The hope, Kavanaugh noted, had been that emergency contraception would lower the national rate of unintended pregnancy. "But so far there's no evidence that this is happening," she said.Enough said
Saturday, April 30, 2011
According to UnRealityTV, X Factors Stacey Solomon considered abortion when she was 18 years old.
“I was completely miserable. What were the positives? I tried hard but I couldn’t think of any. So I asked my mum to make an appointment at a termination clinic.”
The ultrasound is ultimately what changed her mind about aborting her pregnancy and killing her son. Though it was far from easy, Stacey chose life for her son.
“I hated every second of my long, long labour.”
“It was disgusting. And when they gave him to me, I didn’t even want to hold him. I just thought, Get me some food! I was completely wrapped up in my own unhappiness.”
“I didn’t feel motherly. I felt so hopeless, like I was nothing. I didn’t want a baby. I really didn’t. I went on crying and crying.”
“I was fat, torn and sore. I was helpless and trapped. I felt as if I’d gone from having the best life in the world to everything being in ruins.”
“I don’t remember a lot about that period of my life. I couldn’t foresee that Zach would be the greatest blessing I could ever have. I went through hell for three months.” (emphasis is mine)
Stacey found that being pregnant for 9 months is not easy, and giving birth is even harder. But in the end, her son Zach is truly the greatest blessing in her life. It's so sad for women that 'choose' to abort their babies, never knowing the blessing they missed out on.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Since I personally don't find the posts here as fear mongering, I dug a little deeper to see what they were studying. It wasn't abortion. As I looked further into their blog, I found that they are studying how fear is used in blogs, videos, etc. Hence, the title of the blog "The Rhetoric of Fear".The blog we have chosen is called the Anti-Abortion Gang and can be found at http://theantiabortiongang.blogspot.com/. The blog’s goal is to show people what is really going on inside the minds of pro-aborts. The blogger expresses his or her opinion and beliefs about others’ tweets, blogs and other articles referring to abortion. The blogger prides herself/himself on having a blog where others can refute and argue, which many pro-abortion blogs don’t allow. This blog uses fear in the headlines of the blogs as well as their content. This blogger wants to scare you into believing abortion is horrible and the wrong thing to do. (emphasis is mine)
While I was disappointed that the intro seemed to be biased, I was delighted at several of the comments regarding abortion, including this one:
The background colors symbolize the life that is destroyed through abortions. The red color can be interpreted as blood; the result of the slaughtering done through abortions. These lively colors help the antiabortion article to symbolize the life they are fighting to protect.I found most students were hung up on the color patterns of the blog. Here are a few more.
the background is pink, white and yellow. It gives the appearance of an animal cell that has been placed on a microscopic slide and magnified
The blog's interface sports a watercolor of red and orange patterns that can possibly resemble body tissue, cell groupings, blood or some sort of biological image
The background consists of light red and orange, the exact color of blood that has been exposed to the air for a time period.There are more comments regarding the color scheme, I just copied over a few for a quick read. I was intrigued at how much the students over-analyzed (IMO) the theme. But I suppose that is what they are being taught? In truth, the reason I chose this theme is 1. because it's free, and 2. because the background and colors reminded me of bloody gauze. Simple isn't it?
The students had several numbered options of what type of analysis they are choosing. I found most stopped at #1, which is the colors etc. So while I thought the 1 was a good grade, alas, it's just a code. Perhaps I was over-analysing as well?
To the students, I'd like to thank you for your time, your analysis, and wish you the very best in the future!
One of the biggest misunderstandings regarding pro-choice advocates is that people think we are advocating for everyone to get an abortion every time someone gets pregnant.No Amanda, we don't. Advocating the death of even one prenatal human being makes you a pro-choice advocate.
It is so easy to get pregnant and sex is such a strong instinct that is difficult to expect circumstances to be perfect.While some women are extremely fertile, it is not easy for other women to get pregnant. Many pass on their most fertile years, instead opting to endure the emotional, physical, and financial torture of infertility treatment later on. Circumstances are never perfect. Yet women abort their babies, and wait for that magical time of perfection. The unique babies that were lost, will not be regenerated. They are gone forever.
At conception, though the fetus may be "alive" per se, it is hardly a human. After all, cells are alive, and that is essentially what it is. If someone chooses not to get pregnant and loses the egg through menstruation, is that not an idea similar to this concept of abortion and preventing life, etc?Actually, it's very much a human, it even has it's own unique DNA. Skin cells don't have that. An egg lost through menstruation doesn't have that. The egg has the woman's DNA only, it is not a new human being.
