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.
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!

Sunday, September 18, 2011

Politically Correct Pro-Choicer's Admit They Are Pro-Life Personally

I took a trip back to Feminists For Choice, and I'm glad I did.  The article gave me renewed hope.  
Serena asked the question "Can you be pro-choice if you wouldn’t choose abortion for yourself?" She then broke down the questions as follows.
1. What does is mean to be pro-choice?
2. If you found out that you were pregnant, and you didn’t intend to be, would you continue the pregnancy, or would you choose to have an abortion?
3. Do you believe that you can personally oppose abortion and still call yourself “pro-choice”?
The question I found enlightening and hopeful, was question # 2. Here are highlights from a few of the comments:
“When I was younger I would have definitely considered it but I don’t know if I would have ever been able to go through with it. At this point in my life because I am in a committed long term relationship I would not consider abortion because I don’t think that I could live with the guilt."
“I would consider one but I cannot see myself taking this option. I have friends and family who have had abortions and who sometimes struggle to come to turns with that decision, I know that it is unlikely that I ever would."
“If I found out I was pregnant, I wouldn’t consider abortion because I’m in a position where I would actually be pleased. However, I don’t feel that I ever would have considered it."
"I once thought that I may consider abortion if I had been assaulted but having had a child now I don’t think I would be able to. Hopefully I will never find out.”
"So yes, I would consider abortion for an unplanned pregnancy but I am fairly confident that I would not be able to actually go through with it. I have felt physical pain and deep depression every time I have considered terminating, for me the emotional suffering was more significant than the physical/emotional/financial burden of continuing the pregnancy.”
The comments are much more in depth than I've posted here.  Remember, the article was targeted for women who claim to be pro-choice politically and pro-life only personally.  For that reason, I found question # 2 a sort of miss-fit, yet intriguing as well.
If a woman could never consider aborting her own baby, maybe she'll see through what's 'politically correct', and do what's morally correct by helping other women keep their babies.  You can put your time and effort into protecting a woman's right to 'choose', or you can put that same time and effort into helping women keep their babies.  It's really that simple.

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Maddow Turns Pro-Choice Propaganda Wheel

If you ever wondered how the pro-choice propaganda machine works, this is a perfect example.  First, what I saw:
I have to admit, the tweet peeked my curiosity.  So of course I went to Rachel Maddow's profile. Note the pro-choice propaganda machine, Maddow was re-tweeted at least 100 times.
I clicked on the link, and THIS is what I saw:
Wow, that looks like at least 200 people!  And what the heck are they doing at a middle school?  Well, closer inspection of the caption reveals that the picture is from a pro-life protest back in Dec. 2010.  Not at the middle school as the title of the article would lead pro-aborts to believe, but at late-term abortionist Leroy Carhart's office. 
So what happened at the middle school?  According to the article:
Antiabortion activists who have sought for months to shut down a Germantown clinic picketed its landlord outside a Montgomery County middle school where his daughter is a student, school and police officials said Monday.
A small group of protesters stood outside Robert Frost Middle School in Rockville on Thursday, holding signs and a banner, during back-to-school night, officials said. (emphasis added)
The student’s father, who did not want to be named to protect the safety of his daughter, a sixth-grader at the school, said he saw the five protesters when he went to the school event. (emphasis added)
Some held a large banner that showed his photo, his full name, his phone number and the words “Please STOP the Child Killing.” Others held posters showing aborted fetuses.
Why were the protesters at the school? 
Jack Ames, director of a regional antiabortion group called Defend Life, said his group organized the protest at the school because it was a “very good public venue.” Previous demonstrations at the Germantown clinic have been hampered because the clinic is on private property inside an office park. (emphasis added)
But you know what?  The protest isn't the reason I'm writing this post.  This is about the way the pro-choice propaganda wheel turns.  I just have to wonder... How many pro-aborts think there were 200 people at that school?  My guess is, a lot.  And that's sad. 
One more thing... "The student’s father, who did not want to be named to protect the safety of his daughter".  Guess he changed his mind, as least for Feminists For Choice. (Picture linked to article)

Monday, September 5, 2011

Why are Republicans trying to take away my WIC?

Someone again mentioned Republicans trying to end WIC, a federal nutritional program for Women, Infants, and Children. If you're not familiar with WIC, you can read more about it here

While looking for articles, I ran across this Yahoo Answers question. The answers are enlightening. 

The question:

Why are Republicans trying to take away my WIC?

I have an 6 month old son, and I have relied on WIC before I gave birth and now. Without WIC, I am not sure how we both would survive. I don't work, and my boyfriend works a part-time job and barely pay child support. Why are people trying to take away our ability to feed our children?

The first 'answer' I saw, which to me is the best answer, was this one:

This is the exact reason why welfare imprisons people. When the government finally runs out of our money to support you, you don't have a clue what you should do. You say you don't work, why not? WIC is not the ability for you to feed your children. WIC is someone else feeding your children.

I chose to post this answer as it contains links relevant to the issue of welfare abuse. If you read nothing else, read about the man that won the Michigan lottery.

Republicans trying to take away your WIC because fraudulent people sell their government enfamil on Craigslist for cigarettes and drug money.…

Why are you having children you cannot afford?
Because you can and you know the tax payers will pay for your iresponsible actions.

Republicans like the concept of personal responsibilities.

See by making it easier for people to have illegimate children the more illegimate children we will have.

So by putting back the responsibilities of children on the parents, the parents will be more responsible and responsible parents are always better for the children.

Michigan Welfare Allows Multi-Million Dollar Lottey Winner to Use Food Stamps…

More Working Families Getting Food Stamps…

Welfare Money Spent on Cruise Ships and Vegas…

1 in 2 Household Receive Government Assistance…

Food Stamp Recipients Up 28% in 2009…

Boost in Welfare Rolls Sees New Voters…

Welfare Check and Voting Card…

Welfare Agencies See Wave of Voters…

Welfare Agency Out to Register New Voters…

According to ABC News:

Leroy Fick hit the jackpot.

The Michigan man won $2 million in the state lottery's "Make Me Rich" contest last June.

With the $850,000 he took home after taxes, Fick, 59, used his winnings to purchase a new home and a used Audi convertible. But to buy groceries, this lottery winner is still using his Bridge Card, Michigan's version of food stamps.

How many more children could we afford to feed by stopping this type of abuse?  No one wants children to go hungry.  If the money is taken only by those who truly need it, there would be enough to go around.

So if you must blame someone for government cuts, blame yourself for being a party to welfare abuse.