Sunday, July 31, 2011

Pro-Aborts Follow The Lead of 40 Days For Life's 'Peaceful' Protests


Once again, pro-abortion protesters are counter-protesting pro-lifer's, but this time, they're also following the lead of a 'peaceful' protest. 

The Summer of Mercy 2.0 is scheduled for July 30th through August 7th.

The Summer Celebration of Choice is ironically (or not) scheduled for July 31st through August 7th.

They call it "Summer Celebration of Choice", saying:

As you may already know, Dr. LeRoy Carhart has become the new target for Summer of Mercy 2.0. (emphasis added)

Please note that this event is not a counter-protest, but rather a peaceful pro-choice presence and a show of community support for Dr. Carhart, his staff, and his patients. We will not be engaging in any dialogue, argument, or confrontation with any anti-choice protesters, and we are working with law enforcement to ensure everyone's safety over the course of the week.  (emphasis added)

Let's not over-look the the use of the word 'target', as they describe the reason for the "Summer of Mercy 2.0" protest in Germantown, MD.  They also state this is not a counter-protest. Sure.

But the intent is for them to hold a peaceful demonstration, and I think that's a good thing.  It's not however, something they are accustomed to. 


We'll see how it plays out.  Something tells me, it's going to be a very difficult, long week for them.






Tuesday, July 26, 2011

What Do Pro-Life Silly Bandz and Happy Meals Have In Common?


I found this HILARIOUS!!!  Jaclyn, a new Abortion Gang blogger, writes about "Pro-Life Silly Bandz".  Yes, there is such a thing, and you can find them at Heritage House.

The Indiana Right to Life county fair booth was actually distributing Pro-Life Silly Bandz. And upon further research, you can actually buy these things in bulk!

Silly Bandz are marketed primary towards pre-teens and adolescents.

I'll just say "DUH" to that... Jaclyn goes on to say:

As someone who has worked in the movement for many years, I’m no stranger to anti-choice propaganda for children, but how far is too far?

Well, let's see.  How far is too far?  Well, Planned Parenthood marketing sex to children is too far.  Pro-lifer's market life. Pro-choicer's market sex, and killing the result of that sex with abortion.  Life, sex, abortion.  Which do you want to teach your child?

This is outright propaganda and a blatant attempt to exploit a harmless childhood trend for a political (and religious) cause.

Well, she has a point with that statement.  Imagine, propagating the idea of LIFE with a bracelet. Genius! (You didn't miss the anti-Christian jab in her statement, did you?)  These are the same people out to abort Ronald McDonald and the Happy Meal.  Gee, I wonder what the survivors of pro-choice mothers eat and play with?

Jaclyn closes with this:

In one scene in the documentary “Jesus Camp,” children are shown playing with a series of plastic fetus models, their mouths covered with red tape with the word ‘life’ written across…..ultimately these children, some no more than eight years old, begin praying to overturn Roe v. Wade.  With camps like these across the country, and parents and churches indoctrinating children before they are old enough to read, do we really need to add products like Pro-Life Silly Bandz into our lives? It’s just scary. What will they think of next? Needless to say, I will definitely be adding “Pro-Life Silly Bandz” to the list of things I will not be buying my nieces next year for Christmas.

Jaclyn should be told that Christmas begins with Christ.  Somehow, I don't think she ever realized Christmas is, and has always been, a religious holiday.  A religious holiday that celebrates the birth and life of Jesus Christ.

Monday, July 25, 2011

Pro-Aborts Want Choice, Unless You're 14 And Want To Keep Your Baby

Robin Marty's latest article for RH Reality Check, "Anti-Choice Activists Applaud 14 Year Old Giving Birth". 

First, let me re-title that article for Robin, "Pro-Life Activists Applaud 14 Year Old Giving Life".  Yes, that's much better.

Robin was referring to a press release from the Pennsylvania Pastors Network.  Not surprisingly, there was no link to it. 

A 14-year-old girl was granted an emergency injunction last week because she didn’t want to abort her baby—even though her parents did.

The Independence Law Center helped the girl from York, Pa. , to fight the abortion in court. The mother and stepfather of the girl had scheduled an abortion for their daughter against her wishes and against the wishes of the family of the unborn child’s father.

