Pages

Monday, November 17, 2014

Dismemberment is not an act of love

[Today's guest post by Sarah Terzo is part of our paid blogging program. Sarah is a pro-life atheist, a frequent contributor to Live Action News, a board member of the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians, and the force behind ClinicQuotes.com.]

Sometimes when talking to pro-choice leaders and reading what they write, one is reminded of George Orwell’s novel 1984. Words have their opposite meanings; black is white, slavery is freedom, and abortion is a social good and moral choice instead of a brutal act that kills a baby and, quite often, scars a woman.
Above: Gloria Feldt

Gloria Feldt, former President of Planned Parenthood, says the following in her book The War on Choice:*
I have spoken and read letters from hundreds of women about their experiences with abortion, and one thing I know is that abortion is almost always a profoundly moral choice. Women and men plan their families because they have respect and reverence for human life. Women who choose abortions do so because they love children…
It is not an act of love to kill a baby. Choosing to give birth to an unwanted pregnancy leads to a living, intact, usually healthy child. Abortion leads to a baby poisoned or torn apart and extracted in bloody pieces. Statistics on when in pregnancy abortions take place are notoriously unreliable, but evidence suggests that most abortions take place between the sixth and tenth week of pregnancy.  By seven weeks after conception, the baby already has fully developed hands and feet—hands and feet that are torn from her body in the most commonly used suction abortion procedure.

Former clinic worker Catherine Anthony Adair described first trimester abortions as follows:
I was a medical assistant in the room for hundreds of abortions. I witnessed the baby being suctioned out of the uterus and watched blood and tissue work it’s [sic] way through the tube into a metal bowl. The baby was dismembered during the process. The nurse would account for the baby parts and put it into a baggy, which I then put in a box with the other aborted babies. We then had to count them at the end of the day to ensure we had all of them to go to the lab. 
Dismemberment is not an act of love or kindness. We don’t brutally murder our loved ones. Criminals do not commit their violent crimes out of love and concern for either their victims or society as a whole. These statements seem so obvious that it’s absurd to make them, and yet we have to bring it up because of extreme comments from pro-choicers like Gloria Feldt.

Too many Americans are ignorant as to what abortion actually does to a baby. Oh, on some intellectual level, they may be aware that abortion ends a life or potential life—but they have no idea how developed the babies are, how brutal and bloody abortion really is. They have not thought about the life of the child, the unseen victim who is growing within his mother’s womb, secure and safe, with a beating heart and developing brain, only to be suddenly, brutally killed.

Pro-lifers must educate the American public. The fact that Gloria Feldt was able to make such a statement to her supporters and be taken seriously shows the ignorance and denial that is epidemic in the United States when it comes to the abortion issue. We have our work cut out for us. But if we continue to state the truth on the Internet and in other uncensored forums, perhaps one day statements like Feldt’s will be seen for the absurdities they are.

*Gloria Feldt. The War on Choice: the Right-Wing Attack on Women’s Rights and How to Fight Back (New York: Bantam Books, 2004) 103

1,020 comments:

1 – 200 of 1020   Newer›   Newest»
secularprolife.org said...

One big appeal to emotion. I guess that abortion opponents would be OK with abortion if every abortion was simply performed by c section? Disconnection of placenta from the uterine wall? After all, many abortion opponents think that it is totes morally permissible to disconnect the violinist and "let him die" - so why should embryonic death from a placental-uterine disconnection be any different?

BTW, this is what the average abortion looks like:

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ls6w7phG8f1qi68z9.jpg

And "how brutal" abortion may or may not be is irrelevant, as embryos are non sentient, ie, they lack the capacity for even basic awareness.

And if you want to use the argument "its gross so ban it", I would have to point out that many many surgeries are gross, and birth itself and c sections are very gross and unsettling. Ban birth?

secularprolife.org said...

I appreciate this post, because the narrative that oppressors are "being loving" and "doing what's best" for the oppressed is a standard tactic of oppression.

Although Feldt's quote isn't actually claiming that abortion is loving toward the unborn baby, she's saying it's loving toward other children. Mostly immaterial, though, as I've heard pro-choicers give the "abortion is loving toward the aborted child" line numerous times.

secularprolife.org said...

Why have you followed my account? I don't see you on any of the sites that I post to...

secularprolife.org said...

Sealed

secularprolife.org said...

What did the fox say, remember :p

secularprolife.org said...

Ah! :-) Yes, I remember :-) How jejune, as it were :P

Ok -- just wondering -- my account is being attacked by random flaggers (read that carefully, it's not what you may have thought at first). Apparently, I offended a few 9/11 truthers, and some guy who went by the name "Proud white" referred to a regular female poster (a black woman) as a "c*mdumpster" . real charmer, that one. Anyway, they're mounting a campaign to delete or moderate all my posts they can find, so, for the first time in almost a year, I'm having to mark my comment trail "private" :-(

It's weird, tho -- as an atheist, hanging out in a right-leaning site, it took them almost a year to start the mass-delete campaign that took RH reality check about 3 hours to do. It's almost like the right-leaning sites are more tolerant than the left-leaning sites.

How have you been?

secularprolife.org said...

That sucks, sorry.

And yes, lefties can be VERY authoritarian. I have been on some right wing sites that accuse anyone who even mildly disagrees, of being a troll, and sad to say, many left wing sites are no different.

It is the authoritarian mindset, IMO. If the intolerant lefties had grown up in a different environment, they might be intolerant righties, and vice versa

I put you on follow after the good discussion we had about disqus and certain "visages" on that blog about the snowman:p

I have been OK, nothing to report, how about you?

secularprolife.org said...

I'm familiar with that -- it may just be that lefties tend to be more involved with their sites than those on the right -- you can be on a right-leaning site and have the people on that site accuse you of trolling, or even moderate your comments. But I've noticed that, when dealing with right-leaning sites, that there seems to be a much slower (glacial) response to truly horrible things (like that black female college student that was being attacked by a guy named "proud white" and called horrible names). There is one thread on Clash that has over 160 comments, but less than 30 of them show up in the comment list, because someone went on a delete/moderate spree. (It was a thread critical of Islam). I have also noticed that the site was recently swarmed by a bunch of people who had, in their profile, a site called internet jihad or something like that (I won't link to it), which appears to be a gay porn site. I'm not sure who is supposed to be more offended by that, but it seems like a bad idea to me :-P

I remembered you after the "fox" thing :-)

I'm doing ok -- having a lot of fun, and posting funny things to make fun of some of the very serious / stodgy "KJV-ONLY!!!" people. I told them that I thought that Genesis had over 50 chapters, and they responded with "yur an idiot! genesis has exactly 50 chapters! derp!" (I may have misquoted him a little). Anyway, I responded with "Oh, I was talking about the Genesis Band Fan Website. Why would someone write a book about an 80's band? I think you're pulling my leg.". He went apoplectic, and nobody has seen him since :-P

secularprolife.org said...

Evangelical Christian here, glad to be in this movement with you. Thank you for saying the hard things.

secularprolife.org said...

Haha. Good times.

I also suspect that, for a lot of "progressives", the cause is just a vehicle to gain fame, fortune and power for themselves, and since what they are doing is in the name of something that is " just", that this excuses all sorts of bad behavior. Also, the worst leftwing sites also police their own members - if you don't stick PRECISELY to the party line, you must be publicly excoriated and punished. It is ridiculous. I abhor an echo chamber.

secularprolife.org said...

Thanks for a statement of moral principle that is reasoned, yet stays close to the ultimate source of all correct moral principles, the heart.

secularprolife.org said...

