The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Archive for the tag “Pro-life”

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.

A “War On Women”? Then Let It Be An Armageddon! And Let These Women Feel Our Intense Wrath Reign Hellfire And Damnation Down Upon Them…

Sharpen your wits and your tongues – liberals insist there is a war on women.  On the one hand it’s absurd, but the more we (conservatives) attest to its absurdity, the louder liberals cry “war on women”.  They own the MSM and so have the ability, through their puppet stations and wide variety of media outlets, to drown out the opposition – which is us.  (That market, by the way, has been diminishing for many years.)  On the other hand, liberals are emphatic in their insistence that a “war on women” truly exists, and is being waged on women, by conservatives, specifically.  Who are we, then, to quibble over trivialities?

Liberals have defined this “war on women” as a war intentionally designed to either remove by degrees and increments, by huge chunks or eliminate altogether in one fell swoop, the legal right women now have with regards to, as liberals call it, reproductive health decisions.  (Conservatives understand the myriad code words, phrases and lingo liberals use.)

What liberals are really saying when they claim a “war on women” exists is that conservatives are trying, and often succeeding at unprecedented levels liberals never thought could be possible, to make illegal what is now legal, and has been legal since 1973.  Namely, the legal right to have an abortion.  Abortion – also known as the killing of unborn children.  That is what all this hub-bub and hullabaloo is all about.  Women – liberal women – want to retain the right to kill unborn children at will and in privacy.  And damn anyone that tells them they can’t do that!

Abortion is only a legal right, and only intact as long as there is a majority support for it in legislatures which, and by legislators who, are elected to pass and abolish laws.  But no law is set in stone, even liberals know that.  And it’s interesting to note that liberals, with the exception of abortion, reject the notion any law is “set in stone”, including, and especially pertaining to, our Constitution.  Nothing is untouchable, so far as liberals are concerned, except abortion.  “Separate but equal” was set law for many decades, longer than Roe vs. Wade has been around.  That was overturned, rightly, of course.  But Roe vs. Wade, of which liberals and feminists just celebrated the 39th anniversary, contest is set in stone.  Can anyone name any other law liberals attest is also set in stone?

Now, we – those of us who are pro-life – have but two options:

One – we can acquiesce to liberals; we can accept that abortion is set law, well established, well grounded, stare decisis; we can remove our vocal and physical presence and simply walk away; we can tie our hands behind our backs and turn a blind eye; we can ignore what we know is happening behind closed doors in privacy, roughly one million times a year across America; we can abandon morality, ethics, common decency and common sense and sensibility; we can make all the pretend excuses we want for our silence, to replace and to fill the vast void, the nothingness left from our absence.  Liberals would love that.

Two – we can grow some courage, stand up and fight.  We can meet liberals on the battlefield and make war with them, crush them, annihilate them, bury them underneath the weight of their own fallacies, their own hyperbole, their own arrogance, their own hubris!

We are not at war with women to take away their right to:  vote, work, get an education, read and write, walk in public without a male escort; marry whom they choose.  We are not at war with women to make them:  less equal to men in any sense of Constitutional law, the dominion of men in any sense of the definition, “barefoot and pregnant”, homemakers and housewives, miserable.

But we are at “war with women” if, and because, liberals have defined this “war on women” as a war against abortion, and to end abortion in America.  In that sense – liberals are absolutely right, damn right, about there being a “war on women”.  Who are we, pro-lifers, to deny that war does not exist?  Who are we to reject that “war on women”?  Hold your head high and embrace it!  Revel in it!  Relish it!  Embroil yourself in it!  Fight!

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?

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-Life Women Are Watching Also, Cecile Richards

On the 39th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, women are indeed “watching” and they are angry as hell that the monstrous, evil practice that is abortion has not yet been overturned.  But if you were only to listen to radical feminist, Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, you would get the impression that all women fully supported abortion, and fully support Roe vs. Wade.  What is Cecile Richards response to the fact that scores of millions of women in fact oppose abortion and are working hard to overturn Roe vs. Wade?  Answer?  Repugnant, indignant silence.

Cecile Richards, Planned Parenthood, liberal feminists all make it sound as if abortion is a fundamental and imperative “woman’s right” issue, and that without it women are inferior and less equal to men and/or second class citizens in America.  That, if Roe vs. Wade was ever to be overturned, women would somehow loss something of value, some piece of their identity, some inherent and innate freedom and right.  But the only thing that is “lost” when Roe vs. Wade is overturned is a woman’s right to kill her unborn child.  That is, and has been, the defining issue for the past 39 years.  Every time a woman has an abortion she is in actuality killing her unborn child, whether she is aware she is or not.

There is no reason to doubt Cecile Richards, or Planned Parenthood, NARAL and NOW all know abortion kills unborn children.  There is also no reason to doubt they do not care.  To them, pregnancy is like a terminal cancer.  Pregnancy, to them, means a life sentence of stay at home mother-hood.  This is what they fear most.  More women staying at home to raise the kids, either leaving the workforce or never entering it.  In other words, pure, unadulterated selfishness.

Richards celebrate Roe vs. Wade as:

The time the Supreme Court recognized the inherent right to privacy for women…

But at that time, in 1973, because science and medicine were both more primitive, the Supreme Court was forced to make an error of judgement in ruling on the side of abortion, and granting, a right to it.  The Supreme Court, because the evidence did not yet exist, did not recognize that an unborn child is a human being from the moment of conception.  Science was not as advanced in 1973 and the technology to peer inside the womb was unavailable.  And yet, while this technology has been available for years now, we are still debating whether or not abortion is the killing of an unborn human being or merely the removal of a blob of tissue or collection of cells, or whatever other disgusting euphemisms the pro-abortion movement ascribes abortion as being.