If people are so disturbed by this, then perhaps they should stop consuming all animal products (like eggs -baby chickens, anyone?), never kill a bug, never take antibiotics, and, in fact, should not even live at all considering all the organisms and bacteria our bodies naturally kill.Most chicken eggs sold commercially are not fertilized, and none of them are human. Justifying killing a human embryo by using the life of bugs and bacteria, is so, well, prochoice. Your priorities are astounding.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Saturday, April 23, 2011
@Twisted_Shadow equates carrying a baby to term, and giving it life, to slavery. This is one of many of the really stupid arguments choicer's use.
Slaves HAD NO choice. If knowing the life they would have to endure, and they would have been given a choice prior to boarding the slave ship, I'm going to guess they would have refused.
Much like if a woman knows she risks getting pregnant by having sex, she should refuse. It's not rocket science. Sex can result in pregnancy. And biologically, that's the way it's supposed to work.
By pro-choice logic, we should murder toddlers who are in the terrible twos? It's simply slavery chasing them around all day.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Her use of the word "they" indicates that she knows a fetus IS someone, a person. And she
A Pro-Life WIN in the UK! From BBC News:
The Department of Health has lost a court battle to keep secret some details on abortion statistics.
Be sure to watch the video embedded in the BBC article. Josephine Quintavalle of ProLife Alliance says people want to know why. The public, in the UK and the US, have a right to know why abortions are being performed.
The privacy argument is nothing new, it's what Roe v Wade in the United States was based on.
In an article in the Guardian, the author, Kate Smurthwaite, argues that a woman's privacy will be put at risk by allowing late term abortion stats to be publicly released.
In 2009, there were 136 abortions in the UK among women who had passed 24 weeks of pregnancy. Numbers are fairly consistent – around the 130 mark each year. The range of conditions involved is very wide, predominantly involving a variety of brain and cardiac abnormalities; most common foetal abnormalities, such as Down's syndrome, are typically revealed earlier in pregnancy at the 12 or 20-week scan. As such, many conditions will be listed with only one or two cases a year, effectively providing one individual woman's medical record.
Kate admits that the majority of fetuses with Down Syndrome, are diagnosed before they would be considered 'late term'. The fact is, 90% of Down Syndrome babies are aborted, most prior to late term status. This is only a portion of what abortion advocates want to hide. There are other cases of non-fatal fetal abnormalities such as cleft lip and palate. In the UK, these are often recorded as 'social abortions', never revealing the true nature of the anomaly.
In the case of Down Syndrome related abortion in the UK, Mail Online reports:
The National Down's Syndrome Cytogenetic Register said that over the last four years fewer than half of abortions of Down's babies were recorded properly.
It is so important to track trends in Down Syndrome diagnoses, as well as other physical anomalies. Abortion advocates are skewing the numbers, by hiding the data. This needs to stop. No one wants to know the name and address of the women that aborted, or the abortionist that performed the act. But we deserve accurate data relating to abortions.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Now they are unashamed enough to say a mother is more important than her child. Not where I came from! A mother is supposed to protect her young from harm. A good mother will sacrifice her own life, to save the life of her child.
Of course that only applies to us that
Diane is a clear case of someone in denial. With two children of her own, she denies they were alive before birth.
Monday, April 18, 2011
#1 Planned Parenthood’s federal funding frees up other money to pay for abortions.In this section, Clare describes Title X funding in detail. It's not necessary for this post that I repeat it verbatim. This is about
#2 Ninety percent of what Planned Parenthood does is provide abortions.This related to the recent faux pas of Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ).. The pro-aborts have had a field day with this one. But hey, they have to demonize someone, right? Well not really, but they do it anyway. As I said in this post, "The latter part of his statement should have read 'If you want an abortion, you go to Planned Parenthood, and that’s well over 98 percent of what Planned Parenthood does for PREGNANT women.' I have no doubt that was his intended statement." The actual figure is a bit more than 96%, using the numbers from Planned Parenthood's Annual Report.
#3 Defunding Planned Parenthood will reduce abortionsThe target for this attack is Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), relating to sponsoring a bill to bar abortion providers from receiving Title X funding. Yes, that is Planned Parenthood, among a few others. If Planned Parethood were stripped of Title X funds today, they wouldn't last 3 months, if that. They depend on Title X funds to keep their doors open, so they can get the big bucks performing abortions. So yes, if they were defunded, a reduction of abortions would follow.
I found the following statement enlightening. "Planned Parenthood centers offer contraception to nearly 2.5 million patients a year and serves 36 percent of all Title X patients." And people wonder why Planned Parenthood screams about saving Title X funds? Title X funds, lines the pockets of Planned Parenthood.
#4 Planned Parenthood serves only teenagers and prostitutes.Intended target? Glenn Beck! It's not the first time he (or a lot of other talk tv/radio hosts) has made a stupid joke.. and yes it was a joke. So I'll have to pass on this one, except for Clare's statement in this secton. "But when I worked for the organization, I would ask our supporters to picture this: You’re a 22-year-old woman with a job you don’t love, a toddler you’d die for and no health insurance. You live paycheck to paycheck, and you always know to the penny how much cash you’ve got until the end of the month. You’re rushing home on Route 9 to relieve your mom, who’s with the kid, and the engine light on the car comes on. You feel a wave of panic. You know you’re always one emergency away from everything falling apart. That’s our patient — I always have her in my mind."
Newsflash! The above scenario could happen to a lot of people, a lot of people are 'only one emergency away from everything falling apart'. The difference is, we don't depend on the government to bail us out.
# 5 People don’t really need Planned Parenthood
Thursday, April 14, 2011
“You don’t have to go to Planned Parenthood to get your cholesterol or your blood pressure checked. If you want an abortion, you go to Planned Parenthood, and that’s well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does,” Kyl declared.The latter part of his statement should have read 'If you want an abortion, you go to Planned Parenthood, and that’s well over 98 percent of what Planned Parenthood does for PREGNANT women.' I have no doubt that was his intended statement.
Gail goes on to say:
Planned Parenthood says that abortions, which are not paid for with federal money, constitute 3 percent of the services that the organization provides. That’s quite a gap. But only if you’re planning on going factual.If you want to be factual Gail, then state the facts. In 2008 (and probably 2009, 2010), Planned Parenthood served approximately 3 million women. In the same year Planned Parenthood providers performed approximately 300,000 abortions. Using simple mathematics, it's clear that at least 10% of women that go to PP, are there for abortions.
Also, Gail states no abortions are paid with federal funds. Maybe not directly, but a lot of the prep work, exams, pregnancy tests, etc., are paid for with federal funds. There is no denying that federal funding, pays for at least part of the services leading up to the abortion procedure, and perhaps after-care also.
Pro abortion advocates need to stop lying and sugar-coating the truth. Americans are not that stupid.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Most of us have seen the video of Indiana State Rep. Eric Turner (R) expressing his “concerns” with the rape exception for HB 1210, which would make most abortions illegal after 20 weeks. He stated,This is the video linked above. Listen to Rep. Turner, and then stay tuned for Rep. Linda Lawson (D). Get the kleenex, she's a bit emotional. "Women don't make this up!"
I just want you to think about this, in my view, giant loophole that could be created where someone who could — now I want to be careful, I don’t want to disparage in any way someone who has gone through the experience of a rape or incest — but someone who is desirous of an abortion could simply say that they’ve been raped or there’s incest.
Would women lie about being raped to secure an abortion? The answer is a resounding YES. Prolife knew this all along. Now prochoicer 'Not Guilty', the author of the Abortion Gang post, freely admits that yes, women will lie to have an abortion.
Somehow you’ve gotten to 20 weeks and abortion is only legal in 2 circumstances: rape or incest. Now you have a few choices: 1) carry to term, 2) self-abort and risk your life, 3) say you were raped. Option 3 gets you what you need without risking your life. Damn right you are going to do whatever you need to do to get that abortion; damn right you will say you’ve been raped.It's obvious women will lie to secure an abortion if they want one. Because of that fact, we must make sure there is NO exception for rape or incest written into abortion legislation.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Liberal pro-aborts will stop at nothing to promote abortion at Planned Parenthood. My guess is, and yes we can all only guess, that an American Express (almost ex) employee created the tweet below. The original tweet has of course been deleted, but someone did get a screen shot before it disappeared.
The re-tweets were immediate and plentiful. What I didn't see, was overwhelming support for Planned Parenthood, or for Amex for that matter. When other companies see the reaction their supposed support of Planned Parenthood got, maybe they will think twice about their support also. One can only hope.
Amex denies being responsible for the tweet, which I will have to trust them on.
Some of the tweets are PRICELESS.. Pardon the pun.
I saw very little real support for Amex. On the other hand, the anger toward them, and Scarlett Johannson for that matter, was like a breath of fresh air.