"she's saying it's loving toward other children. Mostly immaterial, though, as I've heard pro-choicers give the 'abortion is loving toward the aborted child' line"
Somewhat immaterial even if they don't use that line, because love for some simultaneous with dismissiveness toward others is a limited kind of love.

secularprolife.org said...

This is not a winning strategy. Most of you folks are against abortion even done by medication where no "dismemberment" is involved. At least be honest, now. It's not about "dismemberment" for you people. That's an appeal to emotion. It's about forcing women to carry every pregnancy to term, which can be a loving act, or not so much.

secularprolife.org said...

They oppose abortion by starvation from suicidal rape victims!!

I still think it is funny how they differentiate between a crime of commission and a crime of ommision. Letting the violinist die = ommision. Women doing literally *anything* to her body that might induce a miscarriage = crime of commission, which is especially ironic considering the fact that they go on about how the zef is an independent organism that *only* needs the woman's body for shelter and food.

secularprolife.org said...

Your precious 'pro-life' myintx would have an innocent human being dismembered so she could steal their kidney.

secularprolife.org said...

myintx also would force a 12 year old rape victim to give birth. So, no 'love' for 12 year old girls. Just for brainless zefs.


IMHO, it really devalues the entire concept of 'love' to zero, when the only 'people' for who one consistently feels 'love' are those without functioning brains. But then, that pretty much goes along with devaluing the meaning of the term 'human being' to zero by insisting that it be applied to those without functioning brains.

secularprolife.org said...

But Night Porter! That little flake of tissue is a real person for sure, that 'squirms away' from a suction tube! Even though it doesn't have a functioning brain to even realize the suction tube is there. And it feels real pain and fear! Even though you need a functioning brain to feel that.


Now, a 12 year old rape victim? She's just mindless meat to keep the precious embwyo alive. She doesn't really FEEL things like the widdle embwyo does.

secularprolife.org said...

Does gestation = love? Even if the parents really don't give a f*ck about the child once born, and they abuse it, like many pro life evangelicals?

secularprolife.org said...

At any rate, I fail to understand the point of the title. So 'dismemberment' of a brainless zef is 'not an act of love'. There's a lot of things like that. Cutting an apple in half, or smashing rocks, is 'not an act of love'. You're playing the usual forced gestationer game of trying to make other people fill in the blanks with sad feelies, and think -without your saying so, so that you can leave yourself wiggle room - that the widdle zef somehow feels emotions or pain, or has a 'right' to life, love, and whatever other blank check you want to give it.

secularprolife.org said...

You're also playing the usual force gestationer game of pretending the zef exists in a vacuum, and that there are no other people to be considered. Such as a sibling, who the mother may barely have the money to feed. Why is 'love' for the born sibling handwaved away?


Let me guess, the proportion of their head to their body is smaller than that of a very small fetus, so they aren't as cute. Either that, or else myintx caught them masturbating, so their genitals aren't pure enough any more to warrant still having a right to life, or love, or anything else.

secularprolife.org said...

A question for MYINTX:


Tell me something, myintx. Suppose I put a computer chip in YOUR brain, and controlled your body so that you went out, entirely against your own will, kidnapped pregnant women, and performed abortions on them.

WHO should be held responsible for this and prosecuted under any laws prohibitting late-term abortions, or abortions against the mother's will, or whatever other laws might exist regarding the matter?

1. You
2. Me.
3. The mothers
4. Any surviving fetuses
5. Morbius the Living Vampire.

Answer with one or more of the above, not irrelevencies like 'bs' or 'sick', or your other handwaving evasions.

secularprolife.org said...

Myintx still hasn't made it clear exactly how she would prevent women who are good at biofeedback like me from doing something like inducing a high fever in themselves that the widdle embwyo is unlikely to survive. Probably once she grasps the principles, she will demand that all pregnant women be given prefrontal lobotomies, lest they use their brains to do such a thing to the pwecious zef.

secularprolife.org said...

This subject has been broached here before.

If it *was* possible to monitor women and prevent them from simply willing an abortion, would it be ethical to prevent, or punish women for doing so?

When you follow pro life beliefs down the rabbit hole, there is absolutely no denying that it is about controlling and subjugating women. You literally cannot protect the prenate without violating most of the woman's rights. This is one reason they try so hard to pretend that:

Pro life is actually feminist
Pro life protects women
These same women are psychopaths who must be prevented from murdering innocent baybeez
The woman's rights are not actually being abrogated, because life trumps liberty
The woman's rights *are* being abrogated, but that's OK, because she is a slut who had sex
Pregnancy is just like a teen eating doritos on a sofa, so they really arent asking much, why are women such selfish sloots?

I just had a thought.

Why do they freak out if the woman smokes or drinks during pregnancy - bad for fetal health- then handwave away the very long list of pregnancy side effects and pretend that birth is a minor inconvenience? Why does a fetus have a blank cheque to hurt a woman?

secularprolife.org said...

And this justifies abortion HOW?

secularprolife.org said...

You can lift a teen eating Doritos off the sofa and propel them to the table where eating is supposed to be done.

secularprolife.org said...

I appreciate this post, because the narrative that oppressors are "being
loving" and "doing what's best" for the oppressed is a standard tactic
of oppression.


Yep. It's why prolifers so frequently try to claim they're only forcing girls and women through pregnancy and childbirth against their will because they're "being loving" and "doing what's best", and make up stories about how abortion damages women's health and forced pregnancy is so good for women.

secularprolife.org said...

Don't get me wrong, there are far worse things prolifers do to pregnant girls and women - including of course the act of force which is intrinsic to prolife ideology.


But the lie that prolifers claim to believe, that a woman who has an abortion is an unfit mother, that she cannot love her children and never did, is if not the worst thing prolifers do, certainly the most sickening.


Most women who have abortions have them because they have already had all the children they can care for. The disgusting lie that prolifers fling at those women, that they don't love their children because they chose to abort an unwanted pregnancy, is - well, disgusting is the only word for it.

secularprolife.org said...

*nods*


Most support for prolife ideology comes from the myth that most unwanted pregnancies ending in abortion are conceived by young healthy sluts who ought to be forced through pregnancy and childbirth and then have the baby taken away from her to be adopted to "better" parents: most prolifers yearn for the Magdalen Houses.


That the majority of abortions are performed at the request of respectable married women with children who simply know they cannot have another child, is not something that fits this myth, but also - mothers with children making a decision not to have a third or fourth child for health or family or career or financial reasons? You'd have to be a totally-absorbed member of the Quiverful movement to sling mud at a woman like that and expect your target to look like the bad guy.

secularprolife.org said...

Answer the question with choices 1 through 5, myintx, not your evasions. The question is not whether the abortions are justified, the question is who should be held responsible for the abortions in the situation I described.

secularprolife.org said...

Yeah. we don't give a fuck. That's why three of my pro-life friends are foster parents and I give food every month to the food pantry, volunteered at a homeless shelter for years, and donate to the red cross whenever I can. Is your claim based on any studies or statistics? or is it just pulled out of the standard "pro-choice slogans" book?

secularprolife.org said...

OK. Basically, you guys are lying.

The average abortion takes place between seven and nine weeks. At this stage the embryo already has developing hands with fingers and toes. Do a google search for the Alan Guttmacher's statistics. Then go to http://www.ehd.org where you can see a baby under seven weeks moving around and see her heart beating. At seven weeks, a female baby has OVARIES, dear. Not everything you hear on pro-choice blogs is true.



The site I directed you to is not a pro-life site. It's backed by a University, I forget which one but I'm sure it says so on the site.


THe videos are not ultrasounds, they are done by inserting a camera into the uterus of a pregnant woman.


