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. 


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

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.


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!


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.


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. 


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.


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.

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?