Protesters Holding Images of Aborted Fetuses
The images are disgusting, frightening, gross and, once exposed to them, forever etched in your mind. I am referring to the graphic pictures of aborted fetuses that you regularly see on display in front of your local abortion clinic.
Anyone who has ever entered an abortion facility (or just driven by one for that matter) knows exactly what I am talking about. Heck, you don’t really have to be anywhere in the vicinity of an abortion clinic to see them. Some anti-abortion activists put the pictures on the back of their pick-up trucks and just cruise around the neighborhood. Or, trying to save gas in these harsh economic times, they’ll just park the same truck in as visible a spot as possible to catch folk’s attention as they are going to Home Depot or the Little League field. Not to mention that the pictures are available all over the Internet.
There are probably hundreds of variations of these pictures floating around. One thing I do know, however, is that the VAST majority are rather dated pictures. I don’t know exactly where they came from, although many pro-choicers claim they are pictures of miscarriages that occurred in Canada. But, I am confident that they are old pictures because the remains of an abortion are now considered “medical waste” and are disposed of accordingly, so it’s virtually impossible to photograph the results. And, to be perfectly honest, no abortion provider in their right mind would ever dump a semi-intact fetus or fetus parts into a pail for the whole world to see. Indeed, every abortion provider in the country knows that they are being watched very, very carefully by anti-abortion activists with way too much time on their hands, so why the hell would they give them more “ammunition” by tossing out a fetus or two into the outside garbage pail?
But let’s forget about how old the pictures are and where they came from. The fact is that many of those pictures generally are an accurate representation of the results of a LATE TERM abortion. And everyone needs to remember that the VAST majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester. So, the pictures slant things a little but if I were anti-abortion, I’d be doing the same thing.
The bottom line is that, if there is no intervention, the fetus will continue to develop in utero and when the abortion takes place at some point the fetus will have developed to the point where there are identifable fetal parts. Indeed, after a LATE TERM abortion the physician must insure that all the parts have been recovered to avoid any infections. So, my point is that some of these pictures (discounting some that might be of a miscarriage at 31 weeks) do depict the results of an actual abortion.
Abortion Pictures
Now, before the pro-choice movement starts making that noose for my public lynching…
On the other hand, the pro-choice movement has always had a similar sensationalistic opportunity to catch the eye of the public – they could show the hundreds of pictures of women lying on their bathroom floor in a pool of blood, dead from a self-induced abortion. They could show the inside of the room of an unqualified illegal “abortionist.” These pictures could be used to remind the public that, when abortion was illegal, women desperate to terminate their pregnancy often tried to do it on their own or resorted to back-alley abortions, often with disastrous consequences. Law enforcement officials arriving on the scene often took photographs of the results of these attempted abortions. I’ve seen the pictures and they are just as shocking as the “dead fetus” pictures, if not more so.
Indoctrination and Brain washing of children by Pro Lifers
Years ago, leaders of the pro-choice movement had a serious internal debate about whether or not to use these graphic pictures in the same way the antis used the pictures of the aborted fetuses. For the most part, the groups decided that they would not use them because they were so graphic. Yes, some pictures of the dead women leaked out but for the most part the pro-choice organizations never resorted to that tactic. Indeed, it’s a rare site these days when you see the old image of the coat hanger, one of the instruments used for a self-induced abortion.
Pictures do speak a thousand words. The only difference is the anti-abortion movement has decided it doesn’t care if they shock little seven year old children who happen to be passing by. The pro-choice movement, meanwhile, has taken the high road.
Related articles
- These Pictures Speak a Thousand Words (abortion.ws)
- ‘Pro-life’ terrorists name themselves ‘most peaceful social movement of all time’ (dailykos.com)
- No One Cares About the Science (abortion.ws)
- The Partial Birth Abortion Debate – The Beginning (abortion.ws)
- KS Gov. Brownback Appoints Lawyer for Radical Anti-Abortion Group to State Medical Board (littlegreenfootballs.com)
- Are We Still Fighting the Abortion “War?” (abortion.ws)
- The Rape and Incest Exception – Trying to Have it Both Ways (abortion.ws)
- Do Pro-Lifers Have Sex? (abortion.ws)
Abortion - Abortion Clinics, Abortion Pill, Abortion Information 
July 8, 2011 at 11:23 am
The iconic Malachi, a grotesque image of the fetal body that capitalizes on the monstrous to shock viewers, is a staple of the pro life industry. The anti abortion activists believe this image voices their belief that abortion is a threat to the moral order, the tone of that voice actually makes audiences less sympathetic to pro-life activists. The young, the old, the women the activists seek to address often hear in the Malachi image not a cry for restore to moral order, but a disruption thereof. Its voice is loud, but for who does it speak, and to what effect?
A survey of activists revealed that most believed the image “showed” the public what abortion is all about, laying bare the results of the terminated pregnancy. Yet most fetuses aborted bear little or no resemblance to the Malachi image, which represents a pregnancy terminated far later than the majority of first trimester abortions. De-contextualized and made to speak on behalf of all aborted fetuses, the image does not elicit understanding but emotion.
The emotive power of the image relocates emotion and consciousness in the viewer rather than the fetus. But there needs to be a separation of vision from reason in order to argue against the claim that Malachi makes, which is that seeing is knowing. But such images are no substitute for scientific evidence or, for that matter, for accuracy.
The Malachi image assaults the emotions, but it does so in a manner at cross-purposes with the goals of its users. Those exposed to the image accuse activists of insensitivity. Those exposed believe it unsettles children, the very population the activists seek to protect. Those exposed express misgivings about its power to drown out the voices of the women who use the clinic. In asking Malachi to speak on their behalf, the anti abortion activists alienate the very people they hope to protect and persuade.
LikeLike
July 12, 2011 at 5:47 pm
Malichi?
The messenger of God?
LikeLike
July 8, 2011 at 11:40 am
In the article, War pictures: The grotesque as a mobilizing tactic, Halfmann and Young (2010), examine the uses and effects of grotesque imagery in the antislavery and antiabortion movements. In their abstract, they claim “Grotesque images can produce strong emotions that may increase the resonance of movement frames and provide physiological ‘evidence’ of immorality. Such images may also produce confusion and ambiguity that deeply engages readers or viewers and potentially breaks frames. But grotesque images can also be counterproductive for activists. They can cause readers or viewers to turn away in disgust, and their use can taint activists as prurient, irrational, uncivil, or manipulative. Finally, the effects of grotesque images are likely to vary across audiences, social contexts, and the skill of the activists that deploy them.”
LikeLike
July 8, 2011 at 11:41 am
In the article, “War pictures: The grotesque as a mobilizing tactic”, Halfmann and Young (2010), examine the uses and effects of grotesque imagery in the antislavery and antiabortion movements. In their abstract, they claim “Grotesque images can produce strong emotions that may increase the resonance of movement frames and provide physiological ‘evidence’ of immorality. Such images may also produce confusion and ambiguity that deeply engages readers or viewers and potentially breaks frames. But grotesque images can also be counterproductive for activists. They can cause readers or viewers to turn away in disgust, and their use can taint activists as prurient, irrational, uncivil, or manipulative. Finally, the effects of grotesque images are likely to vary across audiences, social contexts, and the skill of the activists that deploy them.”
LikeLike
July 8, 2011 at 12:04 pm
Wow Kate,
Powerfully written.
I can just imagine the Antis typical responses. I’m sure they will be coming soon, the same old trite remarks.
I know when I see pictures like the ones they use, especially when they are misrepresentations, they are useless tactics.
I find it abhorrent that the anti abortionists mislead and scare young children without any regard for their well being.
LikeLike
July 8, 2011 at 12:29 pm
Leon, thank you for your comments. Here’s another tidbit to chew on: Dr. Abigail Allen certified that an image was of a ten-week fetus , as listed on Priests for Life web site (http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosbyage/weeks51.html).
Next to the fetus’s head is an image of a dime, represented as about half the size of it’s head. A U.S. dime’s diameter is 17.91mm while the average ten-week fetus is 23 mm in length. Clearly, this image, as posted, is inaccurate. Does accuracy matter or does the emotional argument of the image matter more?
LikeLike
July 9, 2011 at 7:37 pm
We see all the time that accuracy never seems to matter to anti abortionists and those that would try and legislate your body from you.
LikeLike
July 8, 2011 at 12:42 pm
Beat to it again! Will you killers’ helpers wait till I comment first? I never read your stuff till I comment anyway, and that way I won’t have to squint.
OK, here goes: “The only difference is the anti-abortion movement has decided it doesn’t care if they shock little seven year old children who happen to be passing by.” You’re right there, Pat. I hold the picture, magnified about forty times, of the head of a twenty-week old. Almost every time someone will stop and say something like, my kids are in the car. Get rid of that picture.
“It’s for your kids,” I say, “I want them to ask you, ‘Daddy, who pulled off that baby’s head?’ We are a brainwashed generation. Your kids are the only hope.”
Now let me read the killers’ helpers, kayhaitchers’, comments.
LikeLike
July 8, 2011 at 12:52 pm
Geeze, except for my boy Leon, they’re all Kate. But this time I don’t know what the heck she’s talking about. And I thought Chuckles had the incomprehensible corner monopolized.
OK, ma boy, tell me what she said. Maybe it is “Powerfully written.”
LikeLike
July 9, 2011 at 5:37 am
My bad! I waded through Kate’s stuff (I admit I skimmed it earlier) and I think now I know what she’s saying.
She wants to help us! She doesn’t think we are effective enough! She doesn’t want to keep baby killing legal at all! She wants to make it illegal again, and she’s trying to show us how to do that.
Oh how could I have missed it! How could I have doubted this lady!
LikeLike
July 8, 2011 at 4:39 pm
After reading John’s view on 7 yr olds (or younger) I went to Google and entered: John Dunkle abortion. One interesting return was:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/gonzales-v-dunkle
Scroll down to Court Information and check out the Federal complaint (during the Bush administration). This guy is scary! We all read about how Muslim extremist mullahs get other people to become suicide bombers – he’s in that class. The Complaint gives his address. I wonder how his wife (I think he has mentioned on this blog that he has one, though that is hard to believe) would react if somebody started picketing the street outside his house with a sign “Terrorist in Residence” and showed a picture of some mutilated bodies. Wonder how his neighbors would react when they drove past with their 7 yr olds (or younger). Won’t happen, of course, because pro-choice people aren’t haters.
LikeLike
July 10, 2011 at 3:34 pm
John,
Is this an accurate item I saw on the internet?
Please confirm.
On Aug. 28, 2007, the U.S. Justice Department filed a civil lawsuit against John Dunkle, an anti-abortion activist from Reading, Pennsylvania, seeking injunctive relief for alleged violations of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (“FACE”), 18 U.S.C. § 248.
According to the complaint, Dunkel posted messages on his webpage and blog encouraging readers to kill an abortion provider by shooting her in the head. The postings allegedly targeted a former clinician at the Philadelphia Women’s Center and included her name, home address, and photograph, along with instructions about how to kill her and avoid detection.
The complaint alleged that Dunkle’s postings constituted a “threat of force to injure, intimidate and interfere with a person providing reproductive heatlh services” in violation of FACE. The government moved for a preliminary injunction, requiring Dunkle to remove the postings in question and prohibiting him from posting the same or similar messages in the future.
Dunkle, acting as his own legal counsel, filed a response to the motion for injunctive relief and a motion to dismiss. He argued that his writings were not “threats” under FACE and also maintained that some of the content was posted by a third party. The government contested Dunkle’s claims, including his argument that the postings were not legally cognizable as “threats” under the statute.
On Nov. 8, 2007, after an evidentiary hearing, U.S. District Judge Thomas Golden granted a permanent injunction, ordering Dunkle to remove the postings and barring him from posting similar messages in the future. The injunction contains the following statement: “Nothing in this Order shall prohibit Defendant from picketing, creating, publishing and disseminating anti-abortion information so long as such activities do not constitute illegal threats and elicit violence.” The court also denied Dunkle’s motion to dismiss as moot.
LikeLike
July 10, 2011 at 5:21 pm
I saw this on the internet as well at another site.
John Dunkle is this an accurate case?
LikeLike
July 10, 2011 at 9:19 pm
John,
is that correct?
The court case?
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 4:59 am
David first, then Timothy — About once a year, Dave, someone says he will do to me what I do to the killers, hold a prayer vigil outside my home. (“Terrorist in Residence,” though, is original!) I tell him in summer I serve ice tea and in winter hot chocolate. No one has ever done it. They’re all talk. Maybe because they’re not haters, or more likely because like me they’re cowards.
And Tim, you got a few things wrong: paragraph 3 — “messages” should be “a message.” And this second sentence, “The postings allegedly targeted a former clinician at the Philadelphia Women’s Center and included her name, home address, and photograph, along with instructions about how to kill her and avoid detection” should read this
way: “The posting targeted Mary Blanks, a baby killer.” (no instructions, no photo, no address.
In the second sentence in paragraph 5, “some” should be “all.”
I blame my wife for the fact that there even was a trial. She got one of my genius sons to make it so that nobody could read my blog! Since the feds are the only ones who read it anyway, they got upset, and brought me to court.
LikeLike
July 8, 2011 at 3:53 pm
the more he writes, the harder I find it to believe he was a school teacher. God help the state of public education in this country!
LikeLike
July 9, 2011 at 7:39 pm
I am surprised they let a person that routinely intimidates others be a schoolteacher.
LikeLike
July 9, 2011 at 8:22 pm
It was Bed-Sty, Leon! If you don’t intimidate them, they’ll learn nothing!
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 4:16 pm
Bedford-Stuyvesant? He also said he escaped the Holocaust in the middle of WWII… A teacher friend of mine had a ten-year-old student whose foster mother said the girl needed to be institutionalized (real behavior problems). Rather than see that happen, the teacher adopted her.
I’m sure Dunkle will tell us how many students he adopted from Bed-Sty…
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 6:49 pm
“He also said he escaped the Holocaust in the middle of WWII…” I don’t remember saying that, but, considering my track record, you might be right. Doesn’t matter — you, Chuck, Kate, and all those AI’s I kid, are the first people I’ve met in my seventy-six years who hang on my every word, and preserve them. I have finally found my audience!
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 6:50 pm
And oh yeah, adopted? None.
LikeLike
July 8, 2011 at 3:54 pm
This is a test to see if this message will get posted. The previous one wasn’t.
LikeLike
July 8, 2011 at 4:54 pm
shoulda been
LikeLike
July 8, 2011 at 5:33 pm
The pictures are fuel for the faithful. It doesn’t matter if they are faked, outdated, photoshopped– they sustain the fairy tale: “I am heroically fighting to save these innocents from this brutality!” It takes a well-tuned mind to recognize the propaganda for what it is; the emotional response will overpower a non-critical thinker.
The so-called “pro-life” movement depends on credulity– since it’s quite easy to infer fully human life from the image of a fetus, such pictures give them an edge with the people whose credulity has victimized them in their pursuit of the American Dream– the undereducated, underpaid and unprotected.