Maybe what you posted IS what an early abortion (before seven weeks) looks like. Because the baby is torn to shreds by the suction. That doesn't mean it was a living organism

secularprolife.org said...

You are, as most pro-choicers do, attacking a straw man. I have friends who have had abortions I do not look down on them and see them as unfit. I see them as basically good people who made a choice that seemed like the best (or only) one at the time, but who later realized they should have done something different. If anything, isee women who society failed, and who pro-lifers like me failed, because they were put in that position. . I see a woman struggling with the abortion decision as a woman who needs help. If she needs emotional support, medical care, a place to live, money, baby items- whatever she needs, I would like to domy best to give it to her so she no longer needs an abortion. That is why I give to prolife groups that help women.

secularprolife.org said...

Why do you keep assuming that the twelve year old rape victim WANTS an abortion? or that abortion would be in her best interests? There have been two studies done on rape victims who become pregnant. In each study 70% of them chose AGAINST abortions. I have a friend who was raped and had her baby. She was almost pressured into having an abortion by the "well-meaning" people around her. She has expressed great anger that pro-choicers use people like her for a point in an argument. She ir pro-life and has told me a dozen times that she is glad to have had her little girl


I too have been a victim or rape. And I can tell you, abortion would have been the absolute worst thing that ever I could have done. I was sixteen, If my parents had forced me to get an abortion (in my best interest, of course I would devastated about it to this day. I can live with the rape. I was an innocent victim. I could NOT live with having killed my baby. Going through my life knowing I killed my baby would have been worse than the rape.


Don't tell people like me what we need.

secularprolife.org said...

The vast majority of abortions are still done by dismemberment. But if we got rid of those and only did abortions by pill, in the first seven weeks (the FDA recommends against doing them later than this) would you be willing to ban all abortions not by pill?

secularprolife.org said...

yeah. that's why cpcs, like the 2000 plus that exist, do clothing drives for infants and children. Why they follow the family for at least one year after the birth. Why they offer free parenting classes and help women with children get jobs. Why they help women do the paperwork to get on goverment assistance if that is what they need. They translate the forms for them and fill them out. Yeah. Because wen want to take their babies away. You just get more and more ridiculous. Maybe you just are ignorant, or maybe you just don't want to believe that pro-life people are usually basically good, not horrible monsters. It's sad. My crisis pregnancy center in town even arragnes to offer free day care. All for women who KEEP their babies.


All for FREE. Did you hear that? Free.


Your friendly neighborhood abortion clinic will happily take their 400 dollars, suck that baby right out of them, and send them on their way never to see them again.

secularprolife.org said...

A whole year? Wow. Because after one year, prolifers think the infant is old enough to look after itself/get a job?

The prolife movement is notably certain that private charity for a short period is sufficient to provide completely for the life of an unwanted child. This is so ignorantly stupid I can only suppose it's driven by the Christian Right.

As for the reproductive-health clinics that provide abortions to women who need them, unless prolife terrorism has required local healthcare to hermetically seal off abortion provision from all other aspects of healthcare, obviously they'll be seeing their patient again: for contraception, if for nothing else.

secularprolife.org said...

Ah, another prolifer who makes no secret of wanting women to die pregnant. The claim that prolifers support life-saving abortions is clearly not even meant to be believed, when we have Sarah wanting to make sure - for example - that all women in pre-eclampsia die in eclampsia by banning abortions after 7 weeks.

secularprolife.org said...

I'm talking about elective abortion, and I think you know that, actually.

secularprolife.org said...

Because the vast majority of 12-year-old rape victims do want an abortion, and are quite capable of saying so, Sarah. The rare exceptions do need special counselling because a 12-year-old is not old enough to have a baby - not physically ready for the huge strain of pregnancy and childbirth (this is a leading cause of death for teenage girls worldwide) and obviously, not able to provide for or care for a baby and certainly not mentally/emotionally able to handle the trauma of adoption.

But what do prolifers care about child welfare or caring for rape victims, when a chance to force a vulnerable child is available? Nothing, of course. Prolife is all about force and abuse.

secularprolife.org said...

Society did not fail a woman who had an abortion. Society fails if they force a woman to carry a pregnancy she does not want to term because it is going to have negative impacts on her life in some way.


Sometimes there is nothing that you people can do to help a woman with an unwanted pregnancy. No amount of money, baby items, etc would make me change my mind about having an abortion. I would know in my heart that an abortion is the only decision I could make that would be right for my life and if society did not allow me the freedom to make that choice then society has failed me.

secularprolife.org said...

No, Sarah, I don't. If you meant you'd support all abortions that a doctor agreed were a health necessity, you need to go back and edit in some humane compromise to your (typically prolife) ruthless and brutal remarks about banning abortion.

secularprolife.org said...

In the study you listed you are probably forgetting that a huge number of women took the morning after pill if they were raped. This way there was no pregnancy and they did not have to worry about needing an abortion.

If a woman is raped she should be able to decide for herself what she needs. I know if I was raped I could not live with being punished by a pregnancy and could not live being forced to relive the rape every single day. It would make me feel disgusted with myself.

secularprolife.org said...

If you're that nastily patronising to the women you know who chose to terminate unwanted pregnancies, and dismissive of their reasons for doing so, you're really not their 'friend'.

If you didn't mean the nastily abusive remarks you made in your OP about how women who have abortions don't love their children, then go back and tone them down a bit.

secularprolife.org said...

Interesting, Ann - myintx has blocked me but not you. Apparently more afraid of civil factual challenge than emotional argument, if you'll excuse me saying so...

secularprolife.org said...

The average age of a woman having an abortion in the US is early-20s. I can assure you a woman that age also has fingers and toes, if that's all thst you require to know to care about her as a human being - a human who deserves better than to have the use of her body forced against her will.

Your ignorance about embryonic development is beyond my power to remedy: I learned the hard way not to argue with prolifers about science. The proper grounds of opposition to prolife ideology are ethical and moral, not scientific: forced use of another human being is plain wrong.

secularprolife.org said...

What? Massive straw man hello!

I am saying that gestation and birth isn't necessarily done out of love. I know one woman who loves being pregnant, but once the kids are born, she abandons them so she can party. Simply choosing to gestate is not necessarily an act of love.

secularprolife.org said...

Amen

secularprolife.org said...

Animals have hearts and appendages. As do beating heart cadavers - living body, but essentially braindead. Add anencephalic babies and parasitic twins to that list.

Should all of the above, by your standards, have an absolute right to life?

secularprolife.org said...

What is wrong with letting the 12 year old decide for herself?

secularprolife.org said...

Would you say the same about a woman who dismembers her toddler? Generally good, if confused!?

secularprolife.org said...

Actually, I pay attention to what actual doctors say, not what the FDA says. Medication abortions are safe further into gestation than 7 weeks. You must remember that the FDA isn't on the cutting edge of medicine, and any information they have dates back to clinical trials done way back when they approved the procedure. The more experience gained, the more we know. Would I be willing to ban all abortions other than medication abortions? OF COURSE NOT. Are you out of your mind? That's a "one size fits nobody" solution. I trust women and their doctors to do what's safest for the woman, depending upon her individual condition and the status of the pregnancy. It seems you missed the entire point of my comment. I'm not hung up on the method of abortion. The author seems to be, and believes you are too. She's counting on the fact that you don't know much, medically speaking. You're proving her right.

secularprolife.org said...

I don't need your "help."

secularprolife.org said...

In my opinion? EVERYTHING.

secularprolife.org said...

You are talking to the author.

secularprolife.org said...

Was she 12??? Look in the mirror and repeat after me. "A 12yo child has no business giving birth or being a parent." Keep repeating that until it sinks in.

secularprolife.org said...

