Planned Parenthood promotes holiday abortion spirit with “Choice on Earth” cards and gifts
In years past Planned Parenthood marketed their “Choice on Earth” holiday cards on a much grander scale.
When 1st offering them in 2002, then-PP CEO Gloria Feldt became belligerent about the negative public reaction, stating, “Our supporters are so energized by the vicious criticism of our holiday card that we’re printing additional cards and limited-edition ‘choice on Earth’ T-shirts.” (See right.)
Sales must have slowed from there. If my accounting is correct, PP failed to even offer their cards in 2006, 2008, and 2009.
But they’re back! Well, one card is anyway, being sold by one affiliate – PP of Western PA. Click to enlarge…
Meanwhile, PP of North FL is once again selling its holiday cookies, pictured, right, which look more like condoms to me. But whatever. Maybe hook-ups taken by surprise when opening these little square package will stop what they’re doing and eat a cookie instead.
And PP of the Great Northwest will be selling holiday gift certificates at the Mitzvah Mall, this Sunday, December 5, sponsored by pro-abortion Jewish congregation Beth Sholomin in Anchorage, Alaska.
The Catholic News Agency reported that PPGNW specified the certificates “cannot be designated to pay for abortion procedures” but only to “help pay for birth control pills, educational opportunities and other services provided by the organization.”
That’s just an accounting charade, but what does it matter anyway? Why is it not ok to donate for abortions?
Hey, in the spirit of the “holiday” season, I’d like to suggest to PP the perfect gift item to sell…
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.
Abortion for Christmas: Giving so that others may die
Abortioneers laments that an unplanned pregnancy at Christmas time is a terrible thing. Think of a mother crying because she may not be able to give gifts to her born children unless she offs their sibling. Amazing, so they suggest that you help out this mother by donating a paid abortion for her. Is that the best we can do? Then they list all the places you can go to donate money to pay for someone’s abortion. This gives new meaning to the season for giving….
Repulsive.
Wow, Susie.
Y’know, addicts often pawn their children’s possessions, too. That doesn’t make drug addiction right – it makes the addict desperate. It sickens me to think that a woman would kill one of her children so her other kids can have presents at Christmas. What if the best gift you could give your born children is a sibling? Guess that’s too far-fetched an idea. (But in my house, believe me, that was the best Christmas present my 2 older kids got a couple years ago. They were so excited.)
sponsored by pro-abortion Jewish congregation Beth Sholomin in Anchorage, Alaska.
This thoroughly disgusts me that anyone who claims the name of God would sponsor an organization that kills babies. It appears the Jews, now that Pharaoh isn’t around to throw their unborn children into the river to kill them, are throwing their own children into the medical waste bins here in America.
Maybe hook-ups taken by surprise when opening these little square package will stop what they’re doing and eat a cookie instead.
I LOL’d at this!! :D
Wow, Susie, just blogged on that!
Susie, I’m disgusted that this is going on in my state. Now that Murkowski won the election (well its not offcial yet) she’s a rabid pro-abort and I’m sure she’ll push for the laws to change on all abortion issues.
Sorry not enough coffee yet! I meant to say that those people who are giving money to PP in Anchorage are nuts. And I don’t believe for a second that those funds given cannot be paid for abortions.
“It appears the Jews, now that Pharaoh isn’t around to throw their unborn children into the river to kill them, are throwing their own children into the medical waste bins here in America”
Their (not orthodox) religious tradition allows for abortion. Are you saying that their religion isn’t valid? American Jews are in the vanguard of the pro-choice movement many of whom are employed by and serve on the boards of Planned Parenthood.
“Choice on Earth” – great thought. If that were true, Catholic women (some as young as 10) in poor countries wouldn’t be faced with a lifetime of giving birth to children who, if they survive the diseases that come with abject poverty, will eventually be forced into a life on the mean streets (including prostitution) in order to survive. The words of that great John Lennon song “Imagine” come to mind.
If they are so upset about women having abortions because of poverty, why don’t they give to charities that help impoverished women feed and take care of their kids? Even if they can’t bring themselves to donate to a crisis pregnancy center, $500 to fund a single abortion could just as easily buy a lot of canned goods to take to a food bank. It can buy a lot of cans of formula for a woman who can’t breastfeed because she works and her baby is in daycare. It can pay for emergency housing for a pregnant woman escaping an abusive partner, who wants to kill her baby by beating her. It can buy five new car seats or two new cribs (more if you shop used!).
I honestly wonder if pro-aborts actually want women to stay impoverished and unable to feed their kids, so that they will always have nice sob stories. They won’t help you get food, formula, or a car seat, but they will send you back to your grinding poverty after eliminating your “parasite”.
DD
December 3rd, 2010 at 11:23 am
“Choice on Earth” – great thought. If that were true, Catholic women (some as young as 10) in poor countries wouldn’t be faced with a lifetime of giving birth to children who, if they survive the diseases that come with abject poverty, will eventually be forced into a life on the mean streets (including prostitution) in order to survive. The words of that great John Lennon song “Imagine” come to mind.
DD,
Instead of supporting killing of said children, you could use that support to support organizations that try to help people in the countries you mentioned.
There are many organizations that go into poorer countries and do their best to supply things they need: clothing, food, water, medicine, et cetera.
Instead of innocent lives lost, help provide for those needs.
Abortion won’t take them out of poverty. Abortion won’t cure any dieases. Abortion won’t keep them warm at night or clothe them. Abortion won’t give them food or water.
“American Jews are in the vanguard of the pro-choice movement many of whom are employed by and serve on the boards of Planned Parenthood.”
I was going to comment, but why feed the trolls?
“They won’t help you get food, formula, or a car seat, but they will send you back to your grinding poverty after eliminating your “parasite”.
As if these women will get out of poverty with the little pittances from those who oppose abortion! An additional mouth to feed just increases the poverty. And liberal ”pro-aborts” are the people who fight the elimination of social welfare programs that will actually help a woman in this situation. More canned goods aren’t going to help a woman who is carrying the child of her domestic abuser. Again, programs for this kind of thing are supported by those who support choice. At least with legal abortion, a poor woman is allowed to choose whether she wants to continue a preganancy that will make it harder for her to get out of grinding poverty.
“Wow. That’s painting with a broad brush”
The majority of American Jews are pro-choice. Many of them and their faith communities are connected to Planned Parenthood.
Where is Cranium? Where is Joan? Where oh where have my little trolls gone?
