Breaking: New “abortion is black genocide” Chicago billboard to feature Obama
Click all images to enlarge.
Tomorrow, March 29, over 30 pro-life billboards will be unveiled on Chicago’s south side, where residents are predominantly black.
The billboards will feature a graphic of President Barack Obama and state, “Every 21 minutes, our next possible leader is aborted.” The billboard will direct interested parties to ThatsAbortion.com, where African-American pro-life leader Alveda King is prominently featured.
The Chicago billboards are sponsored by Life Always, the pro-life organization behind the recent NYC billboard that created an uproar. It stated, “The most dangerous place for an African-American baby is in the womb,” an accurate statement since 60% of all preborn black babies in the NYC area are killed by abortion.
Yet that billboard was removed as quickly as it was erected due to threats of pro-abortion violence.
These billboards are simply trying to raise awareness that abortion is tantamount to black genocide. Nationally, blacks get ~36% of all US abortions despite comprising only ~13% of the population.
Notwithstading the censorship in NYC, Life Always “remain[s] committed to continuing to raise awareness and exercising first amendment rights of free speech to bring awareness to the tragedy of abortion,” according to its press release.
But we already know pro-aborts don’t believe in free speech. The worst of bullies by nature, we shall see if their threats of violence against postborn humans continues to enable them to cover up the truth about abortion as black genocide.
We already know they are capable of carrying out that violence.
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.
They don’t believe in right to choose our speech.
Postborn? That’s a strange word.
I think that when your people are being threatened with extinction as African-Americans are with the 60% NYC abortion rate, the only sensible thing to do is scream bloody murder.
What if Jewish leaders were as silent about the Holocaust as many African American leaders are— or, worse, even supported the ‘right to choose’ to eliminate ‘unwanted’ Jews?
Problem is, entering into “kinetic military operations”, then dashing off to Brazil to dance a little samba and play a little soccer is not exactly a leader.
“I think that when your people are being threatened with extinction as African-Americans are with the 60% NYC abortion rate, the only sensible thing to do is scream bloody murder.”
“Whites in America will be outnumbered by 2050 by rising numbers of ethnic minorities, according to official figures.Hispanic, black and Asian people accounted for 90 per cent of all births in the U.S. between 2000 and 2010. In 40 years’ time they will comprise more than half the population due to their higher birth rates and immigration.”
The black fertility rate seems fine and not “threatened with extinction.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1370071/Whites-minority-U-S-2050-black-Hispanic-birth-rates-soar.html#ixzz1HuQqacHQ
And BTW, the majority of American Jews are pro-choice and, as noted by Abe Foxman of the ADL, are offended by the pro-life linkage of the holocaust to abortion.
Yet that billboard was removed as quickly as it was erected due to threats of pro-abortion violence.
I read the entire CNN article and nowhere were “threats of violence” referenced. The wait staff at a local restaurant were “harassed” but not threatened, at least according to the article, with violence. And BTW, the mother of the child, in the ad, was appalled. She’s African American and obviously doesn’t subscribe to the “genocide” meme which basicall casts African American women as too stupid and childlike to make their own decisions regarding abortion. If black women want to have abortions, for whatever reason, it’s their business.
HaHaHa! LOL! joan you are hilarious. If destroying 60% of your unborn babies in NYC and 40% nationwide when you are only 12% of the populations is NOT grossly offensive then NOTHING is offensive. Dr. Alveda King, Day Gardner, Rev. Culbreath, Dr. Tony Evans, Star Parker, Ryan Bomberger and many AAs that are aware of the agenda of the Dead Babies R Us crew are NOT offended. Cranky Catholic sounds like a good time for you to bring out Margaret Sangers picture at the KKK and use joan’s post along with Margaret’s “human weeds” quote.
Yet CC, you think that women of all colors are too stupid to make their own decisions regarding crisis pregnancy centers, and must be warned away from these e-vell places at all costs. Yes, women are too dumb to understand what the words ABORTION ALTERNATIVES mean. Apparently the courts in Baltimore didn’t agree, and I am hoping that NYC’s law will not stand up in court either.
I am African American and I am not offended by these billboards at all. I think they are good because they spur discussion about a topic that is rarely discussed in the black community. Many African American women are not aware that there are alternatives to abortion and that there are people and organizations willing to help. I once was talking to a young black woman contemplating abortion about adoption and she said “no one wants my black baby.” How sad and untrue.
Aw, did Joan hatch another turkey and I missed it! Darn!
Many years ago, I wasn’t active for pro-life and just silently kept my head down. More and more children were destroyed. I didn’t realize how caustic some abortion advocates really were, and I bought into the idea that they were mislead and just wanted to ‘help women.’ Well, the last 3 years have opened my eyes. While many of my own friends still fall into the ‘we really just want to help women not hurt themselves’ category, what I have seen on the internet and experienced in my personal life tells a different story.
I have seen even right here on Jill’s site, abortion fans complaining about our frequent quoting of the 60% statistic of AA abortions in NYC. The truth is, some people think that if the abortion rate rose to 100% of all pregnancies that would be fine because “it’s a woman’s choice and don’t tell her what to do.” In fact, they go beyond “don’t tell her” right into the heart of “Don’t talk at all.”
Our freedom of speech is being attacked with the same vigor as our pre-born children and by the same people. There is a sickness raging through our world and its symptom is abortion, and its casualties are our children and the future of the entire human race.
Bloody murder!!
You’re asking the wrong questions. Why are AT LEAST 60% of pregnancies of NY African American women unintended? (Most likely many more are unintended but the women choose to give birth.) What are you doing about prevention (other than “just say no,” which doesn’t seem to work all that well)?
What are YOU doing about prevention? Planned Parenthood is in our schools, promoting sexual promiscuity among children as young as 10 and targetting children even younger with their literature and their “sex ed workshops.” Why? Because getting kids busy means more money from treating STD’s and performing abortions. WE are fighting Planned Parenthood, who does not exist to help women and children, but whose own mission statement is about eugenics and whose goal is $$. They are publishing literature for children as young as 5 telling them, sex is fun and it doesn’t lead to babies.
Sex between males and females is how babies are made.
See how simple that is? And it’s free to say it out loud. What are we doing? Working to defund Planned Parenthood and get them out of our schools and away from the Girl Scouts. We need to educate GIRLS and WOMEN that the facts of life are simple: sex is how babies are made.
Hi QCgrrl.
“Why are AT LEAST 60% of pregnancies of NY African American women unintended?”
I think it has to do with the fact that we have separated sex and procreation. For some reason, we are under the impression that we can engage in an action which can lead to a certain consequence, and then we’re surprised when that consequence happens. Indeed, simply saying “no” does not work, as you must also not engage in the sexual act. However, I think that if people who don’t want a child don’t have sex, then they won’t end up being pregnant. It’s difficult to see how that can not work, other than saying that it can’t be done. But of course, it can. I assume that everyone reading this right now is not having sex and that no one has ever died due to lack of sex, so it seems plausible that people can refrain from engaging in the sexual act if they do not wish to have a child.
I think it has to do with the fact that we have separated sex and procreation. For some reason, we are under the impression that we can engage in an action which can lead to a certain consequence, and then we’re surprised when that consequence happens.
Good point.
QCgrrl: I also we need to look at the issues that lead women to choose abortion, which include poverty, lack of support and resources etc. Men and women need to learn to stop seeing each other as sex objects and have some respect for one another. And women need to know that they are alternatives. Like I said before, when we do offer women alternatives to abortion, you tell us that we are “misleading” women and “harrassing” them. So please, tell us what YOU think WE should do.
I think that this billboard will be more effective in reaching people than the one with the little girl on it.
It is designed in such a way that it makes the viewer stop and read the text. Then they will pause and think about the message. I think that the New York billboard was so “in your face” that it evoked a visceral reaction from the viewer, immediately turning off anyone who is already pro-choice to the message it was sending. It also used the word “abortion” along with a picture of a child. While this does send a strong pro-life message, it antagonizes pro-choicers who do not want to admit that abortion destroys children like the one in the picture. If the goal of billboard is to reach those who disagree with us, causing them to think about the issue goes a lot further than causing them to turn away from the message.
I think that this billboard will be more effective in reaching people than the one with the little girl on it.
I do too, Len. And if our opposition is so upset about these billboards, why don’t they put up their own? I just wonder what they would say.
Postborn? That’s a strange word.
I agree, Cranky Catholic. A lot of our nomenclature seems odd to me. “Unborn” and “pre-born”, not to mention “post-born” seem unwieldy to me, to say the least.
I wrote a whole essay on it. (To myself - I have no idea who I’d send it to. :)
And BTW, the majority of American Jews are pro-choice and, as noted by Abe Foxman of the ADL, are offended by the pro-life linkage of the holocaust to abortion.
According to the dictionary, a holocaust is:
an act of mass destruction and loss of life (especially in war or by fire)
Great destruction resulting in the extensive loss of life, especially by fire
Well, since abortion is, by definition, a holocaust, then it’s a valid linkage.Unless of course you don’t beleive in the dictionary. You don’t believe in science or logic, so I wouldn’t put it past you.
Also, I find it interesting how it’s not offensive when an organization that was founded by people with ties to the nazis, who saw black people as “human weeds,” and who thought charity was a threat to society is killing a large percentage of the black population, but its so very offensive to point it out.
NAR,
I am so glad you are here! I love your witty and articulate posts!! Thank your mom and dad for me. :)
It is what it is and unfortunately, his focus is on votes and his only intention to please is based on those of voting age. Sad but true ….
Thanks Carla! You just made my day. :)
I’ve really enjoyed reading your posts, and I like your blog too.
Ha Ha, that’s funny! How ironic. People of the ilk of those who constantly denigrate and decry Obama in so many ways actually using his image in their propaganda campaign.
“Well, since abortion is, by definition, a holocaust, then it’s a valid linkage.” – no and no. You’re wrong.
Reality,
Saying “you’re wrong” is not an argument. Every abortion ends a human life. Therefore, abortion is a “Great destruction resulting in the extensive loss of life”. Now that I’ve spelled it out for you maybe you’d actually like to try making a point based in logic or fact?
The Holocaust was a specifically planned and executed strategy to exterminate a particluar group of existent people in as short a time frame as possible. This does not apply to abortion.
If you feel the need to apply such terms as mass murder, go ahead; but any comparison with the Holocaust is deeply offensive to the Jewish diaspora and others.
Reality,
Contrary to popular belief, a holocaust is the destruction of life, usually by fire. Using the word “holocaust” does not necessarily refer to the atrocity committed against the Jewish people in World War II. It is only when saying “the Holocaust”, with capitalization, that it refers to said atrocity.
Furthermore, the Jewish Holocaust is not the only holocaust in history. Such examples include the Native American holocaust, the Black holocaust, the Irish holocaust, etc. Attributing the word holocaust to the systematic killing of a specified group of human beings is acceptable.
Oh, and I’m Irish, and I don’t find the use of the word holocaust to refer to abortion offensive in any way, and neither do the rest of my family. In fact, we find it quite appropriate.
From Merriam-Webster.com:
Definition of HOLOCAUST
1: a sacrifice consumed by fire
2: a thorough destruction involving extensive loss of life especially through fire <a nuclear holocaust>
3 a often capitalized : the mass slaughter of European civilians and especially Jews by the Nazis during World War II —usually used with the
b : a mass slaughter of people; especially : genocide
“the systematic killing of a specified group of human beings is acceptable.” maybe, but that’s not abortion. Nor does abortion fit the Merriam-Webster definition that you’ve supplied.
Nobody should take our word for it: they should read Margaret Sanger’s own words. She “wouldn’t want word to get out that we are trying to exterminate the negro population.” You know, those “human weeds.” Plenty of Orthodox Jews do see a similarity and aren’t offended by the comparison. The comparison of abortion to slavery is also quite apt: “if it’s in my body, my house, yard or plantation, I can kill it if I want to.”
As the Scarecrow says, “Some people without brains do an awful lot of talking.”
Riddle: How can you tell when abortion advocates are wrong?
Answer: Their lips are moving.
“Contrary to popular belief, a holocaust is the destruction of life, usually by fire. Using the word “holocaust” does not necessarily refer to the atrocity committed against the Jewish people in World War II. It is only when saying “the Holocaust”, with capitalization, that it refers to said atrocity.”
Some words, symbols, or concepts take on special meanings as a result of certain historical events. “Führer” simply means “guide” in German, but today the word, on its own, is almost exclusively associated with Adolf Hitler and because of that, avoided in other contexts. The word “holocaust” has similar cultural and social connotations. It is not used in modern contexts to refer to anything except the Nazi genocide against Jews. Trying to argue otherwise on the basis of the word’s literal definition is pedantic and in poor taste. It would be like calling a black person “negro” and then pointing out that “negro” simply means “black” in Spanish.
joan @ 8:20 p.m. “The word “holocaust” has similar cultural and social connotations. It is not used in modern contexts to refer to anything except the Nazi genocide against Jews.”
Bah-loney. I want you to try something, Joan. Type the words “Rwandan” or “Cambodian” or “Sudan” (three just to get you started) into the search engine of your choosing. Then begin to type holoc—and see what you get.
Reality says:
March 28, 2011 at 7:51 pm
“the systematic killing of a specified group of human beings is acceptable.” maybe, but that’s not abortion. Nor does abortion fit the Merriam-Webster definition that you’ve supplied.”
A specified group can be those defined by age, race, size, gender, location, heritage, degree of dependency, religion, etc.
Abortion is the systematic killing of the unborn, who are of a specified age, location, degree of dependency, size. The unborn are human beings targeted because they are not considered persons because of those facts.
And where do the unborn go after they’re taken apart and taken to a medical waste facility? They go into the incinerator.
In the old days, this was how sacrifices were done to non-Jewish deities: The pregnant women were ripped open, the babies taken out, their blood dripped on the altar, and then their bodies dropped into the fire. Many cultures did this: Canaanites, Ammorites, Egyptians, Greeks, Aztecs, etc. The Bible mentions this practice many times, especially in Amos, chapter 1.
In the practices of the Jewish people, they did this to non-human animals. Other religions did this to humans. Such a sacrifice is correctly referred to as a holocaust.