Oh my. How embarrassing for her.

secularprolife.org said...

I am for choice, but I see your point. A few months ago, an 11 year old rape victim in Chile (where abortion is illegal under all circumstances) "chose" to gestate - she said, to interviewers, that having a baby would be like playing with a doll.

BTW, do you notice how most countries that deny abortion under every circumstance are either a dictatorship, or former dictatorship?

secularprolife.org said...

Yes, having a baby is exactly like playing with a doll. (Head desk, head desk, head desk!) This is EXACTLY why children don't get to make decisions like that! I'm for choice too. But let's get real. No 12 year old can consent to sex. So any given 12 year old who's pregnant is a victim of rape. If it's MY 12 year old, it's off to the abortion clinic we go. A kid that age has no business making decisions beyond what she'll wear to school that day, or what to write he term paper about.

secularprolife.org said...

I believe those who support CPCs to be generally well-meaning. But you know the old saying about the road to hell. right? Someone planning for an infant needs a lot more than a few baby clothes, a pack of diapers and a gently used crib, you know? And they need daycare for a lot longer than a year. What she needs most (not what the baby needs most!) is a clear plan to move on with her life. The means to further her education, not some job catching and de-beaking chickens, or waiting tables. She needs tools to care for herself and her child for the rest of her life, not a year of daycare and life as a charity case. I doubt you people think much beyond just getting the baby born. That's not sufficient.

secularprolife.org said...

I'm happy you donate to a food pantry. Excuse me, but whoop-de-doo! That qualifies you to manage the life of a stranger?

secularprolife.org said...

It has fingers and toes. And it's heart beats! Well surely that means I owe something to it. Guess what? I have fingers and toes, too. And my heart beats without depending on the organs of another. Guess what else I have? I have a mind.

secularprolife.org said...

I haven't blocked you...

secularprolife.org said...

It's irrelevant....

secularprolife.org said...

Am I the only one missing something here? What is the connection between this whole strange scenario and real abortion? (This is CristinaVenturi - "CV" per purple slurpy- but my email was accessed by some hacker in Romania... Go figure... So I decided to go all anonymous...oh wait)

secularprolife.org said...

ok. Basically you're an idiot. Rats have 'fingers and toes. And ovaries. And a beating heart'. So do salamanders. 'Fingers and toes. And ovaries. And a beating heart' do not equate to 'being a real person' or having brain function.

secularprolife.org said...

Does your 'help' consist of giving $250,000 to each woman? Otherwise, your 'help' consists of giving a bandaid to someone who just got shot in the lung. It makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but doesn't really help to any meaningful degree.

secularprolife.org said...

Stop running damage control for myintx. I have reasons for my questions and the fact that you forced gestationers don't like my reasons is too bad for you.

secularprolife.org said...

I don't care if you think it's irrelevent. Which really means you are being evasive again. I want YOU to answer the question and stop evading.

If I put a computer chip in your brain, and force you to kidnap pregnant women and perform abortions on them, who should be held responsible and prosecuted under any laws prohibitting abortions:

1. You
2. Me.
3. The mothers
4. Any surviving fetuses
5. Morbius the Living Vampire.

secularprolife.org said...

Sarah: Sober up and read what I have written. What I wrote was that myintx would force a 12 year old rape victim to give birth. That sentence sort of implies that the 12 year old does not WANT to give birth. It has no implications for one that does not want to give birth.

**There have been two studies done on rape victims who become pregnant. In each study 70% of them chose AGAINST abortions.**



Uh huh. Hate to tell you this, sweetling, but I was trained to analyze statistics. Your statistic does NOT HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION to support your claim. Specifically, it does not state what the age ranges of the 'rape victims' in your study are. If it includes only rape victims above the age of 18 or 21, it really doesn't say anything about 12 year olds, does it?

secularprolife.org said...

In your fantasy world, you are forgetting that the pro-life faction is vehemently opposed to the morning after pill, because they WANT that pregnancy to happen, so the woman can be punished for sex.

secularprolife.org said...

**All for FREE. Did you hear that? Free.**


All of which does not come close to beginning to solve all the problems and expense of raising a child. You do live in a fantasy world, don't you?

secularprolife.org said...

To say you are seriously disturbed is not "handwaving."

secularprolife.org said...

You're little more than a pathetic Internet bully with your silly attempts to order people to answer your silly questions.

secularprolife.org said...

More of your sick fantasies?

secularprolife.org said...

You? Trained to analyze statistics? ROFLMAO!

secularprolife.org said...

Then you agree that there should be no parental notification laws that apply to 12-year-olds.

secularprolife.org said...

So now you're claiming to be smarter than the FDA, huh? Laughable, at best.

secularprolife.org said...

Ad hominem attacks? Yeah, that's about all you've got, pro-abortion zealot!

secularprolife.org said...

This has nothing to do with the intelligence of the FDA. The FDA is a regulatory body, not an organization of obstetricians and gynecologists. The FDA doesn't even REGULATE the practice of medicine. The practice of medicine is regulated by the various State Boards of Professional Affairs. And what every state board says (in essence) is that doctors may practice in any area where they are prepared by education and experience. The FDA is the Food and Drug Administration. In case you didn't know this, these are two different roles. The federal government has no authority over medical practice.

secularprolife.org said...

I didn't say that.

secularprolife.org said...

Sorry, when I specifically say I want an answer, to refuse to give an answer, and instead comment on my supposed mental state, is an ad hominem fallacy, and constitutes handwaving. And I've told you before to stop running damage control for myintx.

secularprolife.org said...

How does that large developed fetus fit through a suction cannula?
Have you ever seen a suction cannula?

secularprolife.org said...

**You're little more than a pathetic Internet bully with your silly attempts to order people to answer your silly questions.**

Forced gestationers don't want to answer the hard questions about morality, so we will resort to ad hominem insults.

There. Fixed it for you.

secularprolife.org said...

More of your ad hominem evasions?

secularprolife.org said...

BA in biology. We studied statistics, experimental method, and what claims could or could not be made, given certain types of information. What are you qualifications?

secularprolife.org said...

Sarah, you are someday going to learn some day, the hard way, that there is a really big difference between FEELING compassionate, and actually BEING compassionate. Lot's of people want to FEEL compassionate, and all warm and fuzzy inside. The problem with this is, the things you do to feel all warm and fuzzy inside are very often NOT the best things to do in a given situation. The best, most compassionate thing to do, in certain situations, may make you feel like a shitty asshole inside.


The least shitty example - if you're an adult on an airplane that has depressurized, the most compassionate thing to do is to get the oxygen mask on your OWN face FIRST, while ignoring the screams and panic of the pwecious widdle suffocating childwen around you. There are reasons for that. Probably you can't handle them, and other situations that exist in this world can and will be far less pleasant than that one.

secularprolife.org said...

I don't think she's disturbed. She's asking good questions.

secularprolife.org said...

Sober up and read my post. It goes on at considerable length past calling her an idiot, and actually explains why bodily appendages possessed by rats and salamanders do not make magical rights fall out of the sky. This, being rather unlike myintx, who refuses to answer my questions AT ALL, because she wants to evade the hard moral issues, and merely calls me 'sick'.

secularprolife.org said...

Their objection to the morning after pill is irrelevant. It's available OTC for any age and I don't particularly care if they "want" pregnancy to happen or not.

secularprolife.org said...

Exactly. If you become unconscious due to depressurization, you will be of no use to other passengers who actually need assistance. If your mask is on, you can help others.

secularprolife.org said...