Since there is only one God, anyone who kills children or advocates for killing children does not serve the one God. Oh, they serve someone alright, but it ain’t God.
DD
December 3rd, 2010 at 11:45 am
“Wow. That’s painting with a broad brush”
The majority of American Jews are pro-choice. Many of them and their faith communities are connected to Planned Parenthood.
DD,
You happened to catch my comment before I removed it – a strange byproduct of this new commenting system… Do you have stats to back up your claims? Whether true or not, it doesn’t mean that their religion tolerates abortion. This has been discussed many times over, no?
More canned goods aren’t going to help a woman who is carrying the child of her domestic abuser.
Neither is killing the baby. Perhaps PP should invest a little less in the medical equipment and a little more in low-cost legal aid if they really want to help such a situation.
DD –
I could be wrong, but it seems you have never been in the situations that you claim make a woman “need” or benefit from an abortion. So why have you made yourself spokesperson for them? Do you realize that oftentimes big families in poor countries are desired because children contribute to the family when they get old enough?
It seems we actually have common ground as to what we believe should not happen to women and girls – but abortion is an illusion and poor panacea that does not actually lift anyone out of poverty. How about changing certain destructive cultural paradigms that allow for the abuse of women, the lack of education and proper shelter, the rape of ten-years -olds? Are you going to abort the ten-year-old and send her back to her rapist “husband” and a lifetime of poverty? Do you realize that even abortion doctors would discourage a woman from having as many abortions as that girl is going to need until she is about twenty, if abortion is her only fallback?
She deserves better than that.
You see, hon, I have been pregnant at the hands of my abuser – more than once. No college degree or real job skills; no savings; and even before the relationship became physically abusive we lived at the poverty level. But, because of the culture of valuing women in the United States, I have options. My children are better off born, thank you. I am going to college, living separately from a man who is getting counseling at a non-violence center, living in a small but fine house of a kind relative til things get better. I earn diapers through classes at my local CPC, with vouchers for food banks. And the irony of this is, since I volunteered in the community before my current circumstances, I know many directors and employees of these institutions. And most of them are actively pro-life and Christian.
So if you are really concerned about the situation of women worldwide, really do something so they can stand on their own two feet. How about offering to watch their child so they can work, instead of telling them, “Sorry, you know, you have every reason to have an abortion. I’ll help you get one. I hope you don’t mind that it is a violent, unnatural procedure; that women who carry to term instead have better psychological profiles than women who terminate; and please don’t ever wonder how much joy this unique little personality would have given you. Let’s just abort and send you back to your hellhole.”
Great.
Their (not orthodox) religious tradition allows for abortion. Are you saying that their religion isn’t valid?
No. Although not all religions are equally valid.
I’m saying you’d think of all people on the planet, those who have had their own children murdered for millennia and who have suffered at the hands of so many would know better than to commit genocide themselves.
So, instead of increasing the help for these women by providing them with food, water, clothing and counseling (or help getting AWAY from their abusers) we’re supposed to encourage them to abort?
How does that get them away from abusers? How does that give them any counseling/help they might need?
I don’t see abortion curing poverty. I don’t see it getting rid of AIDs, cancer, and other dieases in the world.
PEOPLE provide these things. While poverty hasn’t been eliminated, and some of these efforts may be small, criticizing them for not “doing more” won’t make anybody’s situation better. Offering help, funds, or whatever else is needed is what will help…not abortion.
DD
December 3rd, 2010 at 11:23 am
What a cop-out. You’ll help people kill their children, but rather than get involved in efforts to actually resolve the situations of poverty and abuse you just sit back and say that the people who are actually doing something to help those women “aren’t doing enough.” The size and scope of the problem have you running scared from finding real solutions, and you mask this by claiming that abortion actually does solve these problems (instead of facing the reality that it creates more tragedy, which you know is true, even if you refuse to say so to us), and you therefore don’t have to face the hard work of actually trying to find solutions to these issues.
Even if those “the little pittances from those who oppose abortion” aren’t going to solve everything, they are a step in the right direction. Which is more than the death and nothing offered by those who support abortion.
It must be easier to support abortion then get your hands a little messy, dive in and actually offer real help to women in desperate situations. One need only comment on a blog and say. “I support a woman’s right to choose!!” and don’t forget to throw in the word POVERTY. There. End of effort.
Why do proaborts hate the poor so much??
luckymama,
GOD BLESS YOU!!! :)
Planned Parenthood,
We had it perfect on earth – no pain, no worries, no problems – before choice was introduced by your real CEO.
Christmas is about our CEO coming to earth to fire (literally) your CEO for messing things up.
So you already have choice on earth – accept or reject our CEO’s terms.
Our CEO wants a direct response to His offer – no substitutes allowed.
What’s your choice?
“(instead of facing the reality that it creates more tragedy, which you know is true, even if you refuse to say so to us),”
Love the “projection” (google it) but it doesn’t always create more tragedy (in my heathen circle it was the best possible option) – and that’s why I don’t “know” that it’s true – because it isn’t. The tragedy of abortion – nice meme but it isn’t universally true. Sorry.
“Christmas is about our CEO coming to earth to fire (literally) your CEO for messing things up”
Lessee, the Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. don’t believe in your “CEO.” Sorry.
“Our CEO wants a direct response to His offer – no substitutes allowed”
So the Christian “CEO” is better than the other “CEO’s.” Looks like Jews are going to hell, right?
“You’ll help people kill their children, but rather than get involved in efforts”
So liberal efforts to save state subsidized child care, assistance payments, Pell grants, etc. aren’t getting “involved.” And those who want poor women to remain in poverty, as a result of having more babies, show such “love” for the poor.
Let’s see a list of prochoice charities that help women and their born children then, DD. I’ve been asking for this list for over a year now and not one single proabort has coughed it up, except for the same old link to an abortion fund. And by the way, it was your own Hillary Clinton who cut off women from welfare. Her exact words: ‘you welfare mothers are going back to work!” remember welfare reform, slick? Dems and their crap social programs are meant to buy votes, they certainly haven’t alleviated poverty. The moonbat trillions of dollars in debt current ‘solution’ isn’t going to either. Let’s see a list of prochoice charities that do something for poor struggling women besides encourage them to abort future pregnancies. We’ll wait.
“The tragedy of abortion – nice meme but it isn’t universally true. Sorry.”
Easy for you to say. You’re not the one who got dismembered and disposed as medical waste.
Jill
Do you have a source for that “quote” from Hillary Clinton? (Awesome champion of choice) And if social programs haven’t alleviated poverty, what do you propose? Forcing women to bear more children so that they can give them to adoption agencies. Women as brood mares – how “pro-life” but Dickensian London is just so quaint. Those little folks will look so cute begging on the street. And if they can’t handle that, put them in workhouses where they’ll appreciate what god has given them. Right?
And “pro-choice charities” – There are many “charities” that pro-choice women donate to – along with Planned Parenthood which keeps women from having to resort to back alley abortions and self induced abortions- ah, the good old days, right?
But do tell me. If “welfare” is elimated and women keep having babies, how is that a solution to poverty? Please don’t tell me the churches will keep these women afloat because that’s ridiculous.
DD-
Apparently you know nothing about adoption because the background check and income requirements are quite strict. The standards that keep good families from adopting ensure that your scenario of children begging with dirty faces is complete crap. As for international adoption- anyone who can cough up 25 grand for child is allowed to adopt and the varying laws of each nation allow such problems. But again, I sincerely doubt that rich families who adopt abroad will have their children begging in the streets either.
Yes- if another child will keep a woman impoverished and she wants a better life for herself and her child- adoption serves that purpose. Adoption pays for expenses during pregnancy and extensive case support- Many women use this time to get on their feet and choose to parent at the hospital or still place for adoption. All abortion does is take over a month’s salary from a destitute woman and leave her bleeding and poorer. So if the issue truly is reducing poverty- adoption serves that better than abortion (not to mention the fact that the baby gets to keep her life and limbs).
Again- give us a pro-choice charity that actually addresses human needs rather than killing human beings.
DD
December 3rd, 2010 at 5:40 pm
1. That’s not how projection works. Why don’t you actually take a psychology course or three before you try and throw the terms around?
2. It’s a tragedy. Always. But I knew you’d say something like what you said. This one is called “denial.” And that is how it works.
Blah blah sloganeering rhetoric. Let’s see a list of those fictional charities. You know-names, links? Something other than PP which doesn’t help women do anything but abort? Like I said, we’ll wait. Let’s see that list pf prochoice charities that help poor women and their already born children. Like I asked for before. Too hard for you? If there are so many you shouldn’t have too much trouble listing a few here. Happy googling.
The list of Billary’s misdaventures in Welfare Reform begins here and continues on
http://www.bing.com/search?q=hillary+clinton+welfare+reform&src=IE-SearchBox&Form=IE8SRC
DD said: So the Christian “CEO” is better than the other “CEO’s.” Looks like Jews are going to hell, right?
DD – trying to incite a flame war? heh
Here go look this up – it explains it all: Romans 1:16
How do you say salvation in Hebrew?
“…but it doesn’t always create more tragedy (in my heathen circle it was the best possible option)…”
Yep. And it worked out so awesome that now you spend all of your time on pro-life websites trying to legitimize what you/your significant other/friend/family member did. Right.
DD says:
“Their (not orthodox) religious tradition allows for abortion. Are you saying that their religion isn’t valid? American Jews are in the vanguard of the pro-choice movement many of whom are employed by and serve on the boards of Planned Parenthood.”
It seems that what you say about orthodox Jews not accepting abortion is true. Is it a fair question to ask which “branch” of Judaism most closely embodies the historical traditions of the faith. And if it is the Orthodox, then are the others Jewish in the fullest sense?
For the record here is an analysis of the Jewish take on abortion that most people are probably unaware of. The “Jews favor abortion” (a dubious claim at best) thing comes up regularly on Jill’s blog so the following has been submitted previously to provide a broader picture of the question.
Is there justification in Judaism for the practice of abortion? As it happens the matter has been examined and is exposed as a fabrication. An excellent essay on the matter is linked below.
In Judaism and Abortion: The Hijacking of a Tradition author Richard Nadler undertakes an examination of current view, held largely by reform Judaism, “that the fetus lacks an independent, juridical personality in rabbinic law.”
The source for this conclusion is attributed primarily to the book: Marital Relations, Birth Control and Abortion in Jewish Law by David M. Feldman. The edition of the book that Nadler references contains a “glowing endorsement from Dr. Alan F. Guttmacher.” Nadler goes on to say that “in the journals of Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionist Judaism, one is hard pressed to find an article on abortion that fails to reference Feldman’s tome, or to build on his conclusions.” He continues, “it is the only book on the topic that most English speaking Jews have ever seen.”
Through his own independent survey of Jewish laws and traditions Nadler deconstructs the basis of Feldman’s conclusions. He goes on to say “…in one respect Feldman is correct: There is no single “firm and direct” basis in Jewish law forbidding abortion on demand. In fact there are ten. Orthodox authorities have forbidden or restricted abortion on the following bases:
Retzicah—abortion is murder.
Abizraihu—that abortion, by destroying a hereditary line, is akin to murder, sharing some of its “appurtenances,” or consequences.
Pr’u ur’vu—that abortion violates the obligation to people the earth with God’s servants.
Hash-hatat zera—that abortion unlawfully wastes male seed, which contains potential human life.
Chabbala—that abortion is the wrongful wounding of the mother, the fetus, or both.
Nezikim—that abortion unlawfully deprives the parents of a value in property.
Bal tash’chith—that abortion unlawfully deprives the community of something of value.
Pikuah nefesh—that the affirmative responsibility to protect and preserve human life applies to the fetus.
Chalell Olov Shabbat Echad Kiday SheYsihmor Shabbatot Harbeh—that the developing human life of the fetus requires its preservation, overriding other laws, as in the case of “violating on Sabbath so that many Sabbaths may be kept.”
Siyog—that abortion is banned preventatively, as a hedge against other sexual sins that might flow from it.
Nadler then goes on to summarize each of the above. He continues further on “…the falsification of Jewish teaching on abortion is the result of a systematic deconstruction undertaken by David Feldman and other non-Orthodox scholars from the middle of the 20th century.” “For Reform Jewish leaders the deconstruction was simple: These Jews rejected the authority of Orthodox teaching.”