If you think that abortion centers don’t think of abortion as a holocaust, you should look up Abigail Seidman’s story.
Also, Patricia Baird-Windle, an outspoken abortion proponent and owner of 3 abortuaries, said she considers “abortion to be a major blessing, and to be a sacrament in the hands of women.”
Also, referring to the word holocaust as a slaughter of people, here are the definitions of people, person, and human:
People:
plural : human beings, persons —often used in compounds instead of persons
Person:
human, individual —sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes
the body of a human being
From the medical dictionary:
Person
1. A living human.
2. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.
3. The living body of a human.
4. Physique and general appearance.
Human
of, relating to, or characteristic of humans <human body>< human biochemistry>
consisting of members of the family Hominidae
a bipedal primate mammal of the genus Homo ( H. sapiens ) : MAN
From the science dictionary
Human
A member of the species Homo sapiens; a human being.
“Abortion is the systematic killing of the unborn” – no its not. It’s ad hoc, done on an individual basis and not planned and carried out by one central authority.
“The unborn are human beings targeted” – no they’re not.
Your whole incinerator and cultural homily ramble is incoherent and irrelevant.
Your definitions of people, person and human do not specify the inclusion of fetuses.
“A specified group can be those defined by age, race, size, gender, location, heritage, degree of dependency, religion, etc.
Abortion is the systematic killing of the unborn, who are of a specified age, location, degree of dependency, size. The unborn are human beings targeted because they are not considered persons because of those facts.”
Your definition is so absurdly loose, one could define the practice of the death penalty as a “holocaust” against those who fall into the group of “convicted murderers who have been sentenced to death”. Can you see why an anti-death penalty organization demanding that the death penalty “holocaust” be stopped would be offensive to many people, particularly those who lost family in the capital-H Holocaust?
It really blows my mind that you’re so keen to double down on this stupidity that you’re actually picking apart dictionary definitions of words to try and justify it. If you had any kind of social graces whatsoever, you’d refrain from using that one, particular word and instead use one of the many, many synonyms for it that currently exist, simply out of respect for the many people who find such pedantic use of the word “holocaust” to be gravely offensive.
you’re actually picking apart dictionary definitions of words to try and justify it.
Actually, Joan, they’re using dictionary definitions to clarify because you have attempted the use of semantics as a basis for your own argument. See, you are so completely incapable of understanding the common definitions of certain words (like holocaust and person) that they are driven by your utter willful ignorance to break it down into simpleton terms.
“Actually, Joan, they’re using dictionary definitions to clarify because you have attempted the use of semantics as a basis for your own argument.”
I guess you didn’t read or understand what I wrote. I’m specifically arguing beyond semantics and trying to explain to certain persons here that a word is sometimes more than whatever Mirriam-Webster defines it as.
The problem with dictionary definitions is that they don’t take into account things like context and social meaning. I have found that conservatives have a really hard time grasping these vital aspects of language, and instead have this concept of words as being monolithic, unchanging things with strict, mathematically precise values.
joan – you’re speaking emanations of penumbras – it’s so impressive!
Joan says: ‘conservatives ‘ have a really hard time grasping the vital aspects of language.
Pro-abortion supporters have a really hard time grasping the vital fact that all humans are valuable, including the unborn.
No need to mince words, make arguments, do linguistic acrobatics, philosophical musings, wishful thinking or any slight of hand.
If you are human, you are part of the family, and you are valuable. It is monolithic, unchanging and mathematically precise, (and compassionate). And it protects all humans – no restrictions! Notice – no mention of any religion, litmus test of worth, posturing of calculating value or function.
If you are human, you are part of the family, and you are valuable.
It’s interesting that while people were quick and eager to climb all over my protest over the inappropraite and inaccurate use of the term ‘holocaust’, no-one has felt it necessary to defend the sheer hypocrisy of those who constantly denigrate and decry Obama in so many ways actually using his image in a propaganda campaign.
Joan,
I lost family in the Irish holocaust!
Anything that can be labeled genocide can be labeled a holocaust!
Furthermore, for you to assert that there is no other holocaust than the Jewish holocaust is extremely insulting to my family and me! I lost family in that horror!
The potato blight ruined the crop in all of Europe, the Brits went into Ireland and took all of the food from the Irish because we were considered lower! The Brits in power did not consider them to be persons! My family had to leave, came to America, where they were still considered non-persons, and were unable to get jobs, own land, etc.
