Abortion Gang Censors Scientific Evidence of Life in the Womb

I've spent a few minutes reading an Abortion Gang post, which was brought to my attention by a commenter on this blog. 
The issue at hand, was a pro-abort turning what a pro-lifer said into something completely different.
The pro-lifer said:

And the gay guys and lesbians? They were just kids we grew up with. We were sorry they chose the lifestyle they did, because it resulted in the untimely deaths of about 60% of them, from aids and suicide, but they were just kids we grew up with. They didn’t demand to wear dresses to the prom, or shout that they were discriminated against, or require special attention. There was no reason not to like them. We told them to their face they were sinners, and they agreed, and they called us sinners right back, and we agreed. Cause we all knew that we could judge right and wrong, but we weren’t the ultimate judge of someone’s sin.

And 'Burtie', a self proclaimed 'femme dyke', QUOTED her as saying this:

“We told them filthy sinning homosexuals what they were, and we were proud of it. Luckily they all died from AIDS or shame”

For a movement that demands accuracy, Burtie fell far short.  Did anyone call her on it?  Nope.  As a matter of fact, this vitriol was dropped well after the pro-lifer had been barred from continuing the conversation.  As my commenter so eloquently put it:

It's certainly a fair discussion when comments like Burtie's continue to be allowed when they can't be answered, eh?

Indeed.  What the pro-lifer did was debate points in the article, and she did it respectfully.  I was surprised Steph Herold let her comment at all.  The Abortion Gang blog is well known for slamming the door to pro-life views.  And eventually, (after pro-abort Dee de-railed the conversation), Steph Herold did shut the pro-life commenter down.

I suppose she thinks saying "please" and "thank you" makes up for her lack of tolerance for opposing views. She allows 'vitriol from her 'subjects', but most often, doesn't allow the victim to defend themselves against it.
At another point in the article, Steph Herold censored the pro-life commenter from posting a link to a 12 week fetus shown on ultrasound.  In response to the censor of the link "Aoife" wrote:

And I wanted to ask, if I may, respectfully, why the moderator did not allow anonymous’s link to the 12 week fetus sonogram to be posted. I know you said she was a troll, but why did you censor that post, yet continue to allow her to post several other comments? I have to ask because it does look like you were afraid of her presenting the information as it shows Lisa’s claim to be clearly false.

What was Lisa's claim?

Having that knowledge of how a fetus develops…I knew that at 12 weeks or whatever, that’s not a life.

Steph Herold's response to Aoife soon followed:

Hi Aoife: I didn’t publish the comment with the link to the ultrasound because it’s not clear to me if that youtube video is real or not. The youtube clip was to some couple’s personal ultrasound, and frankly, that kind of intrusion creeps me out (not to mention it isn’t scientific evidence of anything). If anonymous had linked to scientific data from a reliable source, that would’ve been totally fine.

So she denied the validity of someone's personal ultrasound (which they chose to upload to the not so personal internet), and she's also validated our claims that pro-aborts can't think for themselves.  Ultrasound IS science.  And if you can't see the LIVING baby in the scan (without a scientist explaining it to you), then you're either a complete idiot, or you're in complete denial. Probably both!