It's relevent in the sense that the pro-life faction takes the contradictory stance of saying 'People should just use birth control or the morning after pill', while simultaneously hypocritically opposing the availability and use of such pills, because they cause a pwecious widdle zef to fail to implant. They also spread and encourage others to spread false information about birth control, presenting it as far less effective than it actually is, with the twin goals of on the one hand, trying to force people to remain celibate, and on the other hand, convincing people not to bother with forms of birth control they erroneously believe are ineffective, thus resulting in unwanted pregnancies and more abortions for the pro-lifers to bitch about.


Trust me, I've met people like this before, they actually WANT problems to exist, so that they will have something to bitch about.


Case in point, a customer on a newspaper route I couldn't find for several days. Every day, they called up bitching that they weren't getting their newspaper (since I couldn't find their house). Finally, I located their house (on a different street than their address indicated) and put a piece of yellow tape with their address on their newspaper tube. The following day, the tape was gone. I put up another peice of tape. They then expressed their displeasure at the fact that the problem was actually solved, and they were actually getting their paper, and therefore could not enjoy their daily bitch, by letting the papers pile up in their tube for 4 days. Yeah, they really wanted that paper real bad, didn't they.

secularprolife.org said...

Do you have a magic angel living with you, who will tell all women (including those who might get their periods only every 2-3 months) the INSTANT they are pregnant? Will this magic angel remove all birth defects, and all complications of pregnancy?


Send me a photo of this magic angel. Otherwise you're whining.

secularprolife.org said...

Well you do have to admit that "fingers and toes" is a pretty dumb argument. Suppose the fetus has developed abnormally and doesn't have fingers and toes? Does that change it's value in your mind? Suppose it has polydactyly and has extra fingers and toes. Does that add to it's value? It STILL, at seven weeks, cannot live without the use of the organs of another. It is still mindless.

secularprolife.org said...

But! But! The widdle pwecious childwen! And cute! And the magic angels who will somehow keep you conscious, contrary to the laws of physiology, so long as you are RESPONSIBLE!!

secularprolife.org said...

Well I agree that they aren't particularly fond of contraception either. That's fine. Nobody is forcing them to use it.

secularprolife.org said...

Yeah? I wouldn't count on it.

secularprolife.org said...

There are people in Africa in a particular tribe who commonly have something resembling a lobster claw, instead of normal fingers and toes. Are they therefore not human, according to sarah?

secularprolife.org said...

The end result is still the same,the method doesn't matter as much as the fact that you are stopping a beating heart.I hear Pro-choicers make the justification that a late term abortion is painless and without cruelty,yet how many stories have i read about some unborn babies surviving injections into the heart.The descriptions of a viable baby thrashing about in the womb is enough to bring tears to anyone's eyes.Yet Pro-choicers act like this is a victimless procedure and part of a woman's healthcare.

secularprolife.org said...

Women are not the victims here.An unborn child has no say in whether or not it is conceived.There is something called birth control.And there is nothing respectable about taking the life of one's child.It is called family spacing for a reason.

secularprolife.org said...

Sarah is so right.A relative of mine worked at a pregnancy Care Center and there is much they do for women and children!!

secularprolife.org said...

I chose life at 19 when my Mother offered me an illegal abortion. I WAS horrified - kill my baby? Not me.
After I gave birth, I knew two things:
1. that I never wanted to do that again
2. that I made one of the stupidest decisions of my lifetime.
Have you given birth? I have three children.
Did you know that childbirth is the leading cause of death of girls 15-19 in Africa? Did you know that childbirth can kill a 12 year old?
I would abort the spawn of a rapist in a New York minute. I would drag any 12 year old of mine to the clinic - by her hair if necessary.

secularprolife.org said...

Wrong!!Pro-lifers are concerned with education,daycare,job training,and affordable housing.many of us are consistently pro-life and are concerned with the whole person,not just with unborn babies.

secularprolife.org said...

I would like to be present when you told this Father what you said above. I bet i

secularprolife.org said...

Honest question here. What exactly are you talking about?

secularprolife.org said...

No it is better to"kill"the child in your opinion because its family may have to struggle.What a cop out.My Mom was a single Parent,and worked as much as she could before she got sick.She provided my brother and I with all of the essentials and also received some help from private and government agencies.She was advised to have a therapeutic abortion,but decided against it.

secularprolife.org said...

So she had a choice, and you want other women not to have a choice.

secularprolife.org said...

Being "concerned" about it means nothing. That and two bucks will buy a Sunday paper.

secularprolife.org said...

You referred to pro-lifers as Terrorists when you pro-choicers are the ones killing babies.I don't think so!!

secularprolife.org said...

Infanticide is a crime. If you know of anyone killing a baby, it's your civic duty to notify authorities.

secularprolife.org said...

Well,many of us actually do volunteer work.pro-choicers are big at pointing fingers,but what do they actually do?

secularprolife.org said...

You are giving voluntary college education? Excuse me while I finish laughing.

secularprolife.org said...

women have a choice.it is called using birth control or remaining celibate.

secularprolife.org said...

No thank you. I will have lots of hot sex.
I will use birth control.
If I become pregnant, I will give birth or abort as I see fit.
Not as YOU see fit.

secularprolife.org said...

So what are you implying ?Because college is expensive,that women should abort?You're an idiot!!

secularprolife.org said...

Killing a viable baby is infanticide,lady.Why don't you Google pictures of aborted 20 week babies.Stop hiding your head in the sand.

secularprolife.org said...

Average abortion at 10 weeks,a lot more that what you are showing.

secularprolife.org said...

Average abortion at 10 weeks.

secularprolife.org said...

Abortion at 10 weeks

secularprolife.org said...

An abortion at 10 weeks

secularprolife.org said...

Another thing here, stop the whining about my being a 'bully' who is 'demanding answers to questions'. Nobody is forcing anybody to be on this forum, defending their particular viewpoint. Everyone here, is here to voluntarily defend their point of view.


Part of defending your point of view is to answer questions. If someone like myintx doesn't want to answer the hard questions, because they expose her as an immature, hypocritical liar, too bad. Just because she doesn't want to answer a question doesn't make the question, or me, 'sick' and the repeated whines about 'sick' and 'disturbed' in order to avoid answering the hard questions simply present myintx, and by extension, the entire forced gestationer side, as being immature hypocrites who cry 'sick' and 'disturbed' and 'bully' in order to avoid answering the hard questions.


Here's the thing: Myintx has claimed that the fetus has a special right to harm the mother, based on this great moral principle of 'can't help it'. Then she turns around, and says she would kill a mind controlled rapist, despite KNOWING that he was mind controlled, and therefore 'can't help it'.


This means she is a provable hypocrite. Either 'can't help it' gets you a pass, or it doesn't. You can't apply it in one case, and not the other, and then claim that it is some great moral principle that should be abided by.


ladyblack says she would kill a mind controlled rapist. Fair enough. She has the right to do so. 'Can't help it' does not, in fact, get anyone a blank check to violate another person's body. This btw, makes ladyblack a bit of an asshole to me, as I would personally tolerate such a rape, rather than killing the mind controlled rapist, but ladyblack, unlike myintx, is NOT a hypocrite, because she is not claiming this great moral principle of 'can't help it' for the fetus, but not for mind controlled adult men.


Mind you, myintx ALSO has the right to defend herself from mind controlled rapists, which she apparently wants to do. But she cannot do that, and at the same time, claim 'can't help it gets you a pass' as a great moral principle. She is apparently giving fetuses a pass based on cuteness.


That's her PERSONAL right to do so. She can't require it of anyone else, any more than I can require either her or ladyblack to tolerate a rape by a mind controlled man, simply because I would, and myintx lacks the honesty to admit that the real reason she wants to give a pass to the fetus is because it's cute, and instead tries to claim some great moral principle that she abandons the moment something isn't cute or is inconvenient to her.

secularprolife.org said...

How embarrassing for you!!

secularprolife.org said...

So?

secularprolife.org said...

Pregnancy is not a state of health. And don't try to handwave away labour and birth.

secularprolife.org said...

20 weeks isnt viable.

secularprolife.org said...

Wow... judging by the dime next to the head, it's brain is smaller than that of a fish. Based on what we know of brain function, the fish is smarter by several orders of magnitude.


Am I supposed to be sad?

secularprolife.org said...

You're the ones harassing women outside clinics, bombing clinics, setting fire to clinics, stalking women who visit PP, and murdering abortion doctors and their staff.

secularprolife.org said...

And you can show me picture of a dead 'child' resulting from an abortion? Or just a dead fetus?


As for you sob story, not impressed. Boo hoo, your poor mummy worked and later got government assistance. Pretty much of a fairy tale compared to the situation some people are in. I know people where the parents can't work, and don't get governnment help, I know people where both parents work, and still have no insurance for themselves or their born children, and despite what they might earn from their jobs, have to look for road kill, food in dumpsters, and/or go poaching to find food for their born children.

secularprolife.org said...

You are generalizing and misleading.The majority of Pro-lifers are peaceful people.You are trying to pin a negative label on a whole movement because of a few fanatics.I don't know anyone who harasses women.

secularprolife.org said...

And again,life is hard for many people.it is unpredictable.So because life is difficult and we all face challenges,we should all go out and abort?Your argument is an absurd and ignorant one.Try to come up with a better argument next time.You are making a fool of yourself!!

secularprolife.org said...

Do you want people to suffer unnecessarily? Is that your goal? How loving

secularprolife.org said...

An embryo can't suffer. A woman, however, can.

secularprolife.org said...

Sure you are. And behind the scenes, you complain about how Tiller's killer was bad for public relations, then you are all happy faced because the end result is fantastic - one less abortionist.

secularprolife.org said...

Google Dr Condic's testimony before Congress.She discussed how unborn babies feel pain at a much earlier stage than thought.And most abortions occur at the fetal stage.Do your research!!

secularprolife.org said...

That's what you want to believe when in fact no one I know condones violence.

secularprolife.org said...

Funny,I have seen pictures describing how they have all of their organs in tact,can feel pain,can swallow,breathe,blink their eyes,have a beating heart.The literature also describes 20 week fetuses as six and a half inches long.That You can't say it's not a living breathing human.I wish you could stand and watch a late term abortion.Let's see if you still felt the same way.

secularprolife.org said...

Condic doesn't know what she is talking about. Prior to 25 weeks the fetus lacks the brain structures necessary for any sort of cortical processing

secularprolife.org said...

So?

secularprolife.org said...

I have yet to see you offer an argument of any substance. Just random insults.

Are you 8 years old?

secularprolife.org said...

You understand that no matter the effort used cpc's they can do not meet the standards set by the Nazis when they set up their pro life system In order to come up to Nazi standards from the point you are now you would have to take care of all the children produced and all the mothers as well. Then you would have to award National metals of honor to the woman whom you force to give birth.
The pro life system you have set up is simply a carbon copy of the early Nazi system. Hitler after being helped to attain dictator status by the Catholic Centre Party set up a pro life system you are mimicking. In his system women had a specific purpose for mankind. There duty was to become pregnant and produce good conservative Christian babies. People that aborted were given the death penalty. Abortion was considered murder.
I see the same sentiments in you that I see in the Nazi system. You are building a base just like them and you will soon be in complete power. You will then completely take away the rights of women and criminalize the thoughts and actions of the pro choice side. You see yourself just as the German citizenry saw itself. You envision forcing birth and furnishing what women need in the way of goods and services. You, like Hitler have the perfect plan.

secularprolife.org said...

So she was pressured into giving birth by her well meaning friends. They should be incarcerated.

If she had aborted, then she could have had a wanted child at a later date. The law of preclusion states that a forced birth precludes a wanted birth. You need to understand the laws that control abortion.

secularprolife.org said...

That's nuts. I mean really, that's batshit crazy talk.

secularprolife.org said...

It is the truth. You are following the same path as the innocent German citizenry. Perhaps you will win a "pro life" medal for denying women their rights.

You have a choice sarah5775, you can save innocent born babies or you can let them die and save a fetus instead. What is your choice. My bet is that you murder babies. Answer please.

secularprolife.org said...

What are you talking about? where on earth are you getting this stuff? Why does the fact that I care about unborn babies and want to help pregnant women find alternatives to aborting them have to do with killing born babies? OF COURSE i don't want to kill born babies either. Why would I want to kill born babies? You are twisting reality. Giving women maternity clothes and baby formula and sharing the truth about abortion makes me Nazi? Really? I can't even argue with you because you are so irrational. I think you may be a troll whose trying to get a rise out of me.

secularprolife.org said...

That's right. A well respected neonatologist who studied medicine doesn't know what she's talking about and you do. You know better than her because you read stuff on a few pro-choice sites.

secularprolife.org said...

The issue of abortion falls under the control of scientific laws. Any claim that is not in comport with what nature dictates is false.

The scientific fact is that 70 percent of conceptions abort naturally in the first trimester. Another 25% of those remaining abort in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters. So the fetus that is shown as an example is an early term induced abortion. It also graphically represents a natural abortion that would look exactly the same.
A 2nd and 3rd term induced abortion would be with medical care that would assist in the abortion.
A 2nd and 3rd term natural abortion could be without medical care and does often lead to the death of the mother as well as the fetus.

That said:
Any choice to have sex is consent to abortion. We know statistically that 70 percent of conceptions abort naturally, therefore if one consents to sex they have consented to natural abortion. A natural abortion is life threating for the woman and is also more damaging to the possibly living fetus that is aborted.
So your whole spiel is based upon the idea that a woman that intentionally aborts, has killed a baby. But scientifically speaking and consent to sex is consent to abort a fetus under the most deadly conditions for both the mother and the fetus.

I hope you will take time to understand the impact of what this means. It means that there is no way to have sex, to become pregnant or to give birth without giving consent to a late term or other abortion.

The claims you make about abortion are the same claims made by the Nazis when they set up the pro life movement that you are modeling. Hitler had Jewish women raped and forced their gestation so that he could later kill them in an effort to prove "life at conception" and to protect the innocent babies. He failed as you will fail.

secularprolife.org said...

I did not say that having fingers and toes is what gives someone a right to live. Honestly, I think we are all talking past each other and not really engaging what the other is saying. Maybe this is my fault too, so let me be very clear.


Science teaches that life begins at conception. From the moment of conception, the zygote has its own dna distinct from the mother. This is the point at which a new life begins. As it grows into an embryo, it develops more and more human characteristics. These all point to the fact that is human (i.e. if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. etc) But the reality is, the embryo is a growing organism. It is clearly alive (not dead) and clearly separate from the mother as it has its own circulatory system, its own body, etc. Just like an embryo in a test tube is not part of the test tube, it is not part of the mother.


It is clearly human. Human women pregnant by human men give birth to human babies. They don't conceive cats or dogs. or any other animal. Horses have horses, cows have cows, humans have humans.


There is nothing about traveling a few inches down a birth canal that makes an inert nonliving being suddenly become a human life with rights. There is nothing different about the baby before and after birth.


Now, lest you think I don't care about the mother, I would like to note that abortion is not in her best interest either. Abortion is at heart an unnatural act. It is the forcing open of a woman's cervix, the inserting of metal instruments into her womb, which was never meant to be invaded, and the killing of something she knows deep down is her child. The rates of miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, and even breast cancer go up after an abortion. The rates of depression and suicide too. I would be more than happy to provide evidence of these claims if you ask for it (and if you will honestly look at it rather than just deciding that because I am pro-life, I MUST be lying)


Abortion does not help women.Clinics are businesses that are run for profit, and often run poorly. Pro-choicers oppose any effort to regulate them, even though women have been and continue to die of legal abortions in america, and suffer injuries. I will provide ample documentation of this too.

These are the reasons why abortion is wrong

secularprolife.org said...

I said abortion was not a loving act. I'm sorry, but I stand by that. If you think that means I am "dismissive" of women and "nasty"I'm sorry you feel that way, but I do not retract what I have said

secularprolife.org said...

It is not up to me to judge the morals of women who have abortions.

secularprolife.org said...

I'm sorry, I misread your post. I thought you were saying it was evangelical pro-lifers who don't' give a fuck. Were you instead saying pro-lifers are abusive parents? I dont' really see any evidence to back up that claim.

secularprolife.org said...

After a year they pass them on to other agencies.

And abortion clinics don't even help them for a year. If a woman goes to an abortion clinics ambivalent, and while talkign to the abortion counselors (who are often, in effect abortion salespeople) but anyway lets assume she gets real counseling, and talks it over with the counselor, and decides she does NOT want the abortion after all? What does the clinic do for her? nothing. All they do is provide abortions. They don't take the time to give any help- except to kill h er baby for moneyh

secularprolife.org said...

"What are you talking about?"

I am talking about the choice you have to save babies or to let them die and save fetuses instead. You cannot save both fetuses and born babies, children and adults. Why, because life is dying faster than it can be saved. All life dies, so you must choose which you will save for a period of time.


"where on earth are you getting this stuff?"

I scientifically observe what nature allows me to see. And I report what I see. I see 57 million people dying this year and I see that 70 percent of conceptions die. Those are observations of what is occurring in nature. They are fact.


"Why does the fact that I care about unborn babies and want to help pregnant women find alternatives to aborting them have to do with killing born babies?"

I don't mind if you murder innocent babies to save fetuses. But don't claim you are saving life. You are not saving life. You are letting living babies die and attempting to save fetuses.



"OF COURSE i don't want to kill born babies either."

Well, it is your choice. You may choose to save babies or let them die and save fetuses. It is totally up to you whom you save.

Why would I want to kill born babies? You are twisting reality. Giving women maternity clothes and baby formula and sharing the truth about abortion makes me Nazi? Really? I can't even argue with you because you are so irrational. I think you may be a troll whose trying to get a rise out of me.

secularprolife.org said...

And exactly why can't I help both born babies AND unborn ones? I don't think you are being rational. Who says a person can't be involved in more than one cause?

secularprolife.org said...

If a woman's life or health is in danger because of her pregnancy, i would not oppose her abortion. The problem with the health exception in legislation is that in the case of Doe vs .Bolton in 1973, the Supreme court defined "health" as it related to abortion rights in such broad terms, that it really allows for abortion on demand. Its' a loophole. Under the standards set up by the Surpeme Court, a woman could say she was emotionally bothered by her pregnancy and get an abortion, no further questions asked. If she has a genuine medical condition, a REAL one, that's a different story. But the health exception is law as it is written now is a loophole.

secularprolife.org said...

Actually, I know a number of pro-lifers who are not against hte morning after pill.

secularprolife.org said...

I don't know how you can look at that picture and not see a human being.

secularprolife.org said...

Time is your enemy. You could save both if it were scientifically possible. But it is not. There are 57 million people that you could add years to their lives. And there are 50 million induced abortion and hundreds of millions of wanted naturally aborted fetuses. If you spend 1 second saving induced abortions for occurring, that is a second you cannot spend saving born babies or wanted naturally aborted fetuses. Logically speaking if you want to save fetuses, you should save the wanted fetuses. But then again to save wanted fetuses you must let born babies die.

I need to leave for work now. I will check online occasionally and see your response.

Thanks for the questions.

secularprolife.org said...

I see what you are saying now. the only thing I can say is that that argument is such that any activist could use it against any other activist. I could tell a person raising money for a charity to fight AIDs that they are guilty of letting children starve in Ethiopia, because they aren't active in THAT cause. I could tell gay rights activists that they are killing kids in Africa because they are not donating their money to provide mosquito netting. It is an argument that could be used to stop people from ANY cause.


And I don't want you to take this the wrong way, but since you are so concerned with my not helping born babies enough (because I DO do things to help born babies) what are YOU doing to help born babies?.

secularprolife.org said...

Sarah, you know that if "Live Action News" allowed open debate, there would be no pro life movement. Pro life movement is only in this for the money. They could care less about babies as shown by the fact that following scientific laws will lead to an increase in life and following pro life ideas lead to a decrease in life.

Why not open up "Live Action News" to debate and stop the Nazi style dictatorship?

secularprolife.org said...

I see debates on LA all the time. And I'm not in charge of their website.


And really. Abortionists make millions off abortion. NO pro-life activist makes millions. 99% of pro-life activists make no money at all. They provide all their services for free. I have a pro-life website. Not only do i NOT make money on it, I PAY to have it online. It is really ridiculous to say pro-lifers are in it for the money. how many pro-life millionaires do you know? who in the pro-life movement is making money?

secularprolife.org said...

I look at that picture and see a human fetus. The scientific fact is that not all fetuses become babies. And to force the birth of that fetus, one must choose to let innocent babies die. When I look at a picture like that and the argument that it supports, I see Nazis style "big lie" tactics. This is about money and power, not babies.

secularprolife.org said...

I dare you to ask them to allow me to debate the science of abortion. They are not in this to hear the truth. They have fabricated a series of lies that support what they say and only allow debate that they can counter. They are murdering innocent babies to save fetuses and the know it.

secularprolife.org said...

It is a twisted viewpoint that can look at a charity that provides MANY s of services for free and works with women for a year and then look at a money making business that merely does an operation for pay and sends the women home and think the second is more compassionate than the first.

secularprolife.org said...

There have been infighting attacks where one side of the pro life movement sued the other side of millions of dollars. A Texas pro life Catholic ministry supposedly mishandled millions of dollars.

There are at least a 2 billion pro lifers in the world. If each spend a dollar to support the cause, there would be billions of dollars.

CPC's spend millions of dollars each year encouraging the death of babies and the forced birth of fetuses.

You need to take you head out of the sand.

secularprolife.org said...

Russell, since you tell me that the few hours a day that I spend working on pro-life stuff and not trying to save born babies is "killing babies" then how many hours a day do YOU waste killing babies? Do you go to the movies? That's two hours you just spent killing babies. Go to dinner? Another few hours you spent killing babies. By your own logic, you are a murderer because you spend time doing things other than saving babies yourself. Why is it wrong of me to take a break from saving born babies to do pro-life work but ok if you take a break from saving born babies to watch a movie or go to dinner or read a book?

secularprolife.org said...

maybe you should judge yourself by the same yardstick you are judging me.

secularprolife.org said...

There is a difference in us. Murder by omission requires that a person have a duty to save life. I have no duty, you do. Yet I am the one that saves life and you are the one that kills life.

You claim to save babies by choose to let them die.

secularprolife.org said...

You do the research and tell me.

secularprolife.org said...

You murder innocent babies to save fetuses. You are a murderer and you are looking for excuses. This question of hers is the most important question in your lifetime. A failure to answer is an admission you have no basis in fact in your own argument.

secularprolife.org said...