“This is a hard road ahead for this young girl, but we applaud her and the future paternal grandparents of the child for standing up for life,” said Colin Hanna, president of the Pennsylvania Pastors’ Network and Let Freedom Ring. “Although this girl is in a difficult situation today, it is a blessing that she has chosen not to make a mistake that would end a child’s life.”

The court-ordered injunction was presented to the girl’s parents and Planned Parenthood of York.

Robin's final comment

I can only hope that these "paternal grandparents" are taking her in and caring for her as well, because this girl is going to need a whole lot of help.

solidifies what pro-lifers have been saying all along.  The only help pro-choice is willing to give, is help with abortion.  If you decide to keep your baby, you're on your own.

And as Jivin J said "Nevermind that attempted forced abortion".  All for choice, unless your choice is to give life. Sad isn't it? 

Sunday, July 24, 2011

Insurance Companies Forced to Supply Free Birth Control

According to an article in Mother Jones, the Institute Of Medicine has recommended that private insurance companies be forced to pay 100% of the cost of birth control for their female policy holders, under Obama's healthcare law. 

The Institute of Medicine recommended on Tuesday that health care insurers cover the cost of birth control under the new federal health care law. This was just one of the findings on preventive health care services for women from the Institute, the branch of the National Academies of Science tasked with providing research and information on medical topics. But like pretty much everything dealing with women's health these days, this has turned into a debate about abortion.

The Department of Health and Human Services will get to make the ultimate decicion about whether insurers will be required to provide birth control free of charge, but this is a good indication that it will.

First, WHY should private insurance companies bear the cost for YOUR birth control?  Insurance companies are in business to make money.  You pay a premium, they pay if you get sick.  It's INSURANCE, not ENTITLEMENTSURANCE.

Take homeowners insurance for example.  It's something all homeowners should have, and something people with home loans are required to have.  Should State Farm do preventative termite treatments, just in case you get termites?  No, of course not.  What they expect, and rightly so, is that you do what you have to do to protect your home.  In cases where you have no control, such as a fire or tornado, the insurance company will pay to repair, or possibly replace, your home.

Second.  What do you think is going to happen to insurance premiums IF this is enforced?  Let me give you a hint.  Insurance executives aren't going to have it come out of their pocket, are they?  Insurance premiums will sky rocket to cover the cost of required add on's due to Obama's healthcare law.  Oh, wait, wait, wait... just in case you don't know, this is just another push to force private companies out of business, and force Americans into socialized medicine.  Any one who thinks otherwise hasn't been paying attention.

Back to the article, which stated:

But like pretty much everything dealing with women's health these days, this has turned into a debate about abortion.

The reason?

Specifically, they're concerned that this could lead to Plan B, or the "morning after pill," being covered by insurers

Indeed, that's something EVERY pro-life person in America should be concerned about.  If they force insurance companies to pay for contraceptives, you can bet EC (emergency contraceptives) won't be far behind.  Want to know what the MJ article says?  They quoted Jeanne Monahan, director of the Center for Human Dignity at the Family Research Council:

The other problem, says Monahan, is abortion. Specifically, abortion opponents argue that some emergency contraceptives — so called morning-after pills — can cause very early abortions by preventing the implantation of fertilized eggs into a woman's uterus.

"So those 7 to 10 days before a baby can implant, Plan B can prevent implantation and thereby cause the demise of that baby. So we'd be opposed to those drugs being included because they act as abortifacients."

And this was MJ's response:

Anti-abortion groups believe that this constitutes abortion, even though medical organizations like the National Institutes of Health and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have been clear that this is factually incorrect; pregnancy does not begin until a fertilized egg is implanted.

The medical definition of when pregnancy begins is completely arbitrary.  Oh, and if you have any doubt EC causes abortions, this is in the Q & A section of

Plan B One Step
How does Plan B One-Step™ work ?

Plan B One-Step™ is one pill that has a higher dose of levonorgestrel, a hormone found in many birth control pills that healthcare professionals have been prescribing for more than 35 years. Plan B One-Step™ works in a similar way to prevent pregnancy. Plan B One-Step™ will not affect an existing pregnancy.

Similar to an oral contraceptive?  Yes of course, but you won't see them blatantly admit that both oral contraceptives and EC can cause early abortions.  The last part of that quote is based on ACOG's redefining of when pregnancy begins.

It's political hocus-pocus. Logically, when the egg and sperm combine, a new life is formed, and begins to divide and grow in earnest.  EC prevents the implantation of this new life. They could say pregnancy doesn't begin until viability (at or near 24wks), but it wouldn't change the fact that it really begins at conception.

Sunday, July 17, 2011

Young Women Are Just Numbers to Nancy Keenan

Did you see this HuffPo piece by Nancy Keenan, the President of NARAL? 

Did you know that 98 percent of American women use birth control during their lifetime?
Yet for many women, it's simply too expensive. One in three women has struggled with the high cost of prescription birth control.
The consequences are staggering. Young adults ages 18-24 have the highest rate of unintended pregnancy in the United States -- and nearly one-third of female teenagers become pregnant before reaching the age of 20. Nearly half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended.
Does Nancy Keenan know that according to Guttmacher:
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.
It's clear that even if we supplied EVERY woman of child bearing age with birthcontrol pills, 3/4 would not use it consistently enough to prevent pregnancy.  What a waste of valueable resources!  Just think how far that money would go to care for people that are actually sick.

"Young adults ages 18-24 have the highest rate of unintended pregnancy in the United States -- and nearly one-third of female teenagers become pregnant before reaching the age of 20."

Indeed, the numbers are staggering.  If this doesn't speak loudly for the cause of abstinence, I don't know what will.  Young women are being over-sexualized, having to load their bodies with artificial hormones to prevent pregnancy.  And about half the time, they get pregnant anyway.  Then they are subjected to the abortionist.  Where does it stop?

If pro-choice really cared about young women, they would work to prevent them from being subjected to this abuse.   The only way to prevent this abuse is by remaining abstinent.  Did I even mention STI's?

"Abortion Gang" was over the top this week

Pro-abort members of "Abortion Gang", posted some real doozies this week. 

#1 - Christie posted 'We Are Not Baby-Haters", in a sad attempt to justify killing human fetuses.  Apparently, Rush Limbaugh equated Caylee Anthony's murder to abortion.  Abortion advocates, for the most part, support abortion at any stage in pregnancy, and for any reason.  They reserve the right to evict a fetus from their womb, even if the baby was wanted in the first place.  For Rush, it's a matter of withdrawing your consent for your child to live, whether in the womb, or already born.  It's not only Rush that feels that way.  As I began writing this post, I popped over to twitter and saw this:image

Clearly, the tweet shows that people other than Rush, equate mother's killing their born children, with mother's killing their unborn children.  It is the same, it's just at a different stage of development.

Christie ended her post with this remarkable comment, and I want to share with you. 

Kids are awesome, when you’re ready for them. I feel like I will be a better mother because I will have children when I am ready to be a mom. I truly think that having had my abortion has made me a kinder, more understanding, less judgmental person. And I will be a better mom for it… eventually.Right now, I’m just psyched that my best friend is having a baby that I get to play with, cuddle and love, and then give back when she gets fussy. That’s one of the joys of not having kids yet, and waiting until you’re ready (no matter how you get there).

Christie doesn't seem to understand that the baby she aborted, will never be replaced. He/she was a unique individual, and is gone forever due to the abortion.  Oh, and her friend who was in labor at the time of the post?  She had 2 abortions prior to having this 'wanted' baby.  I have no doubt that both Christie, and her bestie, will be good mothers.  It's just sad their first babies had to pay the ultimate price, so they could complete their own childhood.

#2 - ProChoiceGal penned "Why YOU Should Be An Abortion Provider".  Yes, she is attempting to recruit people to be abortionists. 

Let’s face it: providing abortions is not the most popular job that a person can choose. Even among the pro-choice medical community, providing abortions is not something that you do; it’s something that you let other people do. I can understand why, too. People don’t generally go to medical school with expectations of being protested, harassed, and threatened when they finish their schooling and get a job. People don’t usually expect to have the simple question of “what is your job?” to sometimes have to be an awkward, nerve wrecking experience. With all of this, some people may wonder why anyone would want to become an abortion provider.

No, being an abortionist wouldn't be a popular job, considering most people who go to medical school, do so to save lives, not end them.  For those that do, It's an extremely lucrative business.  The less competition, the more lucrative.  Hopefully, ProChoiceGal will find that ripping human fetuses to shreds, isn't her calling after all.   Although, I fear that the money will out-weigh her conscience. 