The 1841 census of Ireland revealed a population of 10,897,449. This figure includes the correction factor established by that year’s official partial recount. Assuming that the birth rate continued, the population in 1851, absent the starvation, would have been approximately 12,809,841. However; the 1851 census recorded a population of 6,552,385; thus there was a “disappearance” of 6,257,456. These 6,257,456 include roughly 1,000,000 who successfully fled into exile and another 100,000 unborn between 1846 and 1851 due to malnutrition-induced infertility. That’s 5,157,456 people who died. Writer Chris Fogarty, places the numbers “murdered at approximately 5.16 million, making it the Irish holocaust.” Distinguished legal scholars, like Professors Charles Rice of Notre Dame U. and Francis A. Boyle, U. of Illinois, believe that under International Law, that the British pursued a barbarous policy of mass starvation in Ireland from 1845-50, and that such conduct constituted “genocide.” That is a holocaust.
The Brits knew what they were doing.
Queen Victoria’s economist, Nassau Senior, expressed his fear that existing policies “will not kill more than one million Irish in 1848 and that will scarcely be enough to do much good.”
Thomas Carlyle; influential British essayist, wrote; “Ireland is like a half-starved rat that crosses the path of an elephant. What must the elephant do? Squelch it – by heavens – squelch it.”
“Total Annihilation;” suggested The Times leader of September 2, 1846; and in 1848 its editorialists crowed, “A Celt will soon be as rare on the banks of the Shannon as the red man on the banks of Manhattan.”
Check out:
irishholocaust.webs.com
irishholocaust.org
noraid.com/Holocaust.htm
Woodham-Smith, Cecil. The Great Hunger: Ireland, 1845-49, London: Hamish Hamilton, 1962.
Chris Fogarty. “The Mass Graves of Ireland: 1845-1850”. Oct. 26 and Nov. 2, 1996, Irish People, NYC.
Guinnane, Timothy W. The Vanishing Irish: Households, Migration and the Rural Economy in Ireland, 1850-1914. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997.
Therefore, I have the right to assert that any form of genocide can be labeled a holocaust! Abortion included!
It’s interesting that while people were quick and eager to climb all over my protest over the inappropraite and inaccurate use of the term ‘holocaust’, no-one has felt it necessary to defend the sheer hypocrisy of those who constantly denigrate and decry Obama in so many ways actually using his image in a propaganda campaign.
Reality,
I disagree with PBHO’s political stance, and I fear that he greatly needs our prayers. I do not discount his worth as a human being, however. I would not have him killed in the womb, without due process, because we disagree. PBHO is a significant figurehead to many. It is appropriate to recognize his humanity and his worth while appealing to those who value his contributions as positive advancements.
I believe you will find that most pro-lifers (most if not all on Jill’s blog, certainly!) would agree with me that no human, no matter how deceitful and wrong their actions are/were/will be deserved the death sentence while in the womb.
I wonder if the new billboard will get censored and if so, if the President Obama will pull strings to keep the billboard up, or be one to help tear it down???hmmmm….wonder how his stance on this will waiver, when it explicitly states our next leader- when it shows clearly that if He HAD BEEN ABORTED, HE WOULDNT BE THE PRESIDENT NOW…sad that he supports PP, and is clearly choosing to ignore the Born alive protection act, as well as allowing the slaughter of 4,000 babies a day…thankfully we are not under a dictatorship and we have a HOUSE AND SENATE!
The current government agenda of “share the wealth” contributes greatly to these “unintended” pregnancies. If a woman (of any race) grew up knowing that abortion was illegal and therefore not an option, and that the government was not going to bail her out if she had 5 kids out of wedlock with no education maybe she would keep her legs crossed! Maybe she would say no, but why say no when you can murder your baby or let the government (aka tax payers) pay for your every need? Anyone who wants government assistance (and who is not legally handicapped in some way) should have to prove that they are putting in a FULL 40 hours a week putting in applications to find a job or two or three. There needs to be consequences! Have no fear, there is a just God who will serve punishment to unbelievers, but in the mean time I hope He has mercy on those of us that have to live here.
Writer Monty Pelerin quoted an excerpt from a Reuter’s news release found in a Czech newspaper in a great article entitled “The Problem is brainlock, not gridlock,” American Thinker, March 12, 2010. The quote may be the best way to answer most people.
“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency. It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.”
Nissa Annakindt: I think that when your people are being threatened with extinction as African-Americans are with the 60% NYC abortion rate, the only sensible thing to do is scream bloody murder.
Extinction? : P
The birth rate for African-Americans is higher than for white Americans.
I would like to bless you with an unwanted pregnancy.Bless Bless Bless..One evy 15 minutes.
Oh, sunny, what little you know!
Show of hands from pro-life posters who have experienced a ‘surprise’ pregnancy and chosen life?
(Mine’s up!)
Actually, I can think of a few regulars who have chosen abortion and could make some incredibly compelling arguments for life, too!
Hi Sunny.
Obviously it is an unfortunate situation to be in an unplanned pregnancy. But the pro-life claim is that, as horrible a situation as that may be, abortion is an act of killing a human being, which is of course, much worse. So while there is a conflict of interests there, it is worse to directly and willfully end someone’s life than to bring an unplanned pregnancy to term, as bad as that is. True, both are horrible and undesirable, but when a conflict of interests arises, common sense tells us that the one who has more to lose should be the one to have their rights upheld.
