Mark,
I applaud your civility, but heartily disagree with your characterization of the Catholic Church. Yes, it is administrated, and populated, by humans. To call is a business is crass. A business operates, as you may know, for a profit. The Catholic Church is one of the largest charities in the world, feeding, clothing, housing, and ministering to the poor. So you got your shot in, under the guise of calling for civility. Congratulations.

I find the display too aggressive. I do not have a problem w/ the message. I think it could be done in a less disturbing way. Try explaining to your children (who can read) what this is means. We have to drive by this almost everyday. I do not think my 8 and 9 year olds are ready to handle this topic! Children even younger than this can read!

GiGi, don't people of faith have a right to voice their point of view? Abortion is murder whether you agree or not. And the Church has the right to speak out against it. If you see a story you don't like you don't have to read it.

I'm praying for you and I'm asking other Christians who read this to do the same. I hope you find peace with your neighbors.

You may be right, Gigi, but I do long for the days when groups and people could voice their opinion, without some sanctimonious person declaring it "offensive." Get over yourself.

Jay, the display is meant to be offensive. It's a reminder and a memorial to the millions of babies that have been murdered, and are about to be murdered in this country. Women do not have the right to murder their unborn children because they decided to have sex outside of marriage.

Actions have consequences and in this case abortion is the road to destruction. History shows that any civilization, that murders their children, has been judged and destroyed. Our nation is doomed unless we repent.

This from the man who celebrates Hitler's birthday. Was the mass execution of millions of people to the benefit of the planet as well? How about the new enlightened thinking that post term abortions are useful as well. Seeing as the newly born infant isn't self-aware it's ok to "abort" them after birth if "it" will be too much of a burden on "Society". Just how far are we willing to go.... It's just so sad. At some point we have to realize that there is right and wrong. Not everything is relative. And recognize that if somebody is offended by the truth... Too bad! It's the truth. Regardless of how people feel about it, life begins at conception. That is the point in time in which the egg & sperm come together to become more than they are on their own. Anything that happens after that happens to a person.... a very young person, but a person none the less.

If life begins at conception, then why is every measurement of life in our society based on when we were born? For example, when you are asked how long you've lived, do you count the years from your conception, or from your birth?

Hookerman, that's so disingenuous. Do you really believe that an embryo is not a human life? With that same logic, please explain to me why the Federal Gov. imposes a penalty of $250,000 and two years in jail for destroying a Bald Eagle's eggs?

Federal Laws that Protect Bald Eagles.

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/protect/laws.html

What’s disingenuous about it??? All life is measured from birth in our society. That is when we are given a formal birth certificate, an SS #, and are legally considered a human being with all the rights afforded to people in our country. I don’t think you realize the can of worms we’d be opening if we suddenly decided to give these same legal rights to a fertilized egg.

Hookerman, so why are you so against protecting human life before birth? What give you the right to say who lives and who doesn't when you've already been born? If the Fed. Gov. recognizes eagle's eggs as life then they must recognize and protect human life before birth.

Hookerman.... we celebrate and use a birthday b/c it's easily recognizable and definable for everyone keeping track of such things. The last time I checked I'm not sure how many of us would have accurate information about the date & time of our conception.... ;-). And, btw, pediatricians do track infants development from their expected due date as opposed to the actual birth date especially in preemies.

Tom, your bald eagle analogy fails for a couple reasons. First of all, the law was created not because of any moral reasons, but to protect an endangered species. Note that the law also provides for the protection of their nests. Does that mean the government is recognizing eagles’ nests as life? If morality played any part in the law, then why do we allow open season on ducks, geese and wild turkeys???

The second reason is that the law involves third party removal of eggs… it’s not illegal for a mother eagle to destroy her own fertilized eggs. That’s the gist of the pro-choice argument. It is not the role of the government to decide for a woman whether she should carry and bear a child. If life is defined as beginning at conception, then rape victims would be forced to carry and bear their rapist’s child. How can you possibly saddle that type of burden on a rape victim???

Hookerman, an Eagle has more sense than a pro-choice liberal, because they would not abort their young for the sake of convenience. And whether you can hunt geese or turkeys is not the issue. The issue is the Gov. recognizes the eggs as life is the point. because if you destroy the eggs, you destroy the life of an eagle. As always you ignore the point because of you can only think ideologically. Geese and Turkey are food.

...and what moral authority gives you the right to place an eagle's life above that of a goose or turkey???

Hookerman, I think we can all agree that the life of a human trumps an eagle, or any other wild animal you would like to compare. Denying the humanness of a human embryo is as tired a line of reasoning as the fact that abortion should be kept legal simply for the <1% of them that are medically necessary.

All religious institutions receive special tax treatment. The Catholic Church is not special in that regard. As well as charities, advocacy groups, factory farmers, historical land owners, people who have health insurance, people who don't, big corporations, small corporations, oil companies, green energy companies, companies who keep jobs here, companies who send jobs to China, Israel, Egypt, Afghanistan. I say we end them all!

Larissa,

I don't much diagree, but without biting off all of that, I had in mind a smaller change. How about we just say: if the church of XYZ wants a tax exemption, then they can't (for example) put up signs on their tax-exempt land telling us how to vote on this question or that.

That seems reasonable on the surface Dennis. But you're just adding another regulation that will be enforced when it suits the government and not enforced when it doesn't. If the tax exemption issue is the main concern for you, then you have to advocate for no tax exemption status for any religious organization. The government cannot be trusted to enforce any regulations fairly. There's just too many of them!

Then why do you trust the government to regulate a woman's body?

I don't trust the government to do much of anything right or well. But I do think that murder is wrong. While I think emphasis needs to be on supporting and encouraging these women to choose life in a nurturing and loving way(emphasis on in a nurturing and loving way), I do believe that there is a place for extending the current laws to protect the unborn. As I've said before... abortion ends a life. Your perspective on the circumstances does not change that fact.

I'm just trying to say that if there is ANY justification for a tax exemption -- books have been written on that question -- it goes away when a church gets into politics. Creating new regulation? I don't think so. If you think this is unregulated now, try calling yourself a church and claiming a tax exemption. See what happens.

Ok Dennis.... This is my last post for today. My calendar is yelling at me too actually get something done! Ammendment 1 Ratified 12/15/1791. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The reason the colonists stood up for themselves against the tyranny of the king was because of George Whitefield and preachers like him who inspired in them a sense personal self-worth and personal responsibility. So to say now that the church can't state it's position on any issue shows just how much of our Liberty we have already lost.

Dennis, having sat in the pews of a Catholic Church for a couple of score now, they are pretty careful to NOT tell anyone how to vote. This display in Chester, similarly, does no such thing. If you want to make that logical jump, go ahead, but I don't see any Romney/Ryan signs among the crucifi.

Biff,
My attendance record is, uh, not as good as yours.

I hear you, but I think they often use the nudge-nudge-wink-wink approach, knowing that if they were to come right out and say vote for X they'd have a problem. I do not think the Catholic church is alone in this, or anywhere near the worst offender, by the way.

All of this would go away if we'd just stop treating churches as a special case for tax purposes. After all, such treatment in the end amounts to subsidizing religion, since taxes which they do not pay someone else must make up for.

Any religion worth having is worth paying for, no?

Again, Dennis, I think that is a crass world-view. It's not as if anyone gets rich working for the Catholic Church. If the tax-exempt status went away, so would the charity, and that would have a significant, worldwide effect that I think you're discounting.

"Crass", you say. Well, I have a few adjectives in mind for your worldview, but I'll forgo that. My momma always said "if you can't say something nice ... ".

You've made an unsupportable leap. There is no reason charitable works by a church could not receive the same tax treatment as secular charities. I'm talking only about conveying tax advantages on an enterprise solely based on its promoting a certain set of beliefs. That's what we do now, and it's really unjustifiable, seems to me.

Lay it on me, Dennis, nothing I haven't heard before; I completely understand your point of view. It's not an unsupportable leap, it's not an "enterprise." Perhaps hospitals and private schools should pony up, as well? You'd probably think so. After all, if you want a good hospital, you have to pay for one. Remember, the separation of Church and State has its benefits for the Church, as well. Promoting a set of beliefs, and providing a free place of worship does not equate to political activism. THAT is the leap.

Well, If you've heard it before, I think you should have developed a more coherent response.

Hospitals DO something. They don't get special treatment just for calling themselves hospitals and then meeting once a week to discuss the goodness of their type of hospital, and the flaws of other types of hospital, and the consequences of believing the wrong things about hospitals.

Again, to the extent a church does charitable work, seems to me they should get the same tax advantages as -- just to pick one -- a secular charity like Doctors without Borders.

I wonder why it is that religous people tend to personalize things instead of just discussing ideas.

Coherent response to what, your momma's philosophy? If you have something to get off your chest, then by all means, man, have at it!
What is personal about anything that I've said? Whether you think hospitals DO something, and see houses of worship as having no value, is really immaterial. Hospitals provide millions of dollars in charity care, in the form of services, per annum. Churches provide for the public good, serve as educational facilities, and this exemption has been held up by the Supreme Court (1970). The Romans granted tax-exempt status to the Churches. It is not political advocacy, as you had originally stated. I am not aware of the difference between the tax filings of other non-profits and the exempt-from-filing status of religious institutions. I would be happy for you to outline that.

