Finger-pointing brawl breaks out at Yale
Yale University officials are now saying student Aliza Shvarts’ continued public insistence that she artificially inseminated and then aborted herself numerous times over 9 months for an art project after privately denying this to school officials is all part of the art project (click to enlarge):
Last week the Yale Daily News announced one exhibit in an upcoming senior art show would feature Shvarts’ numerous very young aborted children, mixed with blood and smeared on Saran Wrap that had been wrapped around a cube and suspended from the ceiling.
Videos would simultaneously play on the surrounding walls of Shvarts completing her self-abortions in a bathtub.
News of Shvarts’ exhibit met with such universal condemnation, Yale officials were compelled to release a statement that it was all a hoax, prompting Shvarts to respond, no, it was not.
Now at least one student is calling for the head of Yale Dean Peter Solovey on a platter:
And the whacked out faculty art advisor Pia Lindman is one of 2 who may already have been fired for authorizing Shvarts, according to YDN.
Lindman is best known for her 2000 “performance art” project, Public Sauna, where she set up a public working sauna in NYC, inviting audience participation, “defying the taboo of nudity in American culture and foregrounding the centrality of the human,” according to ProjectMuse
Meanwhile, the Reproductive Rights Action League of Yale, which originally had “no official opinion on the matter,” according to YDN, has now found one, discovering even abortion proponents must very infrequently condone boundaries when public opinion demands. Along with Yale Law Students for Reproductive Justice it has released this nonsensical statement, admirably avoiding the A-word throughout:
But what exactly was wrong with Shvarts’ “approach and presentation”? What exactly are the “consequences”? How could any abortion proponent, let alone an organization, be “shocked by the content”? What’s wrong with the content? And just what are the “very serious aspects of reproductive rights”?
But these groups open a dangerous door by condemning any aspect of abortion, one they absolutely hate to open. How and why can an abortion proponent oppose any aspect or any boundary of abortion whatsoever?
This entire episode puts abortion advocacy in a terrible position, just as the partial birth abortion debacle did. Pro-lifers consider any abortion deadly to children and dangerous to mothers. This one is no different, only more provocative. Pro-aborts maintain abortion does not kill children and is completely safe. This incident makes it nearly impossible for them to maintain the party line.
[Photo of Lindman’s sauna is courtesy of re-title.com, semi-censored by Stanek]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I’ll restate what I’ve said before: NO proabort liberal can condemn Shvarts for what she’s done. To do so would be hypocritical, inconsistent.She has exercised all the rights they claim are so dear: the right to bodily autonomy, the right to abortion – multiple abortions if she feels like it under any circumstances, the right to get pregnant and then decide not to be pregnant, even the right to BRAG about her abortions. Since self aborting drugs are available to everyone, no questions asked, that’s okay too.
Shvarts is a seriously disturbed individual who needs counselling. She is a psychopath – she has no conscience and no sense of right or wrong and certainly no understanding of how her actions affect others.
Yale should be boycotted and the Dean fired.
An institution of higher learning? You gotta be kidding.
From the Yale Daily News, April 18:
“But several students, including members of the Yale Women
Jill, Has a statement been made by her family yet? Just curious.
Any chance this “art” student actually has a functioning conscience
and is doing this project to show the emperor has no clothes?
That would require the insemination phase to have been
a hoax.
Pro-choice people do not say that abortion
is”completely safe”. There are risks in
any medical procedure.But the fact is that
most legal abortions do not physically harm
women.Far more women are harmed wherever
abortion is illegal;in poor countries every-
where,women routinely die from botched illegal
abortions,or are seriously hurt.Or left with
permanent disabilities.The actress Polly
Bergen had an illegal abortion as a teenager.
She nearly bled to death and was never able
to have children after this.Situations like this
were common before RoevWade.And would have
been even if this legal decision had never
happened.Do we want conditions like this to
become common again? I guarantee you they
will if abortion is outlawed in America.
Oh Robert, pleeassse!
Stop giving us this line when there are thousands of maimed women in America and many many dead women and young girls from abortions. Stop giving us this crap when there are women who will be at risk for breast cancer and a life of emotional trauma, and regret.
Poor Polly Bergen. Liza Minelli also couldn’t conceive after having many many abortions. That is the “choice” these women made. It’s no different whether it’s legal or not. A woman’s body is designed to have babies, not to be forceably entered and vacuumed out. Liza and her husband Vincent tried for many years to have children and she finally admitted to the world that it was her abortions that damaged her body beyond repair.
Patricia, induced abortion does not increase the risk of breast cancer.
By pretending it does, you make it impossible for any serious person to take your argument seriously.
Patricia, you wrote: “A woman’s body is designed to have babies,…”
Then why isn’t the pelvis wide enough to give birth without risking the mother’s life? Not to mention the baby’s life. If woman’s body is designed for childbirth, then the designer wasn’t very good at his job. Or else the designer is a sadistic bastard.
Oh, SoMG – you lie like a dog. Just keep telling that lie to scare as many young women as you can into abortions. Talk about perpetrating a myth.
My pelvis certainly was wide enough to give birth to FOUR babies – one almost 9lbs!
Guess what SoMG? I’m 5 ft tall and weighed 90 lbs when I got pregnant with my first. My longest labour was 7 hours – that was my first and was heavily medicated. My 2nd was 20 minutes.
Some women cannot have a natural birth, but most women can with sufficient support from midwives or doulas.
People like you should NEVER have any contact with pregnant women.
Patricia, you wrote: “Oh, SoMG – you lie like a dog.”
This from someone who claims abortion causes breast cancer. That’s a well-documented lie.
You only hope, SoMG. Dream on, honey.
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com
And when Colorado Right to Life asked Susan G Komen
officials why they fund Planned Parenthood and keep
women in the dark about the abortion breast cancer
connection (abc link) –
As transcribed from a recording of the meeting, CRTL asked,
“Why aren’t women being told about the most preventable risk factor?” to which Komen’s Brandorff answered, “We tend to focus on the cure… we’re focusing our energies on that, rather than the preventative.”
lesforlife – yeah they don’t want to cut into the profits of the proaborts!
No other area of health care do we ignore the preventative.
I have to warn you though, lesforlife, trying to convince SoMG is like trying to convince the devil he’s not gonna rule heaven – ever!
No, Patricia, I don’t “only hope”.
I think the AMA and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology and the American Cancer Society are better acquainted with the facts, and less likely to lie, than you, Patricia, and than you, Les, and than Jill Stanek.
As someone who has read the medical literature and studied the debate on a professional level, I repeat: the alleged “link” between abortion and breast cancer is a well-documented lie.
Shvarts is a seriously disturbed individual who needs counselling. She is a psychopath – she has no conscience and no sense of right or wrong and certainly no understanding of how her actions affect others.
Yale should be boycotted and the Dean fired.
An institution of higher learning? You gotta be kidding.
Posted by: Patricia at April 21, 2008 6:55 AM
********************
Have you considered Xanax? Or maybe Ativan …. it might help.
People like you should NEVER have any contact with pregnant women.
Posted by: Patricia at April 21, 2008 10:23 AM
*************************
You make the most absurd, idiotic statements over and over again and seem to think they are rational and intelligent. Thats scary. I was 5’7″ and 115 when I got pregnant with elder son. I was in labor for over 30 hours, had to have an emergency C section, and spent 5 days on a clear liquid diet because I had an infection they couldnt get rid of. Without a C section I would have died and probably my son along with me. Should I not be allowed to talk to pregnant women either because I might tell them something you dont want them to hear?
“Or else the designer is a sadistic bastard.”
Now, now, SoMG, you could get your point across without the blasphemy.
No, Patricia, I don’t “only hope”.
I think the AMA and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology and the American Cancer Society are better acquainted with the facts, and less likely to lie, than you, Patricia, and than you, Les, and than Jill Stanek.
As someone who has read the medical literature and studied the debate on a professional level, I repeat: the alleged “link” between abortion and breast cancer is a well-documented lie.
Posted by: SoMG at April 21, 2008 11:04 AM
***************
Yup – I think this was discussed a few weeks ago and I gave half a dozen or so links that all said exactly that. The biggest issue with the individuals trying to ‘link’ abortion and breast cancer is their inability to cope with all the variables involved, and their inability to duplicate the *studies* – and that IS the proof of valid research – a duplication of results with several studies.
“Why aren’t women being told about the most preventable risk factor?” to which Komen’s Brandorff answered, “We tend to focus on the cure… we’re focusing our energies on that, rather than the preventative.”
Posted by: lesforlife at April 21, 2008 10:44 AM
**************
Its not a risk factor. There is no ‘link’ between cancer and abortion
TR:
I’m not saying that women shouldn’t have C-sections.There will always be women who always need this kind of aid in childbirth. But to make that claim that ALL women’s pelvis’ are not designed for birth is completely ridiculous. What orifice should a woman birth from – her nose?
And as for trying to make the case the American Cancer Society and ACOG are reputable professional organizations who have corner on truth. These organizations along with the APA no longer have the best interests of patients in mind – they are politicized and are run by people with a proabort agenda.
You and SoMG should try real hard to get back to reality. You live in an altered state of stupidity where you spout only the proabort liberal pap that the MSM media feeds you. Good luck sweetie!
That’s right TR:
Keep repeating it over and over. Do you listen to the abortion mantra on tape at night when your asleep.
Try this instead:
“I want to go back to Kansas.”
“I want to go back to Kansas.”
“I want to go back to Kansas.”
“I want to go back to Kansas.”
That’s right TR:
Keep repeating it over and over. Do you listen to the abortion mantra on tape at night when your asleep.
Try this instead:
“I want to go back to Kansas.”
“I want to go back to Kansas.”
“I want to go back to Kansas.”
“I want to go back to Kansas.”
Posted by: Patricia at April 21, 2008 1:05 PM
**********************
Patricia, you really do sound like you need professional help.
TR:
I’m not saying that women shouldn’t have C-sections.There will always be women who always need this kind of aid in childbirth. But to make that claim that ALL women’s pelvis’ are not designed for birth is completely ridiculous. What orifice should a woman birth from – her nose?
And as for trying to make the case the American Cancer Society and ACOG are reputable professional organizations who have corner on truth. These organizations along with the APA no longer have the best interests of patients in mind – they are politicized and are run by people with a proabort agenda.
You and SoMG should try real hard to get back to reality. You live in an altered state of stupidity where you spout only the proabort liberal pap that the MSM media feeds you. Good luck sweetie!
Posted by: Patricia at April 21, 2008 1:03 PM
********************************
Keep on gibbering and ranting Patricia – you sound more and more incoherent and irrational. You are the one who apparently has only a tenuous connection to reality. Womens bodies are poorly designed for the birth process relative to most other mammals. That was the point made. There is no such thing as a ‘pro abort’ agenda. Refusing to face facts regarding cancer, and pretending the ACOG and ACS arent ‘telling the truth’ simply makes you look more irrational and more deranged.
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com
*********
And virtually every ‘reference’ is an antichoice organization.
Patricia, you wrote: “And as for trying to make the case the American Cancer Society and ACOG are reputable professional organizations who have corner on truth. These organizations along with the APA no longer have the best interests of patients in mind – they are politicized and are run by people with a proabort agenda.”
Do you think the AMA is “politicized and run by people with a proabort agenda”? How about the editorial board of the New England Journal of Medicine, which published the Melbye study?
Is there ANYONE whose word you would believe? Or do you think that ANY professional medical/scientific organization which admits that the large majority of published data contradict the alleged link between induced abortion and subsequent breast cancer is automatically “politicized and run by people with a proabort agenda”?
How about the National Academy of Sciences? Would you believe them? Or if they acknowledged the proven fact that induced abortion does not increase the risk of subsequent breast cancer (at least not among Danes), would you say THEY were also “politicized and run by people with a proabort agenda”?
How about your own doctor, whom you pay to tell you the truth? If (s)he acknowledged that induced abortion does not cause subsequent breast cancer (as nearly all primary-care physicians do) would you call him/her a lying proabort?
Whom WOULD you recognize as an objective medical authority–the Catholic Church, which does not even CLAIM to be objective about this?
And let me ask you this, Patricia. Do you think that the authors of the abortionbreastcancer.com web site (and for that matter Jill Stanek) would hesitate to lie if they thought that by doing so they could frighten some women out of having abortions, and thereby save the lives of some unborn babies? Isn’t it likely that saving unborn life is more important to these people than telling the truth? If telling the truth were more important, then they wouldn’t really be right-to-lifers.
Isn’t it likely that killing unborn life is more important than telling the truth?
No, not to anyone who is genuinely pro-choice.
But protecting unborn human life IS more important than telling the truth to anyone who is genuinely right-to-life. If telling the truth were more important, then you would only be CONDITIONALLY right-to-life.
Take Ronald Reagan’s Surgeon General C. Everett Koop. He claimed to be a right-to-lifer, but he was not willing to lie about “post-abortion syndrome” in order to save unborn babies. His right-to-lifism was conditional, overtrumped by his commitment to telling the truth.
But protecting unborn human life IS more important than telling the truth to anyone who is genuinely right-to-life. If telling the truth were more important, then you would only be CONDITIONALLY right-to-life.
That doesn’t make sense, SOMG. If I refuse to tell a lie in order to save babies, that doesn’t make me “conditionally” right to life. It makes me a right-to-lifer with principle.
What’s to gain by lying, SoMG?? You say Jill lies. To what end?
To “frighten” women to not get abortions? Which would still get us both to the same goal.
MAKING ABORTIONS RARE. Win Win. :)
It sounds like I am saying Jill lies. Which she doesn’t. I do not lie either. Abortion hurt me.
How can women be frightened into not aborting by the way?? Examples please.
Patricia you are anti-women. You make it seem oh your labor and delivery was so very easy so all women’s labor and delivery will be or else there is something wrong with them. Not every woman’s body is designed to fly through childbirth!!! My mother was in labor for over twenty hours twice before she had to have two c-sections for my sister and I and she is twice the woman you’ll ever hope to be. She actually took care of her kids instead of sitting in front of a computer all day acting like a complete know-it-all. Patricia is what totally turns me off pro-life. Totally anti-woman.
You’re also insulting women who lost children through miscarriage. Completely anti-woman.
I disagree Jess.
Patricia had 4 babies. So did I. Not a breeze but definately doable!! I did not see anything that was anti women in what she wrote. Also having had two miscarriages, I was not at all insulted by anything she said.
Do not give up on prolife, Jess. You are still learning and growing and I know you are sensitive enough to seek the truth.
“How can women be frightened into not aborting by the way?? Examples please.”
Husbands, boyfriends, etc… can threaten to leave or kill the mother if they abort. People can tell women if they abort they will never be able to have children again, they’ll become promiscuous, depressed, etc.
It would be nice if every pregnant woman could embrace her pregnancy and deliver a healthy, happy baby but threatening women isn’t the right way to go about it.
But Carla my Mom couldn’t give birth naturally. Are you saying something is wrong with her?
I think women should be told why they should have a baby, not why they shouldn’t have an abortion.
I said frightened into NOT aborting which is what SoMG is saying. Jill lies to frighten women into not aborting. Yes, boyfriends pressure women into aborting.
There is nothing wrong with your mother, Jess. C section is “giving birth.” You are here. Your mom gave birth to you. :) I am glad she did.
But she wasn’t able to do it naturally. I felt like she insulted my Mom, and all other Moms who have difficult pregnancies by passing hers off as a breeze.
Thank you Carla, I’m glad your Mom popped you out too! Yay!
Oh and yeah Carla I was talking about threatening into not aborting. No woman should be threatened into doing anything.
It sounds like I am saying Jill lies. Which she doesn’t. I do not lie either. Abortion hurt me.
How can women be frightened into not aborting by the way?? Examples please.
Posted by: Carla at April 21, 2008 3:15 PM
*****************************
Misinformation about the ‘dangers’ of abortion, the ‘complications’ of abortion, the ‘connection’ between abortion and breast cancer, depression, suicide, the inability to have children later, just for starters – these are all tactics used to try to frighten women into continuing a pregnancy.
But Carla my Mom couldn’t give birth naturally. Are you saying something is wrong with her?
I think women should be told why they should have a baby, not why they shouldn’t have an abortion.
Posted by: Jess at April 21, 2008 3:22 PM
****************************
How in the world can you possibly presume to tell a total stranger WHY SHE ‘should’ have a baby when you know nothing about her and nothing about her circumstances and nothing about her life?
I have never heard of a man threatening a woman into NOT aborting. A woman just has to hide it and go get an abortion because IT’S HER BODY. I just met a man who lost his child, a child he really wanted when his girlfriend was forced to get an abortion by her father. Heartbreaking! I read all the time about men killing their girlfriends, wives, beating them up, threatening them because they REFUSED to get an abortion.
Don’t see much outrage over that behavior though, do we?
Yes TR,
I was depressed, drank like a fish, was promiscuous, had low self esteem, thoughts of suicide after my abortion. Funny, they never mentioned any of that at the abortion mill though. Huh.
But Carla my Mom couldn’t give birth naturally. Are you saying something is wrong with her?
***************
There was something wrong with her – just like there was something wrong with me – we are both lucky that we COULD have C sections. 100 years ago I would have died. But thats the point – not all women ARE ‘made’ to have children and there is a higher risk with humans than with other mammals. I have watched cats have kittens – from the water breaking to the last one popping out didnt take but about an hour and that was with a litter of 5 – women should be so lucky! (with the hour part – not 5 at a time)
Oh and TR,
A pregnant woman in crisis is not a TOTAL STRANGER after you get to know her and know her circumstances. It’s called support.
I have never heard of a man threatening a woman into NOT aborting. A woman just has to hide it and go get an abortion because IT’S HER BODY. I just met a man who lost his child, a child he really wanted when his girlfriend was forced to get an abortion by her father. Heartbreaking! I read all the time about men killing their girlfriends, wives, beating them up, threatening them because they REFUSED to get an abortion.
Don’t see much outrage over that behavior though, do we?
Posted by: Carla at April 21, 2008 3:37 PM
**********************************
There have been quite a few court cases where men have tried to force women to continue a pregnancy.
And are you outraged by either TR?
Yes TR,
I was depressed, drank like a fish, was promiscuous, had low self esteem, thoughts of suicide after my abortion. Funny, they never mentioned any of that at the abortion mill though. Huh.
Posted by: Carla at April 21, 2008 3:39 PM
*************************
There is no such thing as an ‘abortion mill’ and they probably didnt ‘warn’ you because there is no evidence of any connection between those personal problems – promiscuity, drinking,low self esteem etc. and abortion. Typically people who have emotional issues and mental instablity after an abortion had all those same issues before they ever got pregnant. Afterwards they just try to use the abortion as an excuse.
Oh and TR,
A pregnant woman in crisis is not a TOTAL STRANGER after you get to know her and know her circumstances. It’s called support.
Posted by: Carla at April 21, 2008 3:40 PM
****************
Its support if she wants it. If she doesnt then its intrusion and incredible arrogance on your part.
HAHAHAHAHAHA! You are too funny!! :)
And are you outraged by either TR?
Posted by: Carla at April 21, 2008 3:43 PM
*******************
Its every bit as wrong to try to force a woman to end a pregnancy against her will as it is to try to bully or blackmail a woman into continuing an unwanted pregnancy.
Would it be enforceable if men who don’t like abortion could ask their girlfriends to voluntarily sign a contract saying she won’t abort if she becomes pregnant? Kind of like a pre-nuptial agreement, except for a baby instead of material assets.
Are there pre-nuptials that include children when a couple gets married?
Just curious.
If someone doesn’t want support in a Pregnancy Help Center, they don’t usually go. :)
HAHAHAHAHAHA! You are too funny!! :)
Posted by: Carla at April 21, 2008 3:48 PM
*****************
Its reality. Women who have emotional and psychological and personal problems after an abortion typically had those same problems before they ever got pregnant.
Would love to stay and chat but the cherubs are home from school. Always a pleasure TR. Have a good night.
Would it be enforceable if men who don’t like abortion could ask their girlfriends to voluntarily sign a contract saying she won’t abort if she becomes pregnant? Kind of like a pre-nuptial agreement, except for a baby instead of material assets.
Are there pre-nuptials that include children when a couple gets married?
Just curious.
Posted by: Janet at April 21, 2008 3:49 PM
**********************************
I seriously doubt if something like that would be enforceable. There are too many variables.
If someone doesn’t want support in a Pregnancy Help Center, they don’t usually go. :)
Posted by: Carla at April 21, 2008 3:50 PM
**********************
It depends on the center. Not all of them are honest and up front about only offering alternatives to abortion. There have been several court cases over the years because of this kind of dishonesty regarding motive. No one prefaced their comment with ‘When a woman comes to a crisis pregnancy center then you …..’
Carla, you wrote: “I have never heard of a man threatening a woman into NOT aborting. ”
Really? I have read about many such cases. “If you kill my baby I’ll kill you!” Also men who threatened to kill the abortion doc if the girlfriend had an abortion.
Jill Stanek praises Michael Corleone for hitting his wife when he found out about her abortion. She says that violence in that circumstance is a normal, praiseworthy male response.
Jill Stanek praises Michael Corleone for hitting his wife when he found out about her abortion. She says that violence in that circumstance is a normal, praiseworthy male response.
Posted by: SoMG at April 21, 2008 4:08 PM
*************************
Thats sickening!
Carla, you wrote: “What’s to gain by lying, SoMG?? You say Jill lies. To what end?
To “frighten” women to not get abortions? ”
Yes. That’s exactly right. You have answered your own question.
You then wrote: “Which would still get us both to the same goal.
MAKING ABORTIONS RARE. Win Win. :)”
So does that mean you agree that preventing abortions is more important than telling the truth, and that you support lying to pregnant women about the risks of abortion in order to make abortion more rare (save babies)?
Bethany, you wrote: “If I refuse to tell a lie in order to save babies, that doesn’t make me “conditionally” right to life. It makes me a right-to-lifer with principle. ”
It means that your right-to-lifism is SUBSERVIENT to, or (to put the same thing another way) CONDITIONAL UPON, your principle. Otherwise you’d break it in order to save the babies.
I want an answer from Patricia to my previous question, which was:
Do you think the AMA is “politicized and run by people with a proabort agenda”? How about the editorial board of the New England Journal of Medicine, which published the Melbye study?
Is there ANYONE whose word you would believe? Or do you think that ANY professional medical/scientific organization which admits that the large majority of published data contradict the alleged link between induced abortion and subsequent breast cancer is automatically “politicized and run by people with a proabort agenda”?
How about the National Academy of Sciences? Would you believe them? Or if they acknowledged the proven fact that induced abortion does not increase the risk of subsequent breast cancer (at least not among Danes), would you say THEY were also “politicized and run by people with a proabort agenda”?
How about your own doctor, whom you pay to tell you the truth? If (s)he acknowledged that induced abortion does not cause subsequent breast cancer (as nearly all primary-care physicians do) would you call him/her a lying proabort?
Whom WOULD you recognize as an objective medical authority–the Catholic Church, which does not even CLAIM to be objective about this?
TR: what did you say when your baby first kicked inside of you?
select one:
A.) “oh, the baby just kicked”
B.) “oh, the fetus just kicked”
…I’m not letting you off the hook. This is not a trick question.
“How in the world can you possibly presume to tell a total stranger WHY SHE ‘should’ have a baby when you know nothing about her and nothing about her circumstances and nothing about her life?”
Well, you should have a baby if you’re pro-life and pregnant.
“If someone doesn’t want support in a Pregnancy Help Center, they don’t usually go. :)”
Oh but then you could say if a woman doesn’t want an abortion they won’t go to an abortion clinic. Therefore any protesters wouldn’t be necessary.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7600666299007217319&q=the+inn+of+sixth+happiness&ei=sxUNSOpyhPatAs_77LUE&hl=en
1:15
A Pregnancy Help Center doesn’t kill babies.
I didn’t want an abortion.
I think they are called sidewalk counselors.
Oh, Jill. We all have butts. Why the censorship? :)
Jasper,
You know that TR said “the nonviable tissue kicked again.”
My sister had three c-sections (one for each of her children). The first one was because the baby was sort of caught in the wrong area and wasn’t able to be born the normal way. The second was originally a scheduled c-section, but ended up an emergency c-section (I think my nephew desperately tried to be born on my brother’s birthday, but alas, he was a few hours late to be born the same day as Uncle Michael. He’ll be 7 in 8 days) The third one was a scheduled c-section.
And I think that c-sections are fairly common with multiple births (especially with the well known multiples – the Dilleys & the McCaugheys.)
Jill-
I dont think they are really being hypocritical. With every right comes the responsibility to use it wisely. She is well within her rights to have those self-induced abortions, however that doesnt mean she’s using her right wisely.
Look at the right to assemble.(a much different right, but I’m going to try and make the analogy work, its also 1230AM, so bear with me) Technically (short of incitement, etc) you can assemble for whatever cause you wont so long as you follow the proper channels, are peaceful, etc. But let’s say you assemble to simply say how much you like some brand name/store/whatever and want to spread word about it. Technically you are well within your rights to do so, but it isn’t exactly the wisest/smartest way to utilize that right.
Ok, didnt go as well as I had hoped, but I’m hoping you can see where I’m going with this. I know you fundamentally see abortion much different than I do, so that isn’t going to help things, but I’m hoping youll get what I’m trying to say :)
Back to the post:
Yale and likewise its cohorts in crime paint themselves into untenable corners consistently. Guess what, lies plus lies equals lies and a half truth is a whole lie. Pro-aborts are expert at the art of telling half-truths.
Ever heard of a liar who has to backtrack every time he/she opens their oral cavity?
Patricia: Have no fear, truth is its own defender and God is not mocked. SoMG and TR will soon enough realize this.
Patricia: Have no fear, truth is its own defender and God is not mocked. SoMG and TR will soon enough realize this.
Posted by: HisMan at April 22, 2008 2:11 AM
*************
you make me realize how good a thing it was to get away from religion – so does Patricia
TR: what did you say when your baby first kicked inside of you?
select one:
A.) “oh, the baby just kicked”
B.) “oh, the fetus just kicked”
…I’m not letting you off the hook. This is not a trick question.
Posted by: jasper at April 21, 2008 4:36 PM
*******************
jasper is someone paying you to look really really stupid? because its hard for me to believe youre working this hard for free – when I first felt fetal movement I knew it was fetal movement – the doctor asked me about fetal movement – why is this so complicated and confusing for you to comprehend? Why do you have so much trouble facing the simple fact that I knew I was carying an embryo then a fetus?
“How in the world can you possibly presume to tell a total stranger WHY SHE ‘should’ have a baby when you know nothing about her and nothing about her circumstances and nothing about her life?”
Well, you should have a baby if you’re pro-life and pregnant.
Posted by: Jess at April 21, 2008 5:12 PM
****************************
Not if you decide not to. And there are women who are ‘pro life’ who suddenly become ‘pro choice’ when they are the ones facing a pregnancy.
Jasper,
You know that TR said “the nonviable tissue kicked again.”
Posted by: Carla at April 21, 2008 9:12 PM
*********************
Why do facts and the truth bother you? I knew when I reached the point where there would be possible viability if I gave birth. I knew if I ‘gave birth’ before then that Id have a miscarriage and not ‘have a baby’. Why does it bother you that someone can tell the truth without melodramatics and hysteria?
Not bothered a bit, my sweet TR.
Not bothered a bit, my sweet TR.
Posted by: Carla at April 22, 2008 12:13 PM
************
Then youre not being honest with yourself about that, either.
Honestly?
Take Ronald Reagan’s Surgeon General C. Everett Koop. He claimed to be a right-to-lifer, but he was not willing to lie about “post-abortion syndrome” in order to save unborn babies. His right-to-lifism was conditional, overtrumped by his commitment to telling the truth.
SoMG – good point there. Koop demonstrated some courage and desire for the truth there, certainly. I mean, the President wanted him to come up with certain findings, and in the end it was like, “Can’t do it, Sally….”
Doug
P.S. “Tom, can you get me off the hook? For old time’s sake?”
I’m stunned that all this talk (these comments) focuses on the woman. What about the baby?
Life begins at conception…this is a medical fact. When a woman becomes pregnant, that is a life incubating within her. It is not just tissue attached to her innards. This life is a baby human being (with his/her own genetic code), it is not a mass of tissue evolving into a human being, it’s human from the very beginning.
What this woman did in the name of art (or said she did) is not merely a travesty for the woman, but the countless children she mutilated in the process.
I find it so hard to understand where you guys are coming from in stating there are those who are “scaring people into not having an abortion”. It’s not a matter of scaring people, but educating them with the fact that it’s BABY KILLING.
I’ve been pregnant 4 times; 1 was a miscarriage, the other 3 were delivered naturally (weight ranging from 9 lbs 6.5 oz – 10 lbs 4 oz). Admittedly 3 out of the 4 were unplanned, and 1 of them caused me to be severely depressed…I DID NOT want to be pregnant again. But at that point, there was NO WAY I could kill my baby.
I understand the feeling of not wanting to be pregnant, but you know what…nine months later I was no longer pregnant. Pregnancy is truly temporary. But the memory of killing your unborn child…how lasting that must be.
Thankfully, there is a God who has mercy on us. I believe He can/will comfort those who have undergone an abortion and seek Him. The pro-life movement is not about condemning women, but rather protecting the unborn children. I wish this was more clearly understood within the pro-choice community.
Carrie, I’m stunned that all this talk (these comments) focuses on the woman. What about the baby?
Pro-aborts in such denial, they have to forget the baby part of the equation altogether. Otherwise, abortion would be unthinkable. Come on ladies, wake up! Think about the B-A-B-Y! It’s more than menstrual blood, it’s not an inconvenience, it’s not a choice.
The die-hard feministas are doing a good job of brainwashing y’all, and laughing all the way!
Thankfully, there is a God who has mercy on us. I believe He can/will comfort those who have undergone an abortion and seek Him. The pro-life movement is not about condemning women, but rather protecting the unborn children. I wish this was more clearly understood within the pro-choice community.
Posted by: Carrie at April 23, 2008 11:14 PM
Thanks for your thoughtful words to those who have undergone abortions. You will be blessed for your efforts!