Raises one hand for an unplanned pregnancy! That former fetus was just picked up from preschool.
Raises other hand for the abortion I had 20 years ago that killed my child and hurt me deeply.
Carla, my unplanned pregnancy is graduating from college in May. Mrs. Obama is going to be the commencement speaker!
It’s interesting that while people were quick and eager to climb all over my protest over the inappropraite and inaccurate use of the term ‘holocaust’, no-one has felt it necessary to defend the sheer hypocrisy of those who constantly denigrate and decry Obama in so many ways actually using his image in a propaganda campaign
Who said that the group behind these billboards constantly “denigrate and decry” Obama? I thought they were non-partisian.
“Total Annihilation;” suggested The Times leader of September 2, 1846; and in 1848 its editorialists crowed, “A Celt will soon be as rare on the banks of the Shannon as the red man on the banks of Manhattan.”
Thanks for the info about the Irish holocaust, Amy. The British monarchy pretty much terrorized the world for years. That’s why I’m not a big fan of the British Royalty or the royal wedding. I’m sure that William and Kate are nice people, but their family’s enormous wealth is ill-gotten, to say the least.
Hey phillymiss – I changed your moniker to your usual one so as to avoid confusion. Just letting you know! :)
@ Reality “the systematic killing of a specified group of human beings is acceptable.” maybe, but that’s not abortion. Nor does abortion fit the Merriam-Webster definition that you’ve supplied.”
Go to the embryionic Science Journals or books. The embrio in side the womb of a human mother is indeed Human, therefor fits the definition. Abortion is the killing of a specifib group of people – Children in the womb. No medical scientist would deny that the embrio is human.
I looked up ’embrio’ Rick, all I got was examples of strange vehicles built by Bombardier and other companies.
’embryionic’, ‘in side’, ‘specifib’, ‘therefor’? Sorry Rick, I make grammatical and spelling errors too but that’s a lot for so few words.
Yes an embryo is in the womb. Yes it is scientifically human.
But it does not fit the definition. It is not the systematic killing of a specified group of human beings.
Reality, Sorry for the errors, I’ve been going since 4:00 AM. I would argue that targeting a group that is “Scientifically” human when they are most vulnerable, while in the Womb fits the definition right on the button.
Since you can admit that at least scientifically that they are human we are now faced with the moral issue. When is it O.K. to kill another human? Do we gauge that decision by “Size” because the child is Small, it is O.K. to kill. Then what about any child smaller than we are? What about the Pigmy tribe vs. Zulu, would it be morally right for the Zulu to kill the smaller tribe, because of size.
What about Level of Development, the embryo is not as developed, as an infant out of the womb, but the infant is not as developed as the teen or the teen compared to the young adult or the young adult to the octogenarian. In actuality development starts at conception but ends at death. So is it OK to kill anyone who is less developed than you?
Because of location, maybe? The fact that that human didn’t travel down the 8″ birth canal, only after traveling that 8″ does that human life have value? Why stop there, then?
Why not be able to kill a human up to the point that they can travel to their own location on there own, again open season on all infants?
or is it because of the whole “dependency” issue? Because that human is dependent on something outside of itself to survive for a short time, eventually that child will be weaned from that physical dependency. But what to do with conjoined twins can one choose to terminate the other without the others consent? Or for that matter, should we kill the diabetic who is dependent on insulin? or the elderly, dependant on Oxygen bottles and nurses?
Or is it “Self Awareness”? If that is the case, kill off all that suffer some extreme mental handicaps such as dementia, if some one is asleep they loose self-awareness. Is it O.K. to kill them even though they will get back their self-awareness when they wake up, just as that child will be self aware if allowed to live.
It must be terrible difficult on someone that can make those calls so casually to take the life of a human just because they do not meet your standard.
Last point, and do not let this point cloud anything else that I pointed out. If targeting the pre-born does not meet your standard of targeting a group. I will still argue that Planned Parenthood is involve with a holocaust. Margaret Sanger’s own words prove that her clinics target race. Read her works. all the other children lost is just collateral damage.
It has been a very long day, time for me to go to bed.
(and loose self awareness for about 8 hours, and I am short)
No need to apologize. Exhaustion takes it’s toll.
You seem to have missed the point of the definition Mark. Abortion is not a centrally ordained, planned and systematically executed plan like a holocaust or genocide is.
When a baby is delivered and smacked on the bum (ok that’s an old hat process), it takes a breath and enters ‘life’. It has reached the same universal constant as you and I. OK, it’s not quite that black and white. As with most things there are nuances and exceptions.
Now we commence life’s journey. If we suffer illness we are treated, if we break we are repaired. If, in our dotage, we are frail, we are assisted.
