The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Archive for the tag “Abortion debate”

Of Michelle Goldberg Part 11: Her Support of “Women’s Automony” Means Death To Millions Of Unborn Girls

They call it “gendercide”.  The deliberate killing of an unborn child based on its gender.  In the vast majority of cases that gender is female.  The House of Representatives tried, but failed, to pass a law that would have outlawed this type of abortion.  However, Democrats, virtually all of whom are pro-abortion on demand, blocked passage of the law.  Naturally, all pro-abortion liberal feminists are giddy with sadistic delight over this, including Michelle Goldberg who writes:

Sex-selective abortion is odious. Banning it means allowing the government to decide what constitutes a legitimate reason for a woman to terminate a pregnancy.”

In other words, so far as “woman’s autonomy” goes, and just how far Michelle Goldberg and all her liberal, pro-abortion feminist ilk are willing to go to preserve that “autonomy, Goldberg, like all pro-abortion liberal feminists, believes the killing of an unborn girl “constitutes a legitimate reason for a woman to terminate her pregnancy”.  Goldberg believes abortion on demand, for any reason a woman might dream up, during any time she is pregnant, including up until the very due date, the very moment the baby is about to pop its head out, (crowning) is acceptable enough time to still kill the child before it is legally and technically born.

Goldberg uses an excuse to deflect attention away from this heinous and despicable type of abortion by reminding us that most “gendercide” abortions occur in Asia, in China and India, and are not that common in America.

Reporting on sex-selective abortion in India, where feminists campaign against kanya bhronn hatya—literally, “the killing of young girls”—and patriarchs angrily assert their right to plan their families, I sometimes felt like I’d stepped through a looking glass. Clearly, the American anti-abortion movement would be happy to frame the debate in similar terms.”

We only frame the debate on abortion in one term – the killing of innocent life.  While Goldberg works to protect “woman’s autonomy” over her body by fighting for greater legal protections for woman and girls of all ages to have guaranteed rights to abortion whenever they want, we who are pro-life fight for greater legal protections for the unborn from those women and girls who would seek to end their pregnancies based upon the viscous lies of Michelle Goldberg, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW, Cecile Richards, Terri O’Neill and Nancy Keenan, and all liberal pro-abortion feminists.  Their lies have caused the deaths of scores of millions of unborn children over the decades, and over 100 millions unborn girls.

These same undeniably callous and passionately misguided women who dare to claim there is a war on women being waged by the GOP and conservatives are the real terrorists waging a war on women by intentionally deceiving and misleading women and girls into believing that abortion is not the killing of an unborn child but just the removal of a blob of tissue, a “zygote”, a few cells, etc.  They would look us in the eyes and demand we yield to their insanity.  We dare to look back into their eyes and stand tall, stand proud, stand resolute in our courage and conviction that abortion takes the life of an unborn child and we will not back down.

Writes Goldberg:

It’s not surprising that anti-abortion activists see sex-selective abortion as their trump card. The issue puts feminists in a particularly difficult spot, turning reproductive choice into a tool of misogyny.”

Difficult spot?  Where is there a liberal pro-abortion feminist that has come out in support of banning “gendercide”?  If it was a “difficult spot”, if there was any amount of “difficulty” that put feminists in a “spot” that “difficulty” would have derived straight from their own conscience and every single feminist knows it.  In other words, the only way Michelle Goldberg or any liberal pro-abortion feminist could be put in a “difficult spot” is if their own conscience turned against their liberal feminist mindset.

Misogyny?  Michelle Goldberg supports the killing of unborn girls.  the GOP and conservatives support protecting unborn girls from being killed in the womb because they are girls in the womb.  Who is the real misogynist?

Of course, the real “difficult spot” Michelle Goldberg and her ilk have been put in is that they are forced by their own narrow-mindedness to support the killing of unborn girls because if just that one type of abortion is wrong, and they accept that it is wrong, such a move opens up the very real possibility of ending other types of specific abortion like abortion based on race and sexual orientation.

That Michelle Goldberg supports the killing of unborn girls in the womb without reserve, also means she supports the killing of blacks in the womb because they are black, and the killing of gays in the womb because they will be born gay.  And there in lies the rub.  She must support killing blacks and gays in the womb, just as vehemently as she must support the killing of girls in the womb.  Any hesitation, no matter how slight, is indication that abortion, for even one specific reason, may be wrong and immoral when done for other specific reasons.

Can there be any doubt that Michelle Goldberg cringes over the thought of one girl being killed in the womb because of its gender?  Either she cringes, perhaps even weeps, or she has no heart, no conscience, at all.  And yet, Michelle Goldberg must go along with “gendercide”, supporting it and being unapologetic in her pursuit of abortion on demand, deflecting the issue as anti-woman, a war on women and misogynist.

For now, with the failure to pass “gendercide” in the House, a “woman’s autonomy” remains intact.  However, the war on unborn girls continues to be waged, taking a heavy toll and untold casualties all in the name of “pro-choice”.  Does the right to choose to kill an unborn girl in the womb. because it is a girl, in any way really preserve a “woman’s autonomy”?

Concludes Goldberg:

The lesson is clear. Anyone who is genuinely concerned about sex-selective abortion should be working to fight sexism, its underlying cause. Laws that seek to limit women’s autonomy and confine them to traditional roles have it precisely backward. Unless, of course, limiting women’s autonomy and confining them to traditional roles has been the goal all along.”

Fighting sexism by supporting abortion, and supporting the killing of unborn girls in the womb, is counterproductive.  Sexism, in itself, is why unborn girls are being killed in the womb in the first place.  For Goldberg to insinuate, to insist, that sexism will end when women have the right, and so long as they maintain that right, to kill their unborn girls in the womb without government interference would be laughable but for its tragic consequences.  Goldberg wants us to believe that sexism will end when women have the right to abortion, and the right to kill their unborn child for any reason at any time during her pregnancy – on demand, in privacy, without anyone trying to prevent her from going through with it.  Goldberg is deluding herself if she thinks we are that gullible.

We who are pro-life will continue to find ways to ban abortion, at the same time we work to educate woman and girls about the realities of abortion.  Michelle Goldberg expounds the lies of Planned Parenthood and Cecile Richards, NOW and Terry O’Neill and NARAL and Nancy Keenan.  These women support the killing of girls in the womb, blacks in the womb, gays in the womb any unborn child in the womb.  Either that is moral or that is immoral.  Either that is evil or that is benevolent.  Either that is right or that is wrong.  Either we – who are pro-life – have the courage to continue fighting to save the lives of unborn children or we stand aside and allow the slaughter to go on without stop.  We know where Michelle Goldberg is on this.  Where are we on this?

About these ads

Planned Parenthood/Cecile Richards; NOW/Terry O’Neill And NARAL/Nancy Keenan Have Committed Devestating War Crimes Against Humanity

We who are pro-life must hold those who support abortion, and those who commit that particular legal killing (morally murder) accountable for their barbaric actions.  Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards; NOW, Terry O’Neill; NARAL, Nancy Keenan and the rest of pro-abortion community blatantly turn a blind eye to their reprehensible activities.  The “choice” to support the killing of an unborn child is not a moral value in any sense of the definition.  A new video has gone viral, exposing the hypocrisy and the evil that is Planned Parenthood, and how they help women with “gendercide”, in particular, killing the unborn child if it is a girl.

We who are pro-life will not tolerate this.  Planned Parenthood is guilty of war crimes against humanity and they, and any of their supporters, must be stopped.  We have an obligation to protect innocent life from unwarranted destruction.  Unless the mother’s life is legitimately at risk, there is no reason for an abortion.  Yet, the usual and most prominent of pro-abortion suspects, Planned Parenthood and Cecile Richards, NARAL and Nancy Keenan, Terry O’Neill and NOW all cackle in delight over their support for the wanton, indiscriminate killing of unborn children at any time during a woman’s pregnancy.

We who are pro-life must continue our verbal and written attacks on Planned Parenthood (no committing murder of our own, or destroying property is acceptable, we understand.  We are not the terrorists – Planned Parenthood is.)  We will not be intimidated by thugs like Cecile Richards, Terry O’Neill and Nancy Keenan, nor will we be silenced.  Take us on, challenge us, try to stop us – just try.  This is our time.  America is vastly more pro-life now than it was thirty years ago.  That trend will only continue, especially the more we expose Planned Parenthood for killing fields they really are.

Women, every day, are being intentionally deceived and defrauded by Planned Parenthood, and aided by NOW and NARAL; emotionally brainwashed and tricked into thinking their unborn child is merely a blob of tissue; psychologically belittled and degraded into thinking their only option is to kill their unborn child.  They have a strong ally in President Barack Obama, who also supports the killing of unborn children.  One more reason why it is so critical to vote him out of office this November.

Abortion is a war crime against humanity and those that contribute to it, encourage it, support and fund it are also guilty of war crimes against humanity.  That means, directly, Cecile Richards, Nancy Keenan and Terry O’Neill.  Libel?  Either an unborn child is a human being or it is not.  There is no place, nor any room for, semantics or opinions.  Are Cecile Richards, Nancy Keenan and Terry O’Neill too stupid to know that an unborn child is a living, breathing human being?  They know.  We need not beat around the bush here.

We who are pro-life must confront Cecile Richards, Nancy Keenan and Terry O’Neill head on, challenge them, demand they answer for their war crimes and let them try to squirm their way out of their lies, their hypocrisies, their fraudulence – just try.  We who are pro-life will not abandon the unborn; we will certainly not leave them in the hands of Planned Parenthood.  We will fight for them, for their right to live.  What are Cecile Richards, Nancy Keenan and Terry O’Neill going to do about it?  Since we do not expect them to come to their senses, dirty and underhanded tricks and some misuse of government comes to mind.  We expect that from them.