Cecile explains the fundamental and critical importance of Roe vs. Wade and abortion this way:

[As] an urgent issue given that women were dying in emergency rooms across the country from self-induced abortions.

In other words, we are supposed to keep abortion on demand legal for all women because a tiny, tiny minority of women, a fraction of the actual number and percentage of women have, in the past, and of their own free will, self aborted, and died???  And should Roe vs. Wade be overturned, there is the possibility several woman could be forced, of their own free will, to revert back to the illustrious “back-alley abortions”???  The infamous metal coat hangers???  The storied and “heroic” long trips across the country to find the one person who can end their pregnancy in secret and save them from mother-hood???

Ladies and gentleman – Cecile Richards is engaging in deception, as is Planned Parenthood and the entire pro-abortion industry.  The vast majority of women who became pregnant prior to Roe vs. Wade carried the pregnancy through.  Granted, in cases of young girls, there was still that stigma and shame attached, and perhaps they were sent away to visit an “Aunt”.  However, abortion is not now legal, is not now so rigorously fought for strictly to keep women from engaging in those dangerous “back alley abortions”.  Abortion is kept alive, and fought for by Richards, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW, etc. for two reasons.  One – to keep women and girls from having to decide over caring for a child or a career.  Two – because abortion is not done pro-bono, it remains a very profitable business and money-maker.

Another of Cecile’s canards:

But today, women across the nation are disturbed to see a set of politicians doing everything they can to undermine this landmark decision that has stood as a critical safeguard for women’s health for four decades.

To the many millions of American women who are pro-life, abortion has never “stood as a critical safeguard for women’s health”.  That is a feminist prevarication.  It has, of course, stood as a critical safeguard for liberal feminists who desire to indoctrinate other unsuspecting girls and women, into believing abortion, under the guise of a “right to privacy” is a woman’s right issue that cannot, must not be breached.  Because if it is, all women, so feminists profess, will be unduly subjected to the “horrors” and “unimaginable dangers” of the past.  Richards always invokes “dangerous and illegal abortions”, but what her greatest fear is, is seeing America revert back to the 1950’s and the “Father Knows Best“, “Ozzie and Harriet“, and  “Leave it to Beaver” way of life that makes feminists like Richards cringe and squeal in disgust.

Look at it this way – if abortion really provides a safeguard to women’s “health”, the challenge for Richards is to explain what the specific “health” issue is, which she and the rest of the feminists never do.  And if it is not life threatening, then it is treatable for both mother and unborn child.  So, why kill the child in the womb if both it and mother can live?  Until Richards and the entire pro-abortion movement, can be thoroughly challenged to define what specific “health” issue(s) warrants the killing of an unborn child, they will keep using “health” as a generic euphemism for what really amounts to their fear of America, and American values, returning to the era of the 1950’s.

There is nothing “anti-woman” about being pro-life.  Abortion rights are under assault now because more and more American women, and men, are coming to that conclusion.  The tide is indeed turning, and the filth of Cecile Richards, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW and the entire pro-abortion movement is slowly washing away.

We know Roe vs. Wade will celebrate its 40th anniversary next January 22nd.  Let us hope (and pray, for those of you who are religious) that there is a Republican in the White House by then, and the House and Senate is controlled by a majority of pro-life conservatives who will finally topple this national disgrace which has seen the killing of over 50 millions human beings, the vast multitude of which were exterminated needlessly and selfishly.

As new measures are introduced to put an end to the despicable, evil practice of abortion, Richards and her feminist pro-abortion ilk will kick, scream and move about even harder to keep the killing of unborn children legal.  We know that.

We also know that unborn children have the ability to kick and move about in the womb – a sign of life.  As Richards kicks and flails about madly, insanely, irrationally, fighting to keep abortion alive, will unborn children have to kick all that much harder to let their mothers know they are fighting to keep alive, that they want the chance to live  – and they do not want to be killed?

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?

Jesus Will Vote For Mitt Romney (Or The Republican Nominee) Part 2

UPDATEJohn Bolton Supports Mitt Romney also.

Liberals, who are overwhelmingly pro-abortion, have got it in mind that Jesus also is pro-abortion.  Where this scandalous and ridiculous notion came from is anyone’s guess.  Jesus was very much pro-life and never would have condoned abortion as a means of “family planning”.  Nor would Jesus have allowed himself, or his followers, to give up so easily, so readily on women and girls faced with the tough decision of whether or not to continue with an unwanted pregnancy, carry the child all the way through, give birth and then give the child up for adoption, thereby giving the child a chance, an opportunity to live, to exist, to grow up and grow into a productive member of society – or to simply kill the unborn child and discard it as trash or flush it away like human waste.  Jesus never advocated, nor would he ever have, killing unborn children.

Too many Christians have fallen prey to liberalism’s intentionally destructive mantra that the unborn child would be better off dead and whisked off to Heaven forthwith, into the arms of an awaiting and loving Jesus rather than be given the chance to coexist outside the womb in harsher, more unpredictable and unstable environments than we have come to expect Heaven would contain.  How can any intelligent individual, with a straight face, actually believe, accept, be and find comfort in, such malevolent nonsense?  Jesus would have preached courage to a pregnant woman or girl, even faced with hardship.  Of course, in Jesus’ day there was more emphasis on extended family and community than there is today.  That would have given the child a slight edge than we have in today’s society.

Still, there is the alternative of adoption.  There are organizations which can and will take over responsibility for a child which cannot be cared for by its mother.  Why is this the less convenient route for a woman to take?  There is nothing pro-Christian or pro-life about abortion.  Liberals, who have infiltrated and co-opted Christianity have weakened it dramatically by influencing and manipulating its teachings, distorting the words of Jesus and twisting what he said into something that fits snugly into their unholy agenda.

One cannot be a liberal and a Christian.  And yet, millions of liberals profess themselves to be Christians.  It is a facade and a charade, a trap, one in which liberalism itself has found a way to brainwash wandering Christians into falling into, or one for which Christians themselves, of their own free will, have sacrificed themselves.  Obviously there have been many failings and false teachings within Christianity in its past, and many faithful Christians have not been able to resolve those stains.  We can talk of slavery, poverty, class distinction, healthcare, and all the repulsive ways in which the “haves” have mistreated the “have-nots” over the course of human history, and even throughout the history of America.  However, the question still remains – how does giving into another false teaching, such as abortion, rectify and resolve the failings of past Christian teachings?  It doesn’t, and it never will.

What is a Christian’s motivation for being pro-abortion?  What does a Christian gain by promoting, and being tolerant of, apathetic and indifferent to, a practice that kills unborn children?

It is very daring, indeed, for one to be so brazen to call their self a Christian and to support abortion on demand.  What happened to them over the course of their life that they abandoned rationality for insanity?  Obviously Christianity failed them somewhere, or someone was able to get to them, get into their mind and convince them being pro-abortion is Christian.  Either that, or there are millions of people going around professing to be Christian but in actuality are playing a part; millions of people who are in reality liberal atheists, pretending to be Christians in an effort to weaken Christianity.

There is, after-all, a Christian pretender in the White House.  President Obama who, may or may not be a Muslim, who, at least might have once been a Muslim in his past, now is a socialist.  And as someone who supports abortion on demand, he is certainly no Christian.  It is liberalism and socialism which states there is no worth, no value, no humanness in unborn children.  If Obama really were a Christian he would not take this or any pro-abortion position.  If Obama really were a Christian he would have the courage to distance himself from the filth and muck that is Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW, the ACLU and every other pro-abortion organization out there.  If Obama really were a Christian he would have the courage to denounce them, to fight against them, to crush them.  If Obama really were a Christian, he would be a Republican.

That Obama is a Democrat, is pro-abortion, is a socialist, does support abortion on demand, makes him an anti-Christian, a counterfeit Christian and a coward.

All the Republican nominees for President are pro-life.  Jesus is pro-life.  Christianity is pro-life, regardless of the deceit and underhandedness which has manifested and infested itself within Christianity by devilish liberals whose only purpose is to undermine Christianity for their own selfish and arrogant, and very dangerous, purpose.

As Jesus is pro-life, and Obama is pro-abortion, and Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and every other Republican contender for the Presidency is pro-life, whoever the republican nominee is who goes up against Obama, who can we be absolutely certain Jesus will be voting for in this upcoming 2012 election?

Of Michelle Goldberg Part 6: The “Extreme” Value Of Human Life

Just “how extreme” is personhood, and the idea set forth by pro-life supporters that a fetus in the womb is in fact a human life worth protecting?  To pro-abortion feminist, Michelle Goldberg, who writes of Republican “extremism”, and a teleconference debate sponsored by Personhood U.S.A., any attempt at preventing a woman from ending her pregnancy is an assault on “women’s rights”, and therefore too “extreme”, including and especially the “extreme” anti-abortion positions set down by the four Republican candidates participating:  Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry.

In her article, Michelle Goldberg makes an attempt to redefine what “extreme” means.  Does she?

Michelle writes:

The event demonstrated that a commitment to banning all abortion, even in cases of rape, incest, and threats to a woman’s health, is now the normative position among the party’s presidential contenders.

Do conservatives place too much value on human life and the unborn, too much emphasis on when life begins, we cannot see by putting women in situations which make it harder, illegal, to obtain a life ending medical procedure, an abortion, we are jeopardizing their health, their lives, and devaluing the self-worth of all women, preventing them from going back and living their lives as they once did, shattering their dreams, making it impossible for women to become anything more in their lives than mothers?  What defense do conservatives have against such a reckless abandonment of concern for women’s rights, for equality, for fairness and the right of all women to share in the American Dream; to be free and independent?

This is what liberal feminists posit.  To them, pregnancy changes everything for a woman.  Giving birth reroutes a woman’s destiny.  Caring for and raising an unplanned child takes women down a road different from the one they had hoped to travel.  Women become lost down this unfamiliar, unfriendly terrain.  The bitter coldness, the loneliness, of pregnancy, the hostile, unpredicted conditions and alienation cause her no other choice but to seek out help.  So, they hitchhike a ride on the abortion bandwagon.

She writes of Michele Bachmann:

Bachmann distinguished herself with her dishonesty, claiming at one point that Obama is “putting abortion pills for young minors, girls as young as 8 years of age or 11 years of age, on [the] bubblegum aisle.” (Obama, of course, recently overrode an FDA recommendation to make emergency contraception available over the counter for all ages, infuriating women’s-health activists.)

To be fair, Bachmann was not as dishonest as Goldberg portrays her. If but for the immense amount of pressure anti-abortion groups have been mounting, if but for their successful lobbying efforts, Kathleen Sebelius would have accepted the FDA’s recommendation to allow girls at any age, even as young as ten, to purchase the Morning After pill (Plan B), without their parents knowledge or consent – and Obama likewise would have overwhelming approved and applauded, and supported, the decision.

In other words, neither Sebelius or Obama gave any real consideration to:

  The cultural effects we would all be faced with of having to watch very young girls buy a drug behind her parents backs, to keep secret a sexual act she does not want them to know about.  Something liberal feminists want their parents, and society, to both accept and ignore.

•  The fact that teenagers are engaging in sex and rather than push for responsible programs which help them delay sexual activity, provide them with drugs which make the unwanted results go away, thereby allowing the irresponsibility to continue unhindered.  Something liberal feminists want conservatives to both accept and ignore.

•  The psychological effects all girls, even very young girls, would be forced to deal with, living in a society that does nothing to protect them from engaging in a behavior they are far too young to understand and appreciate.  Something liberal feminists want all girls to discover for themselves when they “feel they are ready”, even if that means at a very young age.

There has been considerable outrage within the pro-abortion and feminist community over what they feel is a betrayal by Sebelius and Obama.  Were they too “extreme” in preventing young girls from obtaining the Morning After Pill?  Michelle Goldberg believes they were.  And so do other feminists.  But don’t expect them to see their views as “extreme”.

Abortion, and the right to have an abortion, for any reason, regardless of the girl’s age or what stage the pregnancy is in, is more than a private choice, it is a fundamental and Constitutional right to Michelle Goldberg and liberal feminists.  Is that “extreme”?

Goldberg was also little impressed with Perry’s explanation for “flip-plopping” his views on abortion.  He now opposes it even in the case of rape and incest.

“This is something that is relatively new,” he said, citing a meeting with Rebecca Kiessling, a spokeswoman for Personhood USA who was adopted after her mother, a rape victim, tried and failed to abort her. “Looking in her eyes, I couldn’t come up with an answer to defend the exemptions for rape and incest,” he said. “And over the course of the last few weeks, the Christmas holidays and reflecting on that…all I can say is that God was working on my heart.”

Is the pro-life position so “extreme”, so stubborn, we cannot accept abortion even in the case of rape and incest?  Even in the case of a woman’s “health”?  Is the pro-life position so “extreme” we adamantly refuse to condone abortion, and fight vigorously to outlaw it, even in the case of rape and incest, and “health” of the woman?  Is the pro-life position so “extreme” so narrow-minded that we reject abortion as a means of “family planning” even in the case of rape and incest, and “health” of the woman?  Is the pro-life position so “extreme” so hostile, to “women’s rights” that we put her unborn child’s right to live ahead of those “rights” even in the case of rape and incest, and “health” of the woman?

Is the pro-life position more “extreme” than the pro-abortion position?  Is Michelle Goldberg right?  Have we “gone extreme on abortion”?

Either life has value, or it hasn’t.  Is there a life inside the womb or not?  Does that life have any value?

Is killing it, even in the case of rape and incest, and “health” of the woman less “extreme” than fighting for its life?

Or, has Michelle Goldberg redefined the meaning of “extreme”?

From “The Daily Kos” With Hate/OWS Protesters Sue To Take Over Public Space (For Their Own Private Use)

•  The Daily Kos Says Bah Humbug To Life, Insists The Unborn Die, Decrease The General Population:

The Scrooges over at The Daily Kos, are incensed with Republicans.  It is inconceivable to them we would have such a reverence and respect for human life.

Because it’s apparently not yet clear enough that Republican presidential candidates are really, really, really “pro-life,”

Yes, we are “really, really, really pro-life” – just as you at The Daily Kos are “really, really, really pro-death.

Of course, they just went through this exercise last week, at Mike Huckabee’s propaganda-and-popcorn extravanganza, where Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, and the Ricks Perry and Santorum talked about how super duper pro-lifey they are (while conveniently omitting their super duper pro-death penalty records). But that’s not enough, so they’ll do it all over again next week, when they can discuss at length how important it is to give rights to eggs but not women. Or gays. Or immigrants. Or convicted criminals. Or anyone else for whom they’ve discovered a loophole to exclude from their “all life is sacred” [BS].

“Memo” to The Daily Kos, convicted criminals and illegal aliens (what you refer to as “immigrants”) can’t vote either, nor do they have the same rights as law abiding, legal American citizens, but that doesn’t stop the Left from pandering to them – and somehow their signatures still find their way upon ballots.  How could that be?  As for gays and women, theirs are the same rights as everyone else under the U.S. Constitution.  However, killing your unborn child, which may be in a woman’s body, is nonetheless a separate and unique body – not the “cancer” you on the Left envision it.   In other words, it’s not “your body”, it’s not “your choice”.  These “things” as the Left describes them are human beings from the moment of conception.

We will have to see if any “ghosts” visit the contributors for The Daily Kos on Christmas Eve.  But, unlike Scrooge, the Left is probably hopeless.  Luckily, so is their pro-death cause, which is dwindling much in the same fashion the “Spectre of Death” dwindled into Scrooge’s bedpost.

What awaits the pro-abortion movement is the same fate as that which would have been Scrooge’s, had he not turned his life around.  Remember, Scrooge cared nothing about Tiny Tim in the beginning.  To Scrooge, Tiny Tim was exactly as an unborn child is to the Left.

In other words – worthless!

  Occupy Wall Street Protesters:  “America Is Like Tahir Square, Egypt”:

OWS protesters have not lost any credibility, since they never had any to begin with.  Yet, here is a perfect example of how and why these very misguided protesters have found another way to make fools of themselves.  They are suing for what they believe is their First Amendment right to free speech.  That is, they believe – actually believe – they have a right to invade public space, take it over, block it from any other use, prevent it from being used by anyone else, squat on it, live on it, trash it, use it as a toilet, and how dare the police, local government, we who have not lost our minds condemn them.  Their irresponsible, infantile behavior has resulted in millions of taxpayer dollars being shelled out to clean up what has otherwise been an “environmentally unfriendly” mess they left behind.

The lawsuit compares the treatment of OWS protesters at the hands of police with those protesters in Tahir Square, in Egypt.

“When I think about the tents as an expression of the First Amendment here, I compare it to Tahrir Square in Egypt,” said Carol Sobel, co-chairwoman of the National Lawyers Guild’s Mass Defense Committee.  “Our government is outraged when military forces and those governments come down on the demonstrators. But they won’t extend the same rights in this country,” she said. “They praise that as a fight for democracy, the values we treasure. It comes here and these people are riffraff.”

The OWS protesters are indeed “riffraff”, and far worse than that.  And so is Carol Sobel, for her comparing American protesters with those protesters in Egypt fighting for real change, for a democracy we already have and the Egyptians don’t.  The Egyptian military is slaughtering its citizens in its attempt to quell dissidence there.  Over here we use pepper spray and tasers, in limitations but with absolute good reason, and that is about as far as we go.  Over there, they beat the hell out of their women, and an Egyptian minister calls the beating justified.

Carol’s baseless and inflammatory remarks are wholly without merit and is further evidence of how the left has become completely unhinged.  The rights we have in America are immeasurable compared to those in Egypt.  But even American citizens ought to have enough common sense to know there is no First Amendment right to commandeer any public space, claim it as one’s own for a cause, and hold on to it indefinitely.  All that accomplishes is to turn a once public space into a now private space which we, the public, are still responsible for maintaining at our own cost.

Will we now see the OWS protesters for the despicable, whiny, sniveling, stuck-up brats they are?  Because they will be back come spring, and warmer weather.

Of Michelle Goldberg: When “Mississippi Women Win” The Unborn Lose, As Does Humanity

Michelle Goldberg has a piece out in the Daily Beast touting victory for the women of Mississippi over the defeat on November 8 of the Personhood Amendment proposition.  “Mississippi Women Win” is the title of her piece, and it illustrates a very important point.  Michelle contends that the women in Mississippi, and probably women all across America, in her view, have won something – the right to continue legally killing their unborn children.  She is right about that.  However, and quite disturbingly, Michelle seems over satisfied with this.

She writes:

It was the latest bit of evidence that the American right has overestimated public support for its agenda.

Our “agenda” is one of life, and of recognizing the value of life, that human life in fact begins at conception, which is a scientific fact, and has been for some time now.  Our “agenda” is to provide legal protection for the unborn, from those women that have been intentionally misled and outright lied to by Planned Parenthood, NARAl, NOW, etc. that killing their unborn child is nothing more than having a mole removed.

She continues:

Until now, most attacks on reproductive rights have been aimed at the margins, eroding Roe v. Wade bit by bit. They’ve affected minors, or poor women, or women needing late-term abortions in situations that most people imagine they’ll never be in.

Notice Michelle Goldberg refers to abortion as “reproductive rights”.  It’s a bit of sleazy and thoughtless manipulation of reality on Michelle’s part.  What does “reproductive rights” conjure in the minds of anyone?  In other words, if one knows little or knowing about abortion, does abortion even come to mind when they hear “reproductive rights”?  Because what Michelle is conveying is that ‘attacks on reproductive rights” are really attacks on the “rights” that women have to kill their unborn children.  But if she said it that way, more women would become suspicious.  For all of Michelle’s feminism, she is intent on keeping women in the dark, and uneducated, when it comes to abortion.

She further says that the attack on Roe vs. Wade has “affected minors”.  How?  In other words, a “minor” who engages in sex and becomes pregnant, a “minor” who desires to kill the child rather than have the courage to face the consequences of her actions – to be a woman – ought to be free simply dispense of the “mistake”?  And we should accept that?

Of “poor women”, Michelle laments that even they are not immune from pro-life responders; that poverty is justification for killing an unborn child.  And who pays for the abortion when a woman is too poor to pay for it herself?  Obviously, we the taxpayers are the ones Michelle and other pro-abortion supporters want paying the price for irresponsibility; a most monstrous lust she and they have in seeing us pay for the killing of an unborn child.

Of “the need for late term abortion”, Michelle does not understand, or is too ignorant to know that there are no “situations most people” can’t “imagine” to justify the killing of a child so late in pregnancy.  Unless there is a real and direct threat to the life of the mother, which, in this day and age, is extremely rare, there are “no women needing late term abortions”, as Michelle passionately, but misguidedly, claims.

Says Goldberg:

Amendment 26 was different. It would have interfered with the health care of middle-class women and crime victims, and even the most conservative voters in the country weren’t willing to do that.

How, perchance, does not having an abortion “interfere” with “the health care of middle class women and crime victims”?  In other words, what Michelle is really conveying here is her feminist belief that pregnancy and motherhood itself, is an interference with middle class women, and that having a child “interferes” with a woman’s status as middle class; that having an abortion is merely a part of “healthcare” which presumably all middle class women ought to have the right to enjoy; that for a woman of  “middle class” status to not have an abortion jeopardizes her “middle class” status, and might drive her into poverty.  So far as the “health” aspect goes, our healthcare system in America is the best in the world.  If a woman has a health issue, and is pregnant, unless it becomes legitimately life threatening for her to continue the pregnancy, there are solutions to protect both mother and child.