Feldman concludes: “Absent Jewish theology, the progressive scholar might deconstruct Judaism’s magnificent 5,700 year pro-life tradition into a squabble among advocates of conflicting theories and conflicting punishments. Adjudicating among these with standards individualistic and humanistic rather than sacerdotal and covenantal, he might eventually conclude that Judaism had no pro-life tradition at all. And his views, disseminated through the seminaries of liberal Judaism, might inform a whole generation of rabbis and their congregants.” “That is the point that most—not all—American Jews have reached in the abortion debate. But that is not what traditional Judaism teaches.”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3798/is_200601/ai_n17186907/?tag=content;col1
Jill
Quite honestly, I don’t know of any “pro-choice” charities other than Planned Parenthood which, in addition to abortion services, provides women’s gynecological care and STD/AIDS testing and education. For those of us in the pro-choice community, Planned Parenthood serves our mission as your “Crisis Pregnancy Centers” serve yours. As far as assisting women who already have children, there are numerous other charities (not designated as either pro-choice or pro-life) to which folks can donate including those run by pro-choice churches and synagogues (I know, such heresy.)
And Alice
“Projection” is your belief that abortion is a tragedy which you ”project” onto all women who terminate their pregnancy. The meme that all women who have abortions are damaged is, as noted, a “projection” of the anti-choice community. And denial aint’ just a river in Egypt. It’s the denial, on the part of the anti-choice community, that many women terminate their pregnancies and just move on.
And Chris
Jews don’t care about a Christian epistle written by one who abandoned his Judaism. But nice that you think Jews can’t attain “salvation.” Once again, there’s a reason why so few Jews are part of the anti-choice community.
Jill – the link you provide is a page of references to Hillary Clinton and welfare reform. It does not provide the specific quote that you cited.
The names of those ‘numerous other charities?’ quit deflecting and answer, or admit that prochoice doesn’t care about already born children and poor women. But we knew that already.
The names of some those ‘numerous other charities?
United Way
Episcopal Charities
Big Brothers and Big Sisters
Jewish Charities of America
Food banks
A list of secular charities is found here:
http://beingism.org/community/?q=node/76
Charity Navigator has a comprehensive list of charites that include non religious groups.
And if pro-choice folks don’t care about already born women, why are they active in social service groups that lobby for quality of life issues for poor families? The anti-choicers, on the other hand, are focused on the pre-born and those in persistent vegetative states. Those in between get some Pampers and a promise to be included in prayers. Funny, I was active in the anti-war movement (war hurts the post born). I don’t recall seeing anybody from anti-choice groups. I also do some lobbying for housing issues and I haven’t seen any anti-choicers involved in that either. Funny that…
DD says:
“Choice on Earth” – great thought. If that were true, Catholic women (some as young as 10) in poor countries wouldn’t be faced with a lifetime of giving birth to children who, if they survive the diseases that come with abject poverty, will eventually be forced into a life on the mean streets (including prostitution) in order to survive.”
And just a few days ago you wondered if the church would pay for health care for women if PP and others were no longer able to provide health services.
Like most libs it seems you have a problem with the church, and more specifically the Catholic church. Please link to the scholarly underpinnings of your animus against the church so we can participate in a meaningful dialog.
If you think the church is anti-women, have you studied the great women saints of the Church? One book I would highly recommend is “Story of a Soul” by St. Therese of Lisieux. Have you read about Dorothy Day, an early/mid 20th century Catholic laywoman who dedicated her life to helping the poor and fighting for justice? These are just two of literally millions of women who have found a spiritual home in the church and have lived to make a difference in the lives of those whose paths they crossed. They could have chosen to have mired themselves in the very real failings of other churchmen and of the hierarchy, but instead worked to see their fellow human beings through the eyes of our forgiving Savior.
Those are all prochoice charities? Care to prove that? ‘food banks’-gee that’s specific. Guess you never heard of Catholic Charities, largest in the world. Guess you were also unaware that conservatives outgive libs 10-1 when it comes to charity. As for no ‘antichoicers’ being involved in the antiwar movement and lobbying for housing, how the hell would you know? You asked each one of them personally if they’re proabortion or not? I don’t recall seeing a single moonbat cleaning oiled birds with us after the oil spill either, now you mention it. NOT ONE. Your solution to poverty, as you’ve made quite clear in the above comments, is to kill. Antiwar, my ass. How many poor children have you adopted? Foster kids? Or is sign waving and sloganeering what passes for changing the world in moonbat land? And lest you forget who pays all the entitlements you scream for, that would be folks like me, those hated taxpayers without whom folks like you would starve. Incidentally, CPCs do a whole lot more than hand out diapers, all of it for free. You know, real charity, the kind that expects nothing in return. What days of the week does Planned Parenthood offer free abortions? I’m off for the night-I’ll check back tomorrow for proof that those are prochoice charities. Not holding my breath.
Active in WHAT social service groups? Start naming names.
DD says:
“The anti-choicers, on the other hand, are focused on the pre-born and those in persistent vegetative states. Those in between get some Pampers and a promise to be included in prayers. Funny, I was active in the anti-war movement (war hurts the post born). I don’t recall seeing anybody from anti-choice groups. I also do some lobbying for housing issues and I haven’t seen any anti-choicers involved in that either. Funny that…”
The largest food bank in our town is run by a Christian church. Actually almost all of the food banks in the area are Christian. The former is a Catholic church which, as you know, holds as one of its tenets that abortion is always morally illicit except is permitted to save the life of the mother. Most adoptions of physically challenged children are to pro-life families. Most of the hospitals in the country were started by Catholic nuns who lived in service to those in need. The late Mother Teresa and her pro-life Missionaries of Charity work thoughout the world in service to the poor. Of fond memory is Mother Teresa addressing a national prayer breakfast with President Clinton in attendance and all 4 foot, 2 inches of her standing at the podium stating with eloquence and simplicity…
“We are talking of love of the child, which is where love and peace must begin.
But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child – a direct killing of the innocent child – murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?
How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts. By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems. And by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world.
Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching the people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. That is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion. ”
DD said: Jews don’t care about a Christian epistle written by one who abandoned his Judaism. But nice that you think Jews can’t attain “salvation.” Once again, there’s a reason why so few Jews are part of the anti-choice community.
You’re very funny. Since when did Y’shua “write” an epistle? Abandon Judaism? huh? Do you know anything about ancient Judaism? Do you ever research anything you say?
If DD is speaking about the apostle Paul, I don’t recall any time whatsoever in which he abandoned Judaism. That’s completely historically inaccurate. Paul was both a Roman citizen and a Jew. And no one can “attain” salvation, DD. This is just further proof that you know nothing about Judaism OR Christianity. Why “salvation” in quotes? Do you not believe in the concept of salvation? You’ve totally missed the point of the verse Chris posted – the verse states that salvation was sent first to the Jews, and then the Gentiles. And yet, you come back with some remark about him thinking Jews can’t attain salvation? HUH?
Our local social services charity is run by a collective of Christian churches in our area and provides a food bank, clothing bank, utility and rent assistance, diapers, and children’s school supplies for low-income families. My pro-life husband and I volunteer there on a regular basis (he volunteers twice a week) and the local Catholic Church funds a free health clinic staffed by volunteer medical professionals from the area hospital. So what was that you were saying, DD, about Christian charities not doing enough?
“The anti-choicers, on the other hand, are focused on the pre-born and those in persistent vegetative states. Those in between get some Pampers and a promise to be included in prayers.”
The fact that pro-life Christian groups like World Vision, Compassion, Harvest, and endless numbers of groups like that both on national and local church scale disprove that dishonest myth thrown around by pro-abortionists.
“Funny, I was active in the anti-war movement (war hurts the post born). I don’t recall seeing anybody from anti-choice groups.”
Funny, that’s because you did not try hard enough to look. Paleo-conservatives are opposed to BOTH abortion (which they see as lib thing) AND war (which they see as neo-con AND lib thing).
Even if DD is right (which he/she is not) that prolifers don’t care for those who are already born, that does not take away from fact that abortion for anything other than to save mother’s life (and perhaps as result of rape and incest) is wanton destruction of another human life for purely selfish, narcisstic reasons.
Let’s not forget there are progressives and liberal groups for life as well. And libertarians for life as well. Prolifers are not that monolithic politically. (Personally, I am of palecon persuasion.)
“And lest you forget who pays all the entitlements you scream for, that would be folks like me, those hated taxpayers without whom folks like you would starve”
So I take it you have a problem with “entitlements” even though they help poor women who don’t have abortions? Are you saying that we shouldn’t have taxpayer funded programs for teen moms so that they can continue their education? Are you saying that we should not have taxpayer funded protective services so that children can be protected from abuse adults? And if you don’t like “entitlements” for poor women, how would you feel about limiting the number of children a woman can have before “welfare” is stopped. There are some conservatives who propose that even though that would increase abortions. You can’t complain about entitlements and say that you’re pro-life as these entitlements enable post born children to actually have a better quality of life.
And what part of there-are-no-pro-choice-charities but plenty of charities that pro-choice people can give to don’t you understand? Your monomania about pro-choice charities is a bit tedious.
“Since when did Y’shua “write” an epistle? Abandon Judaism? huh? Do you know anything about ancient Judaism? Do you ever research anything you say”
I was referring to the apostle Saul/Paul who broke with traditional Judaism to do PR for Y’shua’s pals who were involved in a break away Jewish sect. And Y’shua never claimed that he was starting a new religion.
“Most of the hospitals in the country were started by Catholic nuns who lived in service to those in need”
While there are many Catholic hosptals, “most” were not started by nuns.
And while it is nice that anti-choicers give things to new mothers, the reality is that it will most likely be the taxpayer and not the church who will sustain this person for as long as she needs the welfare payments or until her welfare is stopped. There is no way that pro-life groups can provide a $500+ monthly check, free medical care, and money for food equivalent to foodstamps.
“wanton destruction of another human life for purely selfish, narcisstic reasons”
Sorry, if a woman obtains an abortion because she knows that she can’t adequately care for a child for financial, medical, psychological purpose, she is acting responsibly and not in a selfish way. And even if a child would merely inconvenience her, it’s not yours to judge. It’s none of your business. It’s not your body and your life.
“Punisher” is an appropriate name because the anti-choice movement, by denying women the right to choose their own reproductive destiny. is being very punitive.
Do you not believe in the concept of salvation?
I don’t believe in “god” so “salvation” is irrelevent to me.
Tedious only because I proved prochoice has no charities other than those that promote abortion, DD? Tedious to me is the constant lame overused talking point from your side that we only care about folks before they’re born which was exactly why I brought up the non-existence of charities from your side that support the already born. And you;re welcome to copy and paste wherever I said I was against entitlements and aid for women, because I didn’t. Lame use of Alinsky tactics that still don’t answer the question I posed. As for govt entitlements, who do you think has been paying them all along, moonbat? Taxpayers like myself. And who was it who decided to ‘reform’ welfare? I believe we covered that already. One of your own. Before you shriek again about how prolifers only care about fetuses, let’s hear what you;re doing to help the poor besides pimping for their deaths before birth. Poverty can be overcome. Death is final. What is it about that libs don’t get? How are you in awy way qualified to decide who lives and who dies?
“let’s hear what you;re doing to help the poor besides pimping for their deaths before birth”
I spent my career in social services that assisted the elderly, the disabled, and abused children. I am now a mentor and a volunteer with the state’s “child advocates office.”
Now you tell me what you’re doing to save the babies.
And love the “moonbat” designation. You must be a fan of Michelle Malkin’s. Nice to see that you’re the first to lower the level of the conversation. I know lots of fun ad-hominems that I could address you with; but I’m trying to observe Ms. Stanek’s rule:
“Criticize ideas, not people.”
“How are you in awy way qualified to decide who lives and who dies?”
Any decisions about “life” and “death” are left to the individual. A woman has the right to control her body. Bottom line. Not the church and not the state. Isn’t the conservative philosophy all about getting government out of our lives. Well here’s the thing. I don’t want government or the Pope getting between me and my gynecologist. My body – my choice.
Sorry, if a woman obtains an abortion because she knows that she can’t adequately care for a child for financial, medical, psychological purpose, she is acting responsibly and not in a selfish way.
O rly? So adoption doesn’t exist? Being willing to kill another human to dodge giving birth seems pretty selfish to me.
And even if a child would merely inconvenience her, it’s not yours to judge. It’s none of your business.
I said it on another thread, but let me reiterate here: Dahmer just wanted to eat people. Who are we to judge? It should’ve just been between him and his prey, right?
It’s not your body and your life.
It’s not her body and her life being destroyed and taken away in an abortion either. Have any other bits of long-disproven fantasy to throw our way?
My body – my choice.
And when you can scientifically prove to all of us here that the young human life growing and developing inside of its mother is merely a part of her body, we’ll all concede your point. Until then, you’re just ignorant and wrong.
How absurd…honestly. As if I am just an extension of my mother’s body…It’s laughable from a biological standpoint, really. I am not my mother’s foot or gallbladder, and never have been. Ever.
“It’s not her body and her life being destroyed and taken away in an abortion either”
It’s a part of her body as is her gall bladder, uterus, etc. Oh, right, the DNA yadda, yadda, yadda. Right now, the law allows a woman to terminate a pregnancy. End of story. Inasmuch as you might like to physically drag women away from a clinic, you can’t. And insasmuch as you claim that a fetus is a “person,” there are those who don’t. And the law is on our side.
I spent my career in social services that assisted the elderly, the disabled, and abused children.
Oh? And did they know how badly you wished that they’d been put to death? Did you ever have the urge to stop their suffering via retroactive abortion?
Oh, right, the DNA yadda, yadda, yadda.
LMAO. Thank you for that well-informed and highly scientific rebuttal.
And if “science” proves “personhood,” why isn’t the scientific community supporting “right to life?” A “potential life” is not a person. Remind me how that Colorado personhood amendment thingie went down.
And if a fetus is a “person,” in the spiritual sense, why aren’t all religions opposed to abortion?
“Oh? And did they know how badly you wished that they’d been put to death? Did you ever have the urge to stop their suffering via retroactive abortion?”
Excuse Me? Where did I say that I wanted to put them to death? Of all the anti-choice comments I’ve seen here, that one is possibly one of the most offensive and quite ridiculous.
“Personhood” is a ridiculous excuse invented by pro-abortionists to justify homicide. I’m more concerned with whether or not an unborn individual is human. Is a new human life? In every other circumstance, do we protect human life by law? Abortion should be no different, and Blackmun himself said in Roe v. Wade that the idea of “Personhood”-non-person human vs. person human, as ridiculous as the concept is-is the only thing that kept abortion legal. Sorry to break this to you, sweetheart, but medical science has progressed just a tad since the 70’s. The only thing keeping abortion legal now is the fact it makes A TON OF $$.
Excuse Me? Where did I say that I wanted to put them to death? Of all the anti-choice comments I’ve seen here, that one is possibly one of the most offensive and quite ridiculous.
Why so ridiculous? I’m the same person now as I was in my mother’s womb. Killing me then would end the only life I’ve ever had. All the kids you’re saying “WOULD live such horrible lives but thank goodness they’re being aborted now!” are just the same as all those you’ve “helped”, only they were post-birth. Get it yet?
“Nice to see that you’re the first to lower the level of the conversation. I know lots of fun ad-hominems that I could address you with; but I’m trying to observe Ms. Stanek’s rule”
Given that you come in here and call us anti-choicers, accuse the whole pro-life movement of not caring for people after birth, etc., etc., you got alot of nerves throwing charges people are first to throw ad homs.
“Sorry, if a woman obtains an abortion because she knows that she can’t adequately care for a child for financial, medical, psychological purpose, she is acting responsibly and not in a selfish way.”
It is selfish when she could have put child up for adoption. The reasons you listed unless it is for extreme cases like life in danger are in fact the ones that PROVE she is acting in selfish way. It is because she does not want to be financially burden. Or she does want to deal with having a baby mentally. Your own words. Not mine. HER PURPOSE. Not anyone else. Selfish.
“And even if a child would merely inconvenience her, it’s not yours to judge. It’s none of your business. It’s not your body and your life.”
Neither was it the busines of abolitiolnists to oppose right to own slaves, by your logic, since they were not the ones owning the slaves. Likewise, if you want to argue since the child does not belong to us but the mother as her property, then you will have to argue that abolitionists were wrong to oppose the supposed PRIVACY of slaveowners to own their supposed PROPERTY. Like abortionists, slavery advocates claim it is PRIVATE PROERTY issue. And both are WRONG and HEINOUS in those claims.
““Punisher” is an appropriate name because the anti-choice movement, by denying women the right to choose their own reproductive destiny. is being very punitive.”
How lame. And you want to cry foul about ad homs?
To call yourself all for choice and us anti-choiice is beyond asinine.
The fact is your so-called pro-choice deny right of pro-life physicians to choose NOT to perform abortions since they feel they would be committing murders. Your so-called pro-choice side deny right of us to CHOOSE TO refuse to pay taxes to pay for their abortions. Your so-called pro-choce side largely support curtailing right of us to CHOOSE to own guns. Your so-called pro-choice largely oppose right of parents to CHOOSE what schools for their kids, and what kind of education in regards to sex education and so on.
Gimme a break about your self-righteous statement we are anti-choicers.
We are anti-murder, period.
We believe people have right to choose reproductive destiny the moment they choose to have or not have sex, but once a child is alive in the womb, they should not be allow to murder that child. They put the children in that position to depend on them by their own acts. Not the children’s fault.
The bottom line is you are no more for choice for anything than the rest of us are. You yourself oppose choice for others on issues you feel strongly about.
And btw, it was none of the business of Lutheran theologian Boehoeffer to oppose the Holocaust and antisemitism, by your logic, since the genoicide was not carried out against those of his nationality.
Just because something is not of our business does not mean we cannot have a say in it, especially when the rights of others are denied, to life, liberty, and property.
The next time those rights could be denied US.
“And if a fetus is a “person,” in the spiritual sense, why aren’t all religions opposed to abortion?”
How lame. By your logic, then we might have to deny full personhoods to women, minorities, etc., depending on what religion it is out there. There are religions out there that see women as pure properties of their husbands especially in the middle east, for example.
“Right now, the law allows a woman to terminate a pregnancy. End of story. Inasmuch as you might like to physically drag women away from a clinic, you can’t. And insasmuch as you claim that a fetus is a “person,” there are those who don’t. And the law is on our side.”
Same argument pro-slavery forces once told the abolitilnists.
As well as it is issue of privacy. As well as issue of property. Your side and slaveowners have a lot in common.
Funny thing is that I find it ironic that folks on your side play the law is on your side and end of story card on that basis, but when abortion was illegal, your side sure did not see it as just because the law says something, it is acceptable until overturned, like fraudulent cases like Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton (ironic, that both the ladies Roe and Doe are now prolifers). Hypocritical a bit much?
Just as hypocritical as you claiming we are anti-choicers when your side is not really for anyone’s choices at all, be it to life or liberty but their own.
Actually I’m not, DD. I don’t watch Beck, either. Check your assumptions/blanket statements.
‘Your body, your choice?’ Funny how y’all scream for the govt out of your uterus as you demand govt/taxpayer funded abortion. No double standard there, huh…LMAO
Incidentally, a preborn baby is an autonomous and distinct human being. So that argument fails, at it has since 1973.
If the unborn is male, and is not distinct human but part of woman’s body, so does the pregnant woman have two heads, four feet, four hands, and a penis?
The same old ‘fetus is just a body part” tripe. Haven’t met a kidney yet that had a heartbeat, fingerprints brainwaves and its own unique DNA. I’m done feeding the troll.
Sorry, if a woman obtains an abortion because she knows that she can’t adequately care for a child for financial, medical, psychological purpose, she is acting responsibly and not in a selfish way. And even if a child would merely inconvenience her, it’s not yours to judge. It’s none of your business. It’s not your body and your life
The epitome of irresponsibility! If a woman has so much control of her body, how about just taking responsibility for it in the first place? What ridiculousness!
*Tilts head in question* I don’t recall saying that I oppose tax-payer social welfare programs which support teen moms and low-income families, in fact I don’t. However, government programs are flawed (such as I think it’s income cut-off is too low and thus often excludes the working poor and couples without children in need) and it’s going to take a combination of private charities and government programs to meet the needs of low-income individuals and families.
Also “Her body, her choice” is a nice political sound byte but doesn’t address what leads to unplanned pregnancies nor does it offer support to women who find themselves in that situation (in fact it’s a cop-out along the lines of not-my-problem) nor does it speak to and express the various experiences and feelings of the women who’ve been in that situation. That particular political sound byte is a good example of the difference between a political movement focused on legal and political gains at any and all costs and a movement which is based on and respects and honors the experiences and voices of women who’ve experienced an unplanned or untimely pregancy. Personally I’m more willing to listen to and have dialouge with pro-choice individuals in the Pro-Voice Movement.
“Also “Her body, her choice” is a nice political sound byte but doesn’t address what leads to unplanned pregnancies nor does it offer support to women who find themselves in that situation (in fact it’s a cop-out along the lines of not-my-problem) nor does it speak to and express the various experiences and feelings of the women who’ve been in that situation.”
Plus that rule of thumb does not hold true for much of our laws. We are not allowed to drink and drive. We are not allowed to do illegal drugs. Pregnant women are not allowed to endanger their unborn by means of drugs or alcohol. And so on.
“Your body, your choice?’ Funny how y’all scream for the govt out of your uterus as you demand govt/taxpayer funded abortion. No double standard there, huh…LMAO”
If we have government funded childbirth, why not abortion? Childbirth/abortion = what a woman wants to do with her reproductive organs. And I don’t like war so why should my tax money pay for two wars that I think are immoral and unnecessary?
“Y’all” – you must be Southern. So be proud of your strict anti-choice laws. ROFLMAO, pregnant southern women are more than welcome in educated, non Confederate states where they can terminate their pregnancies, no fuss, no muss. And if you don’t like it, please feel free to leave the Union. That way, “y’all” can set up a theocracy where them, thar (do I have the patois correct?) wimmins will be required to have their baybees (is that the correct pronounciation?) And y’all can set up roadblocks, at the border, to arrest those lil gals who are defying their god and master.
Incidentally, a preborn baby is an autonomous and distinct human being. So that argument fails, at it has since 1973.
Too Bad, So Sad, that the law disagrees with “y’all.”
And BTW, I summarized my “CV.” (And I have a Masters Degree). What’s yours?
DD: “Y’all” – you must be Southern. So be proud of your strict anti-choice laws.
Me: As someone who is a minority and a Civil War buff (who has no sympathy for the Confederate and pro-slavery side), I can say this about you, you are a bigot.
DD: If we have government funded childbirth, why not abortion?
Me: Funny. You are the one constantly railing about people should have choice. We exposed how dishonest your arguments are. You only for choice that you want for yourself and those on your side. You don’t care about choice for those that disagreed. Your claim you are pro-choice anything other than abortion and everyone else is anti-choice is shown for the hypocrisy and intellectually dishonesty that it is. You have no problem saying no one should have a choice when it comes to paying for other people’s abortions.
DD: Incidentally, a preborn baby is an autonomous and distinct human being. So that argument fails, at it has since 1973.
Too Bad, So Sad, that the law disagrees with “y’all.”
Me: Funny how you accused us of being Southern Confederates but it is you and your side that adopt their arguments. Just as those on the pro-slavery side say the law is on their side and arguments for personhoods for blacks failed against abolitionists before the Civil War, you do the same thing.
If all you got is the law disagree with us to say you are right, then by your notion, the law was right to say it is acceptable to enslave others back in 1856.
Or on issue of abortion, the law is right to make it illegal prior to 1973.
DD: Childbirth/abortion = what a woman wants to do with her reproductive organs.
Me: So especially in latter states of her pregnancy, does a woman have two heads? Two hearts? Four hands? Four feet? Four arms? Four legs?
Using your logic, that would seem be the case.
Your argument comes down to this: the unborn is even more a property of the woman than slaves are of the slaveowners (as heinous as slavery was, it was still illegal for slaveowners to murder thei slaves).
DD: And if you don’t like it, please feel free to leave the Union. That way, “y’all” can set up a theocracy where them, thar (do I have the patois correct?) wimmins will be required to have their baybees (is that the correct pronounciation?) And y’all can set up roadblocks, at the border, to arrest those lil gals who are defying their god and master.
Me: More bigoted rantings against people of Christian faith, on top of racist attacks on Southerners today who have nothing to do with what happened in the past.
Funny, atheists for life, gays for life, feminists for life, and other secular groups for life must have forgotten that one must be a Christian to be pro-life.
And funny thing, too, that most Christians oppose theocracy.
If opposing one form of murder means theocracy in your idiotic, bigoted arguments, then that must mean opposing other forms of murder including genoicide against Jews must also be theocracy, too.
After all, there is a law in the ten commandments against murder!
Drop your stupidity.
DD: And I don’t like war so why should my tax money pay for two wars that I think are immoral and unnecessary?
Me: Uh, there are folks that are pro-lifers that are opposed to our recent wars and nation building. Ever heard of paleo-conservatives? Or for that matter liberals and progressives who are prolifers?
But your argument is your own downfall here. You play ridiculous card of namecalling us anti-choicers over and over again yet you are the one arguing that we should have no choice but to pay for other people’s abortions.
You want to have your cake and eat it.
You can’t over and over again pretend to us how much for choice you are and how we are opposed to choice, and turn around and gripe when we point out how intlelectually and morally bankrupt your arguments are.
NO one is saying we should always have a choice when it comes to certain things. Like obeying laws like paying taxes even for things that end up going for what we feel is unjust. Don’t like the laws? Don’t break them but try to change them. No one that is besides you who pretends to be all about choice when you are not.
We are simply pointing out how disingenuous you are to play anti-choice on us.
You are no less anti-choice than us on certain things you feel should be illegal, like genoicide, assault, etc. etc
DD should watch Gianna Jessen’s testimony on youtube. Was she her mother’s body when she was being aborted???
And another thing — is that Choice On Earth card actually a picture of a mama bird, daddy bird, and baby bird?? How gross – yeh, we “chose to have you little birdy, but we could have chosen to snuff you out, too. “ Sick!!!
“DD should watch Gianna Jessen’s testimony on youtube. Was she her mother’s body when she was being aborted???”
Ain’t she a woman? That should be asked out of every pro-right to abortion advocates out there.
I still think DD needs to stew on this for a little while longer:
Excuse Me? Where did I say that I wanted to put them to death? Of all the anti-choice comments I’ve seen here, that one is possibly one of the most offensive and quite ridiculous.
Why so ridiculous? I’m the same person now as I was in my mother’s womb. Killing me then would end the only life I’ve ever had. All the kids you’re saying “WOULD live such horrible lives but thank goodness they’re being aborted now!” are just the same as all those you’ve “helped”, only they were post-birth. Get it yet?
DD- I posted this on the wrong thread- so here it is where you can see it and respond.
I am disturbed at the disconnect between your supposed CV and what you say. You know remarkably little about social welfare policy to have worked in the field as long as you have. I have only practiced 7 years with my BSW and 5 with my MSW and can say assuredly that expecting people to be able to LIVE off of welfare and charity is an injustice to them, perpetuated by those that benefit from their exploitation. Case in point- LBJ’s War on Poverty was a solution in search of a problem that said, “If it ain’t broke, let’s fix it till it is.” The conditions in the 50?s and 60?s were NOT so demanding of widespread socialist measures injecting the federal government into state government territory- In fact, up until that time, states and local charity took excellent care of their poor. Sadly, this has been replaced with ineffective categorical grants that waste tons of money. I know- I oversee the waste of tons of money as an evaluator of social service programs, determining their effectiveness. These programs exist not to actually HELP the poor, but to keep them dependent on people that want to buy their votes. True hand-up rather than hand-out programs know that poverty is an injustice that can only be remedied by EMPOWERMENT, not ENSLAVEMENT to the government dole. Others want the poor to remain poor to limit their influence or not create competition. Anyone who has worked for any length of time knows that giving people money or services rather than the ability to provide for themselves is not only wasting money, but perpetuating the exploitation of the poor.
I can’t believe anyone can work in social welfare for as long as you claim to and not see these truths. Then again, you are so deceived that you believe an unborn little boy is just a part of his mother’s body, so I shouldn’t be surprised.
“Oh, right, the DNA yadda, yadda, yadda.” Wow, I could laugh at this for a week. It pretty much discredits ALL of DD’s deathmongering arguments. I’m still trying to figure out how our mothers bodies’ possessed their son’s penises and y chromosomes. I never once heard a mother exclaim to her son that his penis was hers until after his birthday.
And just for fun, if DD looks up person in the dictionary, (Merriam Websters for example) the first definition for “Person” is “human, individual.” Since a fetus isn’t a horse or a goldfish, I think that pretty much settles it.
But, oh, science is just a bunch of yadda yadda.
I am tired of the “Pro-aborts” stating that pro-lifers don’t beleive in “Choice”.
Well, I am an avid pro-lifer that believes in Choice. Men and women have the choice of either jumping in the sack or not.
According to Operation Rescue, many Planned Parenthood abortion surgi centers were closed down this past year, so I guess they need a new stream of revenue!
As for the pro-abort premise that there is no baby in the womb and therefore it is ok to remove the tissue:
- actually if there is no baby then a woman is not pregnant because pregnancy is a conditon that produces a baby – not a vegetable or anything else!
– and if she is not pregnant with a baby then she does not need to have an abortion!
So, now we understand that anyone who does participate in an abortion is killing a baby – an innocent human being who is a child of God even before residnece in the womb.
I suppose the Jews accept and participate in abortion because they missed the time after time they had a very hard time following what God required of them.
But, shame on anyone who claims to be a Christian and is involved in an abortion in any way – Mary is the scriptural example of an unplanned pregnancy – she had much to fear from societial pressures BUT she trusted in God and thank goodness she was unselfish and willing to give of herself to bear Chirst – otherwise, if mankind had totally rejected the Son of God, I doubt any of us would be here today!
Christmas really should be a Pro-Life celebration!!
Elle- that was perfect! I have long agreed with that comment. That is usually the first “choice” the pro choice people forget about. You know, the choice that requires personal responsibility.
Kimberly, oh if you say they have a choice not to jump in the sack, the proabs will pounce with ‘what about rape?’. I’m ready: what about all the rape that is hidden by abortion? Planned Parenthood, just to name one organization, has for years and years been disposing of the evidence of rape and sending young girls back to their rapists without so much as a how-do-you-do. The words “I don’t want to know his age” come to mind.
A woman has two choices when she’s pregnant: raise the child or not raise the child. There are lots of families willing to help her with the second choice.
Planned Parenthood released this poll out today (with stats that I totally distrust when it is from them):
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/node/15012
Ninek, some even use the term “rape” to refer to how they feel about carrying the baby they willingly conceived, even if it was unplanned. They call it a “forced pregnancy” because the thought of not being able to kill it makes them feel violated. Rape has many different meanings to some pro choicers, and sometimes doesn’t carry any meaning at all (when it really should, such as what you pointed out). Sick.
First of all, you have it all wrong. Children are a gift from God. They are all God’s children, not a woman’s child. They have the right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. God is the Creator of life and He is the only one who should take it away. NO ONE ELSE has the right to play GOD!!!! Every single one of us will stand before Him on judgment day. You will have to tell him why you killed His child, His gift to you. Think about this. Every aborted baby goes straight to heaven. You will someday meet your child face-to-face, if you make it there! So, prepare to have a name for your aborted child, one that can be either a boy or girl, if you didn’t know the baby’s sex.