The charade that is abortion is coming to an end in America, but that does not mean it is as near its end as we would like it to be.  We have much more work to do.  For example, the House is scheduled to vote to ban sex selective abortion.  It has a very good chance of passing, but the Senate is still questionable.  If it passes the Senate and makes it way to Obama, that will put him in an extremely delicate situation, alienating him with either pro-abortion supporters or women who see sex selection as a war on women, and will hurt his reelection bid regardless of whether he signs it into law or vetoes it.  Obama’s allies in the Senate would naturally do what they could to prevent it from reaching his desk.  However, in their own obstruction, they put themselves and their own political futures in jeopardy.

We must make certain this law first passes the House and moves to the Senate for a vote.  Having  done that, we must push pressure upon and hold each and every single senator accountable who would vote against banning sex selective abortion.  And for those in the House that veto the ban – we must display their names to the entire nation so all Americans can see exactly who supports sex selective abortion.

Our work is not done there.  We also will introduce abortion bans based on color and sexual orientation.  In doing so, these incremental steps we take will go a long way in helping to rid America of abortion.  It will also divide and destroy the pro-abortion movement.  After-all, many gays and lesbians supports abortion, but would they support the killing of an unborn child who might be born gay?  Would blacks who are pro-abortion support the killing of unborn children because they are black?  So, why do Cecile Richards and Planned Parenthood, Terry O’Neill and NOW, Nancy Keenan and NARAL so smugly believe women who are pro-abortion will so readily accept killing unborn children because they are girls?  Obviously Cecile Richards, Nancy Keenan and Terry O’Neill support killing unborn children for any reason, even if they are girls (black and gay included).  Is that the type of American value we want to stand for, or stand up to and ban?

We who are pro-life are not at war with women.  But we are at war with Cecile Richards, Nancy Keenan and Terry O’Neill, who happen to be women, and traitors to their own gender.  Let them just try to defend their despicable actions – just try.

Gangs Aren’t The Only Ones Glamorizing Murder, Or Proud Of Themselves For Murdering

Some people are more prone to murder than others.  Gang members, having grown up living in and around a circle of violence, probably all their lives, see death and the killing of others for the sake of their gangs as normal as eating and breathing.  We – we who actually are as normal as eating and breathing – look upon the actions of gang members with derision, disgust and outrage.  We tend to support laws that make it hard for gang members to operate.  And we certainly support laws that punish gang members when they do commit crimes, especially violent crimes like murder.  We certainly do not look upon murder by gang members as justification for the lifestyle they lead.  Nor do we look upon murder by gang members, who murder rival gang members, as justification for having crossed into one another’s “territory”.  In fact – do we ever look upon murder committed by gang members with understanding, compassion, empathy, sympathy or justification?  Do we ever seek to protect the “rights” of gang members to kill one another?  Do we ever attempt to grant “rights” for gang members to kill one another?  If not – why?

If gang members must kill one another to survive in their own world; if gang members must kill one another to show superiority and who is in, and who has, “control”; if gang members must kill or risk being killed themselves (a sort of self-defense); if gang members must kill one another to preserve the integrity and the “health” of their gangs; if gang members killing one another is mostly a “private” affair between one gang and another; if gang members killing one another is only hurting themselves, and that is the decision they “choose” to live by – then why are any of us so overly concerned whether or not gangs members are killing one another?  Why do we waste time, energy and taxes dollars trying to stop gangs from operating by arresting them, putting them on trial and then in jail?  Why do we pass all types of restrictive legislation that makes it harder to be in a gang, and to make committing a crime while in a gang, especially murder, more harsh, more difficult, more painful?  And – why, when one gang member kills another gang member, do we call that, of all things – murder?  Isn’t that a bit hypocritical, all things considered?

All things like the fact that there are millions of people who have committed murder, who have never been in a gang, and who have the full support of many millions more people, including politicians, judges, entire courts millions of people who will never be arrested, prosecuted or serve one day in jail for having committed murder.  And – many of whom who would not only not hesitate to commit murder again, but would openly brag about it, defend it, celebrate it!  After-all – they too have grown up surrounded by a culture that supports what is otherwise, morally and ethically, at least, murder, even if they, just as gang members, don’t see it that way.

What is the real difference between gang members who commit murder on a street corner or in a back alley and these people who commit murder in a place located near a street corner, and sometimes also in a back alley?

Planned Parenthood Is Praying, Literally, For The Death Of Unborn Children

It’s apparently hard times for Planned Parenthood, and they are hurting, financially, as more women choose life for their unborn children rather than the sought after death that pro-abortion supporters have been fighting decades to increase.  In response to this,  Planned Parenthood has taken a new and unusual approach.  Although one can hardly call Planned Parenthood religious, they hasn’t stopped them from turning to God in prayer – praying for more business. They are literally praying for women to come into abortion clinics and end their pregnancies.  And, as it turns out, they have some help from an unexpected source.  Christians, usually an arch-enemy of abortion advocates, have come to the aid of Planned Parenthood.  And Planned Parenthood, needing all the help it can get, is not turning a blind eye on these “religious” fanatics.  Is there any new low Planned Parenthood is not willing to go?

Religions do not differ on the life issue – all major religions are pro-life and oppose abortion, which is the killing of unborn children.  However, individuals with warped minds, and a false sense of what religion is and what it represents, have managed to infiltrate these religions with pro-abortion, pro-liberal, pro-Leftist propaganda and have begun to warp and twist religion, bend, weaken and tweak it in order to make religion irrelevant.  Because, right now religion, and the conservative elements of Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism, even Mormonism, are what is holding together the fabric, the sanctity, the value of human life.

What happens, then, when liberal, pro-abortion organizations find ways to infiltrate what has always been a safe haven for life?  What happens when more “religious” people turn their backs on life and embrace death?  And what exactly is the reason why anyone would embrace death for unborn children, rather than life?  Obviously, there is nothing in the deal for the unborn children that are aborted.  What is in it for the women who have the abortions?  For that matter, what is in it for those “religious Christians” that have sided with Planned Parenthood?  We know full well what Planned Parenthood has to gain from abortion, and more abortions, right?

Liberal Women Paint The Killing Of Unborn Children With “Flowery” Buzzwords

Abortion, in America, is nearing its bloody end.  A bold statement perhaps, but liberals, and liberal feminists, are all too aware of what is going on in America, the political climate circulating around abortion and their inability to get around the fact that abortion is, always has been, and always will be – the killing of  an unborn child.  But that does not stop them from trying.

Abortion won’t end tomorrow, nor will it end immediately after Romney is sworn in as President.  But Americans are more pro-life (a term dreaded and despised by liberals) than they have ever been, and that trend will continue to grow.  To counter this shift, to delay it, to turn it back to the pro-abortion side, a new marketing scheme is underway to make you think that abortion is really all about “women’s health planning”.

Arianna Nation SS contributors, Vicky Kuperman and Erica Grossman write:

It’s [abortion] all about political “framing,” a term that is familiar to anyone who has even occasionally channel-surfed through C-SPAN. In the case of women’s rights, conservatives have historically excelled at cloaking their various agendas — primarily, their fierce opposition to abortion — in either sunny, feel-good terms (“pro-life” as opposed to “anti-abortion,” for example) or in graphic and shocking terms (“partial-birth abortion” as opposed to “late-term abortion”). In the end, these emotionalized buzzwords have enabled them to perfect a kind of moral hijacking, hitting their base in the gut, and rallying them through anger and fear.

Why would pro-abortion advocates have to go to such lengths to disguise abortion if a majority in America are pro-abortion?  We can clearly see how much Vicky and Erica disdain life in their mockery of the term “pro-life”, and how much they are in denial over the definition of “partial-birth abortion”.  Partial birth abortion is an exact term.  In other words, it describes exactly what is happening – the child is partially born (removed from the womb), but because its head is too large to fit comfortably through the birth canal, the doctor plunges a long, sharp probe into its skull and begins sucking out the brain and fluids, which deflates the head and makes for an easier passage.  That is what Vicky, Erica and every other damned, contemptible supporter of this procedure don’t want you to actually know or understand.  Hence, they “flower” the term and make it smell better to the unwary, the uneducated, the unknowing and unsuspecting people they have been able to brainwash.  “Late term abortion” they dub it.  Because most people who support abortion don’t actually know what abortion is, calling partial birth abortion simply a “late-term abortion” will not register with these people.

Liberals will indeed need a better marketing strategy if they want to continue brainwashing people into support the killing of unborn children.  What is ironic is, the more they attempt to distract and disguise what abortion really is with “flowery” rhetoric, speech, and buzzwords, the more they actually expose themselves and their agenda and how shady, how corrupt, how disingenuous they, and abortion, really is.

And if they think they can mask the killing of unborn children by calling it “women’s health planning”, this will be another surefire disaster for them.  They – liberals and liberal pro-abortion feminists – are engaged in a cover-up.  They are guilty of doing to, and for, abortion exactly what was being done for decades by the Catholic hierarchy with their pedophile priests in that each of the two realities – abortion and pedophilia  – were covered-up and disguised.  And just as abortion was re-branded and re-marketed, so too were the priests, who were moved from one parish to another, thereby creating a new and “clean” slate.  But the truth still lurked underneath the “flowery” revision of priest pedophilia just as much as the truth still lurks underneath the “flowery” renaming of abortion as “women’s health planning”.  A pedophile priest is still a pedophile priest; that he has been moved to another parish does not change that.  Abortion is still abortion; that it is called something else does not change that.

Of “women’s health planning”, Vicky and Erica say:

These words not only have the benefit of sounding neutral and caring, but they also checkmate conservatives from mounting a counterattack. After all, it’s hard to imagine Mitt Romney railing against a woman’s health and walking away from the podium intact.

Of course they could not be more deluded and more blinded by reality.  The “counterattack” has already been “mounted”, their agenda has been exposed as shallow and hollow, and they have been shown to be the frauds they are.  Conservatives can very easily promote women’s health without promoting the killing of unborn children.

Or – do Vicky and Erica, do all liberals, and pro-abortion liberal feminists, really believe that abortion, and having an abortion, promotes women’s health, and makes women healthier for having had one?  If they do, why aren’t they advocating that every woman have at least one abortion in their lifetime?   Mitt Romney is advocating against abortion in his Presidential bid.  Why isn’t Obama advocating for abortion in his reelection bid?

Of Michelle Goldberg Part 9: To Her, A “Wrongful Birth” Means One Less Abortion

Pro-abortion advocates, and Michelle Goldberg, who frequently cheer-leads for the cause, see no value, no worth, no actual life in any fetus to begin with.  But a fetus which has developed some type of abnormality, such a Downs Syndrome, or where one or more of its body parts is either deformed or missing altogether is even less worth saving, from the pro-abortion perspective.  Many women obviously would want to abort such children “for their own good” – the child’s own good, that is.  But is the mother really aborting the child for its own good, or hers?

Outrage within the pro-abortion community is brewing over whether or not a doctor can intentionally keep information about a woman’s unborn child from her when abnormalities arise, thinking, fearing she might abort it if she found out.  Arizona just passed a bill to protect doctors who lie to pregnant mothers in what has been dubbed “wrongful birth”.  Wrongful birth, because had the mother known of the “malady” ahead of the birth, she might have opted for the abortion instead, thereby “sparing” the child all the “pain” and “hurt” and “psychological” and “emotional” scars it would encounter throughout its life.  Death, advocates Michelle Goldberg, and pro-abortion supporters, is the preferred option.

From The Daily Beast, writes Michelle:

In some states, though, anti-abortion activists are pushing legislation to protect doctors who don’t give women all available information about their pregnancies. Arizona and Kansas are considering bills that would ban lawsuits in cases where doctors fail to warn their patients about birth defects. The Arizona law, which is similar to legislation that exists in a handful of other states, would apply only when doctors make a mistake. But the Kansas provision, part of a sweeping, 69-page anti-abortion bill, would allow physicians to lie to women who might otherwise terminate their pregnancies. It is similar to a law in Oklahoma passed two years ago—in concert, ironically, with mandatory ultrasound legislation.

While Michelle is flabbergasted that a woman would not be given the information about her unborn child’s development, or underdevelopment, so she can quickly abort it if she chooses, interestingly, but not surprisingly, Michelle, and all pro-abortion advocates, would rather deny women the right to know the child they are about to abort is actually a human being by showing the mother an ultrasound image of her child.  This begs the question – if a woman would feel uncomfortable viewing a picture of a healthy child she is about to kill, would a woman want to see the ultrasound picture of her underdeveloped child so she can feel more comfortable killing it?

Michelle argues that doctors who are allowed to lie are also getting away with their own responsibility in the prenatal care of the fetus, and should complications arise, a doctor who knowingly keeps such information from the mother would not be liable, and therefore cannot be sued.  Well, from the pro-abortion point of view, how can any doctor be sued for “negligence” if a fetus is not a human being to begin with?  Michelle’s argument is baseless if she is also taking the position that a fetus is not a human being.  But if a fetus is a human being, then her and the entire pro-abortion position becomes baseless as well as dangerous.  Michelle cannot have it both ways.

Doctors are fearful, and rightfully so, that when they relay the news to the mother her fetus will not be born “normal” she will want to abort her child rather than give it life.  Granted, doctors ought not lie, or feel compelled to lie, in order to protect the life of an unborn fetus.  Nor ought women feel helpless that a child born with an abnormality, disability or deformity is going to automatically have less quality of life than anyone else.  if anything, it is the pro-abortion movement which has placed doctors in the position of having to lie in order to protect the unborn child from being aborted.

We, who are born relatively normal, cannot fathom our lives without arms or legs, without sight or hearing, without a sound mind, etc.  But for those people who are born without arms or legs, who are born blind and/or deaf, who are born with an underdeveloped brain or any type of disability or abnormality – do they actually miss what they never had?  And would they rather their mothers had killed them in womb than give them a life, an opportunity for life, which pro-abortion advocates consider substandard and subhuman, but which they, and millions of others who were given life, consider a better alternative to death?

Millions of people are born with all sorts of disabilities, abnormalities, complications, etc, and do lead normal, healthy, worthwhile and satisfying lives.  Why would Michelle Goldberg and pro-abortion supporters so selfishly deny these people the right to live?

We, who are born relatively normal, are acting selfishly, and for ourselves, when we support abortion over life.  If a woman has a legal right to abort a child for one reason, then rationally she has a right to abort a child for any reason.  And therein lies the crux of the abortion problem and why this is a situation of all or nothing.  In other words, either we allow abortion for any reason, or we don’t allow it at all.  But if we allow abortion for any reason, pro-abortion advocates must accept, and be willing to accept abortion in cases where a child will be born gay, black (non-white) or female.  Can liberals, like Michelle Goldberg, stomach these types of abortions as well as they stomach every other type of abortion?

If we who are pro-life can challenge Michelle, and all pro-abortion advocates on this, we can win this debate faster and easier than arguing abortion from strictly a religious point of view.  Abortion is a moral issue also, and either life has value or it hasn’t.  Force pro-abortion advocates to admit that they support killing black babies, gay babies and female babies in the womb; force them to admit they support killing blind babies, deaf babies, Downs Syndrome babies, and any babies that will be born with any type of abnormalities and they, along with their pro-abortion position, will disintegrate.  Are we up to that challenge?

Abortion Is An Emotional Choice Not A Rational Choice

In America, most irrational behavior, to a degree, is Constitutionally protected.  It is when that behavior begins to threaten people, and threaten their lives that government, and legal agencies, have a Constitutional right to step in and put a stop to whatever irrational behavior is being exhibited.  Abortion, because it is the taking, and killing, of a human life (although it is “unborn”) is a threat to the very life of a child in the womb.  Therefore, that threat to life constitutes irrational behavior which is not Constitutionally protected.  As a result, government, and legal agencies, have a Constitutional right, a duty, and a moral obligation and responsibility to step in to protect and prevent the unborn child from being killed in the womb via abortion.

Women who would seek an abortion, rather than carrying the child to full term and giving birth, have been told for decades now that they have a Constitutional right to abortion.  And while the law recognizes a “woman’s right to choose”, there is, however, nothing in the Constitution itself that guarantees a woman with that much liberty.  Roe vs. Wade was decided on emotions rather than rationality.  It was also decided on both misinformation and a lack of information at the time.  The Supreme Court, then, was very adamant, in making its decision, that if ever there was any evidence to prove conclusively that a living human being was being aborted – not a “collection of cells” or a “blob of tissue” – that the abortion should not legally proceed.

In 1973, there were no ultrasounds or sonograms, or any type of cameras or other technologies in use, that could pierce through and see inside the womb and snap pictures of a fetus.  Well, we have that now, and have had that technology for quite some time.  Science has since proven that life does begin at conception.  In other words, at the very moment the male sperm meets and fertilizes the female egg there is a tremendous and instantaneous burst of activity.  Until fertilization, the egg merely waits, and millions of sperm die en route to the egg.

Now that this information exists, it is imperative Roe vs. Wade be revisited and subsequently overturned.   And while Roe vs. Wade will eventually be overturned, obviously the only reason why it hasn’t yet is the result of pro-abortion advocates pleading their support based on emotions rather than rationality.  That, and the fact their organizations, NOW, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, etc. are incredibly well funded, financed and organized, and are able to elect politicians and judges who will vote to keep Roe vs. Wade intact.

Overturning Roe vs. Wade by no means abolishes abortion or even makes it illegal.  It will merely revert the decision-making back to the states, who will then have more freedom to legislate abortion according to their own dictates.  It will then be the states, directly, which can make broad and sweeping changes to abortion law.  Some states will naturally have greater restrictions on abortion than others.  Of course, any restrictions on abortion outrage those who support abortion.  But if you look at the people who support abortion on demand (abortion for any reason, at any time during pregnancy) it is inherent that they are arguing from an emotional standpoint rather than a rational one.

Whatever slogan they happen to use, the whole “It’s our bodies, it’s our choice”, “right to privacy”, “women’s rights”, “women’s heath”, freedom of choice”, mantra all amounts to an emotional outcry, and one that stems from a bygone era that saw many women dying from complicated pregnancies.  Obviously no one, with a rational mind, wants to see, or compel, women to undergo such risky pregnancies by law, and to put their lives in danger, by law, in order to deliver a baby.

But, how is abortion justified when there are no “health” risks to the mother?  How is abortion justified in cases where the mother simply feels she is not ready to give birth; where she feels she cannot adequately or financially care for the child after it has been born; where she has the impression and fear that after the child is born it might experience “neglect, abuse and hatred” by its parents?

These are all emotional outbursts, not rational or clear thinking.  Very few women in America die due to pregnancy any longer.  And where there is a legitimate life threatening issue that cannot be corrected without the abortion, there is no law in America, and there is virtually no one in America that would support such a law, which mandates a woman must sacrifice her own life for her unborn child.  Likewise, if there is a legitimate and specific “health” issue, which is known, which has a name, and research to go along with it; which is documented to be a threat to the woman’s life, and where abortion is yet the only alternative to save the health, and therefore the life, of the woman – no such a law in America now exists, or would ever exist, which would put the life of the unborn child ahead and above that of the woman.  Conservatives support life, and that includes the life of the mother.  We are not so callous, not so irrational in our own thinking that we would intentionally and knowingly put a woman’s life at risk, even if that meant the unborn child would have to be sacrificed.

Rather, it is the rabidly pro-abortion supporters who put emotions ahead and above life itself, and support the destruction of unborn life for any reason a woman would give as validation for having the abortion.  Hence the “right to privacy” and “freedom of choice” mantra, and the nonsense about the “war on women” and men dominating and controlling women and their bodies.  There is no war on women being waged in America with regards to “domination” and “control” of women.  This is simply irrational and emotionally charged doggerel.  The war being waged is a war for life, and the sanctity of life.

Since there are virtually no deaths that occur with pregnancy, even from complications of pregnancy, in modern-day America, what valid reason – not emotional – is there for killing  an unborn child, and why do certain women still demand a right to legally kill and unborn child and fight fiercely to have that right protected?  And why do these pro-abortion women, when there are many millions of women who are just as adamant in their pro-life position, remain staunchly opposed to allowing women seeking an abortion to have as much information about their unborn child as is possible?  Why do pro-abortion women so vehemently condemn ultrasounds when an ultrasound can prove there is indeed an unborn child in the womb?  Invasive?  “Rape”, they claim.  Even if it is a trans-vaginal ultrasound, the “instrument” used is far less menacing than is the instrument used to “remove” the unborn child from the womb.

It can only be gathered that pro-abortion women have one or more ulterior motives compelling them to keep a woman seeking an abortion from knowing the truth.  Again, emotions over rationality.  If a woman is shown a picture of her child as it is in her womb, even the slightest indication of humanity in that woman’s heart, which then would lead to a change of heart, is worrisome to pro-abortion supporters, in particular liberal feminists who despise childbirth and motherhood which they feel represents living in the “Stone Age”.  Is that rationality or emotions?

Ought we to allow abortion, which we know to be the killing of an unborn life, an innocent human being, based off of any number of emotional responses a woman might be going through?  Ought we allow ourselves to give into the irrationality and emotions pro-abortion advocates use to sway us, to lull us, to silence those of us who are pro-life, who value life, who fight for life?

If we do, aren’t we just as culpable, just as guilty, just as reckless as they are that support abortion on demand through emotions rather than rationality?  Where is the rationality in that?

Pro-Abortion Women Acting Stupidly

Pro-abortion women are always putting their stupidity, their arrogance and their idiotic and nonsensical push for why they need, and must retain, their right to kill unborn children on full display.  Here is another example of pro-abortion women acting stupidly.  Georgia Democrats, comprised of women, are using vasectomy to showcase the “double standard” between men choosing not to have children, by preventing a child from being created in the first place, and women choosing not to have children by aborting them after they have been created – or, killing them, as that is what abortion is.  Does anyone with a rational mind really believe the two are not so fundamentally different from one another?

Says Yasmin Neal, the bill’s author:

“Thousands of children are deprived of birth in this state every year because of the lack of state regulation over vasectomies.  It is patently unfair that men can avoid unwanted fatherhood by presuming that their judgment over such matters is more valid than the judgment of the General Assembly, while women’s ability to decide is constantly up for debate throughout the United States.”

This type of ridiculous BS  is how liberal politicians waste their time, and ours.  A man who has a vasectomy is indeed preventing a future child from being creating when he engages in sex with a woman.  But, in having that vasectomy, is he really killing a child in the womb who has not yet been created?  Pro-abortion women, acting stupidly, are under that impression, and they believe the two, having a vasectomy and having an abortion are comparable.

This stunt, which is all that it is, is in response to…

HB 954, a bill sponsored by Republican Doug McKillips that seeks to ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

In order to counter the bill, pro-abortion women, acting stupidly (as they are generally prone to do) think they can draw support in opposing the bill by hyping a man’s prerogative in having a vasectomy and why they, pro-abortion women, acting stupidly, ought to exercise their own prerogative to kill an unborn child in the womb.  Well…

vasectomy = preventing a pregnancy and the creation of a child in the womb

abortion = killing an unborn child in the womb after it has been created.

Where are the similarities?

Brainwashed Teenager Argues for Right To Kill Unborn Children

The Arianna Nation “Youth Movement” has a piece written by a young teen, Alton Lu, who wants to know why pro-life Americans would have the audacity to meddle in the affairs of  teenagers and all Americans who wish to engage in sex, and demand to be provided free contraception and free abortions – paid for by you, the taxpayer – and what will happen if abortion is ever banned and if the cost of contraception is ever reverted back to the people who want to engage in sex.

Alton Lu is a poster child for what liberals, the Left and Planned Parenthood have managed to do with, and to, our youth in public schools.  Alton is sincerely afraid of conservatives and the pro-life movement.  And why not?  Liberalism has brainwashed Alton into believing contraception and abortion are constitutional rights and that “women’s health” and “reproductive rights” are at stake; that conservatives are actually putting the lives of women in danger by pushing for abortion bans and trying to reverse the contraception mandate that would force Catholic and religious hospitals and institutions to provide women with services that are counter to their religious and moral convictions.

Writes Alton:

“What happens if abortion is no longer legal? What happens if planned parenthoods across the nation are shut down? What happens when students are continually subjected to abstinence-only education and people unable to receive contraception?”

To be fair, Alton legitimately and probably does not know what abortion really is, that it is in fact the killing of an unborn child, and probably has never seen a picture of a fetus in the womb. If Alton still supports abortion, the young teen has truly had a successful brainwashing, and is an example of what can happen, what is happening, to your children in public schools all over America.

If abortion is no longer legal, women will have to give girth to their babies which means more babies will be saved from being killed in, or out of, the womb.  Liberals seem to care less about this.  Some women will seek the “back-alley abortions” at their own peril.  However, that women would, of their own free will, drive themselves to engage in such madness, is no excuse to legalize, and to keep legal, a practice which kills unborn children.  More women who do become pregnant will accept the pregnancy and give birth.  Let us hope that more and more women’s crisis centers will be in operation, run by actual women who want to help pregnant women and girls during their pregnancy, provide them with the psychological and emotion support they need, and, if they cannot keep the child, help them find a family that can adopt the child after it is born.

Having to sit through abstinence-only education ensures teenagers are receiving the proper sex education they need, need to hear and need to hear from adults and teachers placed in, and with, the responsibility of educating them.  Thus, fewer teenagers are brainwashed into believing sex at their age is normal and acceptable.

Fewer teenager would also be engaging in sex, which would reduce the need for contraception, and lower the risks associated with sex (STD’s, etc.), and prevent more pregnancies, unwanted or otherwise, from occurring.  It would also reduce the reason for all those “Planned Parenthoods”, therefore they will not be missed.

Abstinence-only prevents pregnancy 100% of the time it is practiced.  Sex, even so-called “safe” sex can still lead to pregnancy and sexually related diseases.  If someone, including two teenagers, want to engage in sex, they ought not be encouraged by adults, and especially teachers, and they ought not be provided free contraception – paid for by the taxpayer – to make it easier for them to do.  Neither should any american.  If you want to have sex, fine.  Pay for the contraception yourself – and man up, and woman up, by dealing with any of those “consequences” should they arise afterwards.

“This isn’t legislation for the life of the fetus. This isn’t propaganda for the sake of the women’s life. It’s a pathetic attack by narrow field of religious zealots to impose their beliefs upon all women in the United States. Now people wish to use pregnancy and labor as punishment for sex. Policymakers use the politically-correct term “Suffer the consequences.”

Pure Planned Parenthood, liberal feminist BS.  Abortion is not just a religious issue, it’s a moral issue that is one of the defining issues of our time.  People who engage in sex, if they are “punished” with pregnancy “punish” themselves.  Why should the American taxpayer be “punished” by being forced to flip the bill for someone’s irresponsibility?

“Those who do not support abortion and adamantly despise it should be at the front lines, battling for the use of birth control. The best way to stop abortions is to ensure no unwanted fetus is created. Those who do not support abortion should be crying out for true sexual education, not the useless dribble called abstinence-only. There would be no need to save the life of unborn babies if people are able to prevent a pregnancy.

The best way to stop pregnancy, unwanted or otherwise, is to not engage in sex in the first place.  We who do not support abortion are at the front lines – to demand an end to abortion and to demand an end to the liberal dogma that abortion is an acceptable form of birth control and an overall part of “women’s health”.  It’s not.

Likewise, the best way to “ensure an wanted fetus is not created” is to not engage in sex in the first place.  If you want to engage in sex, nobody is trying to take that away from you.  However, if you do engage in sex, and become pregnant, having the right to kill your unborn child – and have that child killed at our expense – is not an option, is not acceptable and will not be tolerated.

“True sexual education” is abstinence-only, which does empower women more so that “safe” sex.  In other words, the more a women tells a man “No” to sex, rather than “yes”, the more the woman can control, and have control, over her own body.  The “looser” she is, the less respect any man will have for her and for her body, or want to have.

“I would question those who do not agree with my ideas. A paradox has been created with those who fight to stop both abortions and prevention. If you bring down abortion, prevention must be lifted up. If you bring down prevention, abortion must be lifted up… Or there’s the off-chance these religious zealots can actually convince the people of the United States to not have sex…

Your ideas are not only “questioned” they are being challenged.  Alton, you are far too young, and far too ignorant, (a result of the public education you have received, and the liberal brainwashing you have undergone) to fully comprehend just how dangerously wrong, and wrong-headed you are.  Your youth may be your salvation.  You have time to open your eyes and see why abortion is wrong and how Planned Parenthood, the public school system and liberalism has brainwashed you.

Fighting abortion is not to suppress women, to take away rights, to keep women “barefoot and pregnant” or to take away power.  Fighting abortion is to save the lives of unborn children.  Either life has value or it hasn’t.  Conservative and pro-life Americans have more respect for life, and for your life, than the liberals who brainwashed you have for you.

We don’t want to convince you not to have sex.  We do want to convince you not to have sex until you are married.  Outside of that – if you do, why should we “suffer the consequences for your mistakes?  And – why should the unborn baby you help to create “suffer those consequences” as well?

Abolishing “Women’s Rights” A Top Priority

From the Arianna Nation:

Inspired by the backlash over the brief attempt by Susan G. Komen for the Cure to cut funding for Planned Parenthood, a group of senators Wednesday is launching a bid to organize 1 million people in support of women’s rights.  Led by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), seven Democratic senators and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee are appealing to backers on all of their websites to sign on to “One Million Strong For Women” in hopes of harnessing the energy displayed in the backlash against Komen.

What rights do women actually lack, which, without having them, they, women, will forever remain the lessor of the two sexes?

When women talk about tight, uncomfortable fitting iron shackles, constricting belts, heavy locks, weighty chains clanking with the rhythm of a woman’s heartbeat and synchronized to her every breath – and of course the nightmarish visions of metal coat hangers; mind and body beaten down and ransacked, vandalized, disrespected, abused, tortured and repeatedly raped with no recourse, no respite and no remuneration, what are they really talking about?

If anything has been learned from the women’s movement (the radical feminist and liberal one) over the past forty or fifty years, it is that the more these women complain about how “unequal”, how “inferior” they are to men, how “unfairly” they have been treated by the “male dominated” society, the more actual harm these women cause to the real women’s rights fight.  When they talk about “women’s rights”, they are really talking about a few specific issues which only a minority of women really only find worth fighting for.  The “women’s rights” these women are concerned with, ironically, are opposed by more women than accepted.

Under the guise of “women’s rights”, make no mistake about what is really being demanded:

The “right” to privately kill their unborn child – and they want us to pay for it.

  The “right” to access free birth control, free contraception and free health care – and they want us to pay for that too.

The “right” to be paid for work not done while on maternity leave; not to be fired or replaced while at home on maternity leave; not to have their pay reduced or in any way compromised while they are away; to return to her job after many years and to be paid the same as the man who has worked those same years she was away.

•  The “right” to divert money away from successful sports programs enjoyed by millions and put into all-girl sports programs virtually no one has any real interest in.

•  The “right” to have included in college courses “women’s studies”, “feminist studies” and other courses geared specifically towards women and the women’s movement (the liberal feminist one) which paint an anti-male, anti-American, anti-woman historic worldview in the minds of impressionable young girls – paid for through government grants with money confiscated via our taxes.  In other words, women’s study courses designed to create even more anti-male liberal feminists, and paid for by us.

These are the “women’s rights” they say they must have, and have protected by the Constitution.  The “women’s rights” liberal feminists are, and have been, fighting for are as pathetic a joke as anything Barack Obama or Joe Biden have ever come up with.  The “women’s rights” they demand has no basis in reality or logic.  The “women’s rights” they say must be agreed to and accepted, and Constitutionally protected, are more anti-woman, more alienating, more divisive and certainly more inhumane and immoral, than anything else.  The “women’s rights” they say all women cannot do without have more of an overall negative impact on all women than positive.

These are the “women’s rights” that must be abolished.  And this is a top priority.

Black Woman Murders White Pro-Lifers, Planned Parenthood Applauds, MSM Ignores

Back in 2005 a black woman, donning a “superhero” costume and calling herself Dionysus, made it her mission to stop cold “evil” pro-life protesters and advocates who were openly dissuading people, including teenagers, from engaging in dangerous and irresponsible sex, and trying to convince them to remain abstinent.  One white pro-life advocate, speaking to a group of teenagers, sharing such information about abstinence, was soon interrupted by this woman, whom she brutally murdered by drowning him.  She struck again outside an abortion clinic where a group of pro-life protesters had gathered with signs.  Using her “superpower” strength she murdered them by act of suffocation.  Not only was this condoned by Planned Parenthood, but every murder this black woman committed was commissioned, orchestrated and paid for, by Planned Parenthood.

You might be wondering why you haven’t heard of this.  Perhaps it is a result of Planned Parenthood’s immense influence within the MSM they were able to keep it quite for so long.  Perhaps because it was black on white crime, and that never really gets the same attention as white on black crime does.  Perhaps because what happens to pro-life advocates at the hands of pro-abortion advocates is mostly irrelevant and ignored anyway.  Or – perhaps it is because all of this, the black woman/”superhero”, the white protesters, the murders were all part of a silly, childish and ridiculously put together cartoon created by Planned Parenthood as pro-abortion propaganda, primarily for young teenagers to view.

Yes, this is what passes for “education” and “information” from Planned Parenthood’s lips to your children’s ears.  Pro-life is “evil” while pro-abortion is “angelic”.  “Safe is sexy”, the cartoon says, which is drawn in a retro 1970’s style.  No longer available for viewing on the Planned Parenthood site, it can still be viewed on YouTube and probably elsewhere around the internet.  A pro-abortion black woman cartoon character, a “superhero for choice”, telling children, young teenagers, sex is alright because there are many ways they can stay “protected” while doing it.  A black woman cartoon character calling pro-life advocates “ugly”, conservatism “the stench of misinformation” and Jerry Falwell a “shmuck”.

The black woman cartoon character goes to Washington where an “evil” white politician set in his “grandiose” ways is boiling up double trouble in the form of a stew made from the Constitution and other literature, laws and values Planned Parenthood and liberals so despise and loathe.  Having thrown him into his own stew he comes out cleansed and naked, and with a new pro-choice, pro-abortion attitude.  And, for some reason, an apple in his mouth.  Wouldn’t it be more interesting if Planned Parenthood had included a naked white, or even black, woman on a platter with an apple in her mouth?

The black woman cartoon character then visits Ethiopia where she is thrilled to learned Planned Parenthood has set up shop, helping the natives there prevent, and end, unwanted pregnancies.  She seems less concerned, however, that they are still living in straw huts.  Well, after-all, even Barack Obama’s uncle is still living in one of those.

Somehow, Planned Parenthood, back in 2005, thought this would a positive, uplifting and informative cartoon to dispense to the youngsters it hoped and intended would watch it.  Somehow, Planned Parenthood, back in 2005, thought black women would find it, and themselves, empowered and inspired by having for a “superhero for choice” as their role model another cartoon-ishly drawn black woman.  There might be some truth to this.  Blacks who identify themselves as liberal, certainly have no respect for any black man or woman who is a pro-life conservative.  No, the more a black, such as this black woman cartoon character, supports and advocates the killing of unborn children, and calls that a lifestyle “choice” the more comfortable are liberal blacks.

So, is this cartoon of a black woman cartoon character really nothing more than a racist or stereotypical caricature, a denigrating and degrading depiction of blacks in general?  Because to Planned Parenthood, it’s not.

Pro-Abortion Stance Must Include Killing Gays, Blacks And Girls In The Womb

Supporting abortion on demand, a “right to privacy” and being pro “choice” all encompass the concept that women, and girls, of any child-bearing age have, and ought to have, the right to end their pregnancies at any time during the nine months of fetal development.  Supporting this stance also means that if a woman finds out there is a good chance her child will be born gay, or if the child’s sex is determined to be a girl, or if the child’s race (its skin color) is not what the mother expected it to be and she chooses to end the pregnancy – that right to abortion is fully supported by pro-abortion advocates.  But, here’s the irony and the hypocrisy –  pro-abortion advocates would never openly advocate any of these types of abortions.

Planned Parenthood does not have billboards, pamphlets or any type of literature telling women it’s o.k. if they abort a child who will be born gay, a girl, or a skin color they find objectionable.  But Planned Parenthood will abort those babies if the mother tells them that is the reason why they want to end the pregnancy.  Hence the “right to privacy”.  Planned Parenthood certainly will not tell a woman she cannot have an abortion for any reason, which includes sexual orientation, sex and race.  It would be bad for their business.

Likewise – all those radical feminists who support abortion on demand.  Nancy Keenan, Terry O’Neill, Pat Schroeder, Pat Ireland, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Debbie Wasserman Shultz, etc., etc. etc. ad nauseam, will not openly say they support a woman’s right to abortion if that abortion is to end the life of an unborn female child.  But they will still support a woman’s right to “choose” abortion for the purpose of sex selection.

How many pro-choice gays and lesbians would openly support a woman’s right to abortion if she found out her child would be born homosexual?

How about Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Tavis Smiley, Cornel West, Van Jones, Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson Lee, Carol Mosley Braun, etc., ad nauseam?  They all support a woman’s right to “choose”.  That also includes a woman’s right to choose to abort a baby whose skin color might to too uncomfortably dark.  But they would never openly admit that.

On the flip side of that – imagine a black woman going into a clinic for an abortion because her unborn child is too white.  It happens.  Talk about a “conflict of interest” where Planned Parenthood is concerned.

Ladies and gentleman – the pro-abortion side is advocating  a lie.   Namely, that an unborn child is not alive to begin with, until after it is born.  But also, that the unborn child is not a separate life within the woman, but a part of the woman herself, no different from her bones, muscles, tissue, cells, etc., and akin to a disease, virus, tumor or cancer.

There is tremendous hypocrisy on the pro-abortion side.  Where does that hypocrisy exist on the pro-life side?  We support banning abortion in all cases – except to save the life of the mother when and where her life is legitimately threatened by the pregnancy and there is no known operation or procedure to reverse the threat.  That means we who are pro-life do not want to see abortions occurring even if the child will be born gay, female or a skin color other than white.

So that, in turn, means the real threat to women, people of color, and gays and lesbians is on the pro-abortion side, not the pro-life side.  To be pro-abortion is to be pro-death.  To be pro-abortion is to support killing an unborn child who will be born gay; to support abortion when an unborn child will be born a girl; to support abortion when an unborn child will be born black, brown, or not white enough – or too white.

One column written has recently generated tremendous attention:  Pro-Life Women Are Watching Also, Cecile Richards.  In not one instance has there been a legitimate or provocative reason why abortion was/is necessary.

The pro-abortion side cannot have it both ways.  They cannot fully support abortion on demand if they feel uncomfortable openly supporting abortion in cases where the unborn child will be born gay, female, or a color they don’t appreciate.  Conversely, pro-abortion advocates cannot be “pro-choice” if they are uncomfortable, openly or in secret, opposing a woman having an abortion to get rid of a potential homosexual in the family, another girl or black baby.

If it is in fact a “woman’s choice” all pro-abortion advocates ought to revel and celebrate the fact that a woman has exercised that “choice” even to abort a gay child, a girl or black baby.  And while they do, the fact that they do so in secret, rather than openly, shows the blatant hypocrisy and insecurities of their cause.

On the other hand – we could offer legislation to ban abortion in the case of sex selection, sexual orientation and skin color.  What would pro-abortion advocates have to say about that?  And what they do have to say, and what they keep silent about, will speak volumes about them and their real intentions and motivations – the foundations of which are built entirely on a lie.

The pro-life side?  It’s based on the foundation that all life has value and worth, including that life which is yet unborn, even if it will be born gay, female or black.  Does that sound like a lie to you?

How To Challenge Obama, All Pro-Abortion Politicians, Expose Their Hypocrisy – And Ruin Their Political Careers

Pro-abortion supporters are hypocrites and we can easily expose their blatant hypocrisy and bring to an end this barbaric practice so coveted by liberals and so heavily protected by the MSM with their silence.  We can topple Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW and all pro-abortion organizations.  We can crush politicians like Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Wasserman Shultz, and Kirsten Gillibrand, who had this to say about abortion and the “importance of electing pro-choice women to congress in 2012″.  We can redden their faces, shame and embarrass them, and thoroughly destroy their political careers forever.  And we can even ruin Barack Obama’s aspirations for a second term in office.  We can – just by asking the right questions, demanding an answer and not letting them off the hook.

For example…

Question:  As you (insert political candidate’s name – let’s say Nancy Pelosi) are pro-choice and support abortion on demand, you would naturally support, without question, the right of a woman who has become pregnant during a one night stand to abort her unborn child, correct?  The man, by the way, whom she had intercourse with was black, she white, and she has just found out the baby will be born black, and that is her reason for wanting the abortion.

What on Earth is Nancy Pelosi going to say to that?  How can any self admitted pro-abortion politician answer that question without either offending the entire abortion rights movement or an entire race?  Especially if they are on a stage, in a debate, where people are watching, film is rolling, they are on the spot and time is ticking down.

They might try squirming their way out of the issue with a juvenile, sophomoric response like, “Well, I support a woman’s right to privacy, and what she does with her own body, in privacy, is none of my business.”  But this still doesn’t end the fact that an unborn child is being killed in the womb because it is black.  This is the challenge for, and the dilemma which must be forced upon, those who are pro-abortion to answer.

And the follow-up question then must be:  So, if a white woman wants to exercise her “right to privacy” and abort her unborn child because she has found out it will be born black, as long as you, Nancy Pelosi, are unaware that is why she is aborting her unborn child, you would be comfortable in supporting her right to choose abortion based on race?

Now what can she say?  Either Nancy Pelosi, any pro-abortion supporter, is going to support a white woman’s right to abort a child who would be born black, or she, any pro-abortion supporter, is a hypocrite.  In other words, one cannot support abortion on demand, and then, in an open forum, become uncomfortable with absolutely supporting an abortion procedure to remove an unwanted, unborn child because a white woman does not want to give birth to a black child.

Granted, some politicians run unopposed and never have to stand at a podium and debate in public.  We still need to force an answer out of them, even if it is on the fly, even if it means cornering them on the steps of the Capital, or as they are walking from point A to point B in a public space.  And if they refuse to answer?  If they simply scoff at the question and walk away?  It’s not so immoral, so unethical to answer the question for them.

For example…

As a reporter, professional or amateur, you have just cornered Nancy Pelosi in a public venue and have only moments to ask her the above question.  You calmly ask it to her, and, as expected, she walks away without a response, or with an indignant sigh.  She has gotten the better of you – or has she?

When faced with this, answer the question for her and make her, Nancy Pelosi, defend herself with an opposing answer.  Report and/ or write as if Nancy Pelosi has actually answered your question in either this manner:

Well, from what can be gathered by her response, or lack of response, it is absolutely certain that Nancy Pelosi supports a woman’s right to abort an unborn black child on the basis of race.  And as she supports raced based abortions, obviously she, Nancy Pelosi, also supports, must support, abortion in cases where it is known the child will be born a girl or gay.  And we have to wonder how long Nancy Pelosi has held these racist, bigoted, homophobic, sexist views and whether black Americans, gays and lesbians and any woman could support her any longer politically.

Or in this manner:

Well, from what can be gathered by her response, or lack of response, it is absolutely certain that Nancy Pelosi, while she supports abortion on demand, and supports a woman’s “right to privacy”, and while she would never detract from that, Nancy Pelosi would indeed support the right of government to ban race based abortion.  And we have to wonder what other types of abortion bans Nancy Pelosi would support, how that will play with women’s rights advocates, whether or not she will lose their support and how Nancy Pelosi can legitimately continue to call herself pro-choice. 

Having done this, make Nancy Pelosi try to make you retract what you have said/written about her.  Make her threaten to sue you.   And then call her bluff.  Because either she is going to sue you, in which case she will then be compelled to answer your question, whether she wants to or not, in a court of law, under oath, which will be made public – or, she won’t sue you.  If, after having threatened to sue you, Nancy Pelosi doesn’t sue you, she is admitting she is the hypocrite we all know she is, but hoping you are too unimportant for anyone to have noticed has just destroyed her credibility on abortion.  Don’t let her off the hook.

Don’t let any so-called “pro-choice” or “women’s rights” advocates of the hook.  Keep the pressure on them, make them mad as hell and watch them become flustered, irritated and unstable; watch them lose their concentration and their train of thought; watch as they stutter and try to back track their way out of having to answer a most uncomfortable question indeed, knowing that no matter how they answer it, it will put their political careers in severe jeopardy.

We can end abortion in America, and everywhere in the world the procedure is used by exposing their own hypocrisy and their own double standards simply by asking them the politically incorrect questions they are so fearful of being asked or would never be asked by anyone in the MSM.

Or, is it possible to support abortion on demand and a woman’s “right to privacy”, which must include the right of a woman to abort a black child, a girl child, a gay child, without being racist, sexist, bigoted or homophobic at the same time?  Who is really being convoluted here?

Martha Plimpton Is Wrong About Rick Santorum And Abortion

Martha Plimpton (Think, The Goonies) has publicly criticized Presidential hopeful Rick Santorum on his view regarding abortion.  Plimpton, who is pro-abortion, and like all abortion advocates hostile to any intervention into a woman’s right to “privacy”, has challenged Santorum’s perceived intolerance to what she feels is a matter best left between a woman and her doctor.  But as we know, as we ought to know, abortion is not so simply described as the “private medical decision” Plimpton opines.  Abortion is the termination (killing) of a live fetus, which is a human being.  Why on Earth do we want to relegate the killing of unborn human beings to the “privacy” of an abortion clinic room?

There are some “medical decisions” and procedures that are so inhumane, so inhuman, we have a right to be concerned they are taking place in “privacy” (secret) throughout America, and we have an urgent need to ensure these practices are made, and remain, illegal.  What is a human being to Martha Plimpton?  What is the value of being a human being to her?  Why does she not see that an unborn child is a human being?  Hasn’t she seen the sonograms?

Writes Plimpton:

“Mr. Santorum is the one who feels that the private medical decisions made between women and their families and doctors are public property and must be regulated and scrutinized by the government.”

When it comes to killing an unborn child, absolutely our government must “scrutinize” and “regulate”.  Plimpton, also a liberal, would demand our government “scrutinize” and “regulate” everything else in our lives, from the food we eat, to the gas we buy, the cars, clothes, homes, light bulbs, toilet paper and on and on.  But how dare the government take the pro-life position on the killing of an unborn child.

“The policies Mr. Santorum advocates would lead to the investigation and scrutiny of women’s medical decisions about their pregnancies. He seeks to criminalize abortion and to criminally charge doctors for performing them.”

The “policies” which Santorum “advocates” would prevent the unnecessary killings of millions of unborn children.  That’s rather impressive.  It cannot be said enough that the more we as a society allow, accept, condone, or are otherwise apathetic to, policies which undermine a respect for life, the more we degenerate into an animalistic society devoid and bankrupt of any values.

We have seen how societies of people without any values, without any concern for anyone or anything, such as the OWS protesters, live their hunter-gatherer lives, how they invade the sanctity of private space and land, squat on it and claim it as their own; a total disregard for the people who regularly use this space for business and pleasure, and how they leave an area after they are through slashing and burning it.  Someone can challenge it, but every last one of these protesters it can be certain is pro-abortion.  They have no respect for the people living, and making a living, in and around the areas they commandeered for their protests, why would they have any respect for, or put any value on, the lives of the unborn.  And – it was pro-abortion liberals who supported them throughout.  Conservatives, overwhelmingly pro-life, remained staunchly opposed to their shenanigans.

The point being – this is what America is headed for the more we devalue human life.  Societies without morals and standards, as represented by the OWS protesters, which do not emphasize a respect for human life, will devolve into the same deplorable mannerisms as the OWS protesters, begging for food, using any open space available to urinate and defecate and dump their trash.

Plimpton continues:

“How much more invasive can one get? How much bigger does the government need to be to be a presence in the examination room of every pregnant woman in the country?”

She says this, and yet is there any doubt she supports Obamacare, which is big government; which is invasive; which is a “presence in the examination room” of not just “every pregnant woman”, but everyone in the country, man, woman and child.

“If Mr. Santorum seeks to police women’s reproductive lives, he must expect to be subject to the same irrational, intrusive, embarrassing and degrading inquisition he intends to force on the rest of America.”

There is a gross misconception that to be pro-life is to be anti-woman.  That being pro-life stems from a sinister desire to control women’s lives, to keep them “barefoot and pregnant”.  But this is pro-abortion propaganda.  Women ought to be grateful, not resentful, for the pro-life movement.  Women ought to celebrate the pro-life movement, not condemn it.  Women ought to realize that to be pro-life is to be pro-woman, not the opposite.  It is NARAL, NOW and Planned Parenthood which have no respect for women.  It is pro-abortion organizations like them who see pregnant women not as mothers to be but as cash cows.

Being pro-life means we have a deep and profound respect for human life, including the untold millions of female children slaughtered in the womb every year around the world, intentionally, and because they are female.  The pro-life movement opposes abortion as a means of sex selection.  The pro-abortion movement embraces it.  Which side, then, is really on the pro-woman side?  That the pro-life movement would seek to prevent a woman from having an abortion in no way devalues the life and worth of the woman.  We place a high value on human life; we do everything we can to preserve, to save, to prolong life, from the moment of conception through the end of life and even into death and by respecting the right of the dead to rest in peace.  The same people who are pro-abortion also support harvesting human organs and other body parts, and using the dead for scientific research without their prior written consent or authorization.

Plimpton’s tirade against Rick Santorum is woeful indeed.  Would Plimpton support federal law mandating all hospitals and all medical staff perform abortions against their religious or moral convictions?  Is that not invasion of “privacy” also?  Is that not “big government” being a “presence” in every hospital in America?

Or is government only “big” and “invasive” in her eyes when it seeks to stop the killing of unborn children, but not when it seeks to control any other aspect of our lives, including those guaranteed under the Constitution?

What Does It Mean To “Abortion Rights” If A Fetus Feels Anything?

Of course such an idea as a fetus feeling anything is “patently absurd” to begin with, right?  And women who are “overprotective” of their nonliving, nonhuman fetus are just ignorant, uneducated rubes making fools of themselves.  They haven’t been “schooled” properly by pro-abortion educators.

That has to be fact.  The entire credibility of the abortion rights movement rests on the idea that a fetus (an unborn child) is not actually alive, or even human until after it is born.  While still in the womb, though it is “developing”, whatever it is, according to Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW, the ACLU and every other abortion rights supporter, it is not human, nor does it have the right, legal or moral, to be considered human.

So, why should a pregnant woman worry about whether or not microwaves, cellphones, anti-depressants or anything else would be considered harmful to an entity that, for Planned Parenthood, NOW President, Terry O’Neill, and politicians like Nancy Pelosi – who wouldn’t let her “conscience thing” distract her absolute support for abortion, say isn’t even a living human being until it has been born?

Or, to put it another way – How can this nonliving, nonhuman “thing” we call a fetus, for which pro abortion rights supporters vehemently deny and absolutely reject is human, while it yet remains in the womb, have the capability of feeling anything that is happening to it – while it yet remains in the womb?  And why should any woman go through the trouble and hassle of caring that a “nonhuman” entity is being exposed to levels and doses of electromagnetic rays, waves and smoke that only affects living human beings?  Planned Parenthood, the “only authority” on the matter, contends a fetus is not alive, not a human being, has no claims or rights to be legitimately considered human beings and therefore is incapable of feeling anything that is happening to it.

And if it, though it is “nonhuman” and “nonliving”, can feel the effects of microwaves, anti-depressants, cigarette smoke, etc., what does that mean for abortion and abortion rights?  Certainly if a fetus can feel the effects of anything at all, it can feel the effects of the abortionist literally sucking out its life.  If a fetus can feel at all, then it can feel pain, right?  If a fetus can feel anything, it must be alive.  And either a fetus is alive or it is not.  If it is alive, then it is living.  If it is living, what is it living as?  A tree?  a shrub?  A bush?  Merely a collection of cells?  If a seed from a tree germinates, does it develop into a human being?

And when we start worrying about the health of a nonliving, nonhuman, unfeeling being, (like a toy doll) don’t we have some type of highly disturbed, deep mental issues we are dealing with?  Isn’t it time we went to see the corner shrink to find out what is going on with us?

Planned Parenthood tells us abortion is a safe and legal procedure, and very common; that there “are many things to think about” when deciding to have an abortion.  The first thing they reassure every woman contemplating abortion is that the “thing” inside of them isn’t alive, isn’t human and, other than the umbilical cord, has no real attachment to them; in effect saying to all these women, go ahead and smoke, pig out on sugary junk food and fatty, unhealthy calories, microwavable edibles; talk for hours on end on your cell phones as usual; and if you feel any depression, go ahead and take some anti-depressants while you are in the process of making the decision of having an abortion.  Remember – only you, a living, feeling human being will “feel” the affects.

NOW proclaims, “reproductive justice is every woman’s right“.  They have a list of reasons why that is and why abortion, “reproductive justice” as they call it, should be protected, expanded and government funded.  And they reassure their members that the real terrorists are pro-life supporters; the uneducated hicks, gun toting religious nuts who go around touting the evils of abortion.  But abortion, as NOW knows, can’t be “evil” if the fetus is indeed a nonliving nonhuman, unfeeling “thing”.  One can only contemplate true “evil” if the reverse was true.

NARAL maintains abortion is “our right to choose at every opportunity“.  They say the “real problem” is that “anti-choice people want to outlaw abortion”.  That is a real problem – if a fetus is a living, feeling human being.  But if a fetus is not a living, feeling human being, as NARAL insists it is not, then – what is the problem with exposing it to all the hazards and health risks we associate as dreadfully harmful to life and to living, feeling beings, which, NARAL protests, a fetus cannot be?

The ACLU states that in the “world we want” abortion consists of  “personal and private decisions about forming intimate relationships and building secure and healthy families”.  But they are ominous in their warning that “the struggle is getting worse”.  Hmm.  If the ACLU can’t prove in a court of law that a fetus is in fact an nonliving, unfeeling, nonhuman being, with all the resources and professionals they have at their immediate disposal, then the “struggle” will indeed “get worse” for the pro-abortion movement.

What more proof does humanity need to accept that a fetus is nothing more than the nonliving, unfeeling “thing” they – the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, NARAL and NOW – have been saying it is for the past forty years?  How much more money are we going to waste on “frauds” and “scams” that make us worry and fret over the unhealthy affects cellphones and cigarette smoke and microwaves are causing to the “thing” inside a woman?  “Things” cannot feel anything.  Living beings, human beings can feel.  Living beings, human beings are not “things”.  They are not toys and they are not to be toyed with.

There must be a method to the madness of the pro-abortion movement.  Or is it just madness?

Of Mississippi, Abortion Politics, The Right To Life, The Right To Kill – And Why We Fight For The Unborn

D-Day – November 8, 2011

A day which may very well live in infamy.  Even yet, pro abortion groups are calling out all supporters, mobilizing their forces, mustering their defenses, making phone calls, sending out e-mails, petitions, etc., for the day in Mississippi when voters of this state will go to the polls to make history – by defining life as beginning at conception, rather than sometime after the mother gives birth.

The pro-life movement has been gearing for this event ever since Roe vs. Wade, and the decades that followed, when abortion rights advocates began broadening the 1973 ruling to include abortion all the way up to giving birth; when abortion became a “right to privacy”; a “women’s right” issue; “abortion on demand”; when Planned Parenthood and others began to demand taxpayer funding for all abortions and demand hospitals and doctors perform abortions against their moral or religious objections; when abortion became, in the eyes, hearts and minds of so many millions of Americans, brainwashed by a liberal, anti-life agenda, as “settled law”.

Nothing in the eyes, hearts and minds of a liberal is “settled law” if they don’t like the law.  Why should it be any different with those of us in the pro-life camp?  And while we have the Constitution on our side and the proof that life in fact does begin at conception (which did not exist at the time of Roe vs. Wade; which, if if had, Roe vs. Wade would never have become law), we still have an uphill battle to fight.

The complaint by pro-abortion supporters is its “vagueness”.  The problem with this argument is that pro-abortion supporters would object to an anti-abortion proposition even if it was absolutely defined.  In other words, if the proposition, in so many words, stated something along the lines of:

Whereas human life shall be defined as that life which begins at conception (fertilization), and as such shall be granted, even in the unborn stage, Personhood status, and the same rights and liberties, including the right to life, as anyone who has been born; that, because the unborn are recognized as human beings, they shall not be indiscriminately killed (aborted) in the womb – or partially in the womb – for any reason except to save the life of the mother, or where there is a clearly defined, and specific, health risk to the mother in which her life, as attested to by professional, competent and accredited doctors, is in danger, or where she might die without otherwise ending her pregnancy;

That whereas an embryo is recognized as human life, it shall not be destroyed or used for its stem cells in, or for, other medical or scientific experiments unless in a manner that allows for its development into a fetus and ultimate birth.

What’s wrong with that?

Pro-abortion supports, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW, feminists, so called “women’s rights” advocates, demand a woman be allowed to legally kill her unborn child at any stage of her pregnancy for any reason.  Pro-abortion supporters want it all their way, and pretend to be shocked and flabbergasted when pro-life supporters dare to challenge that.

Pro-life Mississippians will be going for the whole “kit and caboodle” this time around, rather than pick away at the pro-abortion agenda one slice at a time.  We’ve tried, in vane, over the decades to at least end certain types of abortions, like partial birth abortion, and abortion in the third trimester; we’ve tried to stop abortions “for any reason”, including psychological, emotional and financial by providing alternatives to abortion for those mother’s who do not wish, or who cannot afford, to keep the child; we’ve tried to prevent minors from obtaining an abortion without their parents consent or knowledge; we’ve tried to end the taxpayer funding of abortion and forcing hospitals and doctors from performing abortions against their moral or religious objections.

On some counts we have succeeded, on others we have failed.  On some counts where we have succeeded, we have seen those victories overturned by liberal courts.

Either life has value, or it hasn’t.  We who are pro-life contend life does have value.  That is why we fight for it, and will always fight for it.

Planned Parenthood, et. al., contend the unborn are neither human, nor life, despite the fact that there is scientific proof to counter that claim – proof which Planned Parenthood desperately wants to prevent being shown to a woman contemplating abortion.  What possible rational could there be for Planned Parenthood wanting to suppress any evidence, such as a sonogram, that very clearly shows the human life within her?