I can't believe this needs saying, but one glaring example of personalizing is to describe as crass a viewpoint with which you disagree. I'll stop there.

A coherent response to what? To what you claimed to have heard all before.

Differences among tax-exempts: If you want to claim exemption as a charity you need to document what it is you do. Accounting stuff. You think this applies equally to a church?

Good point about Rome giving tax exemption to religion. You think this might have had anything to do with it being a STATE religion? A state religion. See?

OK, Dennis, let's get down to brass tacks. You said religion was no different than any other business. I stated that I felt that was crass. Religion is much more than that to a couple billion people on the planet. Since you have no respect for organized religion. you might (since you won't say it) think that the worldview of a believer is one of a fairy tale. Isn't that the atheist talking point? My rebut to you would be that I am a scientist, not a rube, so believing in fairy tales doesn't really jive. Einstein, the greatest mind of the 20th century, admitted that a universe such as the one he studied, with a strict set of laws, and a beginning and an end, must have a creator. One might say he had a very practical worldview.
None of this was personal, in receiving or sending, as far as I am concerned. You should understand that people can have opinions ON your opinions, without personally attacking you.

Back on topic, you clearly have a better understanding of accounting than I do, but as a charity, I would think that the services that they perform for their respective communities is well-known in the communities that they serve. If there were a need to document these activities, I have no doubt it would be doable.
Historically, again, Church property used for religious purposes was also tax-exempt in medieval England, based on the rationale that the church relieved the state of some governmental functions, and therefore deserved a benefit in return. The English Statute of Charitable Uses of 1601, which included churches along with all other charitable institutions, formed the basis of America's modern tax exemption for charities.

Biff,

Well, first off, I did not say, nor do I believe, that religion is just like any other business. In the hands of a few bad actors, yes, but generally I think religion's net effect is positive, mostly by way of providing a community and a code for living.

I don't doubt that many churches perform lots of charitable works, or that there is long precedent for special tax treatment for churches. But I do think such automatic special treatment is bad public policy, The current "bargain" under which this is done in the USA (churches must stay out of politics) is always going to be a source of friction because churches will push this boundary as far as they can. (I would too If I were them.)

I have been trying to say that getting rid of the automatic special treatment (and the gag rule) and handling churches like any other charity for tax purposes makes more sense to me.

By the way, Einstein could not have been more clear in rejecting the notion of a personal God, a creator. People often think otherwise because of famous quotes like "God does not play dice ... ". The best (IMO) biography about him, "Subtle is the Lord ... " has lots of detail on this. He used phrases like "the lord" metaphorically. meaning something like the order in the universe, something like the ancient stoic notion of the logos.

Jason, there's no bias in the story, you didn't endorse the crosses. You reported the story and the vandalism of the sign behind the crosses and the church's beliefs. GiGi doesn't want to see any story that doesn't support her point of view. I say this because I've been the recipient of her intolerance just for posting on the Patch.

Jason,

I don't need to contact you privately. I am not hiding my beliefs. I feel that this is a story which does not belong on the Patch. It is a heinous display of religous intolerance and a very onesided support of anti-choice and anti-women's rights.

I believe at this moment in time in our country a woman's right to choose is at a very precarious place. We have moronic politicans declaring that women can not become "pregnant by legitimate rape". This is a mindset we are sadly seeing too often and it is absolutely disgusting.

Long Valley and the surrounding areas has a wealth of other stories you could have covered rather than this idiotic display by a church that directly or indirectly supports pedophilia, and represses gay rights, and women's rights.

Thank you.

GiGi, if this is indeed an act of intolerance, if it is offensive, then isn’t it the duty of the media to report it to the area residents so that we are aware of it? Do you feel that it is the media’s job to protect us from anything we disagree with or find offensive?

GiGi, let's keep the record straight. Only one politician made the remark about rape and he misspoke and apologized. Don't paint everyone with a broad brush of intolerance.

Gigi sounds like the most intolerant imbecile you'd ever have the misfortune of crossing paths with. Don't offend her delicate sensibilities, but she can lash out wickedly at anyone she chooses.

@biff: The nature of your response paints you with the same brush. Maybe GiGi wouldn't have to pull out the intolerance card if the religious didn't pull it out themselves everytime someone disagrees with their beleifs. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. The religious feel they should be able to force thier beleifs on others based on a moral-high ground. This so-called high ground is disingenous and does not exist, especially when women are denied rights to control thier own bodies. You can bet darn well that the legality of abortion would not be in question if men could get pregnant.

So, Denobin, when you say that there is no moral high-ground, are you saying there is no absolute right and wrong? All right and wrong is subjective? I don't want to live in a society that "evolves" to that point. Defending intolerance as "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" is a third-grade mentality, and really advances the discussion no where. I know many non-religious, and many non-practicing folks who are opponents of abortion, simply because they don't see what's right about inflicting pain on, and ending the life of, a human being.

Nancy, According to this article the majority of women who choose to have an abortion are unmarried teens. http://womensissues.about.com/od/reproductiverights/a/AbortionReasons.htm

I agree... the Catholic Church is in need of some major changes .... & there are many situations that result in an unplanned pregnancy... & and we all have a 1st amendment right to free speech. But all of these things are secondary to the primary issue that abortion is wrong. It doesn't matter what perspective your are approaching the argument from.... the fact remains that abortion ends a life.

I don't think the issue should be ignored. Help for pregnant teens is our responsibility, not only individually but as a society. It's our duty to care for and help single moms and their children.

I do agree with you Nancy, about the Church's right to bring attention to any issue they find worthwhile. I always support the right of anyone to speak out on any issue. How else do we get to know how and what people/organizations think and believe. Free speech is the only way for open and honest dialogue to occur and thereby allowing for a free exchange of ideas. Just because I may disagree with someone about a particular issue doesn't mean I want in any way to inhibit their right to speak out. The more we speak about these contentious topics, the more we exchange ideas and debate premises the better off we all are. When this process is stifled, people don't learn how to sort through arguments and recognize the both the truths and the flaws in them. This is crucial for people to be able to develop their own opinions and not be subject to the positions of those with whom they identify for other reasons. If people cannot reason through these issues for themselves they are relegated to the mob mentality.

Jersey focus on the issue, accusing pro-life people of not caring for starving children is changing the subject. Accusing Jesus of not speaking up on the issue is a lib taking point. Jesus did not support murder. Does anyone believe that Jesus would condone the murder of unborn children? Choosing life for unborn children is a serious matter, don't be so glib, life goes on, but not with out consequences. Abortion is murder.

Hey Tom, thanks for letting us know your position on this topic. Again.

No accusations here. I just find it interesting that Christians are so much more concerned for unborn children than for children and babies who are born. I've been reading your comments on here for a while now, and not once have I seen you express concern for the sick and dying children of the world unless they're in utero. Just an observation, sorry if it rubs you the wrong way.

Jersey... you are right. The issue of abortion is very divisive, just don't refer to it as a sexy issue. It's a revolting issue. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be addressed. It is a very important issue with many consequences that needs to be kept at the forefront of the conversation. It is a great wrong that needs to be stopped from my perspective. But to your other point.... The Church has many initiatives addressing the poverty that children live in every day around the world. I personally support several Christian and Catholic Charities that work tirelessly to lift these children out of poverty both here and abroad - as I'm sure you do since it seems to be a priority for you. And.. I have to ask for clarification... Did you imply that Jesus would not see abortion as an issue?

Larissa, abortion was legal under Roman law during Jesus's life. If it were an issue of great import, I believe he would have addressed it. In fact, abortion is never discussed in the Bible (except a passage in Exodus that speaks to "causing a miscarriage" and the penalty is less than the penalty for murder, which choice advocates would say is an indication that the life of a fetus was seen as being of lesser import than the life of a human who is born). It's only the scholars who came later who decided abortion was murder - that is never outlined in the Bible. (And it's not as though abortion didn't exist back then - it did. Under Roman law, not murder.)

I suppose Jesus saw adultery as "an issue" but his focus was not on condemnation, but rather, forgiveness. If anything, I think that might have been closer to the stance he'd have taken on abortion. There is absolutely zero indication that Jesus believed that abortion was murder in the Bible. None. There is only supposition by pro-lifers that we would have thought so because they can't imagine otherwise.

"Jersey focus on the issue, accusing pro-life people of not caring for starving children is changing the subject."

...says the guy who brought up the issue of taking eagle eggs.

Jersey, enjoyed what you had to say, i am also pro-choice and believe everyone has the right to make their own decision concerning their own body. I don't believe anyone has the right to tell us what to do especially the government! We won Roe vs Wade so why do we still have to fight for our rights? As for this being a headline story in The Long Valley patch when this article is about a church in Chester, don't know about that, there is a small church on Naughright Road (that Gigi mentioned) that always has a table set up where you can drop off prayers, I personally would rather know what that is all about instead! Personally I already know the Catholic Church is against abortion, that is not new news!