We could argue aspects, definitives etc. but this is basic reality.
The vast majority of pro-choicers do not ‘target’ the pre-born. The constant cries of ‘pro-aborts only support abortions’ simply devalues the anti-choice case. Most pro-choicers believe that a woman has an equal choice of either keeping the baby once it’s born, adopting the child out, or having an abortion. It is an individual, case by case ‘event’. Therefore it does not meet the criteria for ‘holocaust’.
There are people who do the wrong thing and they should be appropriately dealt with. They make the pro-choice movement look bad. Some ant-choicers leave a little to be desired too.
I’m average. Not just in height. That’s the reality.
The fact that the child needs his mother to be his respirator for nine months does not negate him/her from being human. Being human in it self automatically demands the deliverance of human rights, especially in a society such as our country can provide. The child is not in any case guilty of any crimes but yet is killed so easily. If that child is not human I could quickly agree with you, however, as stated earlier, we both know and at least acknowledge the theft of humanity.
You say, “If we suffer illness we are treated, if we break we are repaired. If, in our dotage, we are frail, we are assisted.
We could argue aspects, definitive etc. but this is basic reality.”
Why does any human deserve any less rights than another? You know a child in the womb, can get sick and are treated. The child in the womb is frail and needs assistance to survive. The child is not any less human because it he/she failed to get a slap on the bum. The child is in a different stage of development than you, but I am sure I am in a different stage than you. Sets of experiences do not add or detract from a human’s worth (the slap doesn’t make you more human).
You also may have missed my final point also, Margaret Sanger’s goal was to systematically eliminate a race she felt to be inferior (she as Hitler was a believer in eugenics), she started PP for that purpose. She believed that if Abortion was a “Right” and her targeted race could be made through economic maneuvering to volunteer the genocide (you really should read her work). You may argue that those working today do not have this purpose in mind, that they are really just trying to help the poor with their contraceptive needs”, but Sanger’s vision is still being fulfilled. I would also argue, if you read accounts of some that use to work for PP, that there are some that have less than honorable intentions, than just helping the poor.
Being human, whether or not you want to tag abortion as ‘holocaust’ or genocide is in reality not as important as recognizing that each abortion eliminates a human. As you probably are aware, that from the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg, the whole DNA package is there, how tall, how short, skin pigment, eye color, physical attributes, boy or girl. then it develops, not constructed like lets say a car, but develops uniquely and with purpose, and this wonderful process will continue from that moment on.
If you can argue the case for death because the child did not travel that 8″ and get smacked, then you can raise the argument for taking life at any stage of life.
My arguments are not based on personal opinion it is based on that embryo being human, and therefore being granted the rights of any other human.
I won’t even try to make this a religious argument we all know the bible verses. The fact is, if it were JUST a religious argument then PP would have an altar and protected by the first amendment. But I will state that Christian’s are sensitive to this cause out of love for that tiny child and not out of malice to the mother. If it appears that we Christians are a little excited by the abortion issue, it is because we know every time a woman goes into PP for an abortion. A human child is going to be erased from this earth. 1000’s of humans discarded like garbage, future artists, poets, authors, doctors, and leaders, gone. All in some contrived concept of a “RIGHT” to kill another human.
Reality, if you wonder why people on this blog our offended by some of your comments, it is because when you try to justify the taking the life of a 1000’s vulnerable humans a day. You might as well try to justify to us what Hitler did to all those beautiful people in his death camps.
I will also state that religion has another purpose in the abortion debate, and that is in the healing process from the abortion itself. Often women and participating men feel the regret of ending the existence of another human and can find a whole lot of forgiveness in Jesus.
Reality I do not know if you are a praying person or not, but I am going to pray for two things for you.
1: That God reveals himself to you, and your willingness to see when God does.
2: That you take to heart some of the points I have made, and you take into consideration the hearts of those here on this pro LIFE blog.
May God’s blessing be upon you and your Household.
Rick,
Notice the curious absence of the pregnant woman in your entreaty there. This is typical. Concerns about the emotional, mental and physical well-being of pregnant women don’t usually factor into the pro-life discourse unless the conversation is about the harms associated with abortion. And pro-lifers tend to paint post-abortive women as either foolish dupes of the “abortion industry” or selfish jerks. In this reductive framework, a woman isn’t entitled to make decisions based on her own assessment of her own physical, mental and emotional capacity to give birth. Where’s ninek, famously arguing that women should simply subordinate these concerns to the fetus’ “right to life” and suck it up?
Even if a fetus is considered a person, does the unborn child have a right to life that supersedes a woman’s interest in not being pregnant?
Is it the child’s fault that he does not fit into the mother’s plans? Because someone interferes with your life plans does that legitimize murder. Is being pregnant easy? I would say no, but being killed sucks for a little bit longer than 9 months.