The answer is not so much wrapped around the money being profited off abortions as it is wrapped up in liberalism and feminism, and the right to life versus the right to work.  All pro-abortion organizations are predominately made up of women.  Liberal women – women who despise the role of motherhood and the whole “a woman’s place is in the home” idea.

Women have always, throughout all of human history, been the primary care takers of children.  And feminists know that every time a woman in the work place becomes pregnant, that pregnancy, and giving birth, will take her out of the work place for a couple of years to a couple of decades while she stays home and raises the child, perhaps having more children in the years to follow.  Feminists know that once the woman leaves the work place to give birth and raise a child, the longer she remains away the less likely she will return.  Feminists also know that a woman who leaves the workplace to give birth and raise a child will likely be replaced by a man.

This, more than the money profited, more than population control, more than anything else is why Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW, feminists and other “women’s rights” advocates fight to keep abortion alive.  Pure selfishness.

This Tuesday, November 8, when Mississippians will vote on whether to legally define life as that which begins at conception, thereby giving it legal protection and the right to life, the vast majority of voters who vote in favor of Proposition 26 will not be thinking about the consequences of women losing their role in the work place.  Rather, they will be thinking about the consequences of life itself and value of human life, and how much value to ascribe to human life.

What will the voters who vote against Proposition 26 be thinking about?

NARAL, NOW, Planned Parenthood, et. al. “Want People To Die” (Over 50 Million Already Have)

Who really wants who to “die on the floor”?

When Nancy Pelosi, Democrat CA, former Speaker of the House, disgraced and embarrassed herself on the floor of that House the other day, stating that Republicans who backed a bill (which has since passed) that would block taxpayers from having to fund abortions, and hospitals from having to perform those abortions against their religious/moral beliefs, she remarked that those Republicans who supported the bill “wanted women to die on the floor”.

Over 50 million lives have been lost since 1973 directly by the hands of Planned Parenthood and other so called “women’s rights” groups, and thanks in large part to the generous votes of “Corruptocrats” in congress like Nancy Pelosi who, through their votes, have allowed the killing to go on.

The Queen of Flamboyancy and drama aside, (Nancy Pelosi, not Barney Frank) who really wants who to “die on the floor”?

The pro-life conservative fighting for the rights of the unborn to live?   Or the pro-abortion liberal fighting for the rights of women to indiscriminately kill that life?

Every time a pro-abortion protester or group, like NARAL, NOW, Planned Parenthood, etc., promotes an abortion; every time a woman goes into an abortion clinic to have an abortion; every time an abortionist performs an abortion – someone dies.  Every time!  Except for those rare occasions where the abortionist botches the killing to the point where it strays over the line of legally killing the unborn child to becoming an act legally defined as murder, and where the botched abortion has been documented or otherwise cannot be covered up.  Because abortion, which is celebrated as a victory of, and for, women’s rights, is nonetheless, morally, understood to be murder.  Some victory.

When Nancy Pelosi stood before the House and condemned Republicans as heartless and “wanting women to die on the floor”, what she was really promoting, by pandering to Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups, is for women to have the right to let their unborn child “die on the floor” of an abortion clinic room.  And unless the mother’s life is legitimately threatened because of her pregnancy (and only a handful of crackpots oppose abortion even in this instance) what reason is there for her having the right to let her unborn child “die on the floor”?

When Planned Parenthood helps a woman plan the killing of her unborn child, and ultimately helps her carry out the killing to the fullest, who is it who is letting who “die on the floor”?

When politicians vote in favor of forcing tax payers to fund abortion, and for hospitals to perform those abortions in strict conflict to their own religious beliefs; when politicians vote in favor of more liberal abortion rights in general, who is it who is condemning life to “die on the floor”?

When pro-abortion women, and men, gather to protest for abortion rights, for easy access to those abortions, for abortions at any time and for any reason, who is it who is protesting whom to “die on the floor”?

When pro-life women, and men, and organizations fight and protest to protect the lives of the unborn from being indiscriminately aborted, and when they are successful in changing a pregnant woman’s mind, when they are able to avert an abortion from taking place inside an abortion clinic, who “dies on the floor”?

Through the demonstrative arrogance of Nancy Pelosi, and liberal politicians like her; the demoniacal, deconstructive and despicable actions of Planned Parenthood and anti-life groups like them, they continue to spread the lie that abortion is nothing more than a simple medical procedure, no more significant, or less, than getting one’s ears pierced or getting a tattoo, which all women ought to have easy and affordable (taxpayer funded) access to at any time, for any reason, without question.  Despite the fact that abortion, in the vast majority of instances is not simple, nor is it even as necessary as getting a piercing or a tattoo, which is hardly a necessary undertaking in of itself.  And abortion still leaves one dead life “on the floor”.

How can Nancy Pelosi say conservatives want “women to die on the floor” by blocking tax payer funded abortions where the life of the mother is not at risk, or anywhere near in danger, and the woman is not going to die by that abortion being prevented?  In other words, if the woman is not going to die (and there already is federal coverage for abortion for low income women who must have an abortion because her pregnancy is causing real danger to her life) why must tax payers be forced against their religious and moral beliefs/convictions, and hospitals as well, to see that abortion carried out?

Obviously Nancy Pelosi was using the bill as a diversionary tactic because she knows that by blocking taxpayers from funding certain abortions, and by blocking hospitals from being forced against their religious/moral beliefs to perform those abortions, it makes it that much more difficult for an indiscriminate abortion to happen.  And it is for the indiscriminate abortion, the abortion “for any reason” which is at the heart of the pro-abortion movement.  Remember, nobody except those few crackpots contests an abortion where the mother’s life is legitimately at risk.

It is for the indiscriminate abortion which Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW, Nancy Pelosi, et. al., fight to protect and fight to keep legally intact.  It is for this same type of abortion which pro-life organizations fight to make illegal.

So, the question remains on the table:  When politicians breathe life into, and pass, pro-abortion bills, sponsored and promoted by Planned Parenthood, et. al., on the House Floor, who is it who really wants who to “die on the floor”?

Abortion Is Murder; Abortionists are Murderers: Women Who Have Abortions Are Accessories To Murder – Plain And Simple

(Well, technically, from a legal standpoint, it’s only “killing”, not murder.  So, for those of you who are pro-abortion, yes indeed – abortion is just “killing”; abortionists are just “killers”, and women who have abortions are really nothing more than accessories to that “killing”.  From a “legal” stand point, anyway.  Is that more comforting?)

What is it with liberal Democrats always going around accusing conservative Republicans of wanting to kill everyone?  You’ve got Allen Grayson, Democrat, from Florida, giving his “Die Quickly”, speech, screaming that Republicans who opposed Obamacare wanted to kill Americans.

Now comes Nancy Pelosi, Democrat, from Planet California, on the House floor decrying and denouncing Republicans, who she believes are letting Women ‘Die on the Floor’ Without Medical Care because they are trying to pass a bill that would prevent American taxpayers from funding abortion, which would otherwise force religious hospitals to perform those abortions, and the legal “killing” (not murder) of an unborn child, and for which millions of Americans (those that value human life) find offense in supporting with their taxes.

Despite Pelosi’s incoherent blather, the bill passed in the House today.

There seems to always be a double standard with liberals in that while they demand all taxpayers be forced to contribute money which would be used to abort – kill an – unborn child, when Republicans try to pass another bill that has “choice” in it, a bill that instead of killing children is an attempt to help place them in a better education environment, like a school vouchers bill, those same liberals are dead set against that type of choice.  The reason?  Passing such a school vouchers bill would “conflict” with those Americans that are “uncomfortable” with their taxes going to religious schools.  But using tax dollars to kill an unborn child seems to not pose any moral “uncomfortableness”.

It’s a fact.  Conservatives value human life.  Liberals don’t.

Ladies and gentlemen – there are no Republicans, there are no hospitals in America, that would “let a woman die on the floor” of a hospital if her life was indeed, and legitimately – and really – in serious danger.  And if her life was in serious danger from complications due to a pregnancy, and the only way to save her life was to abort the fetus, than that clearly, in the minds of the vast, vast majority of all Americans (including fundamentalist Christians) is moral and proper and understandable.  With the exception of a very few crazies and crackpots, there is no one who would force, by law, or by any other means, a women to give birth to a child if that meant it would end her own life in the process.  Some women do this of there own free will, and that is a bravery to honor and to be commended.

What Nancy Pelosi is doing, which is what every other pro abortion organization does as well, by condemning Republicans who support and value human life, by throwing out phrases like “Republicans want to kill women” amounts to slander.  Nobody is suing, however.  It’s all political theater.  And not very entertaining.

The issue at hand is whether Americans ought to be forced to see their tax dollars go towards funding abortion, and whether religious hospitals ought to be forced to provide those abortion services against their religious beliefs, including non life threatening, abortions, and the reasons that compel a woman to seek an abortion rather than carry the child to term, give birth, then give it up for adoption if she really cannot psychologically or financially cope with raising the child herself.

Nobody condemns a woman for giving up her child, and nobody (except the very few crackpots) condemns the woman who has the abortion.  It is abortion, the act itself, which we condemn.  And we certainly condemn those pro abortion organizations which behave, and act, in irresponsible ways when it comes to disseminating information to women about their unborn child; that are quick to rush a woman to an abortion clinic to kill that child rather than find alternative solutions which allow for the child to at least be born; that put financial motives and gains ahead of everything else, especially the emotional needs and concerns of the woman being told to have the abortion.

In other words, what Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW and the gang are doing to women is an absolute act of betrayal to them.

Yes, abortion legally is just “killing”.  But morally and ethically it will always be murder.  And regardless of what one calls abortion, it still takes away a human life that might have had an opportunity to live.  That is what we in the pro-life movement are fighting for, and will continue to fight for.  Life!  And the high value we place on life.

What is the “high value” pro abortion groups place on abortion, and having an abortion?

Post Navigation

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 61 other followers

%d bloggers like this: