Saturday, December 31, 2011

"Baby" Isn't A Scientific Term

If you know @RealtinConnor at all, you know he refuses to acknowledge that a fetus is a baby.  To him, babies breathe air.  So if it's not born yet, it isn't a baby, to him anyway.  I suppose an 8 month gestational fetus is a clump of cells to him, even though it is completely viable.  No, he would say it's a fetus, but never acknowledge it's really a baby just prior to being born.

Very often, he accuses pro-lifer's of 'confusing' embryos and babies, or in this case, infants.  Embryo is a scientific term, just as 'infant' is.  As @RealtinConnor admits. 'baby' is not.  'Baby' can mean any number of things, such as an infant, or a cat, a truck, or yes, even a fetus.  Anything that means the world to you at the time, can and often is referred to as your baby.  Jacked up 4-wheel drive?  "That's his baby". Big marketing project?  "That's her baby".  You get the idea. 

image

It kind of makes you wonder who's confused, doesn't it?  Why does the term 'baby' bother pro-aborts so much?  I think you know the answer, as do I. 

The Right to Survive

Many of you are familiar with Judith Jarvis Thompson's article "A Defense of Abortion". 

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.

My goal here is not to dispute Ms. Thompson's analogy, because to me, it's ridiculously stupid and doesn't deserve comment.  I start with it only as a lead-in to the analogy below.  This new scenario is in response to the tweet below, and fully disputes the insane notion that babies don't have the legal right to use their mother's body.  I look forward to seeing the choicer's attempts at aborting it.

image

It's a beautiful sunny spring day.  You're in the latter part of your pregnancy, and decide to take a walk to help bring labor on.  You walk on a posted nature trail, but you veer off the beaten path to see an unusual bird.  You're not concerned about getting lost, because you know how to use the sun and shadows to guide your way.  Suddenly, a dark cloud appears that blocks your compass.  You're pretty sure you came from 'that direction', so you walk toward it.  Oh wait, maybe it was from 'over there'.  As you repeat this pattern, you realize you're lost.  You know you're close to home, but you have no idea which direction home is.  You feel contractions beginning.  You walk some more, in an effort to find home.  The more you walk, the stronger your contractions become.  Without knowing it, you've ventured for miles, in the wrong direction.  Without knowing it, there is no one around you, for miles and miles. 

The final stages of labor are well in progress.  You give birth to your baby.  You've had no intention of breast feeding, ever.  You've said "I'm not a diner!" many, many times.  This baby coming when it did doesn't change that.    But if you don't supply the baby with nourishment, it will surely die.  There are no cows or goats around for you to milk, and even if there were, you have no bottle to put the milk in.  You had no reason to bring supplies for this baby, for this was supposed to be just a short walk.  You didn't consider the risk of getting lost and going into labor.

The time it will take you to get home is just a bit longer than your baby can survive with no nutrition.  You now have 3 choices. 

  1. Breast feed the baby.  You're not a diner, but allowing this baby to use your body is the only possible way it can survive.
  2. Let the baby die of starvation and dehydration.  Painful for the baby, and unless you leave it by a tree and walk away, it would be painful for you to watch.
  3. Kill the baby.  So you can rid yourself of the burden it brings.  You will get to your goal, which is home, much quicker this way.

Which do you choose?  Killing the baby, or even just letting it die, is illegal.  Your only legal option is to breast feed the baby.  Which means... The baby has the legal right to use your body, even if you don't want it to.

Now, compare this unplanned birth experience to an unplanned pregnancy.  Unplanned pregnancies occur most often because the woman didn't consider the risk of getting pregnant when she had sex.  And even if she did consider it, she took the risk, in the heat of passion.  She now has 3 choices.

  1. Continue the pregnancy, so the baby can survive.
  2. Take steps to 'let the baby die', by drinking concoctions or falling down stairs, intending to induce a miscarriage.
  3. Go to your neighborhood abortionist and have he/she kill it for you.

Many times in the abortion debate, we hear that "women are not incubators", much like the woman above is not a 'diner'.  But in order for the baby to survive, it must be allowed to take nutrition from the mother.  Whether it's via the umbilical cord in the womb, or via breast feeding, the baby must be attached to the mother.  It's a matter of survival.  And yes, it should have the legal right to survive.

Thursday, December 29, 2011

Abortion Gang Promotes Late Term Abortion

This is truly disturbing.  Over at Abortion Gang, Serena writes about some of the women 'helped' by abortion funds, in this case, in Arizona.  One in particular stood out, because the abortion fund organization Serena volunteers for, helped a woman pay for killing her 21 week old baby. 

Delores was 21 weeks pregnant – bumping right up against the legal limit for abortion in Arizona. She was getting a late term abortion because she didn’t know she was pregnant until 20 weeks. The birth control method she uses eliminates her period. The only clue about pregnancy was the weight gain. We helped Delores pay for her abortion, as well as gave her money for gas and helped connect her with housing, since she, too, had to drive to Phoenix from a small, rural community.

Abortion Gang is headed up by Steph Herold, who herself works to 'help' women pay for killing their babies.  Her twitter handle is @IAmDrTiller, named in memory of George Tiller MD, who specialized in late term abortions.  It should come as no surprise then, that they take great pride in 'helping' women kill their 'half way there' babies. 

If you have any doubt about what that 21 week old 'clump of cells' looks like, look no further than Amillia Sonja Taylor, who was born at 21 weeks gestation, and who thrives today.

USA-BABY/

Pro-aborts would love nothing more than to abort the 24 week limit on abortion (for any reason).  Pro-lifers are working to stop the slaughter of these innocent fragile human beings.  Personhood will eliminate the legality of slaughtering these tiny babies.

I wonder how Serena feels knowing she helped kill a baby the same age as Amillia? 

Monday, December 19, 2011

Pro-Aborts Raising Awareness of Abortion in the US... Awesome!

Sophia of Abortion Gang started a trend called #10ForTebow.  Sophia wants pro-aborts to pledge $10 for every touchdown Tim Tebow initiates.  The money of course, will fund abortion.

Almost two years ago, Tim and his mom made a commercial funded by Focus on the Family.  Here's Sophia's lead in.  Don't overlook the anti-Christian sentiment.

A few years back, the-best-person-and-football-player-on-the-planet, Tim Tebow, the savior from The University of Florida, Heisman Trophy winner, 2010 number 25 draft pick, and now savior quarterback for the Denver Broncos, made a commercial. That in and of itself isn’t that surprising, pro-athletes make commercials for all sorts of reasons. Except he wasn’t selling football gear, he was selling anti-choice propaganda. (emphasis is mine)

Anti-choice propaganda?  Here's the commercial. See if you can find any "anti-choice propaganda".

Sophia referred to Tim as

the same man that used the Super Bowl to a) build his reputation and brand as the saintliest saint of an athlete that ever lived, and b) raise money for an anti-choice organization that would deny the right to abortion to millions of women

I of course disagree with Sophia's summation.  Tim filmed a commercial with his mom.  A commercial funded by Focus on the Family, and about family values.  Not once was abortion mentioned in the commercial, but that doesn't stop the pro-aborts from attacking him, even two years later.