Remember Dr. Tiller?  He took great pride in ending pregnancies for 'women in need'.  He killed viable babies, some of which were completely normal and healthy.  As sad as it is, that is the legacy ProChoiceGal wants to live up to.

#3 - Steph Herald wrote "Letting Antis Speak for Themselves".  As most of us know, Steph is the head honcho at Abortion Gang.  She censors the blog with an iron delete button. She doesn't believe is free speech, and is unwilling, even unable, to debate pro-lifer's.  Nor does she want to subject her 'subjects' to comments that may well open their eyes to the reality of what abortion is. 

A couple of the comments she highlighted, were intended for the "Why YOU Should Be An Abortion Provider" post.  Of course, Steph didn't want to subject her 'subject', ProChoiceGal, to debate.

“My mission today is not to get you to change your major…” So I guess abortion providers’ major would be Murder 101?  “However, maybe you have it in your heart to become an abortion provider.” Have it in your HEART?! Are you F*****G kidding me?! A person has NO HEART if they murder a baby. F******g disgusting and vile. It’s one thing to have stupid thoughts but to speak them and then POST ON THE INTERNET for the world to see?! I’m at a loss, I really want to meet this ‘provider’. F******g idiot. (edited for language content)

I'm glad Steph posted this one.  Indeed, how can anyone with a heart, consider ripping out the heart of another?  It does anger pro-lifer's when someone speaks so casually, and proudly, about their career choice of ripping apart human fetuses.

Another comment:



It surprises me when she does let a pro-life comment slip through.  Like this one from the baby hater post.


Okay, I am pro-life and I believe abortion is murder. I say that not to start the debate about it but to let you all know where I am coming from. That said I don’t hate you for your opinion. Nor do I think your opinion makes you a bad person. There are people who do not like babies and children on both sides of this debate. I mean I get the point that was being made. To many people, myself included, Caylee Anthony’s murder is the same tragic as those sweet babies who die everyday by abortion. However, I think that accusing people of being hartless monsters (which is what Mr Limbaugh said essentially) is just pointless. It does not make your point in a clear cocncise way. All it does is serve to fan the flames of hatred that just don’t need fanning.

"To many people, myself included, Caylee Anthony’s murder is the same tragic as those sweet babies who die everyday by abortion." - Isn't that what Rush said?  Clearly, the comment was 'let in', because it contained an anti-Rush element to it.  What did Rush really say?

"You know, what I don't understand about it is they're [the media] all card-carrying liberals. When does the death of a child bother them? I've never seen them get so upset over the death of a child," Rush Limbaugh said about the Casey Anthony verdict in his monologue on Wednesday.
"If the child had died, what, two years earlier in the womb this woman would be a star. She'd be a hero. And folks, I don't think that is a cliche to say. And I don't think it is as cheap attempt at humor. I think that while it may be uncomfortable to hear -- one of the reasons it is uncomfortable to hear is that there is an element of truth in it," Limbaugh added.
Rush told the media if they want to feel better, they should imagine that Casey Anthony had an abortion instead:
"You people in the media, if you really, really think she is guilty and you want to feel better about this just tell yourselves that she waited a couple of years to get an abortion and then you'll feel better."
"Abortion is brutal, [it's] never characterized that way and the reason it is brutal is because there is an element of truth of it. I just wanted to put it out there. Pure and simple, nothing more."

I would like to conclude this post by sincerely thanking Abortion Gang for making my job so easy.

Saturday, July 16, 2011

When is Late Term Abortion Necessary?

Pro-lifers like me, are so often accused of not caring about women, especially, pregnant women.  If you listen as the choicer's tell it, we would let every woman die that had a life threatening event during her pregnancy.  I assure you, this is not the case.  All any pro-lifer will ever ask, is that everything possible be done to save the baby, but never at the expense of the mother's life. 

Today, I read an article entitled "I don’t like that you do abortions, but if you didn’t, I would probably be dead".  Within the article, an anonymous physician tells of his experience with a 'very pro-life' couple, who in the end, opted to abort their unborn baby.

A woman had arrived on Friday with ruptured membranes. She was 21 weeks along in her pregnancy and now there was no amniotic fluid left at all. She and her husband wanted everything done. Despite the dismal prognosis for her baby, in respect for the patient’s autonomy, antibiotics were started. Within 24 hours it was clear she had an infection.

