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.
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.
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)




July 11, 2011 at 1:00 pm
Here’s the thing, The following quote came directly from an abortion clinic website (that the creators of this blog endorse by the way) describing a late second trimester abortion up to 24 weeks.
D&E (Dilatation & Extraction)
This procedure is used for later 2nd trimester terminations of pregnancy. The cervix has been dilated with laminaria and/or cytotec over the course of 1 to 2 days depending on the necessary dilation. Once adequate dilation is achieved, all products of conception are removed from the uterine cavity. This is done as gently as possible. The procedure takes 5 – 10 minutes and is followed by an ultrasound inspection to assure that the cavity is empty. The patient is taken to the recovery room for approximately 1 – 1 ½ hours.
A 24 week baby can live outside the womb and many DO live outside the womb ( According to a study quoted in USA today at usatoday.com/news/health/2009-06-02-prematurebabies-survival_N.htm) with a 67% survive rate at this age.
Further another clinic endorsed by this blog creator does abortions up to 26 weeks. According to the same article these babies survive at a rate of 85%.
The clinics refer to these babies as “products of conception” and “contents of the uterus”. Some would say that this is accurate terminology and technically it is, but it is also a use of euphemisms meant to cause the aborting woman to not think about the fact that they are killing their baby or technically (fetus). You will rarely hear an abortion clinic refer to the “fetus” at this late stage and usually not even at earlier stages because they want to hide the reality which is that these are killing living viable babies. These babies have been killed in our country at the astounding number of approx. 645,000 since Roe V wade. (45 million x the 1.5 % aborted after week 21 according to the Guttmacher Institute).(at weeks 21-23 the survival rate is between 10 and 53%)
These numbers are often minimized by abortion advocates in saying that it is ONLY 1.5 % per year but that 1.5 % equals a huge number of dead babies that had a pretty good chance at living outside the womb.
The pro-lifers who show the pics of late term fetus are simply trying to point out in picture form what I just documented. It puts a face on the “products of conception” and the “contents of the uterus” that the clinics so deceptively speak of. The term “abortion” is so common place that it provokes almost no response when heard. But put that same word in picture form and you get immediate response even from pro-choice activists and clinic workers. As Kate said, it is grotesque. And as Pat said, they are frightening and gross. But a;ways remember, they are only an image of the real deal. The dead baby that has been mutilated by people who claim they “care” about humanity.
Sorry for the epic length.
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 4:12 pm
It’s really important to have pictures that will reinforce your belief that you are a “rescuer;” it’s really important to “rescue” a “victim” upon whom you can plant any label you want; and it’s really important to select a “victim” you will have absolutely NO responsibility for. Why is that?
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 4:26 pm
Go read my previous post to you. I refuse to answer this again. Don’t you get tired of hearing your own chant?
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 4:58 pm
You can’t really face it, can you? That’s one of the traits of the syndrome…
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 5:20 pm
FACE WHAT? Your insistence that I don’t live up to some imagined standard that you thought up? Or have some imagined “syndrome” that you thought up? Or believe in some imaginary moral code that you thought up? What I face is the fact that you have no earthly idea what you are talking about and you repeatedly insist that I and other pro-lifers live up to something that doesn’t even exist. Frankly, I am getting bored with the whole discussion with you. You aren’t even talking logically and you want me to agree with you? No thanks!
So let me put this as clearly as I possibly can. Write it across your forehead so you don’t forget that I told you………
If no pro-lifer EVER took care of another orphan or fed it or clothed it or did any of the things we do, you STILL would not have the right to kill it! Our taking responsibility or not taking responsibility in no way justifies you killing another human. Again, the lack of care for a human does NOT justify it’s killing. We do that to dogs in the pound when they have no owners not human beings. Do you realize that you have deduced a human being to the same status as a stray dog. Congratulations! You have entered a new dimension of social depravity!
LikeLike
July 12, 2011 at 11:50 am
But you don’t think of the fact that you have reduced the status of a real child to that of less than your family dog….. You will not let me have your dog, but you would make me have a child. That doesn’t say much for your opinion of the child.
By the way, you really show a fascination for the blood and guts and gore of abortion, far more than you show for the welfare of the next child you want to walk this earth. Why does the Grand Guignol show exert such power over you but the fates of children do not?
LikeLike
July 12, 2011 at 12:35 pm
Aborti,
I never said I would make you or anyone else PARENT a baby. What I said was that I would make it illegal to KILL it. Two completely different things. And before you start the whole nobody would care for it line know this…..Most adoption agencies have a two to three year waiting list for parents trying to adopt infants INCLUDING infants born with abnormalities. CHASK (an adoption agency for special needs children) has an ongoing waiting list of between 300-500 families wanting to adopt them. So, if you want to kill it just place it for adoption. That’s the point. And no you can’t have my dog seeing as how you put so little value on life you may decide to snuff him out because he annoys you, and he is annoying.
As far as be showing concern over born children goes…again, you are chanting the same old line. I do take care of the born children. I do my part. You know that, you just refuse to acknowledge it because it crushes your baseless argument to pieces. And without that argument you have nothing to stand on so you have to face the fact that you don;t know what you are talking about. Can’t go there can you? Don’t want to admit that you judged me wrongly and that you accused me of not caring before you knew I worked in orphan rescue and adopted 4 children, two of which were special needs, and some from the foster system huh? Can’t admit that your accusations are baseless so you just keep on chanting them over and over and over. Such high character you have there. Might want to get that checked.
LikeLike
July 13, 2011 at 6:43 am
Why are there ANY waiting lists when there are so many unadopted children? Three reasons: 1) The would-be parents won’t take just anything. 2) Some of the would-be adopted parents need to be seriously checked out. 3) The agency doesn’t just toss kids to families, but works with them to make a match. Not the way God does it.
You can’t explain away the so-called “pro-lifer” avoidance of care for human life by using waiting lists.
LikeLike
July 13, 2011 at 9:29 am
I have explained to you before the myriad of reasons that there are children who are waiting to be adopted while there are families waiting to adopt. I explained it in great detail. I suggest that you go back and look at that answer if you are seriously interested in the answer.
With that said, If pro-lifers never adopted another child, never fed another orphan or never lifted a finger doing anything you still would not be justified in killing them.
LikeLike
July 13, 2011 at 1:30 pm
It’s all about death and nothing about life, isn’t it? At least you’re consistent.
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 9:10 pm
Aborticentrism,
Thank you for your in depth Analysis of the odd mind of the Pro Lifer.
You make full common sense.
Thank you for all you have done.
LikeLike
July 12, 2011 at 8:53 am
Aborti makes full common sense? No, what he does is chant the same unfounded line over and over again.
You think we have “odd”minds?
That is strange coming from someone who has convinced themself that
slicing up preborn babies, ripping their arms and legs off, crushing their heads and sucking their brains out with a vacuum hose is moral and something to defend.
LikeLike
July 12, 2011 at 6:16 pm
Wow,
the more you write the crazier you write.
Yes, you are odd.
Most Pro Lifers do not agree with you.
Getting rid of birth control.
You are among the crazies.
LikeLike
July 13, 2011 at 6:37 am
Thank you, Alba. One of the interesing things about the so-called “pro-lifers” is that they likely pursue their mission as a compensation for deficits in their socio-economic status. Craig Seaton in “Activism and Altruism” showed how they are in general poorer and less educated, and have more children (less use of birth control, implying they don’t feel they can or should control their lives?) than people who are “pro-choice.” They make up for their self-perceived inferiority by creating a persona as a superhero for an invented “victim.”
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 1:58 pm
“The term “abortion” is so common place that it provokes almost no response.”
Absolutely right, d. I used to hold a sign, “An Abortionist Lives Here.” No response. So I changed it, “A Killer Lives Here.” Wow! Even though it usually ends this way, “Oh, you mean the doctor?” I get in plenty before they figure that out.
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 2:05 pm
Thought you folks from Allentown might be interested in this report:
An Allentown clinic is in trouble again.
mcall.com/news/local/mc-allentown-abortion-brigham-20110709,0,5629414,full.story
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 8:57 pm
Can you believe this Pro Life Terrorist Stalker?
After plastering one abortion provider’s face and name on “Wanted”-style posters all over Charlotte, N.C., anti-abortion rights activist Philip “Flip” Benham is not even allowed to repeat the doctor’s name thanks to a lawsuit brought on by the physician targeted on the posters, which reportedly read: “Wanted … By Christ, to Stop Killing Babies.” Benham, who directs the Concord, N.C.-based Operation Save America, was found guilty of misdemeanor stalking last week and sentenced to 18 months probation, according to The Charlotte Observer.
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 9:40 pm
The authorities finally caught up with that Pro Life stalker.
What a loser.
LikeLike
July 12, 2011 at 6:18 pm
Of coarse no Pro Lifer has a comment . . . .
Those cretins . . .
LikeLike
July 12, 2011 at 1:24 pm
And that story is about Doctor Steve Brigham, the doctor who put out that “help wanted” ad. He is like a cockroach, you almost can’t stamp him out.
LikeLike
July 12, 2011 at 10:54 pm
He definitely seems slimy!
LikeLike
July 12, 2011 at 4:13 pm
All you killers’ helpers, and d, there’s going to be a protest Sat. at 10 a.m. outside Brigham’s mill on Hamilton Blvd, in Allentown. I’ll be there. Introduce yourselves to me.
LikeLike
July 12, 2011 at 6:20 pm
She is probably too busy figuring a way to not paying taxes . . .
LikeLike
July 12, 2011 at 10:53 pm
Sorry but I’m like twelve states away or something. But you guys have fun 🙂
LikeLike
July 13, 2011 at 3:51 am
Some of the AI’s will be there. They work for him.
LikeLike
July 13, 2011 at 9:35 am
Really? Are you serious? They work for that quack? If this is true. Al’s you guys should be ashamed to even show your face claiming to care about women and their lives while working for this guy that doesn’t even properly sterilize the instruments.
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 9:07 pm
Roe v Wade stands.
We shall never allow the self determination of women to be voted out of a woman’s individual control.
R v W will enter it’s 5th decade shortly.
The precedent is set.
Women will always have access to Abortion. Hopefully, those who choose to make decisions for others will be gone in a generation and they will keep their legislation off our bodies and Abortion can remain safe and inexpensive.
We shall overcome the oppression by radicals that want to take away suffrage, birth control, or our ability to control our own bodies.
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 9:42 pm
Ms. Carvin,
You may consider me a disciple.
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 10:08 pm
You may consider me as one as well!
I am sick of these Pro Lifers trying to tell me what I can and cannot do with my body.
Like what FDA approved medicines I can use for Birth Control.
Their brains are mush if they think they are going to vote away birth control!
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 9:45 pm
“”We shall overcome the oppression by radicals that want to take away suffrage, birth control, or our ability to control our own bodies.”
rad·i·cal (rd-kl)
adj.
1. Arising from or going to a root or source; basic: proposed a radical solution to the problem.
2. Departing markedly from the usual or customary; extreme: radical opinions on education.
3. Favoring or effecting fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions: radical political views.
4. Linguistics Of or being a root: a radical form.
5. Botany Arising from the root or its crown: radical leaves.
6. Slang Excellent; wonderful.
n.
1. One who advocates fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions: radicals seeking to overthrow the social order.
Radicals: Someone who cares about unborn humans and not just their own body enough to be outside the sleeping norm and try to do something about their horrid deaths in spite of liberal society’s hate for them.
Sound like a compliment to me.
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 9:55 pm
DeAnna,
Sounds like you couldn’t take the powerful hammering Pro Lifers are dealt daily on this site.
People like you that want to get rid of birth control methods are a tiny minority in this country.
Ms. Carvin is correct. Don’t try and twist her words around. Come up with your own original ideas. You write like that American Flag burner, murderer worshipping Dunkle now.
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 11:21 pm
I don’t even know where the idea that I want to ban birth control comes from. What I said repeatedly was that I was against abortive types of birth control.
I didn’t twist anyone’s words. I quoted her.
That ‘powerful hammering’ as you call it that pro-lifers are dealt is nothing but unfounded accusations, name calling, a refusal to look at what someone really wrote and instead make up their own words and act like we said them, a refusal to answer any question we ask with a legitimate answer but rather with a snide remark, a refusal to acknowledge non-biased documentation or to even admit that the documentation proved them wrong. Instead they simply ignore it. So yeah, it’s frustrating trying to talk to people who can’t get past their agenda long enough to see facts.
Is it hammering? No! More like a fly buzzing around my head.
LikeLike
July 12, 2011 at 12:17 am
It is all over this site.
You want to get rid of the majority of Birth Control.
You admit it multiple times.
Stop being so disingenuous.
From my reading you prolifers ARE getting hammered by pure rational and logical thinking.
My Goodness, your biggest supporter on this site adores murderers enough that he said he would adopt them as his son!
LikeLike
July 12, 2011 at 8:47 am
No I didn’t ! If i said it quote me, the entire post!
You have to think up lies to spread because you have nothing intelligent to say to answer me. So unless you can prove I said it then it stands as a lie!
ONCE AGAIN, WHAT I SAID WAS THAT I DIDN’T AGREE WITH BIRTH CONTROL THAT CAUSES ABORTIONS! AND THIS IS WHY I AM CALLED PRO-LIFE,BECAUSE I DON’T AGREE WITH ABORTIONS! get it?
I also said that there are plenty that do not and I plainly stated that I was not anti-birth control.
LikeLike
July 12, 2011 at 1:22 pm
Just so you can clarify, Deanna: what forms of birth control DO you support?
LikeLike
July 12, 2011 at 10:49 pm
Pat,
Any kind that doesn’t cause abortions.
LikeLike
July 13, 2011 at 6:29 am
Notice the focus on abortion. She doesn’t bother to learn about the different methods, the rates of effectiveness or availability, etc. She’s just against the ones that “cause abortion.”
LikeLike
July 13, 2011 at 9:37 am
I know the types.I am just not going to bother with spelling them all out for you so that you can nit pick it to death. No interest or time for that nonsense.
LikeLike
July 12, 2011 at 6:22 pm
Trish,
Hammer those insane Pro Lifers!
I would love to see their IQs compared to Pro Choice individuals, I bet it is significantly less!
LikeLike
July 12, 2011 at 10:50 pm
So how much intelligence exactly does it take to kill a baby?
LikeLike
July 13, 2011 at 1:27 pm
Radicals: Someone who cares about abortion enough to try peddle the image of a fetus as anunborn human, but does not care about the born baby; someone who chooses to be frantically concerned over “saving” an entity he COULDN’T care for even if he wanted to (e.g., “rescue” his victim from malnutrition or drug abuse); sonmeone who fancies himself a hero in hopes that he will gain fanme after death (e.g., Scott Roeder, Paul Hill, Bozo the Clown). Sounds like a compliment to me.
LikeLike
July 13, 2011 at 10:47 pm
Elena,
You are great!
Thanks!
LikeLike
July 11, 2011 at 11:03 pm
Elena,
you have my vote!
LikeLike
July 12, 2011 at 9:24 am
Yeah everybody vote for the one who believes that slicing up preborn babies, ripping their arms and legs off, crushing their heads and sucking their brains out with a vacuum hose is moral and something to defend.
Become her disciples, let her teach you all about how that is ok.
She said “Hopefully, those who choose to make decisions for others will be gone in a generation”
According to this May 23, 2011 Gallup POll (FYI. the nations leading non-biased polling organization) the majority of Americans are pro-life with 61% believing that all or most abortions should be illegal.
gallup.com/poll/147734/Americans-Split-Along-Pro-Choice-Pro-Life-Lines.aspx
Also, Americans age 18-29 are trending towards being more pro-life with 51% stating they wand abortion illegal under most circumstance (legal only under certain circumstances). According to Gallup this age group is roughly tied with seniors in their stand on abortion.
gallup.com/poll/126581/Generational-Differences-Abortion-Narrow.aspx
So, unless you plan on killing off 51% of 18-29 year olds, 53% of 30-49 year olds, 55% of 50-64 year olds , and 59% of those 65 and over you are still going to have a fight on your hands.
To quote Gallup directly “At the same time, young adults are now roughly tied with seniors as being the most likely age group to favor having abortion “illegal in all circumstances.”
Since abortion support peaked in the early 90’s it has gradually gone downhill with each new generation. I believe that this is because technology has allowed us to see that what abortion supporters once called “only tissue” is now known to the average American to be a fully human pre-born baby. Most people are not so cold as to look at it and say it’s ok to brutally rip it apart.
LikeLike
July 12, 2011 at 6:23 pm
Who is this nutty person?
I cannot believe it is a real individual, they speak so stupidly!
LikeLike
July 12, 2011 at 8:10 pm
What’s nutty about it? I provided documentation to prove what I said.
LikeLike
July 12, 2011 at 4:31 am
Elana Carvin, where you been? I love it when you’re around because you write things like this: “those who choose to make decisions for others will be gone in a generation.” Sounds, doesn’t it, as if you’re talking about those who sterilize themselves and help kill the children of others like them?
But no! Turns out you’re wishfully thinking about those of us who would never think of poisoning, or cutting out, our fertility. And who would take a baseball bat to someone someone with a knife approaching one of our children.
You are absolutely my best argument! Even better than Chuckles. Even better than Kate. Well, maybe not actually better than Kate.
LikeLike
July 12, 2011 at 12:45 pm
it seems that none of them have problems cutting pre-born babies into pieces, tearing off their arms and legs, crushing their heads and sucking their brains out with a vacuum hose. They think this is acceptable and moral and that we are the nuts because we don’t like that. It’s a crazy world we live in!
I suppose though that the people who didn’t like the massacre of the Jews were labeled as nuts and the people who spoke out against slavery as well. Of course they will bring up the argument of how those don’t compare since the baby is a parasite and all and how they own the baby because it is in their body. But slave owners though they owned the slaves too and Hitler, he thought he and the Germans were all that and could snuff out the Jews because they were less than them. Those Germans with their sense of superiority to other humans convinced themselves that it was logical to kill the unworthy ones. They ripped children from their mothers arms and killed them with no compassion, no sense of remorse, only arguments as to why it was justified. Sounds pretty familiar to me.
LikeLike
July 12, 2011 at 1:26 pm
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
LikeLike
July 13, 2011 at 6:13 pm
That’s the only thing I have against you, Pat. You fall asleep when you should stay awake.
LikeLike
July 12, 2011 at 1:55 pm
I get the fact that you see slavery, hitler and abortion as familiar and/or the same. But clearly this perspective is a reductionist one. If you cannot understand or don’t know the socio-political underpinnings of slavery and the Nazis, which you seem to imply by the nature of your rhetoric, how, then, can you assume abortion as something familiar? The historical and political forces were entirely different for slavery and the Nazi regime. The comparisons are an egregious affront to Jews and to African Americans.
LikeLike
July 12, 2011 at 4:02 pm
Kate, she can’t be a hero if she isn’t fighting a danger equivalent to slavery or fascism. We have all seen how she can’t even refer to the scientifically correct term, “fetus.” It’s poor PR: “Hi, I’m a fighter for fetuses.” Doesn’t resonate. “I’m a fighter for the innocent unborn.” Much better! Much easier sell to the public.
LikeLike
July 12, 2011 at 4:05 pm
Translation: you don’t know enough about the topic to judge. An equivocal response would be, no, you don’t. Kate — no, you don’t. Us — no, you don’t, you don’t, you don’t . . .
That’s Kate’s argument all right. She tries to hide what she’s saying with words like “perspective,” “reductionist, “socio-political underpinnings,” “nature of your rhetoric,” “historical and political forces,” and “egregious affront,” but the banality of her message cannot be hidden.
It’s no affront to be compared to other innocent victims. The comparison that really egregiously affronts Kate is the one between her and a Nazi..
LikeLike
July 12, 2011 at 6:24 pm
Kate,
you are sooooo right.
LikeLike
July 12, 2011 at 7:51 pm
No they aren’t. I have Jewish blood in me and I am the mother of an African American son so I have full rights to comment the way I do. It isn’t an affront if you accept the fact that innocent people were bought and sold and killed at another’s whim. In that respect it is the same.
LikeLike
July 12, 2011 at 7:52 pm
Sorry this is deanna logged in on Dwanna’s computer.
LikeLike
July 12, 2011 at 8:00 pm
Ok Here I am.
As I was saying….No they aren’t. I have Jewish blood in me and I am the mother of an African American son so I have full rights to comment the way I do. It isn’t an affront if you accept the fact that innocent people were bought and sold and killed at another’s whim. In that respect it is the same.
LikeLike
July 13, 2011 at 8:21 am
Dang, d, I have Jewish blood in me too! And I tried to persuade my children to marry African Americans.
LikeLike
July 13, 2011 at 1:19 pm
“Jews Without Mercy.” Earl Shorris,author.
LikeLike
July 13, 2011 at 6:16 pm
Chuck, you know I never go where you tell me. Talk to me, Chuck. I want to hear from you.
LikeLike
July 12, 2011 at 4:04 pm
Yeah, butchered little baby bits. There is no small number of people who wished I’d met my end that way. Thank you for helping make their lives miserable!
LikeLike
July 13, 2011 at 10:16 am
i agree with you that roe v wade will stand.
despite personhood laws which are nothing more than an attempt to overrule it, and will prevent women from getting the prenatal health care that they need out of fear of imprisonment if something goes wrong in the pregnancy, i don’t think roe v wade will go away.
HOWEVER, access is a different matter altogether.
roe v wade didn’t guarantee access any more than the gabachos’ 15th amendment guaranteed access to the polls without poll taxes.
that is why women in the US still die at the hands of butchers like gosnell or from trying to self-abort.
it doesn’t seem to me like much has changed since roe v wade.
LikeLike
July 12, 2011 at 1:35 pm
You all should go find a work to do. So much time wasted in front of a pc.
And worse is that no matter what you say abortion will keep being legal. So stop wasting your time. Get a life.
LikeLike
July 12, 2011 at 6:28 pm
Agreed. These people have nothing better to do.
They could be helping children in need.
In stead the waste their time and money, and not paying taxes to NOT HELP any children.
LikeLike
July 12, 2011 at 8:06 pm
Before you assume that I’m not helping children in need you should go read either the comments that show what I do or read the about me section on my blog. Then you will at least realize that your accusations are unfounded.
But, even if I were doing absolutely nothing it would be better than you spending your time advocating for the killing of unborn babies.
LikeLike
July 12, 2011 at 8:04 pm
That’s funny that you tell me to “get a life” while I am trying to “save a life”. This is having a life. At least I’m not killing one.
LikeLike
July 13, 2011 at 8:51 am
I just saw the picture that was added in here… and i am so sorry to say that i think that is so funny… I am sorry Deanna, but we spend so much time in here debating if it is right or wrong to have an abortion and, forgive me the subject, sometime between today and sunday a momnster will get off jail cleared of any charges of killing her daughter… Yeah yeah yeah i know they didn’t prove how the girl died, but for sure they prove she was the last one to be seeing with the little girl… and what happen? F……… nothing…
Yes, abortion is something that bothers me somehow, as always, i stay on the top of a fence when talking about abortion, i have my believes, but to let go a killer is something more outrageous for me… i just had to say, sorry!
LikeLike
July 13, 2011 at 10:02 am
It is outrageous that she got off free. It makes me angry. But it also makes me angry that millions of other innocent children die. It just goes to show that there is an overall moral dysfunction in our society in general and specifically in our judicial and legislative branches.
LikeLike
July 13, 2011 at 10:13 am
EXACTLY!
Well said!
LikeLike
July 13, 2011 at 1:11 pm
What do you mean when you say there is a “moral dysfunction” in our legislative branch? Where exactly are you seeing that? Does that apply to every Member of Congress or just the “pro-aborts?”
LikeLike
July 13, 2011 at 8:05 pm
It should be the pro life side with the dysfunction, kate has put it very well but in this comparing these people to Ted Bundy and putting a ” Marylyn Manson” juxtaposition on it isn’t right these are actual people performing a very well valued procedure that not only saves money but saves lives as well these women could not possibly suffer through the situational failures that so many idiotic reality television shows and wing do religious crack nuts suspensefully condemn onto people its not cool, i had people come to my door and hand me pamphlets saying save your babies its insane..
LikeLike
July 13, 2011 at 9:22 pm
To be honest with you I think that many, not all but many, are a bunch of suits that do what works for them and their special interest groups instead of the nation as a whole. I think many are a bunch of crooks feeding off the people with absolutely no idea of what it’s like to be a common American. They lie, cheat, and do whatever it takes (in a bad way) to get what they want accomplished. I think pork, special interest trade offs, paid lobbyists and the rest of the legal but immoral junk that goes on should be outlawed. I think the Supreme court and federal judges have been given entirely too much power. Way over what the constitution ever intended. We are no longer by the people, for the people. We are ruled by a panel of 7 instead of the voters and by federal judges who block this law or that based on their single interpretation of the law. It was never meant to be that way. Our system of checks and balances no longer works. It is basically a political war and whoever can lie the best wins. So to answer your question,no. It isn’t just the pro-choice congress that is a mess. It’s all of it. There are a few coming up that seem to have some integrity so we will see. I hope that I am right. With all of that complaining I just said I will add this though. If I have to pick between someone who passes liberal laws to kill unborn babies and one who passes laws to protect them. I will vote for the latter, even if they are both crooks.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 11:56 am
So, are you saying that the pro-life movement should not have any lobbyists?
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 3:17 pm
I don’t think paid lobbyist are appropriate. It puts everything on an unfair footing. Organizations that have the money to send high powered lobbyists in there get what they want. You know that. You can buy a congressman off with a fancy trip somewhere and a ride in a limo. It’s all a big disgusting political game. You were in D.C. you know what I am talking about.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 1:53 pm
What if the latter also starts pre emptive wars and kills hundreds of thousands of children?
Would you still vote for that person?
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 3:20 pm
So my choices are A) Some guy that believes that the murder of 43 million unborn babies is acceptable or B) Some guy thats trigger happy?
I would vote for the one that would cause the least deaths possible. Trigger gets my vote because to me the 43 million are the same as the others. There are just more of them.
LikeLike
July 13, 2011 at 3:19 pm
How can the “innocents” who are born and unborn be compared and contrasted? The unborn, as human entity with potential, have been amply considered on this blog. And, with this particular article, focused on grotesque imagery, the conversation has once again turned back to the issue of morality while also comparing abortion to the Holocaust and slavery. Morality, as an ideal, is clearly a key consideration for those who believe in the seamless garment protecting all life. But, in the real world, morality is situational. Yet, adults and children, born innocents, in the real world, have been and continue to be killed while pro-lifers dwell on the miniscule fetal abortion then compare it to state-sanctioned genocide. Deanna repeatedly uses grotesque imagery in her words like, slicing up preborn babies, ripping their arms and legs off, crushing their heads and sucking their brains out with a vacuum hose. But where’s the grotesque imagery for the Holocaust and slavery?
Remember the permanent tatooing of Jews, their shaved heads, the heinous medical experiments on live children’s eyes, the adults who were disemboweled while alive, the tanning of human hides, the depravity of mass killings in gas chambers and the profanity of the mass graves? Torture, killing? Yes. By the millions.
Remember slavery with the squalid conditions where African adults and children were branded with hot irons on their arms or under their breasts, who died of dysentery or starvation in ships, who sustained beatings and whippings leaving permanently raised scars, and, even after slavery ended, the picnics that whites had during public lynchings of Blacks during Jim Crow, the banishment of entire Black neighborhoods and subsequent theft of their homes and land? Torture, killing? Yes. By the millions.
Where’s the outrage over the killings in Vietnam or in the current state-sanctioned killing called Afghanistan, Iraq, or Pakistan? Remember napalm, agent orange and its deadly effects on tens of thousands? Or think about the impact of depleted uranium on civilians and military. Think about the Gulf War Syndrome which has killed and is killing close to one million adults (and causing leukemia and birth defects in their offspring) and children with symptoms that range from physical to emotional problems. Torture, killing? Yes. By the millions.
Today, abortion is a personal decision that is both legal and safe. As a part of health care, abortion is not state-sanctioned nor targeted toward one ethnicity or religion. And while there are those who criticize abortion as wrong, it is nonetheless a known necessity when the mother’s life is in danger. All other reasons for abortion, reasons that have been glibly labeled social or convenient, seem to be the pro-life’s core argument against abortion. Yet, as the ferocity of the debate against abortion continues, our government continues to kill innocents, women and men and children, in other countries for nefarious reasons or due to “collateral damage”. Our greedy corporations kill innocent adults and children with harmful products or dangerous workplaces within our own country and elsewhere.
If killing is wrong, if harming a human life is wrong, then it should be wrong in all circumstances. It should be as wrong to kill a born Kurdish woman drawing water at a well in Iraq as it is to kill an unborn black male in Milwaukee. But wrongness is situational. It’s so easy to wail incessantly about killing an unborn and conveniently forget the millions who were/are killed, tortured and maimed, who left/leave behind families, friends and co-workers. It’s also so easy to dwell on the fetus and forget the woman in the body, the woman who is deserving of her life and how she chooses to live it.
LikeLike
July 13, 2011 at 9:53 pm
Kate,
miniscule fetal abortion? really? You think the dead babies are miniscule?
This is the very thing that I am talking about. How is it that you as a human being have gotten yourself to the point that you think the death of another human is miniscule?
Also, you said, “Deanna repeatedly uses grotesque imagery in her words like, slicing up preborn babies, ripping their arms and legs off, crushing their heads and sucking their brains out with a vacuum hose. But where’s the grotesque imagery for the Holocaust and slavery?”
I use this imagery intentionally as I am sure you suspected. The reason I do that is because it is easy to hide behind terms like “abortion”, “products of conception” and “contents of the uterus”. I want you to never forget what it is that you really do because hopefully one day it will click with you that what I am saying is the truth and reality. Kate, THIS IS WHAT YOU DO! You do this to another human being and you have so deceived yourself that you not only justify it to yourself but try to justify it to others. But the reality is there IS NO justification for it.
Also, you said, “Morality, as an ideal, is clearly a key consideration for those who believe in the seamless garment protecting all life. But, in the real world, morality is situational.” Unfortunately you are right on this one. Morality is situational. But it shouldn’t be. At one time there were moral absolutes but in our quest to be free we have even freed ourselves from morality. As a society we have lost moral absolutes, I admit that. But the basic (should be)unmovable moral foundation is the unquestionable right that each person has to live without another killing them. This is why we pro-lifers say that a womans right to freedom over her body doesn’t trump the right of the baby to live. The foundational stone of freedom is the freedom to be alive and the foundational stone of morality is to not kill. These should be absolutes. But we have convinced ourselves that they don’t have to be.
As far as the other social injustices go and why there isn’t the outrage. I can tell you that from my perspective those things do anger me. I can guarantee you that had I been alive in slave days I would have been as loud and persistent as I am about abortion. But the abortion issue hits close to home because of my background. If you read the “about me” section of my blog that will help you make sense. of it. Also, as a Christian I know from scripture that abortion offends God. The scriptures are clear on it. Unless someone is taking scripture out of context and twisting it they have to admit this. In scripture he specifically says to be a voice for the voiceless and to speak up for those who are destined to die. Some are called to speak for those innocents in one area, others another. Mine happens to be to be a voice for the unborn. Also, the fact that I am loud about the one does not mean that I ignore the others.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 3:40 am
another masterpiece, into my September newsletter
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 3:46 am
September’s filled — October
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 11:59 am
You may have answered this somewhere, Deanna, but I can’t find it. Please tell me again exactly what kind of birth control you do support using? Thanks
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 3:13 pm
Any kind that does not cause abortions.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 6:18 pm
She is constantly evasive.
She has lost all credibility with me.
Why not name the Birth Control? What a moron.
I thought maybe their was a single Pro Lifer that finally make some sense, but alas that does not appear to be true.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 7:12 pm
I am not naming them because i don’t have the time or the energy to detail each one. Especially not since the only reason that you wan them detailed is so that you can pick it to death. I’m not interested in the marathon that would ensue. It’s an easy thing to figure out. If it causes abortions then I am not for it. Simple.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 1:55 pm
What about all the infanticide that God commands in the Bible, isn’t that worse than Abortion?
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 3:24 pm
No.
If you want to know why you can go to my blog (I say that as the risk of Kate accusing me of advertising) and read the page titled, “The Ultimate Choice”. It explains the reasons for that. It’s too long to post here.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 6:22 pm
Your God is the mass murderer of all time.
Infanticide, War, Misogyny, never-ending.
You worship a God that behaves worse than the Satan myth.
Infanticide!
God commanded it.
It is in the scripture. Most Christians acknowledge, and most Christian scholars acknowledge. But DeAnna has her own version. What a genius.
Not.
DeAnna,
Answer a question for once. If God commands Infanticide, and you say anything like that is wrong, then YOUR GOD is wrong, and a murderer.
Have some consistency. I am so sick of reading your BS.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 6:26 pm
Christians like DeAnna, are self righteous idiots.
Thank goodness they are in the minority.
They may be inhabited by a satanic being.
Everything she writes is full of bizarre magical thinking like a psychotic.
I don’t know why any of you bother reading her craziness.
She is friendly with that murderer loving, women harrassing
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 7:15 pm
If you want to truly understand why these things happened go to my blog and read the page titled, The Ultimate Choice. There is not room to detail it all here.
If you are sick of reading what I write then I have an answer for you. Stop reading it!
LikeLike
July 13, 2011 at 3:29 pm
Kate, addressing all those other issues you mention is too HARD! It’s too hard to campaign to get out of the Mideast; too hard to push for protection of civilians in the Sudan; too hard to set up adoptions for the hundreds of thousands of unadoptable children; too hard to campaign against the use of land mines; too hard to fight for mine safety; too hard to work for the right to a fair wage; too hard to push for health care for every American; too hard to work in a residential home for troubled teens; too hard to picket Koch Industries.
But’s it’s really easy to create an adorable, perfect victim; it’s easy to dupe the public into believing it’s a real child; easy to pout only as much time, money and effort into the project as you wanht, and to fold when you feel like it. And best of all, it’s easy to create a refulgent reputation for yourself while doo so little to actaully help anybody. Get real! You should be a so-called “pro-lifer.” You’d find life a lot easier. But maybe, not your conscience.
LikeLike
July 13, 2011 at 3:33 pm
I have to laugh at your comments because it reminds me of a prolifer named Joyce who thought it OK for young girls who became pregnant to use their situation as a part time job, meaning get paid to be pregnant then fork over the kid for a fee. Sounds like baby making business or prostitution?
LikeLike
July 13, 2011 at 8:51 pm
I have to laugh at your talk about issues being HARD. The prolifers want everyone to know how much they sacrifice year round, how much money they give, how much time they devote, how many children they help, how they help women with their clothes, food, apartments and cars. They are desperate to let everyone know how wonderful they are. Why else would they be on this blog if not to brag, to make themselves feel good about themselves.
Perhaps they would do themselves a favor by buying air time to celebrate more publicly how utterly selfless, moral and wonderful they are.
I hear so much talk from prolifers about all they do, all they sacrifice. Yet, millions of volunteers give their time and talents without the need to brag. What makes these fetal worshippers feel so different, so much more special?
LikeLike
July 13, 2011 at 10:10 pm
Kate,
The ONLY reason that I ever said what I do on this blog was because you guys brought up the same old line of “you have no right to say anything because you don’t take care of the born ones.” I was simply stating a fact that I do take care of them therefore I do have a right to speak on the unborns behalf. Aborti brings it up daily and instead of going over and over it I refer him to my blog for the very reason that you just said. If you think for a fraction of a second that I spend the time that I do on here to make myself “look good” you are very mistaken. Trust me, there are other things I could be doing. And frankly, I’m not trying to be antagonistic but i have to say this to make you understand, I couldn’t care less what you think about me or what I do or don’t do. I don’t need for you to “approve”or “dissaprove” of me. The only reason that I told it was to shut up the “you don’t do anything argument.” It’s quiet ridiculous to accuse someone of not doing something and then accuse them of bragging when they explain that they do stuff. It is not bragging but instead an answer to a question,specifically Aborti’s. Which, as I said, I have stopped answering because he keeps on and on chanting the same line that was answered.
You said, “What makes these fetal worshippers feel so different, so much more special?”
Fetal worshipers? Because we say don’t kill it we worship it? I guess those folks over at PETA worship the animals they protect. Huh? And the rainforest folks, they are worshiping the trees? The people that don’t want dolphins in the tuna, they are worshiping dolphins?
Also your remark at “we think we are special” is a feeble attempt to the focus off of the real issue which is that you kill babies for a living.As a matter of fact that is what that whole post was about.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 7:02 am
There’s no feeble attempt here, Deanna. I don’t work in abortion clinics. I know abortion happens just like SH*T happens. But I also know that you spend inordinate amounts of time sharing just how special you are, marketing your blog, selling readers on your awesomeness, and pushing (now and then) your version of religion. In other words, I’m not denying that abortion kills human life. We’ve been through that ad nauseum. I’m just pointing out your traits, as presented on this blog. In other words, your posts are a feeble attempt to show compassion for fetal beings while really enamoured with Deanna.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 9:37 am
What are you Aborti’s twin sister? That’s his absurd statement.
1)I market my blog because the very intention of it is to educate people on the realities of abortions so that perhaps they might choose to let their baby live. There would be no point if I didn’t market it.
2) You may not physically work in an abortion clinic but you fight for them to be able to do what they do so you just as well work in one. You are them.
3) My version of religion is who I am. So what if it comes out in conversations. I will not deny it nor pretend as if it isn’t valid to appease anyone. Also, I never brought my religion up for no reason. It has ALWAYS been in response to a direct question or an accusation or part of a legitimate on going conversation. So, what is it that you think I should do, refuse to answer the questions because Kate doesn’t like to talk about that part?
4) What “awesomeness” have I tried to sell readers on? Do you mean answering Aborti’s accusations that I do nothing. That’s not selling, it’s answering an accusation. Two HUGELY different things and you know it!
5)”Being enamored with DeAnna”? Really? I come on here and talk about dead babies so that you will stop killing them and that makes me enamored with myself? OK.
6) “Your posts are a feeble attempt to show compassion for fetal beings”.
WOW! “Fetal beings” as if they have no humanity whatsoever! They are fetal “beings” on the same level as an alien or something? WOW!
7) I have systematically torn down every argument for abortion that you guys have presented WITH non-biased documentation. Any neutral observer can see that. You guys have nothing to respond with that is in any way an intelligent answer so all that you and Aborti can come up with is “you like yourself too much.” This line of commenting was about pictures of dead babies. They are there in your face. You hate them because it reminds you of the truth but there is nothing you can say to defend it so all you have available to you is a lame pathetic attempt to make the focus be about DeAnna’s and other pro-lifers obsession with self.
Me : “You shouldn’t be killing those babies!”
You: “You talk about yourself too much”
Me: Doesn’t it bother you that you kill babies?”
You: “You brag about what you do!”
Me: The pictures of the dead babies are reality!”
You: This crusade is about YOU not the fetal beings”
Ok Kate and Aborti, whatever! I am obsessed with myself, my goal is to be in the who’s who of pro-lifers who’s who list.! Whatever! If that makes you happy hold onto it. Meanwhile I will keep pointing out the dead babies and you can continue to look away while chanting that DeAnna is arrogant or you can look them square in the face and admit what you are which is a human that advocates for the deaths of other humans. But make no mistake about it! Their blood is on your hands. You are responsible! And whether you believe it or not you will have to answer some day to your maker for it.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 9:41 am
I agree with Kate.
Anyone who wants to take away birth control options for women is not a good person in my mind.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 10:04 am
You should read what I actually said before you pretend to know.
What I said was that I was NOT against birth control. ONLY abortion! 1+1=2. If I am against abortion then ANYTHING that causes abortions would what I would be against. Therefore,I am against birth control methods that cause abortions ONLY!
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 12:44 pm
Deanna, I really enjoyed last night, but do you think it wise to hint to these people about it?
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 1:58 pm
You want to take away a lot of birth control, that is not a twist of words.
You are unapologetic about it. Thats what it is.
Simple.
The 1 + 1 = 2
comparison thing is stupid, that is hardly a comparison,
it harms your point.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 2:00 pm
DeAnna
So you are against GOD.
GOD causes more abortions, and ordered more infanticide than anyone in history.
That is hard to understand.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 3:27 pm
Aborti: Whatever!
Tim: Again, I refer you to my blog for that answer. It is too long to answer here. But, no God is not an abortionist.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 6:28 pm
Right,
God is more into War and Infanticide, I agree.
It’s all over the Bible.
Do you deny it?
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 6:31 pm
DeAnna,
Why so disingenuous?
The truth is the truth. God ordered the death of thousands, tens of thousands of babies.
You screwball Christians never cease to amaze me. You have lost all your ability to be believed on any level. Most Christians disagree with you!
LikeLike
July 13, 2011 at 3:54 pm
Kate, when I started RESPONSIBLE Right to Life back around ’83, I did a lot of research into teen pregnancy and found out the most effective way of preventing it was to PAY teens not to be pregnant; simple as that. And it didn’t have to be much– about four years ago in NY state, they ran a test of the concept and found out as little as $20 a month produced the desired results!
When you think of how much it costs society for a child to have a baby– check out the Abortion Store/Baby Store chapter– it makes great sense to have a sliding allowance from menarche to age 21 (after which, they’re mature enough to do without the dough). Spending as little as $5,000 per teen would prevent $500,000 in long-term costs over eight years.
It actually is based on the Depression-era Civilian Conservation Corps pay arrangements, in which $25 of the monthly $30 pay went to the family back home, quite a motivation for those young working men back then. Of course, this would be the girl’s money, and she could use it to help her family out. I peddled the idea; the local social services people were enchanted with it, but even though I gave it a label– The Virginity Clause– there simply wasn’t a legislator in the state who would back it. Which was a shame, because I know that it would have earned the admiration of editorial writers across the state as the teen birth rate fell near zero. I was so looking forward to a Christmastime editorial about it, titled “Yes, Santa, There Is A Virginity Clause.”
Any savvy political types out there want to promote it, I can tell you it’s got more potential that the unborn baby of a mandrake root addict.
LikeLike
July 13, 2011 at 4:16 pm
I knew it, I knew it, and I’ll take credit for it! I knew if I let this guy mouth his insanities (with only an occasional slap on the wrist), I knew he’d come up with something great! I saw the potential there from day 1. I won’t even ask why he kept running around in circles with his dogs, and his humanoids. and his Ted Bundies.
Chuckles, Chuckles, what a great idea. I’ll bet the political types ignored it because you tried to run circles around them too. No? Telll me what to do to help you out with this.
LikeLike
July 13, 2011 at 8:42 pm
John Dunkle, you cannot take credit for anything other than your own heroic morning dump because that’s all you are to humanity.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 3:59 am
A friend asks, “What is there about you, Dunkle, that brings out the worst in this lady?”
I say, “because I see potential there, just as I saw it with Chuck. She senses that too and the prospect of letting out her demon is frightening. So she (or he) screams bloody murder whenever I’m around.”
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 9:50 am
I think I might change my name!
LikeLike
July 13, 2011 at 10:36 pm
DeAnna,
If you could stop In Vitro Fertilization – because of the frozen embryos . . .
Would you?
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 9:54 am
Actually A very close person to me got pregnant after adopting a frozen embryo. I can see the value in it. With that said, I think that protection for the embryo’s that are produced through IVF is appropriate. In my state if the parents decide that they don’t want the embryo’s they have produced through invitro they can be legally adopted. This is exactly what I think should be done. It should be illegal for them to be destroyed when the parents decide they are done but instead they should be placed for adoption. There are several adoption programs for embryos. One is Snowflake Embryo adoptions. This quote came from their website:
“In 1997, Nightlight began the Snowflakes® Frozen Embryo Adoption & Donation Program, which is helping some of the more than 400,000 frozen embryos realize their ultimate purpose – life – while sharing the hope of a child with an infertile couple.”
The purpose is to keep the frozen ones from being destroyed. This is actually a movement in the pro-life field.
So, to answer your question. I think that IVF is useful but I also think that it needs to be done very carefully with regulations to protect the embryo’s.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 12:40 pm
So, do the snowflakers pay to ave storage facilities built and maintained, supplied with electricity and staffed by competent professionals, or do they just agitate to have others take care of those petty details, like the run of the mill so-called “pro-lifers”? Do they hold funeral and burial services for embryos that don’t make the cut? Do they publish a directory of the embryo cemeteries around the nation?
Not to disparage mouse breeders, for whom I have a lot of respect, but this doesn’t seem to be up to the level of a mouse breeding associaton.
I will grant it’s a great exercise in romanticism, and if they do any of the above, they’re much more engaged than the others of their ilk…
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 1:33 pm
Who is going to adopt embryos with Cystic Fibrosis?
or one of the other many genetic disorders?
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 4:18 pm
probably some of the perpetual list of between 300-500 families waiting to adopt children with these same maladies from CHASK, an adoption agency for special needs babies.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 4:41 pm
So why are they still sitting there?
Why don’t the Pro Lifers get off there butts and adopt these frozen embryos before they die?
The Pro Lifers unwilling and delaying to gestate these embryos are actually causing the death of these embryos that they consider babies!
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 5:18 pm
because as I said, most do not know about this option. That it even exists. It is a relatively new option.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 6:34 pm
It’s been around for years!
Anyone in reproductive technologies knows that.
You Pro Lifers talk a lot. But when it comes to saving frozen embryos you do not do squat.
Pro Lifers are sickening, and so pathetically predictable when they lie, misrepresent the truth and try and take away the basic rights of women to items like simple Birth Control.
DeAnna you are one of those horrible prolifers that knows nothing, revealed in your endless writings.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 7:21 pm
Jilly, The option to legally adopt an embryo is NOT old. My state was the first to pass this law and that only happened recently. Word is getting out slowly about this option but it is NOT common knowledge to a lot of people. I informed a VERY pro-life friend about it the other day and she had never heard of it. They know about IVF but not that some embryos are adoptable.
LikeLike
July 16, 2011 at 8:42 pm
DeAnna is full of it again.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 1:39 pm
Why are there ANY Embyos still frozen, if Pro Lifers can adopt them?
The embryos will eventually die. They don’t stay frozen forever without suffering some damage or demise.
Being frozen must not be very pleasant either for those sacred little babies (or cells of potentially future babies)?
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 3:33 pm
To be honest with you the concept of adopting them is relatively new and few people even know about it but it is growing. A few states recognize them as legal adoptions but only recently took that position. The do stay viable for a very long time, years in fact so hopefully as word gets out more and more adoptions will take place.
Aborti: No the parents pay for the storage at the fertility centers. It is actually a big complicated deal to have them transported. They are best left alone until they are used by the parents or adopted.
LikeLike
July 13, 2011 at 10:59 pm
DeAnna
http://www.abortion.ws/iud/comment-page-1/#comment-30462
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 11:44 am
So you are proud that you took my statement out of context and posted it on another thread? And you think I have interest in going there and getting into an argument about it? No thank you! I have enough people on this thread taking my statements out of context and then trying to pick a fight with me over it to keep me entertained.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 2:08 pm
Poor, poor Deanna. People keep taking her statements out of context and trying to pick a fight.
But on the other hand, she did take things out of context, did she not, when she made assumptions and said to Gloria “So you are proud that you took my statement out of context and posted it on another thread? And you think I have interest in going there and getting into an argument about it?”
It’s a bitch when people use the same tactics, eh, Deanna?
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 3:36 pm
Anyone can see what Gloria was attempting to do.
You know what Kate I can tell clearly that you would love nothing better than to get into a personal ya-ya session with me. But I think I will pass on it. Have a nice evening.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 5:24 pm
What in the hell is a ya-ya session? Want to offer another of your dictionary posts that you are becoming so well known for?
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 6:15 pm
Perfect Kate,
DeAnna is a stain on anything logical.
She is an embarrassment to the educational status of the USA.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 7:23 pm
You haven’t heard of a ya-ya session? it means griping and whining and carrying on for no reason except you are in the mood.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 4:44 pm
Kate,
you are hammering these low life Pro Lifers hard!
I love reading your intelligent remarks!
Then they whine and walk away after losing a simple matter of logic.
Pro Life Thoughts + Human Brain = Mashed Potatoes
1 + 1 = 2
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 1:31 pm
DeAnna
did you answer the question about IUDs and I missed it?
or did you just evade the question about IUDs?
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 3:37 pm
I don’t remember a question about IUD’s? What was the question?
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 4:37 pm
There were a lot of questions.
But, I think, maybe it was something like,
If you could decide the legislation, would you (personally) take away a woman’s right to choose an IUD if she wanted to use one?
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 7:25 pm
IUD’s cause abortions so yes as a pro-lifer I don’t think they are appropriate.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 8:41 pm
DeAnna,
Look at the question!
Can you answer it?
You evaded again.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 9:49 pm
DeAnna,
If you could decide the legislation, would you (personally) take away a woman’s right to choose an IUD if she wanted to use one?
LikeLike
July 16, 2011 at 8:44 pm
DeAnna cannot answer a question!
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 9:35 am
In three new rulings, federal judges in different states have acted to block immediate enforcement of measures that restrict abortion rights and women’s access to affordable contraception, lifesaving cancer screenings and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases. These rulings are important victories for women’s health and reproductive rights.
Related
On June 24, Judge Tanya Pratt of the Federal District Court in Indianapolis issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of a new Indiana law banning the use of Medicaid funds at Planned Parenthood clinics, which provide essential health services to low-income women. The mean-spirited law is part of a Republican-led national campaign to end public financing for Planned Parenthood. The Obama administration promptly told Indiana, and other states weighing similar legislation, that the measure violated federal law by imposing impermissible restrictions on the freedom of Medicaid beneficiaries to choose health care providers. Judge Pratt agreed with that assessment in her decision.
In another ruling six days later, a federal trial judge in South Dakota issued a preliminary injunction blocking, on constitutional grounds, a deeply intrusive state law requiring women to wait at least 72 hours after an initial doctor’s visit before terminating a pregnancy — the longest waiting period in the nation. This law also requires that women seeking abortions endure counseling at so-called pregnancy help centers run by antiabortion activists with the aim of discouraging abortions.
“Forcing a woman to divulge to a stranger at a pregnancy help center the fact that she has chosen to undergo an abortion humiliates and degrades her as a human being,” Judge Karen Schreier wrote in her decision.
On July 1, Judge Carlos Murguia, a federal district judge in Kansas, blocked immediate enforcement of a new Kansas licensing law and health department regulations imposing extensive, medically unnecessary requirements on the state’s three remaining abortion providers — like mandating 50 square feet of storage space for janitorial supplies — with the obvious goal of shutting them down.
While these rulings are preliminary, each is a determination that enforcing the law would cause irreparable harm and that the plaintiffs are likely to prevail at trial. They do not, however, address other threats to women’s health. Those include the slashing of state support for family-planning services by governors like Chris Christie of New Jersey, and attacks from Congress like the bill Republicans pushed through the House in May that would use the nation’s tax system as a weapon to end abortion insurance coverage in the private market.
Still, these rulings serve as a reminder that courts have a vital role to play in blocking the extreme anti-abortion, anti-family-planning movement accelerating in the states and in Washington.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 9:58 am
Exactly why I said what I did to Pat about the federal judges having power that the constitution didn’t mean for them to have. Our system was meant to be about checks and balances. You can scroll up to see it the comment if you are interested.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 10:26 am
Pat,
That caption under that picture of the protesters holding the signs that say “Abortion Kills Children” cracks me up. Do you really think that it’s a bad thing for pro-life parents to indoctrinate their kids that killing babies is bad.
in·doc·tri·nate
[in-dok-truh-neyt] Show IPA
–verb (used with object), -nat·ed, -nat·ing.
1.
to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., especially to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.
Of course I am going to be “biased” and tell them that abortion is wrong. you don’t expect me to tell them it’s ok do you?
As far as brainwashing them goes. Children don’t have to be brainwashed. They in their innocence know full well that killing a baby is wrong. They abhor it. It’s not until they are older and they have been a victim of the pro-choice lies and propaganda do they begin to think differently.
One pro-life author was working on a book late one night and had pictures of aborted babies on her computer screen and her three year old came for a drink of water and snuck up behind her. As he saw the pictures he said “Who broke the baby?” That became the name of her book.
At three years old he knew what some have forgotten in their need to defend their “choice”. No, they don’t need brainwashing. They are intelligent! They know!
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 12:10 pm
We, as parents, are always “guilty” in some way of “indoctrinating” out kids. Heck, it’s no coincidence that mine are strongly pro-choice and are big New York Yankee fans. Duh….. On the other hand, I believe that I have always left those decisions up to them. Indeed, my 21 year old the other night went to a “Bible Study” class and I applauded him for it. The thing that has always bothered me, however, is when I saw those little four year old kids standing outside a clinic in Arizona in the 103 degree temperature holding the gross signs. I would never think about forcing (yes, that is forcing them) the kids to go out there. To me, that’ very close to indoctrination. Indeed, see the movie “Jesus Camp”. But, again, we’re all guilty of trying to persuade our kids somehow but I”m sure that, because we are pro-choice dvils/killer/etc. our way of handling the raising of our kids is the wrong way and yours is the right way…..
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 2:25 pm
Jesus Camp made my documentary films students cringe for the children who were being brainwashed. They obviously had never been indoctrinated to all the lies of the right wing christian, bible thumpers of the world. But there it was in all its radicalized glory parroting and regurgitating the idiocy of the camp leader and their home schooler parents.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 4:10 pm
This is interesting. Kate used to bring those documentary film students to the AWC, They obviously had been indoctrinated with all the lies of the right-and-left-wing anti-Catholics. And there they were, in all their radicalized glory, parroting and regurgitating the idiocy of their camp leader, Kate.
They didn’t last long, though, and Kate hasn’t been able to idiotize any new ones.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 4:46 pm
Kate,
you are hammering these low life Anti Abortionists hard with your powerful writing!
Good Job!
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 5:29 pm
The counter protest students from my college were not doc film or media-communication students. They were members of the Gay Straight Alliance and the Feminists Club and I am not their faculty supervisor even though I strongly support their work. Their appearance at the Center is at the permission of the Center and at the whim of the students’ schedules. I have very little influence on their decisions to protest but do support their prochoice, feminist ideology. And as a side note, several women in the feminist club are prolife. You see, at our school, we welcome open minds.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 2:32 pm
Kate,
I really enjoy what you write.
You are very sharp.
Thank you for defending women from the forked tongue of Pro Lifers.
I am intrigued by your ” my documentary film students . . . ”
Are you a documentary film maker?
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 2:34 pm
Where can one have the displeasure of watching this Jesus Camp thing?
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 2:53 pm
I wouldn’t let my four year old stand out there and hold a sign, neither would I my ten year old. They have never seen an abortion picture because I am trying to protect them from horribleness of it as long as I can. But I’m not going to fault people who do it. Maybe their kids can handle it. That photo where you put the caption didn’t have any graphic pics on it though. It simply said, “Abortion Kills Children” and “Pray to end abortion.”
I heard a story about a woman who was on the sidewalk holding a graphic abortion sign. She had her young daughter with her. A pro-choice demonstrator came over to her and yelled, “How dare you show this picture to your children”. The pro-life demonstrator replied, “How dare you DO THIS to your children.”
You gotta ask yourself which is worse.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 4:47 pm
Pro Lifer is worse, easy answer.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 5:12 pm
So showing a kid a pic of a dead baby is worse than killing that baby?
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 1:47 pm
But children are being taught that killing a single cell is wrong. They cannot understand that until they have had some education.
So many of these poor kids are brainwashed. They have no idea what is going on, they are just parroting and regurgitating the idiocy of their pro life parents.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 3:10 pm
A single cell? No, they are killing children all the way up to 36 weeks and beyond. They kill them at 24 weeks regularly. You should check out some fetal gestational pictures and educate yourself as to what really goes on in an abortion mill..Those aren’t single cells.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 4:35 pm
Again,
DeAnna,
Avoiding the question.
Kids are being taught that a single cell is a baby.
Are you not reading the questions and just having knee jerk responses.
I am really disappointed.
I thought you were above that.
Please prove me wrong and answer the questions?
I thought it was the soul thing with the early abortifacients.
If it is not that . . . then what is it?
Tx!
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 5:25 pm
I was not avoiding the question nor was it a knee jerk response. He was implying that aborted embryo’s are single cells. THEY ARE NOT. Clinics will not normally even do an abortion before 5 to 6 weeks. A medical abortion is earlier but it is still not a single cell. It is much larger and more formed than that. The morning after pill is not considered to be an abortion by many pro-lifers although there is some controversy on that. So the point is that children are NOT being told that single cells are abortions.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 6:39 pm
You need some help.
Abortifacients.
Abortifacients.
Abortifacients.
Killing a small number of cells.
Why cannot you answer a question.
You are worse than a torture chamber of discussion.
You have some massive logic missing in your mentation.
Even Dunkle could answer the question!
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 7:32 pm
Despite your awkward rudeness I will answer your question. Biology teaches that at the moment of conception a new distinct human life begins. Abortion kills it. So yes, if it is a human life then it has a soul.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 9:48 pm
Wow!
Why was that so hard to pull an answer out of you?
You should be a scumbag lawyer or politician, they are great at that answer evasion, plus you could make some serious $$$s.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 10:18 pm
Because your question wasn’t clear. Again,, no need for rudeness.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 1:50 pm
That is a good idea for another book:
“Who broke the cell?”
or
“Who broke the clump of cells”
or
“Who let the frozen embryo thaw?”
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 3:55 pm
So does a 20 week fetus look like a clump of cells to you? 12 weeks, 10 weeks? Clinics want even do an abortion until around the 5th week and thats not a clump of cells either.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 4:33 pm
Again,
I think you were threading a discussion on frozen embryos, a very limited number of cells.
Can you stick to the point, I really want to understand, and the more evasive you are the less I will be able to trust what I read that you write DeAnna.
Tx!
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 5:10 pm
I don;t understand what you are asking me. What am I being evasive about? I was answering Tim. Please ask your question and i will be glad to answer it.Thanks
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 9:44 pm
John,
could you help out DeAnna?
A question can only be asked so many times.
The answer is easy.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 1:22 pm
I agree with Pat… Yes we have to teach good things to kids but taking them to stand in front of a clinic is the same “in my opinion” to teach them to hate and whatever comes from hate is no good at all.!
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 3:46 pm
Sonia, Most people (I admit not all) are not protesting at clinics out of hate but rather out of compassion for the unborn baby and concern and compassion for the mother. It may look differently but if you were to go speak to one of the sidewalk counselors or protesters one on one and gave it a few seconds to get past the stand off that normally occurs you would find that they are some of the most compassionate people you will find. But there are others who are just mean but they are not the norm.
My favorite is a group called Bound 4 LIfe (you can google them) . They stand silently in front of the clinics, holding no signs, with red tape on their mouths that says LIFE across it. They are simply standing there praying being a silent voice for those who have no voice. Proverbs 31:8 ” “Speak up for people who cannot speak for themselves. Protect the rights of all who are helpless.”
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 4:29 pm
Do you support the activities of Pro Life terrorists?
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 5:08 pm
I don’t know any pro-life terrorists. I’m really not even sure what that term means. Define it.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 9:42 pm
What? So suddenly shy to look up the definition in the Dictionary, and place on the written page?
Why stop at this instance?
Again, you are disingenuous and untrustworthy.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 10:16 pm
oh really? In what way?
LikeLike
July 16, 2011 at 8:47 pm
DeAnna
You seriously do not have any idea what a pro life terrorist is?
Again, your inability to be genuine diminishes all your credibility.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 1:44 pm
Seriously, what is the bottom line with you Pro Lifers?
I just can’t get it.
Is it because you believe the soul suddenly appears at the moment of fertilization? Is that why the cell is so sacred to you Pro Lifers?
If you buy that story, I can sort of get where you are coming from. Is that the deal?
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 3:12 pm
Again, A single cell? No, they are killing children all the way up to 36 weeks and beyond. They kill them at 24 weeks regularly. You should check out some fetal gestational pictures and educate yourself as to what really goes on in an abortion mill..Those aren’t single cells.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 4:23 pm
Why do you call a Doctor’s office a Mill?
That seems like such a ridiculous word to place on Doctors offices . . . even if the doctor provides abortion services.
How does that make it a Mill?
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 4:31 pm
Calling it a “mill” makes it much more dramatic, a quality she needs to make her aborticentrism– a focus on abortion so great it excludes care for human life– more important. She can’t relate to the difference between the work protesters do at the Abortion Store and what’s needed at the exit of the Baby Store. The Baby Store is the “pro-lifer” cloaca.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 4:49 pm
Gotcha,
Thank you,
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 4:58 pm
Glad you got me so figured out!
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 4:28 pm
DeAnna,
Again,
seriously I am trying to understand,
1,2,4,8,16 cells, whatever.
I am trying to understand your issue with abortifacients.
Is it the soul thing that makes ProLifers think that is so wrong?
Maybe you misunderstood my question, I had some trouble posing it. I really want to understand, but you replied in a nasty tone, not answering the question, and talking about mills? I agree, what is the Mill thing all about?
A doctor gives his patient The Morning After Pill, and the Doctor is running a Mill? That reads so ridiculously.
Please help me understand you.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 5:02 pm
Because life begins at conception and the morning after pill is destroying that life.
The word MILL refers to the fact that abortion clinics run women through like cattle collecting money, abortion, next, collecting money, aborting, next, collecting money aborting next. It is run like a mill.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 4:50 pm
Karim, check out aborticentrism to find out why so-called “pro-lifers” NEED to believe an embryo has a soul. They’d much rather argue that it’s a human being already, because it’s easier for the general public to make the leap, human being= me, abortion= killing human being, abortion= killing me, and they have to sell the public on a Big Idea.
The Big Idea is that they are “rescuing” someone like you from death. Since you don’t want to die, you will be very likely to appreciate what they say they are doing.
But actually, there are two flaws in their PR campaign: A fetus needs a lot more than a heart and a pair of lungs before it is going to be anywhere close to what you are, and unless they commit to caring for it until it is a human adult, it runs terrible risks (see the stories about the Abortion Store and the Baby Store) of living an inhumane life.
But they are so fixated on abortion that their response to the challenge to care properly for a fetus is to say, “So you want to kill them?” They can’t get away from Death– it’s central to their way of thinking. You would think they would want to help children to learn how to live well, but they can’t make that step.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 2:29 pm
Are Anti-Abortion Groups Trying to Keep Women Away From the Polls?
Wisconsin held a special election on Tuesday, the first round of voting in the recall elections spurred by this spring’s union battle in the state. But some voters in Wisconsin received an automated “robocall” from Wisconsin Right to Life on Monday—the day before the election—informing them that they would be receiving an absentee ballot application for the upcoming recall elections in the “next few days” and urging them to use that form to vote by mail.
A source working on the special election provided Mother Jones with a recording of the voicemail, which the source believes was designed to confuse voters and keep them from the polls on Tuesday. Here’s the transcript of the message:
Hello, this is Barbara Lyons from Wisconsin Right to Life. I’m calling today to let you know that you will be receiving an absentee ballot application for the upcoming recall elections in the mail in the next few days. These recall elections are very important and voting absentee will ensure that your vote is counted and that we can maintain a pro-family, pro-life state senate. We hope that we can count on you to complete that application and send it back to us within 7 days. Thank you for your support. Wisconsin Right to Life can be reached by calling (877) 855-5007.
Lawrence Norden, the deputy director of the democracy program at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice, stopped short of deeming the robocall an attempt at voter suppression. But it’s clear the call’s script had the potential to confuse and mislead voters, Norden said. “To me it reads confusing enough that it could lead people to believe that they didn’t have to vote on Tuesday and that they could be getting something in the mail to vote absentee,” he argued. “It’s troubling that a confusing message like this would go out the day before an election.”
Lyons, the executive director of Wisconsin Right to Life, insisted in an interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that it was “absurd” to claim that the calls were intended to deter voters from going to the polls. “As best as we know,” Lyons added, the calls targeted her group’s supporters. (If so, Wisconsin Right to Life’s phone-banking list is far from perfect—the source who provided the recording to Mother Jones does not support the group.) On Wednesday, Lyons also penned a blog post about the robocall, calling the allegations of voter suppression “false and vicious.”
Jen Bluestein, the communications director for the national pro-choice electoral organization EMILY’s List, argued the calls could be part of a “new and desperate tactic” to keep advocates of reproductive rights from heading to the polls. Bluestein pointed to ads the National Republican Trust political action committee ran in California last week criticizing Democrat Janice Hahn (who won on Tuesday) as “divisive” for citing the Republican candidate’s anti-abortion record. The executive director of the National Republican Trust PAC told Politico that the point of the ad was to get pro-choice voters to “stay home.”
“They are so desperate to deny women care wherever they can, they’re targeting women and lying to them to prevent them from voting, because they know their radical candidates can’t win if Democratic women come to the polls,” Bluestein said.
Whatever the real intention of the Wisconsin ads, they should probably raise some red flags, says NYU’s Norden. “Certainly if it wasn’t intended as a voter suppression method, then Wisconsin Right to Life should review both its methods and is practices and refrain from doing something like this in the future,” he said.
UPDATE: Tova Wang, a senior democracy fellow with the group Demos, also weighed in via email, declaring the robocalls “extraordinarily fishy,” at best. “Robocalls like this have become a main feature of the vote suppression industry for the last couple of election cycles, which makes me more suspicious,” said Wang. “A political consulting firm in Maryland is being sued by the attorney general for doing something very similar in last year’s gubernatorial election. I hope the Wisconsin authorities investigate this.”
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 3:03 pm
Wisconsin Right to Life is at the cutting edge of where all the so-called “pro-life” groups are heading– away from “direct action” at clinics and into suborning polticians and corrupting the political process, very much like the C STreeet Family, the “Fellowship.” (Read either of Jeff Sharett’s books about them.)
“Jesus Camp” is available from many sources, and it is quite dispassionate in its analysis of the crypto-fascist religious right. The saddest part of the whole movie is at the very end, where the camp director, driving around that Missouri town, mutters about America going to hell. It’s clear how her darkling vision infects the whole camp agenda. We have a local pastor up here who had a transforming experience “in North Dakota.” I fear to ask him what it was.
The underlying, tectonic, flaw in the position of people who call themselves “pro-life” is revealed in so many different ways in their arguments, for example:
1. That God is against abortion (let’s not even go into whether there is a God or that the God Who Is is in the least what they claim “Him” (note: never a Her) to be).
2. That there is no progress in the making of a “human life.” Conceived human, it doesn’t need to learn how to think, reflect, speak, behave or vote. No nurturing necessary!
3. Nor does it need their protection: “someone else” or “God’s inscrutable plan (the “scrutum of God” argument?) will protect the born baby.
4. That they think the only way to prevent the next Green River Killer is to abort him; no thought for nurturing the abused, forgotten, developmentally delayed or otherwise disadvantaged child.
4. That the fetus is “innocent” and freighted with a fair number of other sentimental terms.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 4:11 pm
Attacking religion now are we? low, real low!
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 4:27 pm
Since I’ve become a Pastafarian, I’ve actually gotten a lot more tolerant of other people’s gods. Mine didn’t put two children into a play room with lots of toys along the walls and the Tickle Me Elmo all by itself in the middle, then say to them, “You can play with any toy here–” and then point dramatically to Tickle Me Elmo– “except THAT one!” What sort of a god would do that? Well, one who performs abortions, but whose followers claim He hates abortions.
It makes sense….
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 4:41 pm
The kind of God that wanted to be obeyed does that.
God is not an abortionist. Read the article on my blog if you wanna know why. NO KATE, I’m not advertising. Just trying to save room because it’s lenghty.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 4:51 pm
But he orders infanticide in the Bible, it is all over the place!
What is the deal with that?
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 4:59 pm
The presence of chorionic gonadotropin is detectable on the eighth day of pregnancy, when the embryo is implanted in the uterine wall. Virtually every woman who “misses a period” or has a “delayed period” is actually undergoing an abortion. She has not gone to a clinic. She has not taken a home remedy. She hasn’t even known she’s pregnant and become ready to have an abortion. She has undergone an experience in which the embryo is separated from the uterine wall, and the separator is none other than your deity. Ergo, God performs abortions, Q.E.D. And about 3.5 million of them, if you accept that sex in America happens on an average of once every five seconds and one out of ten acts of sexual congress results in a successful pregnancy… I’m not going to quote the source; it’s a lot more titillating if you look it up yourself!
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 5:05 pm
No, women loose pregnancies because our bodies are not perfect. As I have said before it is the state of fallen man. If man had not fallen our bodies would work perfectly. It is the result of the sin of mankind.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 8:25 pm
You’re so right, Deanna. You’re not advertising. You’re marketing yourself. Know the difference between marketing and advertising. You’re no different than the snake oil preacher man who sells his version of God. Only now you have technology to help you market your brand. “Here I am. I’m Deanna Parker. Read my blog. Go back and read what I said. Like I’ve said before, read my comments. PAY ATTENTION TO ME, GODDAMNIT!
And, yes, your god is an abortionist. He killed your fetuses/feti/babies/children. Deal with it. You’re not perfect nor are any of the rest of us.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 10:11 pm
I never said I was perfect. What I said was that innocent babies shouldn’t die. Apparently that makes you guys so angry and offended that you lash out in every way imaginable. You should ask yourself the question as to why that is. If you are so sure and so happy with your “choice” then why do you get so mad when someone questions it? I don’t get mad when people say I shouldn’t be pro-life because I am sure of my stand. But you get angry. someone once said that all anger is the result of an underlying fear. What are you afraid of?
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 9:40 pm
DeAnna,
from your comments here, why would anyone bother reading your drool on your site. You cannot even answer the simple questions here.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 10:06 pm
What did I not answer? Please be detailed and quote me and I will try my best to answer it.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 4:01 pm
Karim Says: Seriously, what is the bottom line with you Pro Lifers? I just can’t get it. Is it because you believe the soul suddenly appears at the moment of fertilization? Is that why the cell is so sacred to you Pro Lifers?
Dunkle Says: Yes
Karim Says: If you buy that story, I can sort of get where you are coming from. Is that the deal?
Dunkle Says: Yes
(Your turn, Karim)
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 4:53 pm
John,
Thank you for answering the question for me.
If you believe that I understand better where you are coming from.
I do not know why DeAnna had such a hard time with it. It is torture trying to get the simple answer out of her.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 4:24 pm
Looks like this site has been finally hijacked by “Deanna and Dunkle”…..
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 4:42 pm
Well, they get a hearing here that so-called “pro-lifers” would cut off on their blogs; I think it says a lot for the “pro-choice” mentality that opposing views, even when they’re offensive to logic and standards of decency, are allowed.
An interesting thing is Deanna’s productivity. From personal experience I know it takes about five minutes to compose a six-sentence paragraph. She is prolific! You can go through her posts here and see how many hours she has spent writing. You can also check out her own site and come away awed. It looks like she spends about four hours a day at the keyboard on the topic of abortion! Which gives rise to two questions: 1) Is she a collective (like the authors of the Nancy Drew and Hardy Boys series)? 2) Who’s taking care of the kids during those four hours?
I was a single parent and never had four hours a day away from my kid, unless he was at school or on vacation.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 4:55 pm
1st you attack my religion and now my parenting. Wow! You just don’t hold back do you?
It’s summertime and my kids are doing exactly what kids are supposed to be doing in the summer. Swimming, riding bikes, watching cartoons, reading books and playing with legos. Although yesterday we did go to a friends house who had a home birth just in time for her to give birth to a beautiful 10 pound baby boy. Life is good!
But I can give you a little hope. School starts in a few weeks and since I’m one of those home school freaks I won’t have near the time I have now. So just hold on for a little while and all of this hard to digest truth will ease up on you.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 5:34 pm
So just hold on for a little while and all of this hard to digest “religious lies and prolife propaganda” will ease up on you
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 6:02 pm
Did I write any lies or propaganda? If I did then provide non-biased documentation to prove it. Otherwise your comment is unfounded.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 8:41 pm
Just like all the BS prolife lies you use and the so-called neutral/objective nonsense you cite, you don’t know shit from shinola when it comes to objective. You try, valiantly. But you clearly don’t know. For a southern gal with a small town mindset, you’re a brainwashed middle aged woman. You’re articulate, most of the time, but you miss the bigger picture. Of course, you will likely think that those who are prochoice miss the bigger picture. Maybe so.
But maybe, just maybe, those of us who are prochoice embrace the value of women, even women like you. Maybe, just maybe, we want you or your daughter to have the legal right to an abortion when her fetus is 28 weeks and anacephalic or with external organs. Maybe, just maybe, we want a woman who cannot carry a pregnancy to term because it will kill her, to be able to terminate her pregnancy with dignity. Maybe, just maybe, we would trust the woman who decided to terminate a pregnancy since, during the first few weeks of her unknown pregnancy , she had multiple xrays, drugs and surgery due to a systemic infection following an auto accident.
Just maybe, Deanna Parker, you don’t know everything. Just maybe. Only your god knows you best.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 10:03 pm
What is up with using the fake names? That a little deceptive don’t you think? The rest of your ranting I refuse to acknowledge because it is baseless unless you specifically answer with documentation what it is that I said that was not true.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 5:40 pm
A home birth of a ten pound baby?
That person had some very substandard prenatal care!
They took some serious risks with the well being of their baby and themselves. Pretty dumb. But it is their choice.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 5:56 pm
No, they had excellent prenatal care and excellent obstetric care. Just did it at home with the help of two experienced midwifes and the best obstetrician they could get.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 6:45 pm
Well again you seem to be on the fringe of consensus opinion.
A home 10 pound birth?
I wonder if you have the slightest idea how far out of decades of clear research of educated people YOU, DeAnna, are.
You are way out there.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 7:37 pm
What does a friend having a home birth have to do with anything that you just said and what does it possibly have to do with me being outside the consensus opinion and research of educated people?
I didn’t have the baby.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 8:09 pm
DeAnna,
You are unreal.
You not understanding the magnitude of your massive lack of knowledge, for example, in this example.
Ask 1,000 experts in Maternal Fetal Medicine (MFM) and they would consider delivering a 10 pound baby at home a very ver poor decision with potentially cataclysmic consequences. Yet you touted it as a great thing. In fact, it was very stupid and your friend was fortunate that things went well.
Throughout your writings on this blog you reveal the same lack of knowledge nd density of brain power. That combined with a strong ego, some ability at articulation, complete lack of knowledge or use of the sciences and massive fringe religiosity, makes you a dangerous person. Others might believe what you write.
That is why this example of your pathetic cognitive abilities is so germane.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 9:59 pm
Amazing that you use my name to insult me with. Go figure!
Her giving birth at home was her choice, her decision. whatever happened to choice? Oh, right, thats only about the choice to kill your baby. Not about the choice of when and where to have a live one be born. I get it!
You know you have a lot of nerve to reprimand me for going to see someone who had a baby as if it were a crime when you are on here advocating that babies be killed. Before you start reprimanding me look at what you are saying. She shouldn’t have a baby at home but she can darn sure slice it up if she chooses. Really? Go read my reply under post #42. I think you need to hear it.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 6:24 pm
#1. “Well, they get a hearing here that so-called “pro-lifers” would cut off on their blogs.” I quashed this earlier. I would never cut off anything a killers’ helper had to say.
#2. “From personal experience I know it takes about five minutes to compose a six-sentence paragraph.” Not everyone is like you ,
Chuck! And d is not the only person who can do six in half a minute. Each of us has his own talents.
LikeLike
July 14, 2011 at 4:46 pm
That was the evil diabolical plan all along:) Hey Dunkle It finally worked 🙂
LikeLike