You do the research and you tell me.... It's your question. Did you even TRY to figure out what the answer might be, or do you (again) want someone else to do all the work?

secularprolife.org said...

You're right Rose... There is no connection. She's got another line of 'reasoning' where the end result is she's trying to compare a rapist to an unborn child.

secularprolife.org said...

So, what's the answer Russell?

secularprolife.org said...

Yeah... in the anti-choice fantasy world even a woman that is raped should be forced to stay pregnant.
Some of them have even gone as far to say they should view the pregnancy as a blessing.

I just do not understand why anti-choicers can want a rape victim to suffer.

secularprolife.org said...

Actually, I have peer reviewed citations and 50+ years of neuroscience to back up the claim that there can be no cortical processing and thus no way to experience pain, or anything else, if the capacity for basic sentience/awareness is absent.

secularprolife.org said...

Would you say the same about a woman who tears the legs off a toddler?

secularprolife.org said...

Yeah, many hardcore pro life evangelicals love the fetus, and abuse the child. Specifically the people involved in the homeschooling movement, and those who live by the book "How to Train up a Child". Abuse is rampant in these circles, as are cases where children have been literally beaten to death, out of " love", mind you.

secularprolife.org said...

The adoption industry makes billions off women who are forced to gestate and birth children that they cannot care for.

secularprolife.org said...

Except that pregnancy *is* a medical condition, and no one but the person who is facing the very real risks and side effects of this decision should have a say.

What, exactly, makes you qualified to make medical and mental health decisions for others?

secularprolife.org said...

Nope. PP workers always ask women if they are sure that abortion is what they want, makes sure that they are not being pressured to abort, and even puts women into contact with reputable adoption agencies if that is the route that the woman chooses to take.

Also, some PPs even provide diapers, formula and other goods, just like your CPCs.

secularprolife.org said...

You need to answer, not me.

secularprolife.org said...

If abortion is wrong because it is "unnatural" then so is going to a doctor for anything, or even typing on the computer.

And no, abortion does NOT cause depression, suicide, and rates of breast cancer to go up. All of those claims have been repeatedly debunked. Abortion is simply an induced miscarriage.

And in fact, pregnancy can cause depression and psychosis, from all of the hormone shifts, and it can also make bipolar women go off the deep end - months or weeks after birth, the woman commits suicide, because pregnancy exacerbated her condition.

secularprolife.org said...

Hey Sarah, if a woman doesn't have insurance, are pro life organizations going to cover her million dollar hospital bills if things go wrong?
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/canadian-woman-hit-with-950k-medical-bill-after-unexpectedly-giving-birth-in-us-hospital/

What if she suffers from eclampsia and is confined to bed for many weeks and loses her job, and as a result her insurance, and perhaps even her home? Are pro lifer's going to pay her hospital bills, find her a new job, and buy her a new house?

secularprolife.org said...

She is asking a leading question with an obvious answer. It is a sign she is NOT disturbed.

secularprolife.org said...

Not sure what you mean. You initiated a post that made an absurd although interesting claim, bu that had nothing to do with the article. I was just wondering if you had a point.

secularprolife.org said...

I measure you by what you claim to do and I measure everyone else the same way. You claim to save babies, but you kill babies. I claim to be pro choice and yet I save life.

Do you understand why you are a murderer and I am not?

secularprolife.org said...

Well, I can show you the testimonies of about hundred former patients of planned parenthood and several former employees who say different.

secularprolife.org said...

I'm not. Doctors are. Doctors OTHER than just the abortionist who gets paid to do her abortion.

secularprolife.org said...

No.

secularprolife.org said...

So why do I have a duty and you dont? Because I am pro-life? REALLY? THat makes no sense. I"m sorry, but I really can't argue with you about this anymore.

secularprolife.org said...

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-info/pregnancy/pregnant-now-what/adoption
http://www.ppin.org/healthcenters/patientservices_adoption_services.html
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-greater-ohio/education-training/education-programs/healthy-moms-healthy-babies

Yeah..PP is all about "killing" so they can laugh all the way to the bank.

secularprolife.org said...

No, doctors and obgyns really do consider pregnancy to be a medical condition, because it *is*.

Pregnancy is not the default state of women.

Tell me, do you believe that pregnancy is just like breathing?

secularprolife.org said...

The American Cancer Society disagrees with you;
http://m.cancer.org/cancer/breastcancer/moreinformation/is-abortion-linked-to-breast-cancer

And here is what is wrong with your "abortion causes cancer" theory..abortion is simply an induced miscarriage. In fact, the correct medical term for a miscarriage is *spontaneous abortion*. And if your studies were actually true, women who have miscarried would have higher rates of cancer. They do not.

secularprolife.org said...

The op made no judgment about the women not loving their other children, nor was she at all patronizing. She simply stated that dismembering an unborn human is not an act of love. That is true, and most Americans are ignorant about the facts of what abortion really is.


Regarding society failing women, that is also true, but has been for centuries. Women in crisis pregnancies need support, not judgment.

secularprolife.org said...

An unborn human is not equal to an apple or a rock. If left alone, the apple will rot, and the stone will stay a stone. If left alone naturally, an unborn human will most likely grow into a human such as yourself and myself.

secularprolife.org said...

But a c section to remove said prenate would be an act of love?

secularprolife.org said...

"If left Alone" - so if left alone in a petri dish it will grow a brain in 9 months, doesn't need a woman's organs at all?

secularprolife.org said...

The force of the nature of sex and pregnancy is what drives the unborn human to live and grow, not "forced gestationers," the clever semantic you are trying to pin on us.


As a pro-lifer, I disapprove of murder of born humans, so am I am I guilty of forcing the world to put up with your living and posting here because I refuse to allow that you should be murdered because I would rather not have people in this world believe like you do? No--I support your right to life and will engage in a civil discussion with you because I support your right to life.


The only case in which your argument makes sense is if the mother of the unborn is a victim of rape. In all other cases, the mother took a (hopefully) knowledgeable risk of having sex with the natural result of getting pregnant, and the man also took a similar risk. Sex without consequence is not natural and is not a constitutional right. Even if it does become a "right" enshrined in law, the law is wrong, just like Jim Crow.

secularprolife.org said...

As a former music teacher, I fully subscribe to the idea that if one person is mocked or belittled, all of us are brought down a level lower. When we protect all of us because we assign intrinsic value, we become more human and live up to our potential more fully. My middle school students were able to accomplish amazing things, regardless of innate talent, because the atmosphere we had was safe for all.


When we say that a human life is intrinsically not valuable for whatever reason (life will be hard, her brain is not fully functioning, she's not wanted), then all of us are brought a little lower. The pressure increases for us to prove that we are worthwhile. Unconditional love becomes a little harder to achieve.


You are also not considering the siblings of aborted children. I recently read a story of the pain one child expressed when she found out her mother had aborted a sibling. This child had to grieve for the baby and wonder why she was the one who lived.

secularprolife.org said...

So you would permit abortion in the case of rape?

"Sex without consequence is not natural and is not a constitutional right."

Please, elaborate. Why should women be held strictly liable for having sex? And why should 'nature' have a say?

secularprolife.org said...

Gestation does not always equal love, but giving an unborn human a chance to live, to dance, to achieve through adoption IS an act of selfless love that ends with life for the mother AND the child.


Dismembering that child and erasing that life from this world is NEVER an act of love, anymore than dismembering all toddlers of poverty stricken parents.


I will be fair and say that I could see someone might abort a baby and BELIEVE it's an act of love.

secularprolife.org said...

So women are just mindless incubators for infertile couples?

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 1020   Newer› Newest»