Delivery was recommended as these infections are potentially deadly. The parents refused. “The antibiotics might work,” they said. And no amount of discussion about the overwhelming medical evidence that supported delivery could sway their decision. Inducing labor at 21 weeks while their baby was still alive was abortion.

The infection worsened despite the antibiotics. The patient, who was  rapidly deteriorating, and her husband reluctantly consented to an induction of labor.

The induction didn't work.  The doctor goes on to say how he convinced them that termination was the only way to save the mother's life. 

Prior to the surgery, the husband asked:

“How did you learn to do these procedures?"

The doctors answered:

"By doing abortions. Lots of them. I have done more late term abortions than most doctors of my generation. That makes me very skilled. But the privilege of helping women end their pregnancies safely also gave me the skill to help women like your wife." 

The article intentionally left it unclear which procedure was used.  Was the fetus taken intact?  If so, did it live for a few minutes?  If so, were the parents given the opportunity to hold, to love, to create memories of their baby?  My guess is no, no, and no.

According to AAPLOG (American Association of Pro-life Obstetrician's and Gynecologist's), this is one of a few instances when termination may be the only way to save the woman's life.  As an addendum to their mission statement, they wrote:

What is AAPLOG’s position on “abortion to save the life of the mother?”?

Abortion is the purposeful killing of the unborn in the termination of a pregnancy. AAPLOG opposes abortion. When extreme medical emergencies that threaten the life of the mother arise (chorioamnionitis or HELLP syndrome could be examples), AAPLOG believes in “treatment to save the mother’s life,” including premature delivery if that is indicated — obviously with the patient’s informed consent. This is NOT “abortion to save the mother’s life.” We are treating two patients, the mother and the baby, and every reasonable attempt to save the baby’s life would also be a part of our medical intervention. We acknowledge that, in some such instances, the baby would be too premature to survive.

Indeed, we acknowledge that some babies are just too premature to survive, but.we.still.try.  Might there have been an alternative for this patient?  Perhaps.  

An article on AAPLOG's web-site, "Is Late-Term Abortion Ever Necessary?" (also available in PDF) sheds some much needed light on the issue of late-term abortion.  The author, Mary L. Davenport, M.D., writes:

Although most late-term abortions are elective, it is claimed that serious maternal health problems require abortions. Intentional abortion for maternal health, particularly after viability, is one of the great deceptions used to justify all abortion. The very fact that the baby of an ill mother is viable raises the question of why, indeed, it is necessary to perform an abortion to end the pregnancy. With any serious maternal health problem, termination of pregnancy can be accomplished by inducing labor or performing a cesarean section, saving both mother and baby. If a mother needs radiation or chemotherapy for cancer, the mother’s treatment can be postponed until viability, or regimens can be selectedthat will be better tolerated by the unborn baby. In modern neonatal intensive care units 90% of babies at 28 weeks survive, as do a significant percentage of those at earlier gestations.

Another part of the same article gives clarity to the reason some doctors, such as the anonymous physician, choose not to try to save the baby.  Law suits.  Stated plainly, there is less risk of a doctor being sued after performing an abortion, than there is in attempting to save the baby (and the mother).

If there was any advice to give after reading these articles, it would be this.  If someone you love has a similar event during her pregnancy, call a maternal fetal specialist, not an abortionist. 

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Pennsylvania To Grant Birth Certificates For Stillborn Babies


Six years ago, Heidi Kauffman, pregnant with her third child, went to her doctor for a routine exam. She was concerned because her lively baby had turned oddly quiet.

An ultrasound confirmed the worst. Three weeks before Kauffman's due date, her baby was dead.

Doctors induced labor, and the 7-pound boy Kauffman and her husband would name Kail was delivered stillborn. Racked with pain and guilt, Kauffman asked a nurse, "When do I get a birth certificate?"

"You won't," she was told. Instead, the Kauffmans received a death certificate.

Every year, thousands of parents in the United States experience the loss their baby in the latter part of pregnancy.  How heart-wrenching it must be to come home without your baby, and without so much as a certificate to acknowledge your baby's existence. 

"People think it's only a piece of paper, but it was kind of like saying he never happened," Kauffman said.