Jersey, I know you are just being a provocateur, but I'm sure that, just because Christ didn't address the taking of the life of another, specifically regarding abortion, that it wouldn't be considered an atrocity. He did preach forgiveness, but he also warned that sin and death are real things, and only those who seek forgiveness are forgiven. So, really, it's more a common sense issue, this respect life thing.

Sher- what's this "we" stuff? YOU won Roe v. Wade? Were you a plaintiff? Are you aware that Ms. Roe, the original plaintiff, has since claimed that she was manipulated by the radical left, and is now a staunch pro-Life advocate? I'm sure you didn't know that. Maybe you should stop by that other church, and see what the prayer stuff is all about -- I'm sure you will, dear.

Nancy, I commend organizations who actually provide services to homeless, pregnant women both during and after their pregnancies. It's a far cry from those who rally against abortion but provide no solutions to women who are in no position to have those children.

Thanks, Nancy, the Catholic Church also runs several of these organizations, and I have volunteered and renovated several of the properties myself. They don't have an agenda either, just caring for those in a time of need. Anyone interested in this can call ANY Catholic Church.

Is that the implication that you were making, Jersey, that pro-life people only care about the fetus itself, and nothing else during or after delivery? It seems that you are trying to be sly.

No.. I have heard of them before. I'll be sure to check them out. I'm assuming that was a little sarcasm about "even feeding Christians". I don't know of any reputable charity that only ministers to "their own". Last time I checked, nobody was asking for membership cards for food, unless its the government of course.

Mathew 18-6 But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

And the first amendment of the Constitution says; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”, meaning that your bible verses have no place regarding legislation in this country.

Hookerman... I never said they did. I was responding to the argument that this church should lose it's tax-exempt status b/c they dared use their right to free speech. My argument against abortion is based on reason and sound premises, not religion. The fetus at conception becomes more than the sum of it's parts and to have an abortion at anytime would end that life. The logic is sound. No abortion = life. Abortion = no life. No religion here.

But Larissa, the argument that a fetus (really zygote) at conception = "life" is in itself a misnomer and ill-placed in the argument. A cell is "life". Any cell. Any insect or plant (or seed for that matter) or organism in a water droplet - all "life". The question is when does "life" become "human being" for the purposes of protection and rights under the law. And that is very much up to debate - and really ultimately comes down to a personal decision (and often religion, as many pro-life Christians believe that a person has a soul effective conception, hence their position).

You're entitled to your beliefs, and I would never, ever, tell you you should have to have an abortion. I simply ask the same respect in return.

Larissa, I was actually replying to Tom's post, but since you wish to engage me, I’ll ask you this…. since you believe that life begins at the moment of conception, does that mean that if you were raped, you would refuse any procedure or medication (ie; D&C or morning after pill) to prevent a pregnancy, because there is a chance that you might be aborting an egg that is already fertilized?

Hookerman - That is a wildly incorrect interpretation of First Amendment. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” means that Congress will not create a state religion like that which existing in England (The Church of England).
That is the only separation of church and state meant and implied in the Constitution.
This entire separation of church and state argument is a concoction to remove Christianity from mainstream society. We have freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion.

And to the person complaining about a tax-exempt church having a political opinion. By your definition, should we only allow opinions to those who pay taxes? And do not confuse federal withholding each week as paying taxes, because your bill is settled with the federal government in April...if you receive all of your withholding back and then some...you don't get an opinion because you were tax exempt for the year...is that what you want to see? That idea is pretty dangerous would you agree?

Greg, I would argue that your interpretation is incorrect. You and other conservatives on this matter often fail to take constitutional case law into account, and whether you like it or not, it provides a substantial portion of the law regarding separation of church and state. The concept of "freedom OF versus freedom FROM" religion is ridiculous. Yes, we are all free to practice (or not practice) religion; we are also free from having it imposed on us.

Greg, the first amendment says what the first amendment says. It does not mention anything about creating a state religion... you're concocting your own interpretation by putting words there that don't exist.

Jersey it's clear you have neither a grasp of case law, theology, or biology. A zygote is only a fleeting stage in the life of a fetus. You actually HAVE interpreted the constitution incorrectly. Your manner belies your agenda, which is to spin anything -- including developmental biology -- to suit your argument.

Judge a man by his actions more than his words. Actions require much more effort than words.

I am a liberal. I am not offended at the article, and I think the church has the right to put up this display (as I stated earlier in these comments). I don't think I feel the need to "defend" being pro-choice any more than people feel the need to "defend" being pro-life. I simply state a view that differs from yours.

I do take issue with this though:

" Question why is it always the liberals who feel the need to trample all over someone's belief or opinion? Liberals are all for freedom of choice and voice unless it is not in agreement with their pov ... hipochracy."

Actually, I can't disagree more. If you are pro-choice it means just that... Everyone gets to make their decisions on this issue for themselves, abortions should not be imposed on anyone nor denied. It's the pro-life stance that seeks to trample on the beliefs of those who disagree with them by denying them the option to choose to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

I find your comment interesting as it seems that people from the left and right do a pretty good job of sharing their opinions and reasons behind them (trampling as you put it). It's not exclusives to the libs so I wonder who is being hypocritical here.

Stacie, I never said that pro-lifers trample on the rights of others by expressing (or defending) their views. I said they seek to trample on the rights of others by denying them the right to choose for themselves.

My position would only be hypocritical if I wanted to impose abortions on other people regardless of their beliefs. I don't. If you are pro-life, don't get an abortion, I believe you have every right to that opinion. I ask that pro-life people allow me to make my own choices as well when it comes to whether or not I carry a pregnancy to term.

The new liberal talking point: "transvaginal ultrasounds before an abortion even in the case of rape." GiGi, Who is forcing women to undergo this procedure? This talking point to has been all over the news the last few days, Democrats pursue their war on humanity, thinking they are helping Obama's reelection chances. It's not working, polls show an increase in women are supporting Romney.

Tom, transvaginal ultrasounds are being required in at least 8 states, 2 of which require the ultrasound plus the woman must look at the image, the other 6 require the ultrasound plus the "opportunity" to view the image. The requirements are pursuant to state law, prior to a woman being permitted to abort. Similar legislation is pending in many other states.

Why transvaginal? It's not possible to get an ultrasound of a fetal sac or early stage fetus without a transvaginal until later in the pregnancy, usually 12 weeks (which is the cut off for 1st trimester abortions). The result is literally this: If a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, she is forced to have a transvaginal u/s, then go home and think about her decision, before returning to the office for the procedure another day. She has to not only lose time from her children, work, school, etc., but she has to have a large, vaginal probe inserted so she can look at the screen at the fetal sac. Because maybe then she'll "truly understand" what she's doing.

This isn't just a talking point, it's law. And as someone who has had that kind of ultrasound (while trying to have my children) I can attest to the fact that it is very invasive.

You may not care about this, but I assure you it's very real, not just a talking point.

https://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_RFU.pdf

Hiya GiGi,

I understand you disagree with the decision to run this story, which I of course respect. As brief as I can be, the location of this church is in my territory in Chester. To my knowledge, no other churches or businesses have displays of this nature. As much as you can venture or be certain, I haven't seen any of that in my travels. If there are others, please let us know. News is a conversation and we would love to follow up on others. If there was a planned parenthood in my territory with a display that had been vandalized in the past then we would do a story on that as well. Just because the story exists does not mean we endorse the position of those in the story.
When Jason told me he came across this, it made me weary because I knew the potential for misunderstanding was high. But it is our job to serve the community with the stories brought to our attention best we can. Our job is not to do what is easy.
I am not going to argue past the scope of the article, which was this church in Chester making a bold statement on Main Street despite opposition. No judgement or endorsement is implied.
But please, if you or anyone else sees something newsworthy on ANY topic, please drop us a line. We can only report on what we see, and with six towns between us we rely on our readers.
Thanks for taking the time to write. Your opinions, whether you agree with our coverage or not, is always welcome. Criticism is part of what we do and we appreciate your honesty.

Jersey, ripping an infant out of a mothers womb and killing it is OK by your's and GiGi's standards and is not invasive?. But if a mother has a "transvaginal ultra sound and is told to wait a few days and think about it before she aborts, you find that invasive? I don't buy that, The majority of women that have abortions are unwed teenagers who abort because they don't want the responsibility of being a single mother awaiting period is appropriate in the situation. Cpuld save a life.

Tom, thanks for acknowledging that you had no idea what you were talking about regarding the u/s laws. That was big of you.

By medical definition, an infant is a human child from birth to one year of age. So let me clarify that you're talking about a fetus, not an infant. You think a fetus is a child. I don't. Therefore you think I support murdering children. I do not. We've been down this road.

A procedure is particularly invasive when it is forced upon you. If an abortion were forced upon a woman I'd say that is horribly invasive. If it's chosen voluntarily by the person, it's less so.

Put simply, come talk to me when the government requires that you have to have a dildo shoved up your anus before you're permitted to have a medical procedure.

Jersey, does calling an infant in the womb a fetus remove your guilt and responsibility when it's ripped from the womb and murdered? An unborn child is an infant.
Luke 1:41 41 And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

Jersey, stop stating what medical definitions are or are not. Clearly, you are not in the field of science or medicine, and to those of us that are, you appear an idiot. You are a liar and a manipulator. Use some common sense - why do pregnant women print and save the ultrasonic images of their children? Could it still possibly be a goldfish, or a Yucca plant, and not a human, since it's not born yet. Do you know what DNA is? The first two cells of a child have 46 chromosomes each, which DEFINE it as human. I am tired of your, at first, subversive posts, which have grown more and more true to your agenda of lying, at all costs, to make your argument.

@Thomas: You and others can stop trying to defend your position via your religious beliefs; beliefs no one else has an obligation to follow. If you don't like abortion then don't get one; no one will make you. Otherwise, leave the control of a women's body to herself.

Hi GiGi,

My towns are Mendham and Chester (where this story is based out of as I am the editor of Mendham-Chester Patch where this story also appears).
I appreciate your frankness, but with a little frankness in return, we did find a story of interest. One you just happen not to like. But just because you don't like it, doesn't invalidate it or make it biased.
As for your suggestion about the church I "could" or "might" find displays on, I did spend Sunday driving through Mendham, Chester, Long Valley and Hackettstown...longer than I wanted because my daughter enjoys cars naps...and when we were on Naughtright I didn't see anything like that. But I will check again at the next opportunity.
Like I said before to everyone, if you see something on ANY topic you would like covered, please reach out to Jason or I. You guys are an integral part of the process and we are always just a phone call or e-mail away!

:-)

GiGi, As long as you post your thoughts I have the right to answer them if I disagree. Live and let live. What's wrong with fellow citizens having concern for their neighbors and wave and offering prayers? I will let my friends at that church know how you feel and they will be praying for you.

GiGi, if readers didn't find this to be a story of interest, then how come we have a thread a mile long discussing it?

Stacie, I think you’ve got the wrong poster… it was Schooley Squatch who brought up the issue of hypocrisy (or hipochracy as he/she called it).

Drakestown Methodist Church, at the corner of Church Rd (near the 46 terminus of Naughright)

I happen to greatly appreciate anyone of any religion offering a prayer for me and cannot fathom why that is offensive. I make it a point to slow down and acknowledge these people as they take their own time to gather outside of their church (I think on Mondays) & wave to passersby. With so much negativity, judgment & ugliness in the world, I find these people, with their very simple gesture, to actually be very uplifting.

I don't belong to the Drakestown Methodist Church, and I am not a Methodist, but to say "I also think the Naughright Rd. prayer-wavers are silly" is unkind. They are nice people who are living their beliefs and extending compassion to their fellow person. They are trying to do good. I would like more people like that and fewer 'me first' people in my daily life.

Small-minded sums up Gigi perfectly. That and "nasty old hen."

I did not miss the point, Nolan. In the same post you criticized as being unkind, I also mentioned the 1st amendment, twice. And I also wave to the church people on Naughright, who haven't been out there in a long time, BTW. Like I said-the church in Chester has as much right to their crucifixes as do the people waving at cars.

You said that the MEDICAL definition of life was birth. You are a lawyer, and I can't imagine a very good one, but just by way of having BEEN pregnant, makes you neither an embryologist nor an OB/GYN. I can see your ignorance, so I call 'em like I see 'em. What you can't see is my wife and three daughters, so I must by a misogynist. Abortion is just as much about the rights of the woman as the unborn, half of whom are female.

@biff: It makes we wonder what happened in your life that makes you so nasty and bitter. I suspect you care much less about the unborn and much more about controlling someone else's body. The right for a women to choose is, and must be, paramount. If you don't like it, don't do it. Your choice. Please give that same consideration to others.

Denobin - you've responded to my posts x 3 now, with essentially the same comments. Why is it that you, and others, not knowing whom you're conversing with, would make an assumption that someone who is pro-life only cares about control, and not the unborn? It seems you need some justification for your stance, so you take the natural good out of the equation, i.e. that I am concerned for the lives and rights of all humans, and make it about misogyny and control. Put simply, if you believe this, you are a fool. I agree that the rights of the individual, granted under the US Consitution, are paramount. I do not agree that the rights of any one person, or group, trump those of others. Thus, the rights of the unborn must be considered.
In the future, please refrain from guessing regarding my background and experiences, as well as making logistical leaps vis a vis the motivations behind my beliefs. I won't take it personally, because clearly you believe that about anyone who is pro-life, and you are far beyond help. I just won't let you make those statements unchallenged. As I've shared in another comment, I am a happily married father of three young daughters, and I love my wife and mother.