Of “crime victims”, Michelle can only be referring to rape.  Is a child less of a human being if it is created by, and a product of, rape?  We who are pro-life contend that even in the case of rape, though we acknowledge the violence involved, the unborn ought to be protected from violence itself.  Women who cannot emotionally or psychologically care for a child, knowing it was created out of lust rather than love, ought not be forced to keep the child, but neither ought she have the right to simply discard it, throw it away as if the child was something not human, something not alive.

Of  “most conservative voters”, Michelle is as well wrong on that count.  “Most conservative voters” in Mississippi and in America are staunchly pro-life.  Unfortunately, it appears that the language in Proposition 26 was too vague and misled people into believing its passage would have created more uncertainly than clarity.  Perhaps it was all the pro-abortion activists that had descended on Mississippi as locusts descend on a field of corn, or wheat, and ate alive that uncertainty of Mississippi voters yet unsure whether this Personhood Amendment reached too far into the lives of women.

So, back to work on redrawing a new proposition that, it is hoped, will be unmistakeably clear in its language and its meaning.  If the pro-life movement in Mississippi has learned anything about this defeat, it ought to have learned that language, clarity and meaning are imperative; that if they attempt to pass another Personhood Amendment in Mississippi, or elsewhere, in other states, using the same language as in Proposition 26, it is very likely to be defeated as well.

And what has Michelle Goldberg learned?  She finishes her column by writing:

They (Mississippi voters) may pay lip service to the idea that a fertilized egg is a human being whose rights trump those of women, but they’re not willing to carry it to its clear, cruel conclusions.

In other words, Michelle has learned nothing.  “Its clear, cruel conclusions” is the violent act of abortion itself, not, as she and other pro-abortion supports contest, the defeated proposition.  And “a fertilized egg” is a human being, as science has already confirmed.  Indeed, life, the sanctity of life, ought to “trump” a woman’s desire to indiscriminately kill it.

But Michelle Goldberg, for all her “feminism” would rather all women remain ignorant and uneducated when it comes to the reality of abortion.

What is it she is afraid women will learn?

Why The Continued “Assault On Women’s Rights” Is Moral And Justified

Planned Parenthood never met an abortion clinic it did not like.  They decry violence against women, but never mind the horrific violence against unborn children that goes on inside these places.  Every abortion clinic in America, including here in Philadelphia, where three people have now been charged with murder in their capacity as paid performers in this monstrous scam that has cost the lives of over 50 million people, has but one goal – to free women from the burden of motherhood and liberate them from those parental responsibilities which take them away from realizing real independence, real “equality” with men, in particular in the workplace.  Motherhood, being a parent, as far as Planned Parenthood, and feminism, is concerned, is a death sentence for womanhood, and however many steps back for women’s equality, and back into whatever century they claim it to be.

What is puzzling about this article is that it does not state whether the charges of murder are for the deaths of the unborn babies or the woman who died as a result of being given an overdose of Demerol.  Because abortion, although morally is murder, legally it is not- yet.  And the way in which the doctor performed the abortions, although very disturbing, sounds exactly like how any and all extraction and dilation abortions occur, except that in this Philadelphia experiment the baby was delivered entirely, head and all.  In other words, for it not to be considered a legal murder, the head would have had to remain inside the womb as the rest of its body dangled on the outside while the doctor plunged his instrument of death into the baby’s head.  Apparently, performing this exact same procedure, albeit with the baby entirely delivered, is murder.   Little technicalities, perhaps.  And let that be a lesson for all you future abortionists and abortionist “wannabes”.

Perhaps the murder charge is for the baby that was delivered alive into a toilet, but where the doctor fished it out, and then performed the abortion.  After-all, he probably didn’t want to get “cheated” out of his abortion money and figured, ‘Who’s going to know the difference anyway”?

Indeed.  How difficult is it to know whether a baby has been killed while its head yet remains inside its mother’s womb, or if it has been fully delivered and then aborted?  And why do we insist on calling the former “legal” and the latter “illegal”?

Abortion is the centerpiece of feminism and for those groups like Planned Parenthood which espouse the long held lie of  “women’s rights”.  You will not find them, nor will you find NARAL, NOW and the rest discussing this horrific murder on their websites, unless they can find a way to spin it in their own favor.  Along the lines of – well, if only the government had provided this clinic, its employees, with more funds, and – this is the fault of the religious right for their assault on women’s rights, etc.

Has Planned Parenthood ever accused an abortionist of murder, or accepted the accusation of murder, while performing an abortion?  Can an abortionist ever commit murder, in the mind of Planned Parenthood?  Remember, these are the people who consider pro-life activists terrorists.

The greatest threat to “women’s rights”, as far as feminists are concerned, is the threat to abortion; access to it, funding for it, support of it.  The fewer women who are having abortions, the fewer women there are to be found in the work place – they are all at home taking care of their babies!  Access, funding and support continues to dwindle, as more and more people, women especially, learn the grim truth of abortion, and reject it.  Planned Parenthood and other feminist “women’s rights” groups have gotten both sloppy and desperate in their campaign to save abortion, willing to do and say anything, no matter how deeply their actions cheapen and degrade womanhood.

If abortion really was a “women’s rights” issue, why do so many millions of women oppose abortion?  Compare that with the right to vote.  That was a women’s right’s issue.  Is abortion really a “personal choice” issue if taxpayers are funding it?  Is the “truth about abortion” really that it merely allows a woman more control over her body?  Nothing more than that?  Don’t women who oppose abortion know the dire jeopardy they are putting their own personal freedom and liberty in by opposing abortion?  Isn’t killing your unborn child worth the extra freedom and liberty that comes with it?

Ladies and gentlemen – in America, women have rights, the exact same rights as men, as guaranteed under our Constitution; rights unequaled, unparalleled, unmatched with respect to women in the rest of the world.  While most American women are happy with that, feminists and liberals have been attacking the Constitution for decades with the same kind zeal as, ironically, people in terrorist strongholds around the world, where women have no rights at all, have been attacking, and trying to attack, America because of our Constitution and guaranteed freedoms – especially those freedoms women enjoy.  Is it a far stretch to say terrorists hate our Constitution as much as liberals here in America, especially “women’s rights” groups like Planned Parenthood?  But pro-life activists are the real terrorists?

Either it is moral and it is justified to attack abortion for what it really is – murder, in the moral sense, or it is not.  Not a “women’s rights” issue as claimed by feminists.  And if it isn’t moral or justified to attack it; if we allow ourselves to give in to the lie that Planned Parenthood, feminists and liberals promote it as being – a “women’s rights” issue; if we who oppose abortion accept it as merely a “personal choice” women make to “end an unwanted pregnancy”, where do we draw the new line of what is moral and what is immoral?

Either life has value or it hasn’t.  And either killing Planned Parenthood (in the taxpayer pocketbook) and the legal right to abortion on demand, is moral and justified, or it is not.  If we cave in to anti-life, anti-women extremists like Planned Parenthood, what else will we cave in to?  And will there even be a line left to draw afterwards?

The more we attack and assault abortion for what it is, the more we attack and assault Planned Parenthood for what it is, what it represents and what its true agenda is, the more unborn babies will be saved from experiencing an horrific murder, whether they are partially in, or completely out of, the womb.

And the more girls who ultimately will be alive, and allowed to grow up to enjoy womanhood, and revel in, “women’s rights” as guaranteed through our American Constitution.  Because they weren’t murdered while still in the “unborn” stage.

Isn’t the right to life the real “woman’s right” issue we ought to be fighting for?

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?

‘Partial-Birth’ Abortion May Kill More Support For Abortion Than Unborn Children

Warning:  There are some graphic descriptions of abortion procedures in this column!

The Michigan Legislature Passed a ban on ‘Partial-Birth’ Abortion and it won’t be long before Pro abortion advocates like Planned Parenthood and NARAL cry “murder”.

Michigan passed this ban its sponsor said because it –

Was necessary to establish sentencing guidelines for offenders and to help Michigan’s prosecutors and local police departments enforce the law, since the FBI does not have the resources to do so.” – State Sen. Goeff Hansen, Republican.

Partial birth abortion is the act of partially delivering a fetus and then killing it while it is still “partially” in the womb.  In other words, partial birth abortion is exactly what it sounds like.  And while the term was coined in 1995 by the National Right To Life Committee (NRLC) the term took its name from what was then a newly devised abortion procedure called dilation and extraction.

Before this procedure was developed, when a woman underwent a late term abortion, whereby the fetus was fully developed, (including having arms, legs, organs, a brain and a body) abortionists had to literally kill the child piece by piece in the womb, a risky procedure that, if done incorrectly, could harm or kill the woman as well as her unborn child, or leave her unable to conceive in the future.  Plus, it was a lot of extra work for the abortionist.  Only wanting to kill the child the dilation and extraction method was developed where the fetus was partially removed from the womb up to its head.  In order to fit through the cervix and be removed completely, a pair of scissors was used to puncture the head, which was then compressed and passed out through the cervix.  Now that seems like a lot easier way to kill an unborn child, doesn’t it?

Whether one wants to call it dilation and extraction or partial birth abortion, it is still an extraordinary gruesome procedure that, in the end, leaves the unborn child dead, and one scratching their head asking why anyone would support or consider this type of abortion, let alone any abortion, an acceptable approach to ending a viable pregnancy.  Who cares if the term “partial birth abortion” is, or was intended to be, politically motivated or not?  That it may have been is irrelevant.  It got the attention of a nation and got people talking about it and educating themselves on the procedure.  It is the use of a term which actually describes, and depicts, what is taking place during the abortion that outrages the pro abortion camp.  In other words, it’s much easier to imagine a “partial birth abortion” in ones mind than it is to imagine a “dilation and extraction” if one’s mind doesn’t already understand what “dilation” and “extraction” entails.

Yet, pro abortion groups, like the aforementioned, along with the ACLU have fought for years to keep this procedure legal, up until 2003 when the procedure was officially banned by the George W. Bush Administration, and in 2007 when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the ban.

While pro abortion supporters have always maintained that this procedure was rare, and mostly occurred before the third trimester, because the ultimate goal of the procedure had to involve removing its entire body up to its head, the fetus had to have a body to begin with; a body well enough developed for an abortionist to perform the procedure.  Does it really matter at what point during the pregnancy a partial birth abortion occurs if its ultimate goal is to remove that body up to its head and then make a fatal puncture wound to its head?

Not in the minds of Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW, the ACLU and many other pro abortion groups.  For them, there never should have been a controversy to begin with because 1:  this procedure was often performed earlier than the third trimester, and 2:  their religious-like belief that abortion is both “private” and a “choice” between the woman and her doctor.

Their argument is that banning partial birth abortion is just another step in banning abortion in of itself.  They are right about that.  Abortion, because of Roe vs. Wade, can’t be outlawed completely until it can either first be overturned by the Supreme Court or an amendment to the U.S. Constitution – such as the Personhood Amendment – can be enacted.  Until then, abortion, in effect, must be done away with in the same manner as they would have an unborn child done away with – piece by piece.

Still, the more people know about partial birth abortion, how passionately it is supported by these groups, despite its gruesomeness, the more people will begin to realize that these groups will stop at nothing, and go out of their way, to keep abortion legal, regardless of the type of abortion being performed.  And the more people will come to understand how militant they are in their ant-life agenda.

So, while partial birth abortion may never again be legal anywhere in the U.S., in it’s death it may come back to haunt the very people that so vehemently supported it, and still do.

Killing Your Unborn Child (With A Little Help From Your Friend, Planned Parenthood)

Today, much like in the recent past, (since at least 1973 and Roe vs. Wade) when a girl becomes pregnant, especially if she is a teenager, the decision whether or not to carry the unborn child to term and give birth weighs heavy on her mind.  And matters are only made worse when she is a teenager and fearful of divulging to her parents what has happened.  So many questions, so few answers, and virtually no one to turn to.

Enter Planned Parenthood.  This organization has made it its unending goal in seeing that women and young girls of all ages who become pregnant, and, for whatever reason, are unwilling to bring a new life into the world or are fearful of the consequences this would entail, financial, emotional, psychological, etc. would have somewhere to turn to in their hour of need.  They do this regardless of a girl’s age or financial situation.

Planned Parenthood has set itself up as the savior of these women and young girls, and indeed, has rescued and saved millions of them from a fate that they, Planned Parenthood, the National Organization of Women, NARAL, and a plethora of so called women’s advocacy groups deem as dire, depressing, and down right detrimental to every woman’s destiny – motherhood!

But that is what makes organizations like Planned Parenthood so evil.

Its own name – Planned Parenthood – is an oxymoron.  On the outside they are a benevolent charity, advocates for “women’s rights”, for helping to educate women and young girls in the facts of life, the birds and the bees and all thing concerning womanhood.  But once you go inside their building you realize they are only concerned with one thing – making money off the mistakes from the very people they purport to be fighting for.

Advocating “safe sex” and providing in depth information, books, pamphlets, videos, even condoms and training on how to properly affix one, Planned Parenthood has covered all the bases in the event a girl, in their view, “strikes out” by accidentally  “hitting a home run”.  Indeed, we can all feel the horror rushing through a young girl’s mind, any woman’s mind, who experiences an unintended pregancy and empathize with her in this uncertain time.

It is during this uncertain time that Planned Parenthood swoops in to “save the day” by taking advantage of a vulnerable, frightened girl, using this as their own opportunity to rape her of her dignity by providing her with a “safe” and “legal” solution to her problem, reiterating that she has the “right” to end her pregnancy without any negative consequences whatsoever, using a barrage of lies to make their case that ending a pregnancy is really no more a simple procedure than say brushing your teeth.

But this is of course a fallacy.

Planned Parenthood never divulges to these women and girls that what’s growing inside of them is indeed a human life, and became a human life at the moment of conception; that science and scientists have already shown beyond a shadow of doubt this to be fact; that sonograms can show to any pregnant woman there is a human life growing inside of her.  Without this knowledge prior to an abortion, many women suffer from depression, guilt and remorse after the procedure, after they learn the truth of what they have done.

To Planned Parenthood, however, what is now growing inside the female body is akin to a cancer and nothing more than an obstacle to their utopian vision of womanhood – absolute independence from men.  It must be removed forthwith!  Otherwise, she is forever lost, forever banished from experiencing this warped version of Eden where only women reside and men are not allowed.

Planned Parenthood considers it to be a death sentence to womanhood itself, once a woman or girl becomes pregnant and decides to give birth.  All hope of womanhood, of being independent and in control of one’s life is gone.  They believe it is better, indeed moral, to give a death sentence to the unborn child – which they vehemently deny even is a human life, although they know it is – rather than have the woman or girl suffer what they, and other pro-abortion “rights” organizations, deem the unbearable realization that comes with pregnancy and motherhood which is the acknowledgement that there are consequences to one’s action.  Abortion removes those consequences and erases all sense of responsibility; a clean slate, as it were, for a woman or girl to continue down what is essentially a dangerous and degrading path, one in which Planned Parenthood is now guiding, unbeknown to all the many women and girls who have been snared into their web.

Groups, pro life organizations, like  National Right To Life and Pro-Life Action League, exist to counter the lies and misinformation being spread by supporters of abortion rights.  For this, they have been labeled terrorists.  Read here to see how pro life groups are being portrayed.  It would be almost comical if unborn lives were not at stake.  Terrorists, by definition, instill and commit terror.  How is trying to prevent a girl or woman from killing her unborn child with important information pertaining to pregnancy and abortion an act of terrorism?  And why would the act of abortion itself not be considered terrorism, and therefore, by extension, why would abortionists not be considered the real terrorists?

Obviously, to Planned Parenthood, and all the others, terrorists are anything, anyone, that seeks to take away a huge source of income for them.  Because making money off, and from, abortion, is really why Planned Parenthood exists.

Abortion is, now in America, legal.  And although there are restrictions on the types of abortions, the times in which one may undergo an abortion procedure, the age of consent to obtain an abortion, etc., while abortion is “legal”, because we know as absolute fact that the fetus, the unborn child, is indeed a human life, and that the act of abortion is really the act of killing that unborn child, that human life, just because abortion may be “legal” does that in any way still make killing a human life moral?

Post Navigation

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 61 other followers

%d bloggers like this: