia college because of the choices made by a few students. Yes, I admire and support the escorts, and I would point out how despicable it is that escorts are necessary to protect these women from so-called “Christians”, but even if I disagreed, I’d know the difference between a portion of the student body and the entire college. Of course, what the unsaid premise really entails is that they want the administrators to force those student escorts to stop, and I would not be surprised if a large portion of those Christians danced in the aisles in joy if the school punished these student escorts.
I am a Concordia College graduate and ashamed that the students consider this a community service. You are helping people kill babies. Every child IS a wanted child–by God!! These escorts are not helping anyone. They are helping to end a life and send these precious women into a life of living with the fact that they killed a child. It is not just the unborn that are afffected. Shame on Concordia for thinking this is right and just and publishing this in their newspaper. Obviously they are not a true Bible believing college. One more reason why we have stopped supporting her financially! If you want to really help, volunteer at the First Choice Clinic which gives these women all their options and a safe place to go
Michelle, there are more than a couple things that concern with with your post. First, escorts are in no way aiding in abortion. The only thing they are doing is providing women safe passage into a building. These women, by law, are allowed to enter this facility and have an abortion, and the escorts simply protect the women’s legal right to enter by shielding them from potentially harmful and illegal abuse. Therefore, “these escorts are not helping anyone”…invalid. Second, they are not killing children; they are aborting fetuses, as is legal at this institution. These fetuses (again, not children), are not even able to respire independently and are therefore not able to be considered children until they are born. I can’t think of any children I know that receive oxygen through a placenta. Third, Concordia has not taken a stance on the issue. If you’ll read carefully, they only thing mentioned is that the students and faculty study/work at Concordia. Nowhere does official Concordia endorsement of this activity appear. I repeat, not once. That being said, “shame on Concordia” is a statement that I implore you to reconsider. The only power Concordia has here is to not allow such articles to be published, which would come in complete contrast with our Constitutional right to free speech. So, which do you prefer: Constitutional rights, or Concordia’s condemnation of a journalist practicing her right to free speech? Clearly you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Fourth, if you’d truly like to make the argument that Concordia is not a “true Bible believing college,” I’d like for you to try and defend the entire book of Leviticus. Leviticus 11:8, which is discussing pigs, reads, “You shall not eat of their flesh nor touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you.” Well, looks like a solid number of “Bible believing colleges” just lost their titles. Actually, I’m not sure if I know of too many colleges that ban football. Do you? I’d love to know! Fifth, your use of gendered language is both offensive and necessarily self-oppressive. If you’d like to understand why calling Concordia a “she” is gendered language, I’ve got some great articles by Emily Martin and Laurel Richardson that could shed some light for you. Sixth, if you’d like to try and argue that every child is wanted by God, I’d like to kindly explain to orphanages that their services are no longer needed. Seventh, if you claim to give women “all their options” at First Choice Clinic, what information do you give them about abortion? Abortion is a legal option for these women, so “all their options” would include the Red River Women’s Clinic. Some things simply aren’t adding up here. Perhaps you should consider reading the article before posting about it. It would help save you from these lengthy clarifications later on. Peace be unto you.
Can’t get over the self-righteous tone of this response. I’m not gonna dedicate a huge amount of time addressing each one of your several fallacies regarding the ethics & definition of human life as well as Biblical scholarship (trust me, there are a lot), but there’s one thing in here that represents one of the most unfounded assertions of the pro-choice advocate: “it’s not a child until it’s out of the womb.” Tell me, what makes the fundamental difference in the being when it’s in the womb vs. out? A few inches of tissue? I hope not. Is it viability? Probably not, since there are quite a few people outside the womb who aren’t viable, and yet they’re legally protected. Is it consciousness? Again, I’ve seen several outside the womb. Something else?
Until you can make this seemingly arbitrary line more concrete and justified, science and ethics will always point to the unborn (especially later term fetuses) as human beings worthy of rights, despite their inability to communicate them. Independent DNA, response to physical stimuli, even communicative attempts. The evidence strongly favors the prolife side, while the prochoice side is riddled with political agenda and emotional illusion. And also until then, the prochoice position will continue to be the most ethically, logically, morally inconsistent viewpoint I could ever imagine. And ALSO until then, it’ll be clear that advocating abortion is the deliberate devaluation of a segment of the human population. AKA bigotry, ageism, and discrimination. Perhaps you should read up on the philosophy of ethics and biology before making such nonsensical claims. It would help save you from these lengthy clarifications later on.
On a side note, the abuse Amber is receiving for this post is nonsense. It’s a work of journalism with a clear, consistent focus. I’d love to see a focus in the opposite direction, sure. But that’s not the aim of THIS article. On that, Nathan, I agree with you.
The newspaper, while published under Concordia’s name, is not run by Concordia as a whole. It is a student run organization for the purposes of covering news on campus. We do not claim to present the views of the college.
Thanks all of you for your support! Especially you, Kirk!! Well said.
Any time, Courtney! You’re doing the right thing, and you know that. You’re definitely one of my heroes.
I encourage everyone reading this article to make informed comments. Yes, this means taking a moment to think about what you’re writing before posting it. If you’ll notice in the article, nothing is said about Concordia encouraging students or staff to volunteer, nor does it say anything of Concordia endorsing the actions of these individuals. That being said, every “shame on Concordia” comment is henceforth negated. The fact of the matter is, these individuals work/study at Concordia, but their decision to volunteer is theirs alone. What these volunteers are doing is simply saving women from harassment and potential physical harm. In that sense, their job is to serve and protect these women. Hmm…that sounds like another job I know that’s actually quite respected. I am a proud Cobber. I enjoy the fact that we are encouraged to be responsibly engaged in the world by respecting love in all its forms. As a gay Lutheran, the mission of Concordia to spread love, open dialogue, and acceptance of diversity is particularly pertinent. Please refrain from tainting the image of this great school, which I call “home,” with your misinformed and misguided prejudice. Concordia has nothing to do with the equation here, so I must insist that your comments remain thoughtful and relevant to the context of the situation. Thank you.
On a side note, thank you, Courtney White and Dr. Natalie Peluso, for teaching us what it means to BREW. Kudos to you!
I am proud and inspired by Courtney and Dr. Peluso who exhibit such dedication and resolve to show compassion and respect to these women facing a difficult situation.
I agree, Megan. I’m proud of Courtney and Dr. Peluso for their time, bravery, and dedication.
I’m not sure exactly why any “Christian” person would NOT support clinic escorts. Jesus NEVER shamed women as many of the pro-life protesters do. I’d be happy to talk with anyone who thinks that these inflammatory and derogatory comments from protesters are fabricated. I’ve got hateful stories for days.
Amen…if you’ll pardon the pun.
I can tell you story after story of Pro-Lifers standing outside of clinics holding up signs of aborted fetuses, chanting religious passages from a book with the main message being to Love your neighbor and “judge not least you be judged” or “let he that is without sin cast the first stone”, tell me please which one of those that stand outside these clinics is without sin? tell me please where it says in the Bible that thou shall stand outside of a clinic and shout hateful innuendos and make those that do have the “RIGHT” under our constitution to make their own choices. It is only under the false assumption that God will judge those that make the decision to abort a pregnancy to be unworthy of their place in the Enchanted Kingdom.
How can you have an objective conversation with a person so steeped in religious ideology that all you get are quotes from the Bible or hate speech such as “Murder of infants”? Tell me where their self righteous indignation is after the child is born and the Mother cannot afford to feed, cloth or house this child? How many of them are lined up at the counter to fill out the paper work necessary to adopt a child? If they were interested in adopting one of these less fortunate children would they base their decision to adopt on ethnicity, age, disability, would they be willing to adopt a black infant with Downs Syndrome or would they simply shake their head in pity and mutter “I hope someone gives this child a home” and then tell the social Worker, we need a healthy white baby? As for the comment that “Sad” made, Women who have had an abortion are at high risk for depression, guilt, suicide, and regret”. I have no doubt of this after having to endure running a religious gauntlet of fanatics telling them that they are Murderers, that God hates them and they will burn in Hell for what they are doing. Kandi, you might want to read up on the Constitution, Row V Wade was upheld and has been challenged many times and still it stands so your comment, “And abortion is NOT a form of contraception. It is not a right anyone has”. is pure rhetoric, it is a Right that you wish a Woman didn’t have, it is your opinion and nothing else and until you’ve stood in the shoes of one of these Women your opinion counts for nothing.
While my comments here may seem harsh and judgmental rest assured I am not judging those that hold opposite beliefs, I simply don’t agree with them. They like everyone else in this Country have a Right to their opinion, where we differ is that they do all they can to force their ideology on others by slut shaming them. I would simply say, If you are not happy with the way our Constitution is written they also have the right to move to a Country that is more supportive of their ideology such as Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria and dozens of other countries that surely believe in casting stones! While picking up a rock and hurling it at another person is illegal in this Country, it is unfortunate in some cases that hateful words are protected under our Constitution and those words are the stones they throw!
@ Courtney Gasner-White, I apologize for invading your post, but you seem to have a grip on reality and I could not resist.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. I doubt everyone will take the time to read this, but it’s truly perfect.
To the students who volunteer as escorts I would just like to say way to go. It makes me proud to attend a college where the students are brave enough to stand for what they believe in, despite the obvious opposition they encounter.
There are so many ways for students to “serve the community” that don’t involve killing babies. And abortion is NOT a form of contraception. It is not a right anyone has. I am very disappointed that Concordia not only facilitates this volunteer opportunity, but from the article above, seems to be proud of it. If you actually read Concordia’s mission statement, it has almost nothing to do with Christianity. Just mentioning Luther doesn’t make you a Christian.
“Opinions expressed in The Concordian do not necessarily reflect those of Concordia’s student body, faculty, staff or administration.”
Melisa,
Maybe you would like to respond to the suggestion of a fair sided article? I don’t think it is too much to ask to interview both parties involved and report from another perspective, regardless of anyone’s position on the issue.
Johanna– I’d encourage you to look at my recently posted response above. Thanks for engaging in this dialogue.
The purpose of the article was to report what was happening, not to explore the abortion debate.
WOW. Do you live in a hole? How dare you be disappointed that CONCORDIA offers this opportunity. This is a college in which students are encouraged to express their views and engage in activities in which they feel passionate about. & If that passion is supporting women who have THE CHOICE AND FREEDOM to do what they want with their bodies. I know many women who have had to undergo abortion and it was the best choice for them. If you don’t believe this then that’s fine. However, don’t you dare claim that this author is taking sides. She is simply reporting REAL events. Go trump on someone else’s right you bigot.
This actually makes me feel sick! My children have been students there and we’ve had a connection for years…how the school can encourage abortion…the killing of babies…in this way is very sad! May God have mercy!
I would encourage you to consider that The Concordian specifically states that “Opinions expressed in The Concordian do not necessarily reflect those of Concordia’s student body, faculty, staff or administration.” Any opinions in this piece belong to those who said them, not to the college as a whole.
A journalist presents both sides. Why not suggest to Amber Morgan to write a follow-up piece including interviews with the pro-life people at the clinic and maybe the views of some pro-life Concordia students or the college president. That would be an objective news story; this article is just one-sided opinion.
Tom– I would agree with you about Ms. Morgan being required to objectively show both sides of the issue if this were an expose about abortion at Concordia or in the F/M community. However, I think Ms. Morgan was incredibly clear about this being a comprehensive view of those whom escort at the Red River Women’s Clinic. She communicated this by titling her article “Escorting at the Red River Women’s Clinic.” For that reason, the pro-life opinions of other students would be irrelevant. It is within her journalistic liberty to provide an in-depth look at this particular subset of Concordia students.
The purpose of the article was not to explore the abortion issue. It was to report on the actions of students. Thusly, we are not obliged to discuss both sides of an issue, since we aren’t even discussing the issue.
This article makes me extremely sad. First, that a Christian college like Concordia would take a stand against supporting life. Second, there were so many lies that this article spread. Clearly, the author of this article has never stood outside the abortion mill when there have been pro-lifers outside. The protest has always been peace-filled and out of love for the women AND babies who are entering that place. The only time I have EVER experienced any derogatory comments, it has always been against the pro-life people. This whole article seeps with lies and propaganda. I would encourage anyone who doesn’t believe me to stand outside the mill on any Wednesday when the pro-lifers are out there and decide for themselves where all the hate-filled and derogatory comments are coming from. The article poses the “escorts” (which, by the way, is such an unnecessary ‘service’ because the pro-lifers have always been respectful and peaceful to all involved and, at least when I’ve been there, only stand outside the door and mostly ALL they do is hold the door open which the women could easily do themselves.)as being helpful and “supportive” of the women. If that were the case, they definitely wouldn’t want the women to enter that place. Women who have had an abortion are at high risk for depression, guilt, suicide, and regret. Anyone who truly cares for that person will want what is best for them, not what is most convenient. Science has come to far for us to pretend, anymore, that the child inside is just a lump of tissue. We can label them as fetuses all we want, but that won’t change the fact that the one inside is truly a life. Science has proven this. Of course women are going to be hurt after knowing that the child she carried is no longer with her. If the escorts really cared about the women, the would never “help” her go through such a horrible ordeal.
Thank you for sharing your opinion. However, I would like to encourage you to reconsider your suggestion that the author of this piece “has never stood outside the abortion mill”. Our authors try not to present their own opinions in their pieces; they are journalists and they are there to present the opinions and knowledge of others, not themselves. The views presented in this piece are not necessarily those of the author or of Concordia College as an institution. The Concordian specifically states that “Opinions expressed in The Concordian do not necessarily reflect those of Concordia’s student body, faculty, staff or administration.” They are the views of the interviewees themselves.
Melisa, I have read this article, ‘Sad’s’ comments, and yours and have to agree with ‘Sad.’
The author of this article has clearly never spent time outside the ‘abortion mill’ or else they would have realized they were presenting an article biased toward the rhetoric told to ‘escorts.’ I am not sure where this escort is seeing disrespectful actions from protesters, but my guess would be in the propaganda the clinic provides to the escorts.
I have observed the exchange between the protesters at this clinic and other clinics and in every case the protesters are quite peaceful and respectful. From my experience the only actions taken by protesters have been to provide information and assistance. I have however witnessed escorts misbehaving and not being so peaceful, kind, or respectful.
In regards to the reporter not having bias, I believe you need to take an honest look at the article again and see it’s rather a one sided love fest for the opinions of Gasner-White. If this were truly an unbiased report there would have been the opinions representing the other side of this debate. These opinions also would have to have been as prominently displayed as this rather one sided interview represented here.
If this article was not representative of the opinions of Concordia College, then this article should have been an objective view rather than a propaganda piece. Also, how many articles has the Concordian written in support of Concordia’s actual views? If these pieces just hide behind the reasoning of ‘this may or may not be our opinion’ what is your opinion? If you don’t state your opinion outright and you do not present an equal or near equal number of articles supporting your opinion, than this is your opinion. Those articles you choose to print that might not be your opinion ARE the opinion of Concordia and the Concordian by default as you are the one supporting biased articles and lack of articles of your viewpoint. Don’t lie about your opinion or try and veil it behind a false veil of ‘fair’ journalism which is not being practiced.
“The Concordian specifically states that “Opinions expressed in The Concordian do not necessarily reflect those of Concordia’s student body, faculty, staff or administration.” They are the views of the interviewees themselves.” let’s add in here the truth… ‘but the total sum of what we print and how we represent the truth or lack there of will represent the view and opinion of the Concordian and Concordia’s student body, faculty, staff, and administration.’
Isn’t it beautiful, Second Opinion, that we’re allowed this freedom of press, even at a school with religious affiliations? I’m sorry, but I’m really not buying what you’re trying to sell here. The truth of the matter is, the journalist responsible for this story wrote about one side of an issue, and you didn’t necessarily agree with that side, so you thought it was unfair journalism. However, it is not the journalists job to present both sides unless he/she is writing about the debate itself. This article is not about whether or not abortions should be legal; it’s an informative article about what Cobbers are doing outside of campus and just so happens to be tied to a current social issue. If the journalist in question were to write about students who work at the movie theater, it wouldn’t be their responsibility to ALSO talk about the students who don’t work at the movie theater. At the risk of sounding redundant, I’ll remind you once more: this article is about what Cobbers doing, not about whether what they’re doing is right or wrong. It’s informative, well-written, and, judging by the debate that it sparked, truly journalistic. Thank you so much for now understanding that there are different kinds of journalistic reports, and may you keep this in mind in the future, lest you once again accuse a good journalist of writing unfairly.
I’d like to thank Nathan for his response and add that The Concordian posts our disclaimer because our purpose is not to represent the views of the college as a whole. Our purpose is solely to report on campus events in as fair a way as possible. We are in no way claiming to represent the college’s opinions. We are a student organization and as students we are allowed to have our own opinions regardless of what the college believes.
So Concordia students’ definition of community service is helping to facilitate the murder of babies? I don’t see how this possibly meshes with the mission of a “Christian” college. I encourage these students to pray and read God’s Word to see the truth about how God views this activity. I cannot imagine having to stand before the Creator on judgment day and explain why I supported the killing of the most innocent among us. Abortion is America’s holocaust.
I don’t see how the suggestion that we must adhere to one religion meshes with the words of our Founding Fathers. You do not have to be a Christian to attend Concordia. We are allowed to practice whatever religion we do in the rest of this country, why not within the boundaries of this campus? Opinions are opinions are opinions. And my opinion is that it’s not fair of you or other people to tell the students of the college that we must be Christians and pray and worship God.
I commend Amber Morgan for going out and writing this great story on such a hot topic and I commend Courtney and Dr. Peluso for being such wonderful people.
Heather, you do not know the reason a woman might be seeking an abortion. Let us postulate that the woman has an ectopic pregnancy. The fetus will not survive and not terminating the pregnancy will kill the woman and then she won’t be around to have anymore pregnancies. What if she already has a couple of kids. Would you wish for those kids to be motherless in order to satisfy your sense of moral outrage? You do not get to choose for any woman what happens inside her body. If you are so pro birth I certainly hope you are petitioning for pre-natal care, post natal care, free wellness checks for the babies once they exit the uteri you claim to have authority over, I hope you petition for generous maternal/paternal paid leave and affordable child care. I hope you find it deplorable that birth control is such a controversy and sex education is not taught in every school in the nation. Those two measures would go far to reduce abortion. If you do not advocate all these measures then I conclude you simply want to run the lives of women you do not even know.
One could easily make the same argument in defense of Slavery and Discrimination.Who are YOU to condemn others who felt the economic,social and personal need to own a slave or engage in various forms of intolerance?You don’t know what those people went through…Until YOU are willing to PAY for the costs of the elimination of Slavery and Discrimination,YOU CAN’T condemn them either.For some strange reason,the moral outrage of liberals NEVER extends to the unborn unlike the previous examples mentioned.
Uhmmm…
I’m pretty sure this goes beyond comparing apples and oranges here. This is comparing apples and cigarettes. Or apples and nail guns. Or apples and and toothpaste. I send your way a resounding “n o p e.”
Are you really comparing the protection of a woman’s freedom to control her body to the freedom to be a slaveowner? Ok, ok, I’ll humor you. Let’s say abortion and slavery are somehow comparable. Ok, so slaves = fetuses. OK, I’m really stretching on this one for you, Robert. So then, these so-called outrageous “liberals” want a woman to be able to choose whether or not she keeps her still-fetus, which would be comparable to slaves wanting the right to choose whether or not they have slaves. By this very same logic that you’ve provided us, it would be the conservatives who argue that a woman should be forced against her will to carry a still-fetus to term because she “chose to conceive it” that would also then be in favor of forcing slave owners to hold slaves, even against their will, because they “chose to get a slave.”
Sorry, Robert, but I’m going to have to send one more enormous, enthusiastic, and disappointed “n o p e” in your direction. Please avoid comparing apples and toothpaste because no one’s happy when they’re mixed up.
Everytime a woman has a relationship with a man there is a chance of pregnancy. Why does an innocent baby have to die because the mother has no respect for life or the ability to say NO
Apparently to be a fully-developed bigot,one has to have a sociology degree.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot
“Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.”
If you’re going to use the word “bigot,” please understand what it means. It is the job of a sociologist to work against forces that oppress marginalized peoples. My definition, the very word you’re using actually describes yourself and is necessarily the opposite of the people you’re trying to rile up with inflammatory remarks.
If you would like to learn how now to be a bigot, I have wonderful sociological resources for you that show how people like yourself oppress others and how to prevent it.
Cheers,
Nathan, student working toward a sociology degree
Hear Hear!Right on Heather!
If it is “intimidating” for those escorting Casey Anthony Wannabees into a death clinic,it is nothing short of SAW 10 for the unborn children….
Robert, kindly post messages appropriate for your age and save the intentionally inflammatory remarks for posts unaffiliated with educational institutions. This is supposed to be a place for open dialogue, and while I respect your freedom of speech, I will kindly remind you that we here at Concordia pride ourselves on our ability to have mature and open dialogue about controversial issues in order to gain perspective and come to more peaceful resolutions. Your attempts to incite heated responses may end up working, but what will anyone gain from such behavior? You will still maintain your views, and they theirs. The only thing you’re doing is fostering anger and hatred, which is hardly responsible, hardly Christian, and hardly what Concordia is all about.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
A Concerned Student (who is still working toward that sociology degree)