The outrage gives renewed hope in the battle to save lives of the unborn.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
The question: "If taxpayer dollars “don’t pay for abortions”, then why would de-funding PP reduce a woman’s right to abortion?"
The answer: "It would reduce a woman’s access to abortion. In many states, Planned Parenthood is the only abortion clinic available. Without funding assistance, many Planned Parenthood clinics would close."
There you have it, straight from the mouth of prochoice. It's really simple, whether directly or indirectly, the American taxpayer pays for women to kill their babies.
Using the #ihadanabortion hashtag, @Juliewashere88 listed several reasons why women have abortions. We'll look at Julie's reasons, and then the real reasons women have abortions.
The latest maternal mortality rate I found for the US is 8 in 100,000 women. Though that is higher than it should be, it certainly doesn't warrant the fear mongering as noted above.
Some other "reasons" from Julie:
Some women do have debilitating illnesses when pregnant, but rape and self-defense? Come on! Julie is simply reaching for reasons to justify the brutal act of abortion.
Let's look at the real reasons given by women who had an abortion. From Guttmacher.org:
While I don't agree with any of the reasons listed above, it makes it easy to distinguish reality, from the irrationality that comes from pro-aborts.
It's time America woke up to the reality of just how irrational pro-aborts are. Pass it along!
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
"Fetal pain" anti-abortion laws spur fierce debateAccording to Danielle Deaver, her crisis had 'nothing to do with abortion whatsoever', yet she wanted the doctor to help her end the pregnancy. Is that not abortion? Of course it is. This story has everything to do with abortion. The many interviews she's had since Elizabeth died are telling. Prochoicers, and Danielle Deaver, are using Elizabeths death to fulfil their agenda of 'abortion on demand', that means any time, for any reason.
Reuters - Danielle Deaver says she did not want a late-term abortion -- she wanted a baby.
But when the Nebraska woman lost most of her amniotic fluid at 22 weeks last November, she was told the baby girl would likely die outside the womb with undeveloped lungs, and that the fetus could be slowly crushed by the uterine walls.
Deaver asked that labor be induced, so that whatever happened would happen quickly. But doctors could not do it because of a new law that bans abortions after 20 weeks, based on research suggesting this is when fetuses feel pain.
Deaver went home, worrying that every time she felt movement, it was because the baby was suffering. Deaver went into labor after ten days. Baby Elizabeth died in her mother's arms after 15 minutes.
Deaver's crisis illustrates the complexity of the debate over "fetal pain" abortion bans being proposed in 16 states -- a push that has ignited powerful emotions on both sides.
"This pregnancy was planned and wanted," said Deaver, 34, a married nurse with one other child. "This had nothing to do with abortion whatsoever, and we were affected by an abortion law."
The bills, promoted by the National Right to Life Committee copy the Nebraska law, which passed last year. Similar fetal pain bills have passed both legislative chambers in Kansas, Oklahoma and Idaho. Laws also have passed through one legislative chamber in Indiana and Iowa.
The bills make exceptions if the mother's life is at risk, or if she faces risk of a substantial, irreversible medical injury, according to Mary Spaulding Balch, director of the department of state legislation of the Right to Life Committee.
"This is a bill that recognizes the inherent right to life of a child that is capable of feeling pain," said Balch. "It is an acknowledgment that this unborn child is a member of the human family and deserves the same rights as any other member of the human family."
Balch said the bills do not make exceptions for a fetus like Deaver's that may have problems. "You don't kill someone to alleviate his suffering," Balch said. "You try to address his suffering."
Iowa State Rep. Mary Ann Hanusa, a Republican who supports a 20-week ban that passed the House last week, agreed that there are "hard situations" like Deaver's but that doesn't mean an abortion after 20 weeks should be allowed.
"We do not allow euthanasia of someone who may be dying or is infirm simply to allow them to die sooner," Hanusa said.
Iowa State Rep. Sharon Steckman, who voted against the proposed Iowa bill, said a pregnant woman would have to be "pretty much at death's door" in order to qualify for an exception.
Medical opinion about when fetuses feel pain is conflicted. The position of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is that there is "no legitimate scientific information that supports the statement that a fetus experiences pain."
Most prochoicers wouldn't abort a pregnancy at 22 weeks, and a lot of them wouldn't abort at all, but the flip side of the coin is that they wouldn't stand in the way of any woman exercising that "choice".
Abortion is legal in most states up to 24 weeks, for any reason.