Today, I saw an interview with Sophia.

"To us that means he is working to restrict access to healthcare options [abortion] for women"

Actually, Tim is just being Tim.  Playing football, and "Tebowing" as he does. 

I really don't want to touch further on Sophia's interview, she's getting her 10 minutes of fame, whatever!  But I would like to thank her, for propelling abortion back into the spotlight.  You see Sophia, the Lord is working through you (and Tim Tebow) to bring awareness to abortion in the US.  Yes, He is.

Saturday, December 17, 2011

Want To Keep Your Baby? Don't Ask A Pro-Choicer.

This is the sad truth about pro-choice.  They only help if your choice is abortion.  Shelby Knox posted the tweet below this morning, asking her minions to prevent a CPC from winning $1,000.  Sad isn't it?

image

Obviously, the answer for us is to go to http://clickrain.com/gives and vote for The Alpha Center.  They are a medical clinic ran by, get this, religious people!  And they do not perform abortions, or refer for abortions. 

By the way Shelby, it's not Leslee Unruh you're hurting, it's women who want to keep their babies.  Or don't they matter?

Thursday, December 15, 2011

The Tizzy Over OTC Plan B

Pro-aborts, including RH Reality Check, have been in a tizzy since "Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius overruled the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) by refusing to allow emergency contraceptives to be sold over the counter (OTC),".  Good for Secretary Sebelius! 

They suggested their decision to deny vulnerable teens access to emergency contraception was based on the lack of evidence on whether young teens would understand how to use the method and whether there might be unknown risks.

Vulnerable teens?  Yep, they sure are.  And vulnerable teens need to be protected. 

Over at Abortion Gang, Kushielsmoon writes:

Plan B One-Step is a brand of morning after pill, which works the same way as birth control pills to prevent pregnancy. It’s more effective the earlier it’s taken, but can be taken up to 72 hours after sex. Plan B cannot terminate a pregnancy- -it is not an abortion pill. (emphasis is mine)

When pregnancy begins is not something science can answer for us.  It's left up to man to pinpoint.  Many years ago, ACOG, The American College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians declared that pregnancy begins at implantation.  Why?  From the Population Research Institute

To understand why we have to go back to 1965, when the American Academy of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) arbitrarily and redefined the terms “conception” and "pregnancy.” The group first threw out the then-accepted definition of conception as occurring at fertilization, that is, when the sperm and egg cells unite. ACOG explained that, since conception could not be “detected,” it was impossible to determine whether new life began at that point. It went on to decree that henceforth pregnancy would be defined as beginning only at implantation. This is the time, five to seven days after conception, when the newly formed person, only a few hundred cells in size, implants in the lining of the uterus.

Why did ACOG engaged in this pseudo-scientific sleight of hand? Its motives involved both morality and money. In 1965 Roe v. Wade was still 8 years away, and abortion was illegal throughout the United States. Most Americans still equated abortion with murder and wanted nothing to do with it. If hormonal contraceptives prevented implantation--and they do--then most Americans would reject them on the grounds that they caused early-term abortions.

By redefining pregnancy to begin after implantation, ACOG attempted to avoid the charge that its members, in prescribing hormonal contraceptives, were actually encouraging, if not performing, early-term abortions.

A recent survey shows us that most doctor's don't agree with ACOG.  57% of doctors said that pregnancy begins at conception.

Most of us know that life begins at conception, when the sperm and egg are joined together. It takes approximately a week for the tiny new life to travel through the fallopian tube, and implant itself in it's mothers womb.  It's in this time frame that Plan B can cause the uterus to be un-welcoming, causing the embryo to be dispelled, washed out with the menstrual flow.  

From Plan B's own website (click on picture to go to the page):

image

Doing a little research on women who have taken Plan B (or another brand) tells me that it should be prescription only for every woman, not just teens.  This is just a couple of examples from the linked website.  

Hey I had sex with my boyfriend and he used a condom. It didn't break and he pulled out way before he ejaculated. I took plan b right after we had intercourse, just to be safe. 

I took plan b 4 times after having sex. The first time that i took my period had just finished(around april 30). After the fourth time(may 15)

You'll also read how the woman's menstrual cycle is affected, leaving them questioning whether or not they are pregnant.  You'll read how some women spot for days, or bleed for weeks.  Google it yourself and you'll see many many stories like these.

Jill Stanek has a post up, where she quotes from another article, concerns which have already crossed the minds of many people, including myself.

What’s to stop teenage boys from pushing their… girlfriends to forget condoms, since Plan B can take care of everything afterward?

Why wouldn’t sexual abusers of young girls use Plan B to cover up the horror of ongoing abuse...?

Would a boy pay $50 to experience sex without a condom?  Yes he would.  Would an abuser pay $50 for the opportunity to continue the abuse?  Yes, he would. 

So again, why should FDA make this drug available to 11 year olds?  Simple. They shouldn't.

Thursday, December 1, 2011

When abortion was illegal, and why it would be different today

I've just watched the video below, as it's been cited several times recently. "When abortion was illegal" was in my opinion, intended as emotional ammunition, so people will believe if abortion was made illegal today, it would be the same as it was then. It's clear that it wouldn't be.





00:08 Lana was 17 in 1939, married, and had a baby 10 months later. The baby was very ill, jaundiced. Lana's OB/Gyn told her another pregnancy would kill her. 3 months later she was pregnant again. Fearing death, and therefore leaving her baby with no mother, Lana sought out and found an abortionist.

That was a long time ago, and while Lana's story is indeed terrifying, it wouldn't happen like that today. Perhaps back then it was illegal to do an abortion if the mother's life was imminent danger, but it's not now, and it never will be again. Also, with the advancement in medical technology, Lana may very well not have had the complications she had when she gave birth to her baby. She may even have been able to give her daughter siblings.

00:48 Betty was involved with a boyfriend. They talked about marriage, babies, and what they would name a child. When she told him she was pregnant, everything changed. The relationship ended. Having a baby without a husband was just not done back then. Using the phone directory, she found a Gyn, intentionally passing the OB/Gyn's because she thought the Gyn would be more sympathetic. He was.

Betty had an abortion because of the stigma associated with being an unwed mother. Obviously, this is not an issue today. Where there used to be stigma attached to giving your child life, now there is only stigma attached to killing them, as it should be.

01:25 Rosalie was pregnant, and had to keep it an absolute secret. In her words, it was a "humiliating strange kind of experience". She decided she should have an abortion to make the problem go away.

Much the same as the previous story, Rosalie aborted due to stigma associated with being an unwed mother. But Rosalie's story has a Part 2.

22:30 Rosalie found she was pregnant for a second time, due to being raped by an older man. She opted this time to go to a home for unwed mothers. She was told not to look at or hold the baby when she gave birth, but she did it anyway. "That was a terrible mistake". She stayed on awhile and worked in the nursery to work off her debt (room, board, and medical expenses). "That was a very bad mistake" because she was around babies all the time. "And I wanted to keep the baby and I actually held the baby before they took it" (she breaks down here), "Anybody who would think [adoption] that'd be a great way to solve the problem just..." Then she talks about herself at 17, a child who doesn't know her own mind, and we expect her to carry a baby in her body for 9 months, give birth to it, and then just give it away like it's nothing.

Even pro-lifer's like me, acknowledge how difficult it must be to carry a baby for 9 months, give birth, then hand over your baby to someone you probably don't even know. And Rosalie even said she wanted to keep this baby. I'm sure she didn't have a choice legally when the time came to hand her baby over. Regarding "give it away like it's nothing", pro-life wonders every day how women can abort their babies like they are "nothing".

05:03 Mary, a registered nurse, said they had patients with temps of 105, bleeding, totally infected. Some died from shock because they were afraid to tell the truth about their abortion. She said it was just plain housewives, who felt they couldn't afford another child.

Could this happen today? Absolutely. But with the advancements in antibiotics such as penicillin, it would be rare. And too, it's not even close to mostly housewives getting abortions today. From Guttmacher: "Women who have never married and are not cohabiting account for 45% of all abortions".

12:32 Evelyn talks about walking the streets alone looking for an abortionist, most places denied knowledge of one, or said they had moved. She heard of another place and drove the car there in the evening. They gave her no anesthesia, she didn't know it was supposed to be painful, she was very frightened they were doing something terrible to her. Later in the video (16:52), she tells how she referred women for abortions.

Evelyn, as far as I can tell, just didn't want to be pregnant, for whatever reason. I don't think it was a lack of money, because she mentioned having a car, and never mentioned having to scrape up funds for an abortion. It could very well have been the same stigma that Betty and Rosalie were facing.

Back in those days, women faced issues that women today can't even imagine. Indeed, times have changed. No longer does a woman have to deal with having 12 kids because she "didn't know how not to get pregnant". No longer do young women have to feel pressured to have an abortion, just because of what people might think about them being pregnant. We have something they didn't have, highly effective birth control. There are no excuses for the 1.3 million abortions in the United States each year.


Yet, the same Guttmacher report as linked above states "Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant." 54%. That's a lot of women who had access to birth control, and failed to take advantage of it. Women can do better. YOU can do better. It's your children dying during an abortion, and YOU can prevent it. Hold yourself accountable and do the right thing.





Friday, November 25, 2011

Pro-Choicer With A 'Superior' Attitude, and She's a Liar to Boot.

I'm not sure how I happened upon this, but I did.  This is not an educational post, unless you want to learn about pro-abort trolls from Twitter.  I posted this for ME!  Remember, my goal is to bring awareness of what goes on in the minds of pro-aborts.  Sometimes, they just let it fly from their mouths.

Samantha stated what pro-lifers say all the time. A child is a child, regardless of the reason he/she came into being.  That's not what pro-aborts like to hear.  It makes them well, crazy.image

@SineQuaN0nUSA a/k/a @SineQuaN0nTX (her twitter jail account, don't have to wonder why she needs one) said "telling rape victims to love their babies from rape".

image

So I asked....

image 

@SineQuaN0nUSA in all her superior academic authority tells me I must use "accurate terminology" when addressing her.  She thinks the term 'baby' is not appropriate.  Well, most pro-aborts try to keep the baby out of the conversation.  It makes killing him/her a lot easier, I'm sure you understand.

image

I explained that I used the same term she did. 

image

She proceeds to tell me to "stop lying or pay attention". 

image

Maybe she should stop lying and pay attention eh?

Disclaimer: Not all pro-choicer's are as mean-hearted (if she has one at all) as @SineQuaN0nUSA, thankfully. 

Are you #ProChoice, but #Anti-Abortion for Yourself?

This courtesy of @HeatherTMT on Twitter.  I show the re-tweets so you can see how other pro-choicer's repeat, ad-nauseam, something of interest to them.  I would venture to guess that some re-tweeted because agree with her, and some just re-tweeted, well, because they could.

image

Just to be clear, Heather would never consider having an abortion herself.

image

Obviously, I like to ask thought provoking questions, so here goes.

If you consider yourself pro-choice, but would never consider having an abortion, why not?  You support abortion, but why not for yourself? 

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Where Does #ProChoice Draw The Line On Pregnant Women Taking Risks?

Easy answer is, they don't. Today I had a long twitter conversation with @Auragasmic, who whole heartedly defends the actions of Jennifer Fox, the woman in the occupy Seattle protest who supposedly miscarried 5 days after being pepper sprayed by police. It appears Jennifer's story may be something she concocted for attention.

Fox said she had three ultrasound pictures of her fetus in her tent, but declined to show them to reporters

She also said she did not plan to pick up medical records at Harborview Medical Center that could document the miscarriage until after a planned memorial service Saturday, and she declined to sign a waiver allowing reporters to obtain the documents independently.

    "My daughter is a compulsive liar," Stebbins said. "She's a wannabe drama queen." - Ms. Stebbins is her former foster mother.

    "I seriously doubt, that if she is claiming she had a miscarriage, that she was even pregnant," said Nicole Botes, who has known Fox for a decade. "I'd like to see actual medical reports."

There are three possibilities to this story.

  1. She was telling the truth
  2. She was lying
  3. We'll never know because we can't prove she was lying, and she won't prove she was telling the truth

I'm going with #3. I'll post an update at the bottom of this post if I'm wrong.

Now back to @Auragasmic. I posed this question: "I take it you would defend a woman who took unnecessary risks, and lost her baby as a result?" Her answer shouldn't surprise any of us.

image 

So when should a woman be held responsible for the death of her unborn baby? Auragasmic seems to think 'never'. I disagree. Some scenarios I used in our conversation were jumping out of an airplane, and running with the bulls. She used less risky scenarios, like driving to work.

If a pregnant woman gets into an auto accident on her way to work, and her baby dies as a direct result, is it the woman's fault?

If a pregnant woman jumps from an airplane, and her baby dies as a direct result of a bumpy landing, is it the woman's fault?

If a pregnant woman gets gored while running with the bulls, and her baby dies as a result, is it the woman's fault?

We can go further:

If a pregnant woman has two options to cross a river, one being a bridge 100 ft away, the other being a fallen tree right in front of her, she chooses the tree because she likes challenges, she falls, her baby dies, is it her fault?

Where would you draw the line?

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

Occupy Seattle Protester Blames Police For The Murder Of Her Unborn Baby

From the Stranger, author Dominic Holden quotes part of an interview with the woman who says Seattle police murdered her unborn baby.



"I was standing in the middle of the crowd when the police started moving in," she says. "I was screaming, 'I am pregnant, I am pregnant. Let me through. I am trying to get out.'" At that point, Fox continues, a Seattle police officer lifted his foot and it hit her in the stomach, and another officer pushed his bicycle into the crowd, again hitting Fox in the stomach. "Right before I turned, both cops lifted their pepper spray and sprayed me. My eyes puffed up and my eyes swelled shut,"



A friend called for an ambulance near the community college campus. (Fox says she has been camping with Occupy Seattle since it first began in Westlake Park. She is homeless and says, "I don't have a place. This is the place I call home.")



As for joining the protests, she says, "I was worried about it, but I didn't know it would be this bad. I didn't know that a cop would murder a baby that's not born yet... I am trying to get lawyers." (emphasis is mine)



"It hurts. It's upsetting. I was ready to have a kid, because my family was going to support me in taking care of the child. Her name was going to be Miracle."


So let me get this straight. A pregnant woman stands in the middle of a crowd of protesters, not on the edge where she would be safe and escape would be likely. The police exercise a lawful order to protesters to leave the area, they refuse, the police use pepper spray. The pregnant woman gets blasted right in the face.


Some time later, she miscarries, but it's the cops fault. She was 'ready to have a kid', yet she was homeless, even though her family was going to support her? Sure. "Her name was going to be Miracle", even though at 2 to 3 months pregnant, there is no way to know if the baby was a boy or a girl. So much of this story doesn't jive.


It's a sad day when any unborn child is lost, but this is no more than a vain attempt at sensationalism. The woman will get her name and picture in media across the country. But the police, civil servants who's job it is to protect us, are the bad guys. The shenanigans of the protesters is perfectly fine. Blocking bridges, entrances to banks, even hindering traffic to the local children's hospital is fine!


Feminists have been shouting for years they want equality. Well welcome to equality ladies!


***UPDATE*** Follow the updates from author Dominic Holden on the Stranger. The credibility of the woman referenced above, is shrinking... fast.


***UPDATE*** Some of the headlines I'm finding on Google:



Flaws noted in Occupy Seattle protester's miscarriage stor


Seattle police investigate protester's claim that she miscarried ...


Seattle police probe protester's miscarriage claim - KansasCity.com


Questioning the Accuracy of Jennifer Fox's Miscarriage Claim ...

Monday, November 21, 2011

PersonhoodUSA Gearing Up For Personhood Campaign in Colorado

Bruce Finley writes for The Denver PostPersonhoodUSA is gearing up for their next personhood campaign in Colorado.

From the article:

The new version of the measure "will protect every child, no matter their size, level of development, gender, age or race," said Jennifer Mason, spokeswoman for Personhood USA.

New language "will explain again that every human being is a person from their earliest moments," Mason said. "And it will include some extra information that hopefully will prohibit lies of our opponents. . . . It will be a departure from what we've done before."

What should we expect?  We should expect the same ad nauseum lies and scare tactics we heard during the Initiative 26 campaign in Mississippi, such as those listed here.  We expect Planned Parenthood will set up another pretentious organization, just as they did in Mississippi.  

Can we win?  Yes.  But it won't be easy.  We can only win if you and I continue to point out the lies, and spread the truth.  So get ready, and stay tuned!

Sunday, November 13, 2011

Have you seen the movie '180' yet?

If you haven't seen the movie '180' yet, it's worth 33 minutes of your time. It is thought provoking, and may make you think differently about the issue of abortion.

Saturday, November 12, 2011

Pro-Choice Invites Violence, Pro-Life Declines

Ben From Canada writes "Pro-Life: Why So Non-Violent?". 

I thought I figured out the pro-life side of the abortion debate...however, my solution only brought more questions, troubling questions that I hope some pro-life person will answer.

Chances are, Ben hasn't figured out anything about the pro-life side of the abortion debate.  But let's play with it, shall we?

Most of us pro-choice types figure that "abortion is murder" & other such phrases are hyperbole. No one is really silly enough to believe that a clump of cells in a woman's body is a human being...right?

If an adult willfully kills a born child, is it murder?  What if at some point (hypothetically), it becomes legal for an adult to kill a born child?  Would it still be murder?  Would you consider it murder even though it would be at that point in time legal?  Ben, you an I are both 'clumps of cells'.  All human beings are. 

Well, as it turns out, these people DO think that a fertilized egg is really a person. Perhaps it's through brainwashing, simplistic logic, or just plain bad information, but they believe it wholeheartedly, as recent pushes towards "personhood" laws have shown. So that explains why they're fighting so hard to "save" these "babies". But that opens another question. 

Actually, we think/know, a fertilized egg is a human being.  And as such, we believe they deserve to be granted rights of personhood.  You know, like the right to not be willfully killed.  No Ben, brainwashing and simplistic logic, along with a lot of bad information, is what it took to successfully dehumanize HUMAN zygotes, embryos, and fetuses.... you know, like in your view.

Now, if it were me, and I literally thought there are people who are legally allowed to kill babies by the truckload, and all attempts to change the law were destined to fail, well...I'd be taking the law into my own hands right now. In fact, if the propositions "abortion is murder" and "abortion will not be made illegal in our lifetimes" are both true, abortion bombing is the only moral route.

So that leads me to the question: why are you not bombing clinics, pro-lifer? Why are you not assassinating doctors? What will it take to make you start doing so? (emphasis is mine)

That would be because pro-lifer's are for the most part, law abiding citizens.  Exceptions being the Scott Roeder's of the world.  Thankfully, they are rare.

Or is it that the "saving the babies" rhetoric is a smoke-screen for your desire to control women and your wish to enforce your repressive sexual views on society as a whole? 

Of course all this is about sex.  Why not?  What's more important to a pro-abort than an orgasm?  Nothing, not even the life of a developing human being.

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Have I mentioned how proud I am of Mississippi?

As you all know, Mississippi's Initiative 26, the Personhood initiative, was defeated on November 8th.  I was disappointed, maybe even a bit depressed, but we must move on. 

After reflecting on the events for a couple of days, I've come to realize that things are not nearly as gloomy as they seemed.  Four of ten people voted yes to protecting the unborn. They voted yes even though the initiative wasn't as clear as it could have been.  Four of ten.  That's incredible, and something we should all be proud of.

Of the people who didn't vote yes, a vast majority were mislead by Planned Parenthood's false claims of birth control bans

We all want to reduce the number of abortions, but 26 is so extreme that it would ban common forms of birth control like the pill.

It was a lie which was repeated ad nauseum.  There was also the scare tactic that women with ectopic pregnancies would be left to die.  And the one that couples who need IVF intervention, wouldn't be able to access it.  All lies, but  effective.  Most good liars are effective though, aren't they?  

But even with the lies, four out of ten people voted yes. 

The initiative wasn't perfect, but it was a place to start.  As we move forward. we must remember something.  If the initiative had passed, it certainly would have been contested in court.  Of course that was the point.  But if because of it's ambiguity, it failed, it could have set us back another 40 years on overturning Roe.  None of us want that.

Let's trust the people who know what steps must be taken, and when to take them.  Let's get this right.

Sunday, November 6, 2011

"Mississippians for Healthy Families" IS Planned Parenthood!

Someone just tweeted this article to me.  Take note.

Stan Flint, a consultant for Mississippians for Healthy Families — a group that opposes the measure —image

Blah, blah, blah... Not once was Planned Parenthood mentioned in the article by Elizabeth Crisp, The (Jackson, Miss.) Clarion-Ledger, not once!

Stan Flint is a consultant who works for Southern Strategy Group. Stan Flint is a PROFESSIONAL LOBBYIST who works for PLANNED PARENTHOOD!

Enough with the underhanded tactics of Planned Parenthood.

Mississippians for Healthy Families IS Planned Parenthood!

Mississippi, if you want healthy families, vote YES on Initiative 26. 

Was Governor Barbour Under Pressure From Pfizer?

RH Reality Check's Robin Marty wrote an article regarding Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour's hesitance to vote yes on Initiative 26, the 'Personhood Initiative'.  While Governor Barbour did eventually vote yes on the initiative, to my knowledge, he has not completely embraced it.  This is disappointing, but not completely disheartening. 

Robin states "Now, Prop 26 supporters are accusing Barbour of being wooed by money, not conscience".  I'm sure a lot did.  It crossed my mind as well.  She cites HuffPo in the article, which states:

The Personhood USA campaign retaliated on Thursday by pointing out that Barbour took campaign contributions from Monsanto and Pfizer -- pharmaceutical companies that manufacture the abortion pill.

"We thought it was really strange that he would oppose this measure, since we have the support of nearly every other politician in the state, both Democrat and Republican. So we did a little digging," Jennifer Mason, spokesperson for Personhood USA, told HuffPost. "We discovered that he has received campaign contributions from the makers of the abortion pill as recently as 2007."

Pfizer makes Misoprostol tablets, one of the two pills taken to end early pregnancy, which would be banned if Mississippi voters pass the personhood amendment at the ballots next week. According to a campaign contributions database, Pfizer contributed $7,000 to Barbour's reelection campaign in 2006 and Monsanto, Pfizer's parent company, contributed $1,000.

Barbour's office did not immediately respond to calls for comment.

Do I find it unacceptable that Governor Barbour accepted money from the makers of abortion pills?  No, I don't.  As Robin stated:

Of course, pretty much every politician with any sort of national standing, especially a Republican, has probably received donations from Pfizer.

She's right.  Not necessarily about 'especially a Republican' though, since the tables turned when democrats took control of Congress.

Pharmaceutical companies upped their donations to Democrats by $2.9 million, while reducing their donations to the GOP by $3.9 million. 

But pharmaceutical companies do contribute to politicians all the time.  And a lot of other industries do so as well. 

In my opinion, I doubt if Governor Barbour's hesitance had anything to do with campaign contributions from Pfizer, considering he's not up for re-election due to term limits.  More likely, he was a victim of the scare tactics being used by Planned Parenthood to thwart Initiative 26's passing.  Things like birth control being banned, women with ectopic pregnancies being refused treatment, and so on. All lies, all initiated by Planned Parenthood

Finally, I just got a link for the audio of a robocall sponsored by YesOn26 and PersonhoodUSA.  And you know what? Governor Barbour STILL sounds unsure of when life begins, but at least he voted yes!

Saturday, November 5, 2011

Addressing Medical Misinformation: D. Eric Webb, MD on Amendment 26

Pro-Choicer Thinks All Fetuses Are Dead

Kushielsmoon, who is a self proclaimed pro-choice Christian, tweeted this yesterday.image

I called her on it with this tweet:

image

One wouldn't have to wonder what, or in this case, who she was talking about.  She used hash-tags common to the abortion debate on twitter, #NOon26 #yeson26 and #prochoice.  No and Yes on 26 are both relating to the Personhood Initiative 26 in Mississippi.  I've also written about different aspects of this initiative here, here, and here

This is clearly about abortion.  And abortion clearly involves the killing of live fetuses, and also live embryos and zygotes.  The only logical conclusion, is that she was referring to unborn children.  Fetuses certainly have bone and flesh, yet they are unable to breathe.  Yet she denies her intent, her implication that fetuses are all dead.  Surprised?  No, of course you aren't.  Honestly, neither was I.

image

The lies and denial don't stop there though.  She goes on to purport the lies that Initiative 26 would ban birth control, IVF, and even life saving surgery for ectopic pregnancies. 

image

Astounding isn't it. Lies, lies, and more lies, from a supposed Christian.  Don't listen to the lies. You can find real answers to questions about Initiative 26 here,

Poll results - Pro-life, Pro-Choice, with God or without?

Some time ago, I posted a poll on this blog.  The question posed was:

"Regarding your political views on abortion, as well as your personal belief about God, which answer below is closest to your belief?"

  • Pro-Choice and I believe in God           24 (19%)
  • Pro-Life and I believe in God                73 (58%)
  • Pro-Choice I do not believe in God      19 (15%)
  • Pro-Life I do not believe in God             9 ( 7%)

Out of 125 respondents, 65% said they were pro-life, regardless of their belief (or lack of) in God.  Of respondents who do believe in God, three times as many are pro-life as are pro-choice.  And of those who do not believe in God, twice as many are pro-choice as are pro-life.  No surprise there.

Of those who are pro-choice, 19% believe in God, as compared to 15% who do not.

Of those who are pro-life, 58% believe in God, as compared to only 7% who do not.

What does this mean?  It means that people who believe in God are also more likely to believe in the sanctity of human life.  We're not against abortion because we have religious faith, we're against abortion because killing an innocent human being is wrong.  One third of the atheists who participated in this poll believe that as well.

Governor Haley Barbour Voted #YesOn26, The Personhood Initiative

Just seen on Jill Stanek's website, Governor Haley Barbour calls a halt to "Mississipian's for Healthy Families" deceptive robo-calls regarding the Personhood Initiative.  And as Jill stated, he tweeted it too!

Go Governor Barbour!!!

image

Thursday, November 3, 2011

Governor Haley Barbour Ambiguous Regarding Personhood Initiative

I saw a video a day or two ago, of Mississippi's Governor Barbour on Fox & Friends talking about his thoughts on Initiative 26, the Personhood Initiative, which is on the ballot for the Nov. 8th election.  He stated concerns over the wording, or ambiguity, of the Initiative.  The text of the initiative is below, as seen on the YesOn26 website. image

The initiative would protect life from conception, or fertilization, a no-brainer.  It would protect life created by cloning techniques, another no-brainer.  Most assuredly, Governor Barbour is confused about "or the equivalent thereof".  What does that mean exactly?  That's what's ambiguous, no one knows exactly. 

I view "or the equivalent thereof" as protection for new human life in the future, because who knows how new life will be created 50, 100, 125 years from now.  Initiative 26 is designed for the unknown, to protect life in the future.

On the Fox video, Governor Barbour stated "I'm somebody that believes that life begins at conception". 

In another article, it was stated Governor Barbour said 'he believes life begins at conception, but he thinks that's different than what the initiative asks.'

Isn't that what every state needs?  A confused leader?  Perhaps he's read about the scare tactics from the pro-aborts.  Some are listed here.  Perhaps he's paving his way to a new future, since he will be term-limited out of office next year?  Perhaps he's just ignorant on the entire personhood debate.  He's a governor, maybe he just hasn't taken, or had the time to get into it.

As it turns out, he *said* he voted YES today by absentee ballot.