"I was pretty mad at the world, but I was appalled that I could hold that perfect beautiful baby, and the state would say he never existed."

The new document will be a "certificate of birth resulting in stillbirth".  A piece of paper parents can hold in their hand.  Acknowledgment that their child existed.

The bill, sponsored by Senator Jake Corman (R), had been held up over several sessions, by a then Democrat controlled House, who were afraid this could somehow impede on abortion rights. 

Can it?  I sure hope so.

Sunday, July 10, 2011

India: Two Doctors Face Action Over Female Feticide

Abortion advocates often downplay the issue of gender-specific abortion.  Specifically, the fact that in many parts of the world, boys are preferred to girls.  As of 2007 in New Delhi, the birth rate is 814 girls for every 1000 boys.
The Times of India

2 doctors face action over female foeticide

THANE: An abortion clinic and a sonography centre were sealed in the lake city and two doctors may be booked for conducting illegal sex determination tests after a sting operation by activists Varsha Deshpande and the Thane Municipal Corporation (TMC) indicated their role in female foeticide.
Dr Umesh Londhe, who heads Gopika Clinic in Naupada and Dr V N Jawahar, who owns the New Ultrasound Sonography Centre at Pokhran road II, are under the scanner for carrying out a prenatal gender check on a five-month pregnant woman, who was a decoy.
The woman, a practicing advocate and a member of Deshpande's NGO, Lek Ladki, which is campaigning against female foeticide, and another activist, Kailash Jadhav, approached Dr Londhe on Saturday to inquire about the test to determine their baby's sex.
"The couple was sent as a decoy after we noticed an advertisement that Dr Londhe's clinic offered help to the "needy'' who wanted to abort. Our activists met Dr Londhe at his clinic on Saturday and asked if could carry out tests. They told him that they would prefer an abortion if it was a girl as their parents were orthodox,'' Deshpande said.
An unsuspecting Dr Londhe made a feeble attempt to disuade the couple from the tests. "He said it was ironic that educated people from urban cities were consulting him for such illegal acts. Dr Londhe also told them that the state authorities had intensified their campaign against such illegal tests and such abortions attract a heavy penalty. However, the next moment he agreed to help them on the payment of Rs 70,000. After haggling, he consented to do the tests and an abortion for Rs 30,000,'' Deshpande said.
The conversation was recorded and filmed secretly by the decoys. The couple was told that should the tests show the gender of the foetus as male, they would still have to pay Rs 30,000. In fact, an advance payment of Rs 5,000 was demanded upfront and the couple was asked to report to the clinic on Sunday.
When the decoys went to the clinic on Sunday, Dr Londhe took Rs 25,000 from them. He then told the husband to sit at the clinic while he and his nurse Ashwini drove away to a sonography centre of Dr Jawahar.
"They were secretive about the centre's location. Ashwini accompanied them to the centre where tests were conducted by Dr Jawahar without filling any form or registering the patient's name.
After returning to his clinic, Dr Landhe announced that the foetus was of a girl child and that the mother would have to be admitted to his clinic for an abortion '' civic health officer Dr R Kendre said. Dr Londhe said the abortion would have to be conducted on Sunday itself and should the couple delay they would have to forfeit the Rs 25,000 paid to him. An acitivist involved in the raid told TOI that in one month 30 centres in Thane have been sealed.
Though we would like to think gender-specific abortion doesn't happen in the US, it does.  If doctors in India will break the law for cash, you can bet there are doctors here that do it too. 

Monday, July 4, 2011

Killing Babies is NOT Acceptable!

A recent Abortion Gang post, was based on, and led me to, a Tumblr post regarding the "a fetus is not a baby" argument. 

The author of the Tumblr "Digging For Roots", writes:

every time I see posts that are screaming about how a fetus is not a baby, a fetus is not a baby, a fetus is not a baby

all *I* can think about is that I lost - by miscarriage - eight fetuses (that I know for sure). Fetuses that were wanted. Fetuses that were prior to 120 days and therefore logically I know did not have their soul yet***. But TO ME they were real, and they were babies. They were loved, they were named, they were deaths that were very difficult for me (and their fathers) to deal with.

So while we are wont to scream so loudly that a fetus is not a baby and therefore it is not murder for the person carrying them to decide for themselves if they wish to continue to do so or not - and I agree with this - could we take a moment to realize that saying they are not babies also erases the experience of people who miscarry and are grieving over their loss(es)?

***The authors religious belief (Muslim), is that a fetus/baby does not receive a soul until 120 days.

The author is 'pro' the choice for a woman to decide if her fetus lives or dies, yet to her, her babies were real, they were loved, they even had names.  To me, this is no different than allowing someone to kill their toddler, while you would never consider killing yours.

On to the post at Abortion Gang, the author Kushielsmoon attempts (and fails) to bridge the gap, or perhaps widen it, between wanted babies lost in miscarriage, and unwanted babies killed intentionally by abortion.

Legally, fetuses are not infants, are not considered persons, and thus, having an abortion is not murder. But we must remember, the personal is different from the legal. Pregnancy is different for every single woman- and one woman may experience multiple pregnancies in very different ways. A woman may consider her fetus to be ababy, or already a person, because she plans to carry to term. Another woman may consider her fetus to be a baby  even though she is planning to have an abortion. Those feelings and beliefs are normal, valid,  and should be perfectly acceptable.

Using the term “baby” doesn’t hurt the pro-choice position at all. If a woman believes that abortion is the best option for her baby, then we should support her in her choice.

For her, my opinion on the baby vs. fetus debate isn’t relevant.

She states that it should be 'perfectly acceptable' for a woman to abort her fetus, whether she considers he/she a fetus, or a baby.  In truth, it really doesn't matter if a developing human is referred to as a fetus (the medical term), or as a baby (the term most of us use), it doesn't change what he/she is. 

In essence, what she is saying, is that it should be perfectly acceptable for a woman to kill her baby.  Try to wrap your head around that.

Legally, abortion is not murder, but that fact doesn't make an aborted human fetus any less dead, does it? 

Look at the pictures below.

In the United States, it is legal to kill a baby at this stage of development. 


In the United States, it is legal to kill a baby at this stage of development.


In the United States, it is legal to kill a baby at this stage of development.


Most people assume all abortions are performed early in pregnancy, let's say 8 wks. In fact, most are.  But in reality, of the 1.2 million abortions performed in the United States annually, almost 80,000 are done at 16-20 weeks (4 to 5 months), and more that 200,000 are done at 13-15 weeks (3 to 4 months). 

So when you hear a pro-choicer scream about a woman's right to abortion, remember that legal abortion kills babies like the one's above, right here in the United States of America.  When did we get so low on the moral compass, that this would be 'acceptable'?  It shouldn't be.

Sunday, July 3, 2011

Does Age Determine Personhood?

Being a Pro-Life Activist Is Easy - Just Click The Share Button

One day a few months ago, a co-worker told me she saw my posts regarding abortion, on Facebook.  I asked her what she thought about the posts; she then admitted she doesn't read them.  I didn't press, it's inappropriate to get into political issues at work, it is at my job anyway.

On another occasion, my sister asked "Where do you find all those articles you post on Facebook?"  I told her I got them from social media, like Twitter and Facebook.  Then I asked her if she read any of them. She did!  So, I asked her if she shared them.  Her answer surprised me.  "How do you share them?"  Yep, it was pretty funny.  She did start sharing them after that, maybe not all of them, but hey, it's a start. 

The truth is, abortion is a very difficult issue to discuss, so a lot of people avoid it.  We just don't know how the other person(s) will respond, so we don't bring it up.  Many people get angry, if you suggest taking away a woman's right to choose.  We are here to remind them that choosing abortion, is choosing to kill a developing human.

Here are some facts about abortion in the US you should know:

  • Women who have never married and are not cohabiting account for 45% of all abortions
  • Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion
  • Forty-six percent of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant.


Did you know over 1.2 million abortions are performed annually in the United States alone?  38.2% of abortions are performed at 9-10 weeks or greater.  In other words, almost a half a million human fetuses are killed, at or beyond this stage in pregnancy.


(Clicking on the picture will take you to the web-site)

If you want to see the reality of what abortion does to babies at this and other stages (you NEED to see for yourself), please visit Priests for Life

Do your part to end abortion in America.  Click that share button on Facebook. Retweet an informative article you like on Twitter.  Spread the word!  You have the power to educate people about the realities of abortion in America.  Do your part.  Be an activist.  Click that share button!