"biff" - if you really are an ob/gyn, please give us a clue as to what your real name might be because there is no way I would want to let my friends and family members have you attend to their healthcare needs. You are quite obviously blinded by ignorance. Of course, I believe you are a physician about as much as I believe the earth is square.

Gigi, would you like a clue, or would you like my real name? I am in private practice within the cachement area of this publication, and have been for many years. So I'm quite certain you know someone that I have taken good care of in my years of practice. Regardless, you have made it clear, through your postings, who the ignorant, intolerant one is -- to the point of harassing the editors!

I don't give a rat's ass about what you think, believe, or know; I know all I need to know about your type. Post your full name and home address, and I will contact you with my name and practice information.

Please enlighten us as to whom would say that child molestation is no problem. There is exponentially more sexual abuse going on in your public schools, right now, than ever occurred in the Catholic Church.

The zygote comment was a joke. Sorry you can't admit you were out of your area of expertise. You're irritated because you felt that the right-to-life agenda of the Catholic Church was prioritized over the molestation issues. I would disagree, in fact, public opinion and the legal system (criminal and civli) saw to that. The acts, and the subsequent cover ups (where they happened) were reprehensible and sad. No one is denying that, or pushing any dogmatic or social agendas ahead of it. It gets a little tired that EVERY time an unrelated issue with the Church comes up, the smarmy remarks about priest pedophiles are the first shot over the wall.

AMS - very well thought-out post, and I appreciate your non-religious take on the horrors of late-term abortions. If you're opposed to having your rights infringed upon by others, what of the rights of the developing human? Who speaks on their behalf?

Lucretia,
Are you of the opinion that the RC Church has not moved to "put its (affairs) in order?"

agree...l.v. is very right wing, conservative. btw: have you noticed the "welcome" signs for long valley include a church?

Hey Mark,
Thanks so much for the comment. You've made an interesting statement, and I'd like to ask you to support it with evidence. Patch, company-wide, strives to be the most objective news source available (case in point: no endorsements of elected officials). That being said, can you point to some of the stories written by Patch staff that is "Christian, evangelical, very right wing, conservative leaning" as you've described here?
Thanks!

OMG--a church on the welcome sign-we better burn that down!
There are Bible verses etched in stone all over the Federal Buildings and Monuments in Washington, D.C.
James Madison, the fourth president, known as "The Father of Our Constitution" made the following statement "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."
Patrick Henry, that patriot and Founding Father of our country said, "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians...not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ".
Every session of Congress begins with a prayer by a paid preacher...whose salary has been paid by the taxpayer since 1777.
The 10 Commandments appear in 3 places on the Supreme Court building.

Mark - YOUR personal experiences do not constitute a significant sociologic study. As far as Christians go, most are NOT evangelical; please learn the definition of evangelical before tying the Catholic Church to that moniker.

I hope you’re joking Mom. You expect the rest of the world to quash any controversial subject because of your discomfort answering honest questions from your own kids??? You better get used to fielding questions like this and learn how to provide age appropriate answers, because the fun is just beginning.

Once again--It's freedom of speech, it's on their own property and it's not illegal.
Welcome to the real world! If that's the "worst" thing your kids have seen so far, you must be living in a cave.

Mom 123, are you disgusted because a group exercised their right of free speech, or are you disgusted because your child asked what it was and you were forced to explain it? If there are no moral, ethical or legal issues with abortion, it should be easy to explain. If those issues do exist in your mind, it might not be so easy to explain.
It appears the Church's statement is "in the USA, 144 abortions an hour" with 144 crosses on the lawn. Certainly a powerful statement, but not preaching. There does not appeear any assignation of good or bad to the statement on the part of the church, just the statement that this exits. If you think that the topic of abortion is disturbing, you should look at the message and not become irate with the messenger.

Mom - you are a sad case, indeed.

Don't speak for me. I'm not offended by the first article or the one stemming from it. You can't assume to know if a "large segment" were offended.
For those who do find it offensive--choose not to read it! Pro-choice and all...

Holly, I think that sums it up, very succintly and intelligently.

That's very cavalier of you, five decades later. Maybe you haven't been a parent long enough to know that "heartache" and "suffering" kind of comes with the territory. Sorry, not sufficient to justify taking a life. If you were born before Roe V. Wade, your mom certainly would have had the option, if her demise were a possibility. I find it very disingenuous when a supposedly intelligent person would play the "maternal death" card, which makes up <1% of abortions. Then again, you're an attorney, so there you have it.