Barbour told reporters Wednesday he was undecided because he thinks the initiative is ambiguous and he had concerns about how it might affect in vitro fertilization and ectopic pregnancies.

Barbour says he still has concerns about how it might affect health care, if passed. He says he voted for it, ultimately, because he believes life begins at conception.

Well Governor Barbour, either life begins at conception, or it doesn't.  And since it does, shouldn't you be doing whatever you can to protect it?

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

Hey Mississippi - Planned Parenthood EXPOSED!

Live Action does it again. Planned Parenthood has been exposed!!!

The force on getting a no vote on Initiative 26, "Mississippians for Healthy Families", is none other than Planned Parenthood and the ACLU. Surprised? No, of course you aren't.

Some people will do anything to support to right their right to collect funds for killing a mother's unborn child.

Saturday, October 29, 2011

Thinking Of Voting No on Mississippi's Initiative 26, Personhood? Don't! Vote YES

With Mississippi's election right around the corner, pro-aborts are in panic mode!  If you've been paying attention, they've been telling you false information (LIES)!  For instance you may have heard:

  1. Hormonal birth control will be BANNED!  It won't be, however abortifacient drugs such as RU486 will be.
  2. IVF will no longer be available for infertile couples. Not true. IVF will still be available for couples who need it.
  3. Women who's life is in danger will be left to die!  Nope.  Doctors will attempt to save both the mother, and her baby. That's what doctors are supposed to do, heal people. If saving both is not possible, they will save the mother.
  4. A woman will be prosecuted for having a miscarriage! Oh NO!!!  Of course this is a lie as well.

Those are a few of the rumors running rampant (intentionally) in the pro-abort world.  It is pro-choice propaganda in over-drive.  Listen to Freda Bush MD OB/Gyn dispel the myths (and lies) about the personhood initiative.

What is the opposition to the personhood initiative really all about?  SEX.  Specifically, sex without consequences. 

image

You see, pro-aborts will tell you banning abortion will hurt women.  It won't.  It may curb their recreational sex though, which will help women by preventing STD's, and preventing pregnancy. 

Killing unborn babies has been their fall-back to the 'oops' problem of accidentally getting pregnant.  It's time for it to stop.  Mississipians, you have the chance to be the first in the nation to ban abortion.  It starts with you.  Make us proud!

Friday, October 21, 2011

It's true.. Hormonal Birth Control Can Cause Abortion

My first thought is that sometimes pro-aborts don't know when to keep their mouths shut, but I'm glad this one didn't.  The video I saw on Crook & Liars blog shows a lady 'schooling' Romney on the effect 'life begins at conception' laws, will have on birth control.

Clearly, Mitt Romney had no idea some forms of hormonal birth control can in fact prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in a woman's uterus.  I would venture to guess most American's don't know that.  Listen to the exchange below at the link above (I apologize, I could not insert the video).

Can hormonal birth control allow conception and prevent implantation?  Yes, it can.

ORTHO TRI-CYCLEN® Lo Tablets product information statement:

Combination oral contraceptives act by suppression of gonadotropins. Although the primary
mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical
mucus (which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus) and the endometrium (which
reduce the likelihood of implantation).
(emphasis is mine)

The above statement is regarding ALL combination oral contraceptives, not just that brand, so we need go no further.  But as with proving any point, more evidence will be required.

YAZ product information statement:

COCs lower the risk of becoming pregnant primarily by suppressing ovulation. Other possible mechanisms may include
cervical mucus changes that inhibit sperm penetration and the endometrial changes that reduce the likelihood of
implantation.

Ortho Evra product information statement:

Combination oral contraceptives act by suppression of gonadotropins. Although the primary
mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the
cervical mucus (which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus) and the
endometrium (which reduce the likelihood of implantation).

So hormonal birth control can in fact prevent a fertilized egg from implanting.  Would I want birth control to be banned?  No.  Why?  Because I remember when women were subjected to constantly being impregnated by their husbands, in an effort to keep them at home.  Birth control made it possible for women to gain control of their own lives. 

Women of child bearing age today, have no idea what women went through 100, 75, even 50 years ago.  What they know, and all they care about, is that birth control prevents pregnancy.  If it doesn't prevent fertilization, it will most likely prevent implantation, the point at which ACOG says is the beginning of pregnancy.  Not all doctors agree with ACOG however.

"Pregnancy begins when a mature egg from a woman is fertilized by a mature sperm from a man." Dr. Mehmet Oz

The point at which ACOG says pregnancy begins, is ACOG's opinion.   It's not a far stretch to say pharmaceutical companies had much invested in ACOG's opinion.  After all, if ACOG stated pregnancy really begins at fertilization (it does), the pharmaceutical companies would have no choice but to be up front regarding birth control acting as an abortifacient.  Many people will say they are up front with this little tidbit, after all it's on the product information sheet!  But seriously, how many people read those?

Birth control promotes promiscuity sexual activity, which by default increases the national abortion rate.  According to Guttmacher:

Women who have never married and are not cohabiting account for 45% of all abortions

Women in their 20s account for more than half of all abortions; women aged 20–24 obtain 33% of all abortions, and women aged 25–29 obtain 24%

And regarding the use of contraception:

Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.

I show these statistics to keep it real.  It's easy to see that most unintended pregnancies which lead to abortions, are caused by carelessness.  This is what must change in order to have a real reduction in the abortion rate. 

I don't know about you, but I'm tired of the pity-poor-me attitude of today's young feminists.  It's time for every young woman to hold herself accountable for her own actions.  This is not to say that the men involved shouldn't be held accountable as well.  But the fact is, men can't get pregnant, and men don't have abortions.  It's up to women to protect themselves from being caught in the position where they feel they have to choose between life and death for their developing child.

So, where do we go from here?  I support efforts to ban abortion, the only exception being when the mother's life is in danger.  But I can't support a ban on hormonal birth control until we have something better in place, and readily available to women.  If politicians continue to push for this legislation, we will lose everything.  We have the momentum, and we are gaining the public's attention and support.  Let's not lose ground because we're ignoring the effect banning hormonal birth control would have on million's of American women.

Sunday, October 16, 2011

Stop Using Kids to Justify the Actions of Grown Women!

I began this post as a personal rant, due to a comment I received on this post.   The commenter says 'kids will not stop having sex'.  I beg to differ.  Rather than rant, I'll attempt to post useful data to prove a point.

From Guttmacher:

Teens have been waiting longer to have sex than they did in the recent past. In 2006–2008, some 11% of never-married females aged 15–19 and 14% of never-married males that age had had sex before age 15, compared with 19% and 21%, respectively, in 1995.

In 2006–2008, the most common reason that sexually inexperienced teens gave for not having had sex was that it was “against religion or morals” (42% among females and 35% among males). The second and third most common reasons for females were “don’t want to get pregnant” and “haven’t found the right person yet.”

So yes, you CAN stop at least some kids from having sex.  Instilling moral values is one way, instilling common sense is the other.