Due to modern medical technology, babies are being born severely premature, but are overcoming the many obstacles they face. Fetal pain abortion laws give those babies a chance at life. Isn't it time we did too? Support fetal pain laws in your state. Babies lives are depending on us.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Monday, April 4, 2011
Okay so a friend of mine is 17 and will be 18 in the first week of May. She had protected sex in early march (like the first week or two) and had her period a week before she had sex. During intercourse the condom slipped off. And she is now worried she may be pregnant. Keeping the child is not an option because she has no job and will be going to college in the fall and the father is a freshman in college. She is trying to find out if she can just drive to a state that doesn't require parental consent for an abortion or if she should wait until the weekend after her birthday.This is part of a response that floored me
If she conceived during the first/second week of march.
And goes for an abortion the first/second week of may.
Would that be too late for an abortion?
*Abortion costs would be a great help if anyone knows them.
Thank you and PLEASE answer this is really important
In the UK if a baby is born at 23 weeks it is classed as labour as a baby can survive in intensive care in rare cases, so I'd push on getting one before 23 weeks.That's just sad. To even suggest killing a baby because it's close to viability, is just evil.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
After 3 weeks of constant bleeding and painful cramps, I finally went to the doctor. As someone with a history of irregular periods, my GYN wasn’t too concerned. Except that, when she ran the pregnancy test, it came up positive.It wasn't clear to me if Christie's pregnancy was intrauterine or ectopic. But I would summize that EC can be dangerous. I would guess that Christie had such a difficult time because she took EC, not because she was pregnant.
From Susan Nielsen at OregonLive.com, "Behind the abortion laws: From bills, a disturbing portrait of women emerges".
Women sure are impulsive, lying, vulnerable and childlike creatures, aren't they? That's the conclusion I'd draw, if my understanding of women were based solely on anti-abortion bills.The key point in the statement above is "my understanding". Of course, she would think that way. Fortunately, not everyone thinks like she does.
* Women are impulsive. Half of states now require women to undergo a waiting period before obtaining an abortion. Usually the waiting period is one day. South Dakota just passed a three-day waiting period, the longest in the nation. The implication is that, without a government-mandated waiting period, women would dash into abortion clinics without first weighing the gravity of their decision.Waiting periods give women an extra day or so to think about the decision they make. In cases of coerced abortion, it may give women the extra time needed to change what needs to be changed, in order to protect the life growing inside them. It may give the the time needed to secure actual help, so that they can deliver their baby, and be able to feed and clothe him/her. Considering most women will know they are pregnant soon after a missed period, what's a couple of days? It could be the difference in the life or death of their child. This is not too much to ask.
* Women are prone to lying. Last week, the Indiana House passed a measure that would forbid most abortions after 20 weeks. A version of it is expected to pass into law. Opponents tried to carve out an exception for victims of rape or incest, as well as for women whose lives are threatened by medical complications. However, the bill's sponsor fended off the amendment by attacking it as a "giant loophole" that women would use to get abortions by pretending they were raped."Giant loophole"? The bill's sponsor is right. There is no doubt in my mind that some women would lie and say they had been raped, when the act was in fact consensual.
* Women need things explained to them. A bill recently passed by the Texas House would require doctors to describe the fetus in some detail to all abortion-seeking patients, including victims of rape and incest. The bill allows women to close their eyes and cover their ears. (It doesn't specify whether women are permitted to say, "La-la-la, I can't hear you.")This statement makes it clear that women who abort DON'T WANT TO KNOW about the living fetus they are carrying. It's a lot better for women to be uninformed, to be ignorant about the life of the fetus.
I'll just point out that nearly 90 percent of abortions are performed in the first trimester and fully 95 percent take place during the first 15 weeks. The women who seek them cite a variety of common reasons, including an unsupportive partner and insufficient income to provide a good home. All available research suggests that women rarely make this difficult and private decision lightly.The real numbers are staggering. Did you know 18,000 babies are aborted at 21 weeks or greater? And almost 80,000 babies are aborted between the 13th and 15th week. Refer to my recent post "We've Seen the Pictures, Let's Look at the Numbers". I break down abortion stats for you in real numbers, rather than percentages that tend to make it look less tragic.
Yet the composite picture of women found in today's abortion bills suggests a far inferior being, one needing protection from her own rash decisions. This is an ancient stereotype about women, wrapped in a hundred new packages that, at least sometimes, aren't about abortion at all.Your article, Ms. Nielsen, is nothing more than feminist propaganda, designed to ensure the slaughter of innocent human fetuses for many years to come.