LikeLike
July 8, 2011 at 11:11 pm
Even though many of the pictures are of 2nd and third trimester abortions the facts remain that even an 8 week fetus is formed and as one medical student put it after doing an abortion :
“Medical student Lesley Wojick learned how to do a suction abortion by practicing with the instruments and a papaya.
Of the real abortion she witnessed, she says:
“It was definitely gruesome. You could make out what a fetus could look like, tiny feet, lungs… ”
Patricia Meisol “A Hard Choice: A Young Medical Student Tries to Decide if she has What it Takes to Join the Diminishing Ranks of Abortion Providers” New York Times. Sunday Nov. 23, 2008. W08
So, it doesn’t really matter if it’s a second trimester picture or an 8 week pic, it is still a human which is what the pics are trying to portray. It’s the idea that if they can see it they won’t kill it. The thinking is that “America won’t reject abortion until America sees abortion”.
The pics tend to work more than you would think. Here are a few testimonies of people seeing them.
“I am the mother of two beautiful children, both of who were unplanned and came at the wrong time. When I found out I was pregnant for the second time I was upset and even thought about abortion. Someone dear to me showed me your website and I cried for an hour. To this day I still get tearful when I look at my four month old son. I almost made the worst decision of my life. I wish everyone could see these pictures and hopefully change lives. I have talked to several people who are currently pregnant and few even thought about abortion, I asked them if they had seen pictures and they said no and I showed them, they had the same reaction to me. I do not think that thought will ever come up in my mind again. The gift of a child is so precious, if one doesn’t want the child themselves they should consider adoption not abortion.”
and
“Up until I visited this site I had been pro-choice. I thought that I would do an Internet search to see exactly what an abortion entails. After seeing the images on your site, there was no decision to be made. I figured that whatever hardships having a baby at this time would bring me would be far easier than living with the guilt I knew I would never rid myself of if I was to get an abortion. The pictures had such a powerful effect on me. They helped me to be strong and realize that this pregnancy was made possible by God and if it wasn’t meant to be, that was His choice, not mine. I trusted that He has a plan for me and that He wouldn’t give me anything I couldn’t handle. As I sit here typing, my beautiful baby boy is alive and kicking inside me. As I said in the beginning of this letter, I am not sure what brought me back to this site, but viewing the pictures again made me so happy that I did not take that path. It only re-affirmed my decision and also made me realize the value of your site. It has saved me a lifetime of therapists, anti-depressants, and overwhelming guilt. THANK YOU.”
I could give more but for the sake of room I will stop now. These came from the priests for life website if anyone wants to see more.
There are also a bunch at clinic quotes (dot) com
LikeLike
July 8, 2011 at 11:14 pm
I have a question for the pro-choicers. Imagine that wombs had windows and we could see in. Do you think people would still choose abortion if they could see what they were killing?
LikeLike
July 9, 2011 at 3:59 am
I can hear them groaning throughout killer land — why didn’t she go! she said she was going!
LikeLike
July 9, 2011 at 8:57 am
I think you may be right 🙂
LikeLike
July 10, 2011 at 5:28 am
YES!! Perhaps the only difference would be the women that were “sitting on the fence” trying make a decision…it would make the picture much clearer ..easier to make the decision!! So she would have her abortion in the 1st tri instead of waiting into the 2nd…
LikeLike
July 10, 2011 at 9:11 am
Do you think women would avoid sex, or pregnancy if they saw pictures of women who have died in full term pregnancy?
Or pictures of complications like cloaca like tears, ruptured uteruses from VBACs, or informed consent of pelvic floor collapse or Chronic Stress Urinary Incontinence?
The Morbidity and Mortality rates are much worse for full term pregnancy than 1st trimester abortion.
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 10:43 pm
No reply DeAnna?
LikeLike
July 12, 2011 at 5:51 pm
Still, no reply?
LikeLike
July 13, 2011 at 8:43 am
To answer your question it was easier to quote this:
“Abortion advocates often claim that abortion is much safer than childbirth. However, this claim does not stand up to a close examination of the evidence.
The official medical term that this claim is based on, “maternal mortality,” includes deaths from abortion, so the claim that abortion deaths are much lower than “maternal mortality” really says nothing. Moreover, “maternal mortality” includes deaths from hemorrhages, blood clots, ectopic pregnancies, infections, complications from high blood pressure or diabetes and more—not just from childbirth itself.
No accurate accounting of abortion deaths exists. Some studies show that 4% of all maternal mortality is due to abortion while others show 8%. Anecdotal evidence reveals substantial underreporting…………….
Because the records of live births and stillbirths are public, it is easy to correlate deaths related to childbirth. Any woman who dies within one year of giving birth is automatically considered a maternal death for record-keeping purposes. But records from abortions are private. This means that unless a woman’s family reports that she had an abortion or somehow a coroner determines that she had an abortion, her death will not be included in the statistics for maternal mortality or abortion death.”
Sources: Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2007, February. Maternal Mortality and Related Concepts. Vital Health and Statistics 3, No 33. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_03/sr03_033.pdf.
Khan, Khalid S., PhD, Daniel Wojdyla, Lale Say, MD, A. Metin Gülmezoglu, MD, Paul F. A. Van Look, MD. 2006. WHO Analysis of Causes of Maternal Death: A Systematic Review. The Lancet. 367: 1066-1074.
LikeLike
July 13, 2011 at 5:22 pm
Chad,Chad, Chad — Chump
LikeLike
July 13, 2011 at 10:33 pm
John,
I don’t understand what you wrote.
What does that mean?
LikeLike
July 9, 2011 at 10:28 am
I wrote a piece a while ago about the “window to the womb” thing. I recounted how I accompanied a woman through her abortion process. She was 22 weeks or so. I sat there when the doc did the ultrasound and the woman saw everything. Indeed, she asked the doc if that was the head, were those the feet, etc. The doc answered all the questions and the woman then went to have her abortion. To say that women dont understand what they are carrying is insulting. Indeed, I’ve been with women who, after they’ve seen the ultrasound, expressed a sigh of relief that it was “only” that big. They thought it would be fully formed at 10 weeks. So, the ultrasound had the opposite effect.
As for quotes from a Priest for Life website, gimme a break. I mean, they’re not biased, are they? I”m sure they got the quotes right. And, Deanna, you’re starting to bore me with these quotes from folks in the industry. Like I have always said, I can get you docs who love their work but, of course, they’re afraid to come out for fear of getting shot…..
LikeLike
July 9, 2011 at 8:46 pm
Contemplating a moral issue, such as an abortion, is an invitation to reflect on its ethical, psychological, and socio-economical complexities. The anti-abortion activists’ oversimplification of abortion for an unintended pregnancy, about which is a deeply personal and grueling decision process, is an egregious affront to a woman and to her abilities to make the best choices for herself and her families. The activists who harass women at reproductive health clinics demonstrate utter disrespect for them and complete disregard for their socioeconomic and psychological situations. As Katha Pollitt wrote in The Nation, women are reframed out of the abortion conversation. Their experiences, their bodies, their healthcare and their struggles are meaningless when framed against the fetus. Arguing for the life of the fetus, antiabortion activists essentially erase women’s agency. Nowhere is this symbolic annihilation more evident than in the streets and sidewalks adjacent to abortion clinics and on this blog. In other words, when one considers the comment “Imagine that wombs had windows and we could see in” one can begin to understand how the woman in the body is meaningless, how those on the outside, those strangers who “know” because they “see” are more relevant, more morally important than the woman in the body.