According to data available from Guttmacher, 2006 being the most current year in the report, the pregnancy rate (per 1,000 women) of 15-17 year old women was 38.9, as compared to 122.3 for 18-19 year old women in that same year.  Even more telling, is the pregnancy rate for women aged 20-24 years.. a startling 171.

For teens, pregnancy is a problem, but it's clearly not as big a problem as it is with young adults.  So what about sex ed?  Most pro-choicer's think sex ed is the answer to this problem.  Well, if the kids stayed in high school until they're 24, maybe.  But in reality, it's when young adults get to college that the real problem begins.  I did a quick Google search for 'college sex education'.  A few of the web sites listed, peaked my curiosity.  I was surprised (I don't know why) to find how many people make a living talking to college students about sex.

Sex Discussed Here! is at the top of the list.  Another one was Sex Education for College Students · Think Out Loud, and it began by introducing another speaker - "Writer, educator and self-described feminist pornographer".  Stop! Pornographer?  Yep. Maybe we should go back to morals?

In the mix, I did find an article titled "College students split on effectiveness of required high school sex ed".  A few of the comments from college students are below:

University of Vermont freshman Benjamin Barnet of New York said he does thinks sex education should be optional because it could make people uncomfortable.

“I remember when they were talking about giving birth when I was in middle school and I almost threw up,” Barnet says. “Some people will just feel so uncomfortable and they shouldn’t be forced to take sex ed.”

University of Vermont junior, Nick Monteforte of Wilmington, Mass., is in favor of requiring sex education.

“It needs to be required,” Monteforte says. “Sex education is important when you are in high school because when you are in college and exposed to everything there you should really already know about it.”

For some students, like Anita Marquez, a senior at Stockton College in New Jersey, sex education is much more effective at college than in high school.

“In high school they don’t teach you anything cause they aren’t allowed,” Marquez says. “Our college has programs to teach you about sex and we have a general requirements courses about sex. I took a class called Perspectives of Sexuality and it was the most informative class I have taken at Stockton.”

image Then I found an article which I'm still having trouble coming to terms with.  Columbia Students Sound Off On Northwestern’s Live Sex Ed Class.  You did get that word 'Live' in the title, didn't you? 

It has been the talk of Northwestern University, outside Chicago. The demonstration was conducted after a psychology class. A drill with a special attachment was used on a female student, wrapped in a towel, and in front more than 100 students.

“Most of the people who stayed were, in fact, trying to get a better view,” one student said.

“I don’t feel like I would want to see that,” another student said.

Guest lecturer Ken Melvoin-Berg, who was invited to the class by Professor J. Michael Bailey, is defending the voluntary demonstration as educational — a couple engaged in a sex act.

“We warned students five times at least,” Melvoin-Berg said. “He brought her to orgasm right there on stage and that was the end of it, other than the fact that we had positive comments from everybody in the class.” (emphasis is mine)

Have I mentioned morals lately? 

Another way pro-aborts use kids for their pro-abortion agenda, is in the tweet below.  Not that this could never happen, because we know it can and does.  Normally, we get the question "but what if the woman was raped?".  And we answer that it's not the baby's fault, so why should it die?  It's takes a special kind of warped pro-choicer to use kids this way though.  Anything for the cause right?image 

In this case I would have to say that even if it is her own sibling, it's still a human being.  And if the 10 yr old can safely carry the baby to the point of viability, then let them both live.  If however, the 10 yr old is in mortal danger, then by all means, an abortion is appropriate.  But don't kill the baby just because it came into being due to a pedophile's actions.

Pro-Choice Is Not About Life, It's About 'Lifestyle'

Occasionally, I see a tweet that really throws the truth out there, for the whole world to see.  This is one of those tweets.  It's all about lifestyle.  The opportunity to have all the sex you want, with the LEGAL right to kill an unborn human being should your actions bring one into being.  Yeah, that's it.

image

If @Silversundancer thinks pregnancy can be devastating to a woman's lifestyle, what does she think that 'choice' does to a unborn human beings life?  Now THIS is devastating!

image

Thursday, October 13, 2011

I Wonder If Pro-Choice 'Christians' Agree With Amanda Marcotte?

I know a lot of people have, but I have not read a lot of what Amanda Marcotte has written.  This tweet however, tells the story about the morals, or rather the lack of morals, of pro-choice.

image

Sure Amanda, you need religion to believe that stealing, raping, and murdering are wrong too.  Oh, and did I mention killing innocent human fetuses is wrong?  It is.

For reference, the link in the tweet is here.

Protect Life Act has Pro-Choice in 'murderous rage'

What is it about attempting to protect unborn babies from the slaughter that is abortion, that makes pro-choicer's so angry?  It's not like they don't have the power to not get pregnant, is it?

@childfreediva is 'filled with murderous rage'.  I assume that rage is directed at pro-life.  image

Today the House of Representatives voted on the Protect Life Act, and passed it by a vote of 251-172.

From Life News:

H.R. 358, Protect Life Act, makes it clear that no funds authorized or appropriated by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), including tax credits and cost-sharing reductions, may be used to pay for abortion or abortion coverage. It specifies that individual people or state or local governments must purchase a separate elective abortion rider or insurance coverage that includes elective abortion but only as long as that is done with private funds and not monies authorized by Obamacare.

Much of the debate surrounded whether or not the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal taxpayer funding of abortions only in discretionary spending related to the HHS department, applied to Obamacare. As the Associated Press confirmed in 2009, it does not.

“Currently a law called the Hyde amendment bars federal funding for abortion – except in cases of rape and incest or if the mother’s life would be endangered – and applies those restrictions to Medicaid,” AP writer Erica Werner reports. “Separate laws apply the restrictions to the federal employee health plan and military and other programs.”

“But the Democrats’ health overhaul bill would create a new stream of federal funding not covered by the restrictions,” AP confirms.

We don't have high hopes for the pro-abortion democrat controlled Senate to pass it, and we have no hope that Obama would ever sign it.  But what we do have is progress.  With every piece of pro-life legislation that is introduced, the issue of abortion is being brought to the forefront of Americans who frankly, haven't thought much about it.  Pro-lifers are changing that.

Thursday, October 6, 2011

Yeah, it's just you now

I just read this post on the Thought Catalog blog, "What It's Really Like To Have An Abortion".  It's what I would think is a typical abortion scenario. 

Girl goes to college, feeling free for the first time in her life, has sex, gets pregnant.  Now what?  Well, if you're like a lot of other young college age women, you think about how this pregnancy affects you, no one else, just you.

Every month since you started having sex you have rejoiced the monthly inconvenience of your period and watched TV shows about teenagers getting pregnant, thinking to yourself “at least it’s not me.” It’s you now.

Taking the test is like preparing for a funeral.  Everyone always tells you that sex changes things, that it’s the death of your innocence and you can never take it back. Sitting there staring at that pee-soaked stick, you know they were lying to you. This is the loss of that innocence. You feel damaged, dirty, nauseated. Nothing will ever be the same after those lines appear.

You blame the loss of your innocence on the two little lines on the pregnancy test stick.  It was nothing you did, you're not responsible for anything.  You had sex and it felt good.  It was the pregnancy that damaged you, not the sex.  It wasn't your fault.