As far as alternatives to killing the child RTL is happy to sit with any pregnant mother to discuss options (there are other options than to kill)
All arguments go back to this one point, is the embryo human (we know the answer to this one), and conceding to the fact that it is human (it is not an issue of opinion). Then to answer any thing you may use to try to justify abortion, this is the question…Does it justify taking another’s Life? So to answer your question “does the unborn child have a right to life that supersedes a woman’s interest in not being pregnant?”, I will answer with a question, does a woman’s interest in not being pregnant justify murder? The fact is, if she is deciding to have an abortion, she is already pregnant, whether she wants to be or not, now the next question is for how long, and will she kill to end it.
Any additional replies will be made on later date.
Good Morning everyone, what a glorious Morning,
Just a short note to finish my reply to Megan. When you state “a woman’s Interest in not being pregnant?” I would point out that this “woman” is deciding to take a life based on her own emotional agenda, under any other conditions where a human was exterminated under an emotional agenda it would be called a “motive” in a court.
You also stated that “Rick,
Notice the curious absence of the pregnant woman in your entreaty there. This is typical. Concerns about the emotional, mental and physical well-being of pregnant women” I would argue that murders are committed daily based on emotional and mental conditions, and not one of these should be reason to ignore the murder, however mental condition should be taken into consideration when sentencing.
As far as the “physical”, up to this point I have been talking about elective abortions, however, if the pregnancy truly threatens the Mothers Physical Life, at which point both lives are at jeopardy, then it is a case of one or both and ethics would state to save as many as possible, in medicine this is called triage. I should point out, that in the leading High risk pregnancy centers in the country that sees over 16,000 patients a year, states that on average two of those 16,000 needed to be terminated for the mother to live.
Your overall statement though is disturbing to this degree. You are implying in your statement that we should take into account also the emotional, mental, and desires for her to exterminate another human, in society we call that being more concerned with the rights of the perpetrator than the victims. Society often screams out when the rights of the victim are ignored and Abortions are one of those points where the victim needs to be protected and shouted out about. You see Megan, when you justify the eradication of any human existence do to emotional or mental concerns ethically you justify the taking of all lives based on the emotions or mental well being of the murderer. This also is the same for the woman’s lack of interest of being pregnant. What if someone on a plane decides that they have no interest in flying does this give that person the right to kill the pilot. You see the main problem that those who support elective abortions have is one huge flaw among many, that Creature in the womb is by all definitions HUMAN and there for those who desire to take that child away needs to weigh there reason by comparing that human to others, and if that reason does not fit lets say killing a human outside the womb, then ethically and morally they are wrong.
Concerns about the emotional, mental and physical well-being of pregnant women don’t usually factor into the pro-life discourse unless the conversation is about the harms associated with abortion
A mother is only as happy as her saddest child.
That is why you come here again and again Megan. You will never be truly happy until you admit that the choice you made was wrong to another human being. Not just any human, but your own child. Your choice not only killed your child, it harmed you in ways that you are unable to see. Many of us can see the lack of joy in your heart but you yourself are unable to see what you don’t have.
It’s only after you admit how devastating abortion is to society, especially to women and children, and come to grips with the fact that you made and defended this horrible choice for years, that forgiveness of self can happen. Only after you ask forgiveness and forgive yourself, can full joy enter your heart. Right now, your pride is in the way.
I pray that you make positive choices that will lead to a heart full of joy.
I will state again, the real place that Christianity belongs in this debate is in forgiveness, and any that have sacrificed their baby through elective abortion can find true forgiveness and a peaceful heart through Jesus. First as Praxedes points out you have to able to admit to yourself that what you did to your child was wrong. My prayers also go out for Megan, as well as any mother or father or aunt, uncle, brother, or sister who lost someone to abortion.
“You see Megan, when you justify the eradication of any human existence do to emotional or mental concerns ethically you justify the taking of all lives based on the emotions or mental well being of the murderer.”
Do you really feel threatened, Rick? Are you currently residing in somebody else’s physical person?
No Megan I am not threatened however are you saying just because a child did not travel 8″ out of the womb it has less value than other humans. If you are going to start placing value on human existence where do you draw the line. I am from U of M so do I have the right to value those from OSU as less than human should there lives be worth nothing, of course not. That child as any child can not choose where it resides, so it is up to the adults in the world to protect the child. Megan some mothers abuse their children, and that is wrong, some mothers, molest their children, again this is wrong, and some mothers decide to kill their children and again it is wrong. Most mothers decide to love and protect their children. it is in the first three occasions when the mother fails the child that society needs to step in.
As far as the child “residing in somebody else’s body” , the child had no part in the decision making factor of the events that landed the child there, the baby did not choose his or her temporary residence.
Do you really believe that location sets the value of human worth?
How many different ways are you going to try to devalue humanity so you can feel better about yourself and your views?
What does a child do other than to exist that warrants the death penalty?