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 10:45 pm
My vote will always defend Women’s rights!
LikeLike
July 9, 2011 at 9:42 pm
I posted this once but it was not posted because it contained a hyperlink. so here it is without the hyperlink. Although the web address is there.
Pat,
I was not trying to give un-biased quotes. I was simply trying to show that there are people who change their minds via the pics.
You said, “They thought it would be fully formed at 10 weeks”
Maybe that is because it is fully formed at 10 weeks. All it has to do after that is grow larger and it’s parts mature, But they are all there at 10 weeks, looking fully human as proven by this video from The Endowment For Human Development ( a neutral scientific scientific organization)
.ehd (dot)org/dev_article_unit11.php
I would imagine that there are plenty of women who see a fetus on an ultrasound screen and then still have an abortion. What I was thinking about was not something on a screen but rather I was thinking about what would happen if they could see the actual fetus IN the womb.
There are genuinely women who do not understand that is is not a bunch of “cells” or simply a “pregnancy”, especially teen girls. This is further compounded by “counselors” who use euphemisms to take away the humanity of the unborn. With that said, I do think you are right that at some level they know they are pregnant with a baby. I personally think the euphemisms help them to shut this part out of their brain until the abortion is over.
Your story of the 22 week abortion is heartbreaking.I have no understanding of that thought process. Why not wait two weeks until viability and give birth then let it be adopted? It makes no sense.
LikeLike
July 10, 2011 at 9:18 am
You would have labor induced in a 24 weeker?
That is a terrible idea!
LikeLike
July 10, 2011 at 5:18 pm
Induce a 24 weeker?
That is a crazy idea!
LikeLike
July 10, 2011 at 11:30 pm
Good grief! Seriously! I never said I would have her induced! What I said was that if she was going to have an abortion at 22 weeks why not wait 2 weeks and let it be born ALIVE and place it for adoption. TWO WEEKS is not a very long time when it comes to killing a human or letting it live. If she is determined to kill it then wait TWO WEEKS and let someone take it and love it!
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 3:45 pm
Ri ck Santorum’s wife induced a 24-week labor, as I recall, and took the baby home. Of course it was dead, but she had an agenda….
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 5:34 pm
That is an out and out lie and you know it. I already posted documentation to counter that statement. She had a life threatening infection, which caused premature labor, which resulted in a still born baby. It’s rude to spread lies when you know the truth.
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 10:47 pm
*********
DeAnna:
“Your story of the 22 week abortion is heartbreaking.I have no understanding of that thought process. Why not wait two weeks until viability and give birth [‘then’] let it be adopted? It makes no sense.”
**********
DeAnna,
what you said made no sense.
LikeLike
July 12, 2011 at 5:53 pm
Where is the reply?
LikeLike
July 13, 2011 at 8:37 am
It makes perfect sense. If she would carry the baby another two weeks and if she felt that she couldn’t parent and couldn’t possibly carry it to term, instead of killing it let it live and let it be adopted. That is the humane thing to do instead of brutally pulling it apart as they do on this gestational age. It is also a proven fact that they feel pain at this stage. So it is horrible death but women do it because they think it’s best for them.
“At 20 weeks, the fetal brain has the full complement
of brain cells present in adulthood, ready and waiting
to receive pain signals from the body, and their
electrical activity can be be recorded by standard
electroencephalography (EEG)”
– Dr. Paul Ranalli, neurologist, University of Toronto
LikeLike
July 9, 2011 at 4:40 pm
Deanna you are great! Keep up the good work in setting the other side straight.
LikeLike
July 9, 2011 at 4:50 pm
Thank you for the encouragement.
LikeLike
July 9, 2011 at 7:45 pm
NowIsa
I don’t think she has set anyone straight?
Has she converted one person on this site?
All I have read is that she makes a lot of moderate Pro Lifers Angry, especially for her out of the ballpark perspectives on banning the most widely used forms of birth control.
LikeLike
July 9, 2011 at 9:40 pm
I never said I would ban “widely used birth control” birth control. Only the abortive types.
Which moderate pro-lifers have I made mad? Some fake pro-lifers came on and pretended to be mad. Is that what you mean?
LikeLike
July 10, 2011 at 9:20 am
The birth control you want banned is the most widely used birth control.
LikeLike
July 10, 2011 at 5:31 pm
DeAnna,
You do want to ban, by your own admission, the most widely used and reliable forms of Birth Control.
Hard to reconcile with wanting to decrease the unwanted pregnancy rate.
LikeLike
July 10, 2011 at 9:01 pm
I am pro-life and unapologetically so. I am not going to say that I am against abortion and then turn around and endorse birth control that causes abortion. That is the definition of hypocrisy. There are plenty of other forms of BC out there. You act as if the abortifacients are the only ones.
LikeLike
July 10, 2011 at 9:25 pm
They seem to be addressing the fact that you want to get rid of the most widely used and effective (you appear to be denying that – even still – utterly astonishing).
The bottom line still is you did not answer the question.
If you get rid of all that great birth control, won’t there just be More unwanted pregnancies, And More Abortions?
Doctor’s offices give patients birth control so they do not have unwanted pregnancies and the Abortion absolute numbers would go down.
It seems people who are Pro Choice are more interested in lowering Abortion rates than the Anti Abortion people. What an irony!
LikeLike
July 10, 2011 at 11:04 pm
Are you reading my posts at all? I said I was against the ones that were CAUSING abortions. How can they prevent what they cause? It makes no sense. BC that causes abortion does not reduce the number of abortions, they simply hide them. Also, again, there are plenty of BC types out there that do not cause abortions.
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 3:47 pm
You would ban the type of birth control primarily used by the Lord God??? I find that a little presumptuous.
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 5:36 pm
Boy you are on a roll today aren’t you? One nonsense remark after the other.
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 6:53 pm
See, you’re smart, d. You can understand him. I never know what the heck he’s saying.
LikeLike
July 10, 2011 at 9:21 pm
NowIsa,
All I see is a bunch of misinformation from you Pro Lifers.
You are not setting anyone straight.
LikeLike
July 10, 2011 at 11:00 pm
Misinformation? Where? Show documented PROOF of any misinformation or your comment is useless propaganda.
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 3:49 pm
Again, the pot demanding the kettle not be black. You cite sources like EDH which are biased to the point of misinforming.
On the other hand, as one operating at the “process” level of cognition, it’s understandable.
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 5:43 pm
EDH is not biased. They are highly recommended by many professionals the medical field as I cited WITH DOCUMENTATION on another comment.
LikeLike
July 13, 2011 at 5:32 pm
“You are not setting anyone straight.” Well, in your case, Sam, that would be impossible.
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 10:48 pm
She is not setting anybody straight, don’t fool yourself.
The only thing you do is make yourself appear foolish.
Trying to get rid of good birth control. That is a crazy idea!
LikeLike
July 13, 2011 at 8:50 am
You would be doing yourself a favor and not appearing quite so illiterate if you would actually scroll up and read what I said instead of trying to imply something that is simply not there. And since it is written in black and white for everyone to see it is apparent that you are manipulating my statements.
Again, what I said, and what every true pro-lifer agrees on is that birth control which cause abortions are against pro-life principals. NOT ALL birth control,only abortive ones.
LikeLike
July 13, 2011 at 5:40 pm
I think names like “Chad,” and “Samuel,” d, are fake. I think they’re really Pat or Kate or Chuck, or even Rog — literates who pretend to be illiterates to frustrate you to the point where you will go away. They tried that with me till they realized I didn’t present a threat You do.
LikeLike
July 16, 2011 at 8:28 pm
DeAnna,
cannot keep her own logic straight!
She certainly is not making any sense to anyone with an ounce of logic!
When you are educated, come chime in again.
LikeLike
July 9, 2011 at 4:46 pm
Pat,
I was not trying to give un-biased quotes. I was simply trying to show that there are people who change their minds via the pics.
You said, “They thought it would be fully formed at 10 weeks”
Maybe that is because it is fully formed at 10 weeks. All it has to do after that is grow larger and it’s parts mature, But they are all there at 10 weeks, looking fully human as proven by this video from The Endowment For Human Development ( a neutral scientific scientific organization)
http://www.ehd (dot)org/dev_article_unit11.php
I would imagine that there are plenty of women who see a fetus on an ultrasound screen and then still have an abortion. What I was thinking about was not something on a screen but rather I was thinking about what would happen if they could see the actual fetus IN the womb.
There are genuinely women who do not understand that is is not a bunch of “cells” or simply a “pregnancy”, especially teen girls. This is further compounded by “counselors” who use euphemisms to take away the humanity of the unborn. With that said, I do think you are right that at some level they know they are pregnant with a baby. I personally think the euphemisms help them to shut this part out of their brain until the abortion is over.
Your story of the 22 week abortion is heartbreaking.I have no understanding of that thought process. Why not wait two weeks until viability and give birth then let it be adopted? It makes no sense.
LikeLike
July 9, 2011 at 7:14 pm
“they’re afraid to come out for fear of getting shot” No, they’re not, Pat.
They’re afraid to come out because they will be branded the scum of the medical profession. Ya know who like these guys? Insurance docs — because they used to be the scum.
LikeLike
July 9, 2011 at 7:49 pm
I am amazed how many Pro Lifers do not state that pro life terrorism is absolutely wrong.
LikeLike
July 9, 2011 at 8:26 pm
Why should they state that! Everybody knows that.
LikeLike
July 10, 2011 at 5:56 pm
No,
Most Doctors I know that perform abortion as part of their routine OBGyn practice don’t want it to be known because they ARE afraid of being shot by some crazy murderous Pro Lifer.
John, You know that to be true. You have no credibility. But every time you lie makes you even worse. You cannot lose more credibility unfortunately.
And sadly, Innocent Doctors have been murdered by Pro Life terrorists.
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 7:53 am
“Most Doctors I know that perform abortion as part of their routine OBGyn practice don’t want it to be known. . .”
“Doctors” phoo. They’re not doctors anymore once they use what they learned at medical school to kill people. Then they become killers. Big difference.
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 9:16 am
By the rule of law of this country, Innocent Doctors have been murdered by Pro Life terrorists.
True Dunkle? Yes or No?
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 10:47 am
No, Sam, it was not “the rule of law,” it was a particular law, Roe v Wade. Any normal person would realize that Roe v Wade is diabolical (Sam, that means “from the Devil”). Trouble is in the USA today as in Gomorrah yesterday, the abnormal outnumber the normal.
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 8:39 pm
DeAnna said that the majority of people in the US are against Abortion.
I think she said 61% (?)
Who is accurate John?
You or DeAnna?
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 10:54 pm
Stupid reply, just twisting words, making no sense at all.
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 10:55 pm
Amanda,
They are both wrong.
LikeLike
July 12, 2011 at 4:01 am
Nope, we’re both right.
LikeLike
July 12, 2011 at 6:00 pm
DeAnna,
you appear to be a reasonable person.
But your association with the Dunkle makes you appear insane.
Do you adhere to Pro Life Doctrine or DO YOU take on the Justifiable Homicide Crazy perspective that you appear to be encouraging by not admonishing Dunkle?
LikeLike
July 12, 2011 at 8:19 pm
I have said this before. I am not here to approve or disprove of Dunkle. He is not my concern. The babies you guys advocate for killing are my concern. I have no comment on Dunkle. He’s a big boy he can handle himself.
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 3:51 pm
doc, he’s a crusader against “evil” in order to establish his deeds in history. Nothing you say will change his mind until he faces his fear of Death. He’s already said on this blog he’s not going to die….
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 6:56 pm
Did I say that too? I wouldn’t bet against you.
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 10:53 pm
I am an OBGyn, and I am afraid of being shot by some crazy Pro Lifers.
It is disingenuous to not knowledge what Pro Life Violence and terrorism has done.
Thankfully the perpetrators of Pro Life violence are most often caught and convicted.
You Pro Lifers are scary.
Especially reading what you write on this Blog.
Your consistent approval of murdering innocent doctors makes you one weird lunatic in most people’s minds.
LikeLike
July 12, 2011 at 6:10 pm
If you’re an ObGyn, I’m Marie Antoinette.
LikeLike
July 16, 2011 at 8:31 pm
You are what you are, but you certainly do not know how to make a point that any intelligent person could try and understand. You are a murderer loving illogical misogynist.
LikeLike
July 9, 2011 at 7:47 pm
No Dunkle, Doctors are afraid for their lives because of the Pro Life murderers out their and the people that support them and the Pro Life Terrorism.
Does that kind of activity remind you of anyone?
LikeLike
July 9, 2011 at 8:27 pm
Nope, don’t know of any pro Life murders.
LikeLike
July 9, 2011 at 8:34 pm
You know and support Pro Life Murderers?
You like them.
You think they are cool – you even think they are Martyrs.
LikeLike
July 10, 2011 at 4:45 am
No I don’t.
LikeLike
July 10, 2011 at 9:24 am
Are you denying that you expressed that you burned an American Flag in celebration of a Martyr? A person that murdered another. The murderer claimed he was “Pro Life.”
LikeLike
July 10, 2011 at 10:47 am
Are you denying that you said that you burned an American Flag in celebration of a Martyr? Yes, that’s what I’m denying.
(By the way, don’t use a three syllable word when one syllable would do just fine, especially since “expressed” doesn’t quite fit..)
LikeLike
July 10, 2011 at 1:19 pm
What is this?
****
John Dunkle:
“Neal Horsley, one of the great men this country has produced. I joined him and Jonathon O’Toole in burning the American flag in Pensacola on the third anniversary of Paul’s Hill’s martyrdom. The other great pro-lifers stayed away because they wanted nothing to do with flag burning, but I thought this time it was appropriate.”
****
What did it mean when you wrote this?
LikeLike
July 10, 2011 at 2:01 pm
damn, hoist by my own petard!
LikeLike
July 10, 2011 at 3:40 pm
Does this mean you were caught lying, yet, again?
********
John Dunkle:
damn, hoist by my own petard!
********
LikeLike
July 10, 2011 at 5:20 pm
What is your answer Dunkle?
LikeLike
July 10, 2011 at 9:27 pm
Dunkle, why do you evade answering questions?
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 5:10 am
Gimme a break, Sam, I was asleep! And Annie and OD, “lying” is kinda harsh. I did participate but Neal and Jon did the actual burning. Course I woulda helped them if they’d asked. Let’s say equivocating rather than lying.
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 7:08 am
No Dunkle,
You are caught again lying.
You have no credibility, and that extends to anyone that tolerates you as a supporter of their statements.
Just looking at this thread makes me repulsed by you and you Pro Lifers.
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 7:59 am
“You have no credibility, and that extends to anyone that tolerates you as a supporter of their statements.”
Stop after the second “you.” The rest makes no sense, just confuses.
LikeLike
July 16, 2011 at 8:32 pm
Dumpkle proven a liar again.
LikeLike
July 10, 2011 at 1:51 pm
The phrase Deanna used when describing a fetus at 10 weeks as fully formed is, at best, misleading, especially when followed with “all it has to do after that is grow larger and its parts mature”. It cannot be both fully formed AND grow larger/mature. For example, the central nervous system is not fully developed at 10 weeks; hence, no fetal pain.
Further, while the Endowment for Human Development is noteworthy for its mission toward nonpartisanship, it is not, as Deanna stated, objective in the sense that it is without an agenda. The Endowment For Human Development is a 501 (3) C organization with prolife connections, comments and misleading information. For example, the online store that sells a DVD for prenatal development includes biased endorsements for the product (endorsements are from their own board members), prolife comments about abortion and God, affiliation with Focus on the Family and the Barker Foundation.
Evidence of bias comes from their use of general readership language, use of animal research for claims about the theory of human fetal programming and the promotion of a veterinarian researcher, a key EHD member, Dr. Peter Nathanielsz, in his claims about the amazing link between prenatal health and lifelong health “the biggest story in human health” from a WebMD author, L.A. Mc Keown, who is only a medical writer. Highly biased, Web MD is financed by advertising, third-party contributions and sponsorships. Allegations have been made that WebMD biases readers towards using drugs sold by their pharmaceutical sponsors, such as Eli Lilly, in cases in which the drug is unnecessary.
For what it’s worth.
LikeLike
July 10, 2011 at 7:20 pm
A few additional thoughts about EDH relate to their inaccuracies with fetal development, their biased language and their sense of agency. For example, when comparing the 10 week fetus, they suggest, via imagery, that the fetus is 50 mm while the University of S Wales Embryology web site claims a 10wk is 40 mm.
When EHD adds text to clips to their DVD imagery, they add language that intimates fetal agency such as “hiding the face” or “I am pointing” or “kneeling in victory” or “The sprinter in a hurry” or “Live long and prosper”
These images with text suggest agency of the fetus, meaning the fetus is intentionally hiding its face or kneeling or pointing. All impossible for a 10 week fetus.
LikeLike
July 10, 2011 at 8:54 pm
Seriously? You are going to argue about a difference of 10mm? Perhaps there is a genetic reason that one was smaller, who knows, but 10mm, really? That is supposed to make their images inaccurate? Also, the fact that they say, “hiding it’s face” means nothing. It seems to me that they are simply applying person hood to it in a cute way. It is a 10 week fetus, it has a face. In order for abortion advocates to continue doing what they do they must take away it’s person hood. Maybe the EDH doesn’t have a problem assigning it person hood since they aren’t in the business of killing it but rather simply taking it’s picture.
We have an ultrasound of my grandson in the womb pointing one finger up. We all gathered around the pic and said “Look he’s telling us what he thinks”. Did we really think he was doing that? Of course not. We said it because we thought it was cute. If we were hell bent on denying him person hood we could kept quiet and corrected anyone who said that telling them that it was ridiculous to say that. But we didn’t do that. only abortion advocates have a reason to deny person hood to the unborn baby.
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 3:42 pm
the difference between 40mm and 50mm is 25%, deanna. That’s comparable to the difference between 60 mph and 75 mph, or between 15 years (not legal) and 18 years and 9 months (legal). At that stage of fetal development, it’s a huge difference.
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 4:08 pm
It’s 1/2 inch and it certainly doesn’t discredit the organization in light of all of those excellent recommendations. Maybe the other guys are the ones that measured wrong. Who knows. But the point is that it isn’t a big enough deal to focus on.
LikeLike
July 10, 2011 at 9:12 pm
I looked at EDH,
so obviously a biased site.
Although a god attempt at a veil of neutrality. They really would fool people that don’t look hard for the typical signs of Pro Life Propaganda.
Pro Lifers cannot tell the difference, it is just incredible.
LikeLike
July 10, 2011 at 10:57 pm
As I said before, even if they were blatantly pro-life it would not in any way make the scientific FACT that a 10 week fetus is formed void. Attack their position all you want but it won’t help because as I said there are many other sources that prove the same thing in picture form including National Geographic, and Life Magazine. Not to mention Lennart Nillson’s, A child iS Born. All a person has to do is google a pic of a 10 week fetus and they can see plainly that EDH’s pics are accurate so I really don’t understand what your point is in trying to discredit them. It sounds like you are grasping at straws to have something to complain about.
Let me ask you this straight up…….Is that pic of a 10 week fetus on EDH accurate or not? Here’s proof that it is.
*From the Texas department of community health dshs.state.tx.us/wrtk/develop/week10.shtm
*And another
scienceray.com/biology/human-biology/how-sperm-meets-an-egg-to-fertilize-a-fetus-in-the-mothers-womb/
*And another
health.state.mn.us/wrtk/handbook.html
*And another
wvdhhr.org/wrtk/fetaldevelopment-week10.asp
The above link is from the West Virginia Department of Health. Here is a quote from their website about a 10 week fetus.
“Fingers and toes are distinct and have nails.
The fetus begins small, random movements, too slight to be felt.
The fetal heartbeat can be detected with a heart monitor.
All major external body features have appeared.
Muscles continue to develop.”
This quote proves my point that I was making to Pat when I said that the body was fully formed and all that it had to do was mature and grow larger.
“All major external body features have appeared.”
The point in all of this is that the fetus is fully formed, it has a HEART and a heartbeat, it has fingers and toes. It has muscles and begins to move around. Next thing it knows you guys suck it up through a vacuum hose pretending as if it is a non-entity. It is fully human with a beating heart. Abortion kills it. This is wrong!
LikeLike
July 10, 2011 at 11:58 pm
Also, here is an entire page of Non Focus on the family endorsements for EHD by medical and scientific professionals of all walks and expertise. Again, one persons endorsement (James Dobson) does not nullify the others who highly endorse it. The fact that you attempted to discredit this organization that is so highly recommended indicates that this argument is about your agenda rather than truth.
ehd.org/products_endorsements.php
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 4:00 pm
Endorsements from 17 professionals in a field of 20,000? It’s an American tragedy that those other19,983 highly skilled and trusted professionals are unworthy of their station, their title, their pay and the trust of us red-blooded Americans. I hope you don’t get served by any of them or their underlings!
Have you recently bought a gun to defend yourself from them? I’ve also heard they believe in evolution. I hope they didn’t use our governmental student loan programs to get their degrees.
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 3:44 pm
So, deanna, what can you do to take care of a ten-week fetus? I mean besides playing the role of hero or satisfying your wish to avoid reminders of how ugly Death can be….
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 3:55 pm
What you say is so much chaff in the wind if no one cares, deanna. there are 25,000 unadopted and unadoptable children in NY state alone. I don’t love ’em; you don’t love ’em. At least they’re better cared for than were the kids who were forced to be born in Roumania….
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 4:13 pm
You know what, I am going to be honest with you. Everytime you comment on something I write you bring up the whole crap about how I don’t care for the born, etc. I have told you over and over what I do, how I have adopted the very children that you claim I don’t care about, work in orphan rescue, etc. You have no real arguments about what I say so all that you have is the ability to pull out is your same old worn out unfounded arguments that have already been answered. Go back and read the previous 10 or 20 times that we spoke about this because I’m tired of having the same conversation over and over to appease you.
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 7:00 pm
Yeah, d. That’s what happens to people when they’re sold psychology. In evolutionary terms they revert from human to parrot.
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 8:47 am
Kate and Samuel: You both said EDH is biased,
“This video(EDH) provides a splendid review of prenatal human development from fertilization to birth. The intrauterine videophotography and imaging is exquisite and breathtaking and allows the viewer to witness the different stages and external features of development throughout the 38-week gestation period. The video is clearly narrated and utilizes language and descriptions that will be readily understandable to the target audience. Its content is accurate and handsomely designed and it will serve as an exciting, unique resource for those seeking an understanding of early human development.”
Mark F. Seifert, Ph.D.
Professor of Anatomy and Cell Biology
Indiana University School of Medicine*
“This is a well conceived and executed video (EDH). The use of different types of images is well thought out and effective. The text is accurate and well chosen. This video is particularly appropriate for an undergraduate development class but could well be used in supplementing a first year med school class in embryology. Kudos to EHD! This is a delight to look at.”
Charles L. Saxe, III, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Cell Biology
Emory University School of Medicine*
“The Biology of Prenatal Development does a wonderful job of presenting and describing the milestones of human development from conception to birth. The video sequences and animations provide beautiful visual representations of the concepts described through the narration of this presentation. This is a clear, factual, and elegant presentation of the process of human embryonic and fetal development.”
Bradley R. Smith, Ph.D.
Associate Professor and Director, Biomedical Visualization Graduate Program
School of Art and Design
University of Michigan*
Senior Associate Research Scientist
Department of Radiology
University of Michigan Medical School*
I could go on but for the sake of room I will stop here, there are plenty more on the site. Would you like to admit now that you had an agenda to try and discredit this organization by saying they were “biased” and had a pro-life slant. It is clear that the pictures are accurate from these and many more testimonies from non-biased medical professionals. It makes me wonder why you try so hard to take away the humanity of the 10 week fetus to the point that you would try to discredit such a highly esteemed organization. Perhaps you try so hard to take away the 10 week fetus humanity because that makes it easier for you to either kill it yourself, help with the process, or advocate for it.
LikeLike
July 10, 2011 at 8:44 pm
Kate,
You said, ” It cannot be both fully formed AND grow larger/mature.”
Yes it can. Everything is already there at this point, they just need to mature and grow larger. Also you said they couldn’t feel pain. There is scientific evidence to suggest that you may be wrong. (F o ur or f ive we eks a f te r c o n c e p t i o n , pain recep tors appear a r o u n d t h e mo u t h , fo l l owe d b y nerve fibe r s, which carry stimuli t o the brain. By 18 weeks, pain r e c ep t o r s h a v e ap p e a r e d t h r o ugh o u t t h e b o d y . Ar o u n d wee k 6, the unborn c hild first r e s p o n d s to t o u c h . Blackburn, ST. Maternal, Fetal, and Neonatal Physiology. 2nd ed (2003) Vanhatalo, S & van Nieuwenhuizen, O. “Fetal Pain?” Brain and Development. 22 (2000)
What I was referring to when I said “fully formed” was the body of the fetus, which is what Pat and I were discussing. He was talking about a woman who said she was surprised at how small it was. It is small as all of us know but it looks like a fully formed human being.
Also, the Endowment for Human Development’s videos and ultrasound pics are basic medial science. Just because they may be “affiliated” with Focus on the family and Barker (are they? where is the documentation for this?) this does not nullify the basic science that has NEVER been questioned. You yourself are not questioning that fact. You are simply trying to make it seem as if they are slanted pro-life which even if they were, again, it doesn’t nullify the basic science. No one doubts the ultrasounds or videos as being accurate. Secondly, I simply posted the first clear pic/video link that I could find that showed a 10 week fetus. Life Magazine has the same thing as does National Geographic in their “In the Womb” videos.. I could pull up a dozen or so more to prove that this is exactly what a 10 week fetus looks like. So, what is your point in trying to discredit the Endowment For Human Development? A 10 week fetus is a ten week fetus, no matter who says it. You cannot erase the facts because James Dobson may support the picture taker.
LikeLike
July 10, 2011 at 9:17 pm
What about the electroneurochemistry of the brain, the plasticity, the frontal neocortex, or the Hebbian type of connections needed for any “brain” to work like a brain.
DeAnna,
what is your comment on the electrophysiology of the preformed brain?
If you do not know about these things, you really should not be making opinions. They don’t carry merit and you support your position from a posture of personal incredulity. A terrible logical problem.
LikeLike
July 10, 2011 at 10:32 pm
Samuel, The conversation that I was having with PAT was about the formation of the fetus’ body, ie. arms,legs, head,. I was making a point about it being formed at 10 weeks because he said a woman was surprised at how small it was. This has nothing to do with the “electroneurochemistry of the brain, the plasticity, the frontal neocortex, or the Hebbian type of connections needed for any “brain” to work like a brain.” Furthermore, I made NO personal opinion, instead I quoted science sources. Also. I have never claimed to be a student of electroneurochemistry of the brain or any of the other things that you mentioned. But what I am is a pro-life person that has enough sense to know that ridiculous arguments about fetal length, brain chemistry, James Dobson, and EHD do nothing to take away the humanity of the unborn baby. Your remark was a feeble attempt at trying to make me look ignorant. Congratulations, I freely and openly admit that I am not a brain surgeon! Now, if you can use all of your knowledge of the brain to prove that the fetus is not human and is not a person then lets hear it.
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 10:58 am
I think Sam would have to use all his knowledge of the brain to avoid writing stuff like this: “They don’t carry merit and you support your position from a posture of personal incredulity.”
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 4:03 pm
Sam, the closer it gets to being her responsibility, the less sacred human life becomes. She can’t afford to contemplate the developmental needs of the fetus or the real child, because she would have to accept that by walking away from it at the delivery room door she was abandoning it. She will not let me have her family dog, but she would make me have a baby, which pretty well summarizes how much value she puts on the child she doesn’t want to raise.
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 4:20 pm
The thing that you are missing that i have said over and over is that
I would and AM raising it. You apparently don’t have the ability to admit that you have met someone who is actually doing what you accuse pro-lifers of not doing. I am doing it. Face it, admit it and deal with it!
If anyone wants to know what I do that he (Aborti) accuses me of not doing in reference to taking care of “born” children click on my name and read the “about me section of my blog” then read the archived (in May) article entitled “Insight Into the Mind of an Abortionist”. Here you will find an extensive answer to an accusation similar to Aborti’s. I have had this discussion multiple times with him but he refuses to acknowledge it.
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 5:01 pm
You’re not raising the next one, the one you want someone else to bear, the one you don’t want to raise– which puts you in the same frame of mind as she is in. Why is that?
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 5:46 pm
You have no idea what I am doing or what i will do. You let your imagination rule you.
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 5:50 pm
Again, I am going to be honest with you. Everytime you comment on something I write you bring up the whole crap about how I don’t care for the born, etc. I have told you over and over what I do, how I have adopted the very children that you claim I don’t care about, work in orphan rescue, etc. You have no real arguments about what I say so all that you have is the ability to pull out is your same old worn out unfounded arguments that have already been answered. Go back and read the previous 10 or 20 times that we spoke about this because I’m tired of having the same conversation over and over to appease you.
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 10:58 pm
Aborti,
That is a good perspective.
LikeLike
July 10, 2011 at 2:09 pm
Kate, Kate, this argument — we can kill them because they’re not fully formed, they don’t feel pain, they’re smaller than a quarter, they might grow up to be Ted Bundy (oops, that’s Chuckles’), and so on. By this time aren’t you embarrassed even to offer it. You must realize that it relates closely to what the European Americans said about the African Americans, and to what the Nazis said about the Jews.
LikeLike
July 10, 2011 at 7:12 pm
John Dunkle,
The issue, in case you need a reminder, is about graphic imagery. While you seem to be fixated on my embarrasment and your rescue from said embarrasment, I’d rather see you put forth something more substantive. By all means, since you frame yourself as a titular superior to my embarrasing position and my morally deficient statements, please pour forth your wisdom.
I’m confident that we all wait with pregnant anticipation your bounty of wisdom, compassion and generosity.
LikeLike
July 10, 2011 at 5:22 pm
Seems like Dunkle is avoiding questions all over this page.
LikeLike
July 10, 2011 at 7:51 pm
“The issue, in case you need a reminder, is about graphic imagery.” I didn’t go past this, Kate. So let’s talk about it. I show the results of what you do, and that upsets you. Why is that?
LikeLike
July 10, 2011 at 9:29 pm
Dunkle why don’t you answer some other questions up the thread?
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 5:17 am
Trouble with you and OD, Sam, is you think I’m as smart as deanna. I can take only one step at a time. So give me just one other question.
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 9:14 am
It’s about diversion. The game goes something like this. “Take the focus off of the dead human fetus and put it on EDH, James Dobson, Dunkle sending letters to doctor killers, 10mm differences in fetal length, me not being a brain surgeon, Pro-lifers supposedly not taking care of the born children, flag burning or Ted Bundy. Heck anything to take the focus of those 10 week old fetus that gnaw at their consciences with their fully formed little bodies.
But the reality is that if every pro-lifer on here screamed loudly that we HATED everyone of these things listed above it still wouldn’t take away the humanity of that 10 week fetus or the fact that it has fingers and toes and a beating heart and it feels things and is active in the womb. Nothing can or ever will erase that fact. That 10 week fetus needs to be looked square in it’s little FACE and acknowledged for what it is. Then if they are going to continue to kill it they need to look it in it’s little face and admit what they are doing for the sake of the woman’s “bodily autonomy” or probably often for the sake of money. The facts cannot be erased John, only the attention diverted.
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 12:37 pm
again, into my newsletter
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 4:07 pm
Let’s try putting the focus on the needs of human life AFTER the fetal stage. It would be great if fetal development stopped at, say, 26 weeks and we could plop them into displays at pet shops, so people could buy one and take it home like a Cabbage Patch doll or a Tickle Me Elmo.
But they’re not; they require a lot of what anthropologists call K– the nurture that will form them into fully functioning humans– and that’s what the so-called “pro-lifer” can’t as a rule even consider providing– the 15,000,000 seconds of TOTAL responsibility– present or absent, awake or asleep, smart or stupid…
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 7:07 pm
Oh, geeze, “anthropologists.” Another bunch of phonies. Trouble is, Chuck, “putting the focus on the needs of human life AFTER the fetal stage” is not where we’re torturing them to death. We’re doing that during the fetal stage, and before. Can’t you get that into your head?
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 11:59 am
Well, i don’t know about the others but i do take my time in reading the whole essence of the blog including the comments. I also go on the web and look for info and answer to the million questions i have after reading a post from Pat.
But here is one question, BC is not 100% effective as everybody knows. So, if taking BC means you don’t want to get pregnant, and if happens, you will find yourself in a shit whole, and we all know how the adoption system works, is there a adoption for a couple that the birth mother can choose?
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 1:06 pm
Yes Sonia they are called open adoptions and most agencies let the birth mother be involved in the process of picking the parents if she so chooses AND she can be involved in the babies life if she so chooses depending upon an agreement with the adoptive parents (they are all different as to the amount of involvement. etc, and are worked out between birth mom and adoptive parents) .
This agency : randyandkelsey.com/Hannahs_Dream/Home.html
is one that I can personally recommend highly as being honest and legitimate.
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 4:09 pm
Just remember, Sonia– only 160,000 kids a year get adopted. Deanna wants another 1.5 million people born. Do some research on the orphanages of Ceasescu’s Roumania, when birth control AND abortion were banned. If you feel sorry for the kids who were released, you can ease their plight by sending them aerosols to huff…
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 4:25 pm
They may not get adopted so lets kill ’em. Old folks end up in old folks homes getting visits once a year on Christmas, lets kill them too. Then you have the mentally ill in institutions.,lets kill them. And don’t forge the prisoners, the disabled and the terminally ill. Gotta get rid of those unwanted annoying ones that take up our resources and make us have to look at them. Just kill everyone that doesn’t have a perfect life except of course the supreme demi-god perfect types that you deem worthy enough to live.
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 4:57 pm
But don’t ever, EVER take care of them! It’s sufficient to be a hero just by saying you’re against death! Cool.
It’s what I like most about the dysfunctional self-help movement that calls itself “pro-life.”
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 5:50 pm
And again, I am going to be honest with you. Everytime you comment on something I write you bring up the whole crap about how I don’t care for the born, etc. I have told you over and over what I do, how I have adopted the very children that you claim I don’t care about, work in orphan rescue, etc. You have no real arguments about what I say so all that you have is the ability to pull out is your same old worn out unfounded arguments that have already been answered. Go back and read the previous 10 or 20 times that we spoke about this because I’m tired of having the same conversation over and over to appease you.
LikeLike
July 12, 2011 at 4:14 am
There’s something about Chuck, though, that I have to admire. He says something stupid. We point that out. He says it again. Again we point that out. This goes on ad infinitum.
Other killers’ helpers curse us out and run. they might return under a different name, but they do realize their stupidity. Not Chuck, though. I don’t know if what I admire about him is his overwhelming stupidity or his overwhelming persistence
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 9:48 pm
Great point aborticentrism.
Romanian children are messed up due to the same policy these pro lifers want!
LikeLike
July 12, 2011 at 8:59 am
What policy exactly would that be?Please provide documentation to back up your statement or otherwise it stands as pro-choice propaganda.
LikeLike
July 12, 2011 at 6:07 pm
Just read any news item from any source,
My goodness are you retarded?
Do you dispute the problems with Romania?
LikeLike
July 13, 2011 at 9:24 am
No what I disputed was that pro-lifers have a policy that has anything to do with Romanian orphans.
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 11:02 pm
DeAnna and no one else would do much of anything for an additional 1 million plus babies per year.
These people barely do anything at all.
Many do not even want tax money to help children.
Some don’t even pay taxes used to help children!
LikeLike
July 12, 2011 at 8:58 am
You have no idea what you are talking about. What we don’t want is our tax money to go to Planned Parenthood and Marie Stopes so they can kill preborn babies by slicing them up, tearing their arms and legs off, crushing their heads, and sucking their brains out with a vacuum hose.
You comment that “many do not want to pay taxes and some don’t pay taxes to help children” needs to be backed up with documentation or else it stands as pro-choice propaganda.
LikeLike
July 12, 2011 at 6:13 pm
I do not want my money going to crazies like you that want to get rid of birth control.
That’s for sure.
The saddest thing is that you have no idea how wacky you are!!
I do not want my taxes to go to you, who does nothing, AND pays no taxes! Get friggin Job you loser!
Contribute to society! Who are you, to pay NO taxes?
Do you think you are Exxon?
GE?
You always have extra time to work a little harder to make a little cash.
I am tired of subsidizing the maniacals in our society. Getting rid of Birth Control! Wow! You are a lunatic!
LikeLike
July 13, 2011 at 9:26 am
Could you please explain WHAT in the world you are talking about?
LikeLike
July 13, 2011 at 11:41 am
Tella has no idea what she’s talking about, d. And even if she had, the language to express it would be beyond her. She’s not alone, though. They’re all teenagers emotionally and illiterate educationally. I call them my AI’s (adolescent illiterates), and I find them fun.
LikeLike