You don't concern yourself with the new human being you took part in creating.  You don't concern yourself about the father of the baby.

The person sitting beside you—your significant other—is already crying. They are religious. They think this is a baby.

While waiting for your turn at the abortion clinic...

Your significant other will turn to you, while you are sick and shaking and scared as hell in that waiting room, and they will say to you, “Let’s just keep it.”

But you won't.  You can't!  After all, it's not about them, it's all about you.  You can go back to your life.  You won't have to share your life with your child, you took care of that at the abortion clinic.  And you will probably lose your boyfriend, he will never get over the loss of his child.  Yeah, it's just you now.

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

You Can't Be Pro-Life, If You're Pro-Choice

As you may have read in my previous post, Kaitlyn over at the Abortion Gang blog, authored the post Being pro-choice actually makes you pro-life.  As much as pro-aborts want to fool themselves into believing they are pro-life, they are not, and they never will be. 

Merriam Webster's #1 definition for the word life is the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body.  While there are many other definitions for the word life, none are more important than this one.  Pro-life supports the development of a vital and functional being, while pro-choice supports a dead body.

Kaitlyn attempts to expand on the definition of pro-life by saying:

1) Prochoice is prolife because: LIFE IS AWESOME.

What's awesome about life for Kaitlyn?  Coffee (I would have to agree), all seven seasons of Buffy on DVD, and her cat.  That's a pretty narrow view of life, and like most pro-aborts, Kaitlyn's thought process doesn't get much further than personal pleasure. 

2) Prochoice is prolife because: HAVING REPRODUCTIVE CHOICES LETS YOU LIVE LIFE ON YOUR OWN TERMS.

To Kaitlyn this includes, having sex, going to school, working, going to a movie, and the availability of Plan B without a prescription.  What Kaitlyn doesn't understand is that without life, she would enjoy none of those things. Life vs lifestyle.

3) Prochoice is prolife because: ABORTIONS SAVE LIVES.

On this point, Kaitlyn uses Karen Santorum as an example of someone whose life was supposedly saved due to an abortion.  Thing is, Karen Santorum didn't have an abortion at all.  Read my previous post, as well as this earlier post, to see how pro-choice perpetuates this lie.  As for "Abortions Save Lives", it doesn't.  You can't purport to save a life, and at the same time advocate the killing of a human fetus, or embryo, or zygote.

4) Prochoice is prolife because: PEOPLE IN THE PROCHOICE MOVEMENT FIGHT FOR THE LIVES OF THE LIVING.

Kaitlyn believes fighting for convicted murderers who are sentenced to death because of their crimes, is more important than fighting for the lives of the millions of INNOCENT babies who are killed by abortion.  Life vs lifestyle. The murderer chose his/her lifestyle, the human fetus doesn't get to choose at all.

Towards the end of her post, Kaitlyn mentions choices of ice cream.  That brought to mind the video below.  We have all kinds of choices in life, none of which should include killing an innocent human being.

Abortion Gang Corrects An Error, With A Blatant Lie

I'm reading a recent post on the Abortion Gang blog, "Being pro-choice actually makes you pro-life".  It begins with this editor's note:

Editor’s note: This piece previously stated that Rick Perry’s wife had an abortion. This is incorrect (to the best of our knowledge). Rick Santorum’s wife has had an abortion. The mistake has been fixed in the text below.

The author of the post, Kaitlyn, stated that Rick Perry's wife had an abortion.  Apparently Kaitlyn intended to perpetuate the lie that Rick Santorum's wife (Karen), had an abortion, and the 'editor' of the Abortion Gang blog, Steph Herold, perpetuates the lie even further in her editor's note.

As I wrote in this post, Karen Santorum did not have an abortion.

The Santorum baby, whom they named Gabriel, was diagnosed at 20 weeks gestation, with a defect that is always fatal without surgery.  The Santorum's opted for an operation that they hoped would save their son's life. 

It was a success, but an infection developed in the amniotic sac, and I was rushed to the hospital with a high fever, having contractions. I begged the doctors to stop my labor, but they said it would be malpractice, for I would surely die since these infections are untreatable. (emphasis is mine)

Karen Santorum clearly did not have an abortion, but does that fact stop pro-aborts from perpetuating the lie that she did?  No, unfortunately it doesn't. 

Merriam Webster defines abortion as:

1 : the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as

a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare miscarriage

b : induced expulsion of a human fetus

c : expulsion of a fetus by a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy — compare contagious abortion

Read here what I've previously written about the pro-aborts intentional conflation of the terms miscarriage and abortion.  As I stated in a previous post,

For the sake of understandable debate, let's leave the terms alone.  Miscarriage is spontaneous and unintentional, an act of nature.  Abortion is intentional and deliberate, an act by women and abortion providers to destroy the fetus.

Now that I've covered the perpetuation of this lie, I'd like to touch on the 'meat' of the AG post, but I'll save that for another post. 

Saturday, October 1, 2011

Abortion Breeds Disrespect For Innocent Human Beings

imageI saw this photo on Facebook and I cringed.  The status update indicated the baby was left in a bin, and was covered with ants.  I don't know how old the picture is, whether it was a recent tragedy, or one that's floated around on the internet for years.  I don't know the location.  I don't know the sex of this baby.  I don't even know the ethnicity. 
What I do know is that innocent babies are left to the elements of nature, more often than we think.


Take this recent article "Baby found at rubbish dump recovering", in imageBloemfontein South Africa.  
A newborn baby boy found wrapped in a blanket at a rubbish dump near an informal settlement in Bloemfontein was doing well in hospital on Monday. 
ER24 paramedics found the baby boy with its umbilical cord still attached to the placenta. He was hypothermic and struggling to breathe.
Appelgryn said the baby had bite marks on his skin from ants while he was lying at the dump.
image




Or, there is the story of South Carolina's Orenthia McCuller, who abandoned her baby, umbilical cord still attached, by leaving him outside the laundry room of her apartment complex.  There was no need to throw the baby out like trash.
South Carolina's Safe Haven Act, also called Daniel's Law, lets mothers leave an infant that is unwanted or unable to be cared for with a hospital or hospital outpatient facility, law enforcement agency, fire station, emergency medical services station, or any staffed house of worship during the hours the facility is staffed.
I know that even adamant pro-choicer's will say they denounce this type of action, but I have to wonder. 

What I most often hear from pro-choicer's, is that if these mothers had greater access to abortion, these despicable acts would be less frequent.  In other words, the mother should be allowed to kill the baby in utero, so they're not left to abandon it after birth.  The pro-choicer's will make excuses for the women who abandoned these babies.  She was poor, or abused, etc.  They won't hold accountable the one person who had the power to prevent this tragedy, the mother herself.

What I don't hear, is the honest truth; that abortion breeds disrespect for human babies.  For if you can condone the act of abortion, and you can condone the act of a mother abandoning her newborn, what heinous act will you condone next?

Saturday, September 24, 2011

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.
image
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!

Blog Archive