The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Archive for the tag “Opposition to the legalization of abortion”

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?

About these ads

Are Pro-Abortion Women Really The Only Authority On “Reproductive Rights” Because They Are Pro-Abortion?

Liberal feminists have been mad as hell since an all male panel deliberated over their so-called “reproductive rights”.  However, what exactly was being deliberated, and what exactly are these “reproductive right” they fear are being challenged and possibly taken away?  And if women had been included who identify themselves as pro-life, and agreed with their male colleagues, would these same liberal feminists not have still been outraged, indignant and mad as hell?

The panel was called not to discuss “reproductive rights” and whether or not women were entitled to them.  Rather the panel met to discuss whether or not religious institutions would, or could be, forced by the federal government to provide contraception, birth control and other services even if in doing so it went against their religious convictions.

Said Rep. Darrell Issa, Republican committee chairman,, in response to Democrats as to why no women were included:

“The hearing is not about reproductive rights but instead about the administration’s actions as they relate to freedom of religion and conscience.”

In hindsight, it would have done well to include women, even an evenly split panel of men and women.  However, even women who dismiss and reject the notion that there is a right and an entitlement to “reproductive rights” are viciously scorned and attacked and vilified by liberal feminists and liberals in general.  And imagine if the panel was made up entirely of women who supported the right of religious institutions to be exempt from being forced to provide such services.  What, predictably, would the response have been among liberal feminists then?

Ladies and gentlemen – liberals are not, in fact, aghast that this was an all male panel.  They would have been equally aghast if it had been an all female panel which was in opposition to forcing Obama’s contraception mandate on religious institutions.  And they would have kept their mouths shut if, as an all male panel, they all concluded in favor of the liberal definition of “reproductive rights” and voted to support Obama’s contraception mandate and force religious institutions to provide services against their religious convictions.  So it is just hypocrisy on their part, on anyone’s part, to criticize the gender make-up of this particular panel.

What liberals are aghast over is that anyone, male or female, tries to intervene on behalf of unborn children to save their lives.  “Reproductive rights” are, after-all, a code word for abortion.  Any move to limit or restrict “reproductive rights” is seen as moving backward in time and putting women’s “health” is danger.  But since “reproductive rights” have nothing whatsoever to do with having a child and giving birth to a child but everything to do with the right to kill that child in the womb, anyone, male or female, is excoriated and ripped to shreds for trying to protect unborn life.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., said early in the hearing, and voicing her anger that women had not been included:

“We will not be forced back to that primitive era.”

In other words, the “primitive era” she is referring to is the time before Roe vs. Wade.  Liberals, like Maloney, equate having an abortion, and the right to kill an unborn child, as “progress” in “women’s rights”, “women’s health” and “reproductive rights”.  It is strange, then, that there are many millions of women with whom are in favor of “repressing” women, which would include themselves, and “forcing” women “back to that primitive era”.  What do these women have to gain by siding with men on the “reproductive rights” of women?  Aren’t they contributing to the endangerment of all women (and that means themselves) and “women’s health” by doing so?

There must be something else going on that, these women so clearly see, which have blinded liberals and liberal women specifically.  Something that is so crucial, so important, so fundamental – so American, that women who are on the pro-life side are willing to “repress” all women and “force” them “back to that primitive era”.  What could that possibly be?  And why are pro-life women not considered an “authority” on “reproductive rights” the same as pro-abortion women are?

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?

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?

Post Navigation

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 61 other followers

%d bloggers like this: