Pro-life activists show dark truth about abortion to Black Friday shoppers
Pro-life activists with the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform gave new meaning to the term “Black Friday” last week when showing shoppers in White Marsh, Maryland, the dark truth about abortion through abortion victim photos.
Taking advantage of one of the busiest shopping days of the year, the CBR Maryland group displayed graphic abortion pictures at a busy intersection to give consumers rushing to the next best deal pause to reconsider what is really important, particularly during this season commemorating the birth of one very important Person.
Reported CBR’s Kurt Linnemann from the scene:
Black Friday brought a totally different response than a previous time we conducted a Face the Truth Tour at the same location. Of the drivers who reacted to our presence, 70% were positive and only 30% negative. We were pleasantly surprised.
One African-American man did yell out, “I did not need to see this on a holiday!” as he drove by.
We agree the images of the aborted are indeed disgusting and disturbing. Yet should the angst of America be toward those revealing the atrocity of abortion, or toward those committing the hideous crime of killing an innocent human being – a baby?
If someone does not show the truth about abortion, how will we as a people ever be moved to do something about the killing of 1.2 million babies each year, 3,200 a day?
Click all images to enlarge.
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.
to the man who yelled out I would ask “Then what are you doing sir to prevent this from happening to any more children?” Don’t people like that realize that if they would fight to end abortion they wouldn’t need to see any more pictures of mutilated babies? If every baby conceived were allowed to be born and see the light of day and live their lives till natural death we wouldn’t have to hold these graphic signs up to prick the consciences of people like him?
..it’s another case of people being angry at the messenger. To the guy who yelled back…my response would’ve “When is a good time for you to see these pictures?”
..and the truthful answer should be “there is no such thing as a good time to see the abortion pics”….
More power to the CBR Maryland group!
Quick question, for any WI people on this blog…
How many of you were for or against the Recall Walker petitions in the malls during the Black Friday shopping here in WI?
Just sayin, if the reason you were against the petitions happening while shopping because you should just be left alone from politics for shopping, then how is this any different?
The recall Walker petitions don’t bother me in the least. I just laugh.
I am also not “offended” by photos depicting what abortion does to babies.
Not sure how you are connecting recall petitions and graphic abortion photos but…..ok.
Well, at least your consistent Carla.
I’m still curious what any other WI readers, or people up on WI news would think.
The connection is that the issues are both political, and that it would be hypocritical of people who say “leave me alone when I’m shopping from those petitions” to say that photo campaigns for political issues are ok.
I am a Conservative. I vote prolife. I stand with Walker. Yes. Consistent.
Abortion is not a political issue. It is a moral issue.
THANK YOU Carla. I get so tired of people saying abortion is a political issue. It ISN’T. As Carla said its a moral issue!!!! Why is that so hard for some people to grasp?
And I don’t care if some leftist political group was in the mall at Christmas or black friday. So be it.
You want to tolerate abortion Duck? you want to revel in it and promote? LOOK AT IT. And all your ilk too.
I am a Conservative. I vote prolife. I stand with Walker. Yes. Consistent.
Abortion is not a political issue. It is a moral issue.
^Ditto
I would just like to add that abortion is a human rights issue. You cannot have ANY rights without first being allowed your right to live without having your life interrupted by an outside force. That makes the right to live paramount to all others.
Yes. Thank you, Xalisae! A Human Rights issue!
So long as your crowd depends on changing the Laws of the land, it is also a political issue.
You are either OK with with mutilating human beings in the womb or you are not OK with mutilating human beings in the womb. Seems pretty straightforward.
Our “crowd” is trying to change hearts. A nation that permits the killing of its most innocent, weak members is a nation without a future. Abortion advocates can go through all kinds of mental gymnastics to justify their claim to abortion “rights” but it changes nothing. Abortion is either a national tragedy or a national atrocity – it cannot be anything else because it violates the fundamental bond between a mother and her child.
A political protest by liberals would cause me to shake my head and think they are poor, misguided saps. If the situation were reversed, they would think how evil the other side was.
Abortion placards give that exra twist of the knife in their stomachs. “That can’t be a human hand, could it?” “That’s not a limp baby, is it? Go away! I don’t need to see that! I don’t want to think about this!”
Well, you can’t always get what you want. Get over it . Genocide is occurring right under our noses. Do something about it.
Barb, your crowd may be trying to change hearts, but so long as you depend on electing people to change the laws, or referendum process changing the laws, protests like this are political.
Hans we liberals don’t think political protests by conservatives are evil. We support the right of everyone to participate in the political process.
Great job G.A.P.! 70% positive is certainly a good day when holding a pro-life sign in traffic, but you know where you can get a 99% positive reaction? In front of high schools where they need the info most. Go to youtube to see a brand new video with a 99% positive reaction. Type in “Dozens of students converted to pro-life”
yep ive stood there with the signs. these pro aborts scream bloody murder because they cant stand to see what they fight to keep legal!
So, Duck, how about Gianna? What about her rights? How about her “membership in the human being community”?
Duck wrote:
How many of you were for or against the Recall Walker petitions in the malls during the Black Friday shopping here in WI?
I echo Carla: while I find their message misguided and irksome, I did not at all object to the recall-seekers trying peaceably to gather the needed signatures, in accord with state law. In fact, the few petition-gatherers whom I saw were quite friendly, and waved (despite the fact that I didn’t sign).
So long as your crowd depends on changing the Laws of the land, it is also a political issue.
That may be so, but it is not PRIMARILY a political issue, nor is it intrinsically a political issue. Since, by that standard, littering in a public park is also a “political issue”, your assertion (that abortion is “a political issue”) really doesn’t say very much of substance, does it?
Duck fails (or refuses to acknowledge) that all laws reflect morality. For instance, there are laws against theft. Ultimately they stem from the Commandment “Thou shalt not steal.”
While I’m not a Wisconsin citizen, I would not have opposed the “Walker recall” folks’ right to collect petition signatures. They have First Amendment rights, too.
Janet, Laws stem from ethics. Ethics are not the same as morality.
Xalisae, knock it off, you really think I’ve had time to read her book while I’m writing end of term papers? That wasn’t even on this thread.
Paladin it has plenty of substance, since pretty much anything in a secular (yes that’s what we are) society that is attempting to enact or change a law, practice, or policy is a political act.
Duck, you don’t have to read her book to make a statement about her. She lived after her mother attempted to have her killed in a saline abortion because she had not “been welcomed into the community of human beings” as you put it. I’m not letting you just ignore her. I won’t. You don’t have to read her book to acknowledge her and what happened to her. You don’t. And I’m not going to let you forget about it and just be on your merry little way like you don’t even know she exists.
Xalisae, I prefer to research for myself rather than regurgitate what someone wants me to think. That being said, when I get to it (because there’s a very long wish list of reading waiting for me for winter break, and perpetually) I’ll get to it. I still have to finish reading Abby Johnson’s book before I can take on reading another pro-life book. I can read multiple books at a time, but I have a hard time reading multiple books of the same topic at the same time. So no, I’m not forgetting about it, but I’m not going to regurigitate what you’d like me to say based on your comments. When I research it I will comment on it. ‘Till then, you’ll just have to wait.
^I blame spelling errors on past bed time late night paper writing. I apologize for them.
duck where are you going to college? ask for a refund. youre a classic example of how you and others are allowing these schools to ” dumb you down.” i understood basic human development in 8th grade. and i hope you arent going into the medical field.
Xalisae, I prefer to research for myself rather than regurgitate what someone wants me to think.
Wtf do you mean “regurgitate what someone wants [you] to think”?! It’s a well-documented fact that she WAS born alive after her mom tried to have her killed with a saline abortion. That’s a fact, honey. Now, as far as what you think about that fact, I, nor anyone else here, cannot “make” you think or feel a certain way about it. That’s all up to you. I can understand if you don’t want to reveal yourself for the insensitive, compassion-devoid individual you are. ^_^
Dear Duck,
I would like to introduce you to Gianna Jessen. She has some words for you and others like you that would have thought nothing of her death by saline abortion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPF1FhCMPuQ
Duck wrote, in reply to my comment:
Paladin it has plenty of substance, since pretty much anything in a secular (yes that’s what we are) society that is attempting to enact or change a law, practice, or policy is a political act.
I think you may have misunderstood my point. It’s true that any civil action/effort which seeks to change public policy/law is “political” (in a broad, loose sense of the word); but when abortion-tolerant people call abortion a “political” issue, I’ve never seen a case where they didn’t mean that in the sense of “MERELY” political–i.e. there is no consideration greater than “politics” by which to evaluate it… and that is outright nonsense, in this case. Murder and rape are “political” in that broad, equivocal sense, as well, since there are civil laws and policies against them (and since there is some controversy as to how to craft and implement those civil laws against such crimes–e.g. death penalty vs. life imprisonment, therapy vs. imprisonment vs. castration, etc.)… but no one with any sense would say that these issues are “merely” political, in the same sense that a particular plan to handle Social Security, or an approach to diplomatic relations with a particular foreign country, is “political”. Crimes against humanity transcend and precede politics, since (as several people have told you, interminably, on this very thread) they are MORAL issues.
Since criminal civil law is based upon (and presupposes) ethocs and morality, it’s rather fallacious to view abortion only through the lenses of “politics”; one might as well (and just as wrongly) speak of rape as a “health issue”, and nothing more (implicitly lumping it in with good dental hygiene, acne treatments, the safe use of hair dyes, and the like). It certainly is a health issue (since rape adversely impacts the health of the victim, at very least)… but surely you see that this is not at all the most IMPORTANT aspect? Just so, with abortion: to call it a “political” issue is to demean it (by association with laws about parking tickets, regulations for political donations, and the like) to a mere pittance about civil/inter-party squabbles… when in fact it is a grave matter of murder, barbarism, and an utter outrage against the deepest and most fundamental part of humanity! Therein lies our objection to the label you use.
As for Gianna Jessen vs. your limited time for book-reading… may I suggest this as an alternative? This is the lovely Ms. Jessen, speaking to (ironically enough) a “political” audience in Australia, in which she summarises her story:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5YlJ9CZ9fI
:) Even mediocre minds such as mine can sometimes harmonise with greater ones (such as Carla’s); you beat me by a few minutes, milady!
Good sir!
Great minds think alike. :)
Gianna is absolutely engaging to watch and so very articulate. She convicts others in love and grace. The book is good. Seeing her is better.
Xalisae, you’re the one who accused me of being brainwashed by my professors and just regurgitating what they said. Now you want me to just regurgitate what you think about Gianna.
To everyone about Gianna, Chill. Watching you tube videos isn’t really what academics focus all their research on. I will read, watch, etc, all kinds of stuff about a topic before making statements about it. So, again, you will all just have to wait. I didn’t come to my pro-choice views lightly and overnight, so you can all just sit tight until I get a chance to research it.
Paladin, as far as the “merely” political stuff, I never meant to infer that it was. I was just restating that I wanted to know how people felt about one expression of politics towards holiday shoppers versus another expression of politics towards holiday shoppers. Then people tried telling me it’s not political, but it is also political. That was all.
Heather, I don’t need a refund so quit bringing it up.
duck…yeah you do.
Now you want me to just regurgitate what you think about Gianna.
No, I don’t. I want to hear what you think/how you feel about her and what happened to her. You wouldn’t dare, though, because you know it will reveal the kind of person you are. To me, your refusal of a response is all the response I need. Thanks. :)
Duch wrote:
To everyone about Gianna, Chill. Watching you tube videos isn’t really what academics focus all their research on.
Oh, come now! Data is data, friend… and if the issue is the personhood of the unborn, it really IS rather relevant to hear the story of a woman who was aborted (while unborn, obviously), and yet survived the attempt (though she has cerebral palsy as a result of the saline abortion), and whose personhood is utterly beyond reasonable doubt. If you’re suggesting that you will not believe Gianna’s story unless you read it beneath the lines of an academic abstract in someone’s post-doctoral thesis, then I really don’t know what to tell you… save that your standards are esoteric to the point of being bizarre (and far beyond what the academics would require, themselves). What, do you refuse to believe that your parents love you without first confirming the fact with the American Psychological Association?
Do consider this: abortion is tolerated in our culture largely because those who tolerate it take great pains not to think too deeply about it, to see it, or to reflect quietly and deeply on the implications which they find troublesome. You’ve doubtlessly been fed a rather steady diet of verbiage, subjective philosophical views, and slogans (perhaps cloaked in erudite-sounding, academic-esque locution), up to this point… which would almost certainly corrode your sense of empathy with the unborn child, and which would almost certainly desensitise you to the horror of dismembering a live child in the womb. None of that programming which you endured was “pure, objective and scientific” in any meaningful sense of the word; so you really should not scorn the personal witness of those who, for example:
1) survived an abortion.
2) had an abortion, and suffered because of it.
3) were disabled, but escaped death by abortion.
4) were conceived through rape and/or incest, but escaped death by abortion.
All of the above can serve to put human faces on (and reveal human souls of) the very people your programming has served to de-humanise. It really won’t do, dear fellow, to hide behind a man-made dichotomy of “scientific” (which you would accept) vs. “biased appeals to emotion” (which you would reject, out-of-hand)… especially since the line between them is not nearly so clear as you might think.
Summary: it is not at all a waste of your time to watch the videos in question. I do urge you to watch them… if for no other reason than to step out of your own comfort zone, or at least to show us that you’re seriously thinking about all this (and not simply blowing smoke).
Paladin, what I meant, is that how the H… am I supposed to make a statement abut something I’ve only just heard about and have yet to have time to research? That’s all that was meant.
Xalisae, sorry, but I follow the scientific method, and common sense. I don’t make statements about things I don’t know anything about. I prefer to learn for myself, rather than just restate what someone told me. So, you’ll just have to wait.
Paladin, I also meant that I intend to read the book, watch the videos, and read other articles about it, before making a statement. Watching a couple minute clip on you tube about a subject I’ve only heard about a couple days ago, is not enough for me to make a statement. Hope that clarifies. :)
Paladin, also re-reading your comment to make sure I didn’t miss anything, I have watched videos and read information and testimonies about your points 2, 3, and 4. I also have no problem watching stuff outside my comfort zone. Just never heard of point #1, except the “surivors of the abortion holocaust” group which really is just a bunch of kids who are younger than roe v wade. So, I will look into it, when I get to it.:)
Younger than Roe V Wade?
Which would make them older to old? I guess.
You, Duck are a survivor of the abortion holocaust. If you are born after 1973 you are considered a survivor as your mom could have legally ended your life by abortion.
That “Survivor” crap is such bs. Seriously. That means any Jewish person born after 1945 is a holocaust survivor using that logic. It’s dumb. Whatever.
Duck wrote:
That “Survivor” crap is such bs. Seriously. That means any Jewish person born after 1945 is a holocaust survivor using that logic.
Er… correction: any Jew who was born *during* the years that the Shoah was active would be a holocaust survivor; it doesn’t apply to those who were born after it became illegal. Just so: the children who are born AFTER abortion is abolished would not be called “holocaust survivors”; but all people born between 1973 and now (and in any future years until this abomination is ended) ARE holocaust survivors by simple virtue of the fact that the abortion holocaust is still legal, and still going on.
Does that clarify?
Re: your time-table for watching and reading: no rush, on my account, dear fellow! :) At your leisure…
Hi Paladin,
The duck in question is female.
Duck,
How about using big girl words?
Crap. BS. It’s dumb. Whatever.
Your college education is certainly paying off.
The duck in question is female.
Gak! (*hiding under desk*)
A thousand pardons, ma’am! I didn’t mean to rearrange your chromosomes arbitrarily!
How much “research” is required to make a statement about a well-documented fact? Oh, nevermind. I knew I wasn’t going to get a straight answer from you about this, anyway. I prefer joan in situations like this. At least she doesn’t care about trying to maintain a facade of compassion. *smirk*
Paladin, no worries it’s a gender neutral nickname.
Carla, I can use big words when I want. I can express my feelings however I want too.
Xalisae, I’ll remember that question the next time you time you criticize my liberal brainwashing education.
Paladin, good call on the logic about the Jewish people. I do however disagree with calling abortion holocaust, as that is usually reserved for genocide, which is the deliberate attempt to destroy a single race.
>HOLOCAUST
The distinction needs to be made that abortion is A holocaust not THE Holocaust.
A mass slaughter of people? Yes!! Preborn, innocent human people are slaughtered in their mother’s wombs.
They are targeted for abortion.
The connotation of the word Holocaust implies the destruction of the Jewish population by Hitler. While I know that is THE Holocaust, to assume that abortion is a holocaust is a stretch. Why a stretch? First off, no fire and no “sacrifice” are involved in abortion. Secondly, comparing abortion to the Jewish suffering in Nazi Germany is atrocious, and that’s exactly what happens when you use that word.
Why is it a stretch?
A mass slaughter of people. Abortion is child sacrifice.
Pretty straight forward, duck.
You are of the opinion that comparing a holocaust of child sacrifice in abortion to The Holocaust is atrocious?
You are entitled to your opinion.
I see no difference. A certain group of people are targeted for death.
The word Child is always the sticking point isn’t it?
Also, it’s not a sacrifice. Not in the sense of the word being defined by holocaust. When the ancient hebrews used to sacrifice lambs or food at the alter by fire, that would be a holocaust, if we’re going to get technical. But abortions don’t happen by fire, and the killing of those sacrifices happened by fire. Before you even bring up the fact that biohazard waste is incinerated, ALL biohazard waste is incinerated. Anything, everything, that is biological waste is incinerated because of laws, not because they’re being sacrificed. It’s to avoid the spread of comunicable diseases.
But, like you said, You are entitled to your opinion. Personally, I choose not to insult THE Holocaust survivors by calling abortion holocaust.
Re: the Nazi holocaust, and legalized abortion on demand:
1.) Though it was a stated goal of the National Socialist Party (Nazis) to wipe all Jewry from the face of the earth, which would make any Jewish person alive after 1945 a holocaust survivor, at least 4 million non-Jews were also gassed, shot, starved/worked to death by the Nazis.
2.) As part of their efforts to eradicate the “disease” of Jewry (and other “dysgenic” – read, non-Aryan, or merely politically incorrect- groups targeted by the eugenicists) from the earth, the Nazis employed “doctors” who aborted all the unborn “dysgenics” they could find. Disease metaphors, such as referring to Jews as a “cancer” on the nation, were most useful in garnering sympathy in the dehumanizing propaganda campaigns that preceded the holocaust; after all, while any decent person will object to genocide, per se, who would object to the eradication of a “disease” -? Similarly, Roe v. Wade was preceded by a barrage of dehumanizing propaganda against the unborn; I have heard them referred to as “parasites”, STDs, likened to tumors, ad nauseam, by abortion profiteers and advocates for decades.
3.) The infamous “Angel of Death” Joseph Mengele fled, after the war, to South America to avoid facing consequences for his atrocities. There he supported himself by perpetrating similar ones, by killing unborn children until his own death. Seems that you can get the “doctor” out of the death camp, but getting the death camp out of the “doctor” is something else again.
4.) If you’re serious about not insulting survivors of the Nazi holocaust (and this would include non-Jews, and all the Allied WWII veterans and their descendants), then stop using them as an excuse to perpetrate the present eugenic mass slaughter of legally disenfranchised innocent human beings in utero. (Stockholm’s much?!) The best way to avoid insullting us is to promote a culture that respects the sanctity of all innocent human life from fertilization to natural death; one that encourages the strong to use their advantages to protect, serve and assist the vulnerable rather than to scapegoat, dehumanize, marginalize, exploit and destroy them; this is what will best answer the dying prayer, NEVER AGAIN, of those who did not survive, and the best hope of all who did.
5.) The incineration of Nazi holocaust victims’ remains was also done according to the laws of the land at the time. Hitler never did anything illegal; he just changed the laws to suit his agenda, just as eugenicist population control freaks pushed for Roe v. Wade before their “doctors” set about killing, then incinerating, some 52 million innocent preborn human beings.
Puhlease. You are going to tell me about Old Testament animal sacrifices and compare it to the holocaust of abortion?? Do you know the difference between a lamb and a child??? So far you haven’t claimed to be a Christian so that holds no weight with me.
The word “child” is not the sticking point, duck. Call her a “blob” ”a bunch of cells” ”some tissue.” Call her whatever you would like. Dehumanize her to justify killing her. Doesn’t change what she is. The sticking point is that you and your abortion fans enjoy, promote and celebrate the right to kill her for any reason through all 9 months of pregnancy.
Let us look toward China for a moment. With their one child policy parents would like to have a boy, to take care of parents when they are aging. GIRLS in China are targeted for death by abortion. Targeted. Sacrificed. Just for being female. A holocaust for being a girl. You should be as horrified as I am.
The intent of The Holocaust was to kill, to exterminate human beings. The end result was death for millions.
The intent of an abortion is to kill, to exterminate human beings. The end result is death for millions. A holocaust.
Taking the high road then? ”I will not insult”……..see #4 of jtm’s excellent post.
Just for the record: I’m Catholic, but my mother (along with her family) is Jewish… whose friends and family died in the Shoah. By Jewish tradition, I’m “Jewish” (since the cultural identity is passed through the mother’s line), and I have a great deal of respect for the religion and traditions of her side of the family (up to and including a yearly Seder, when Holy Week time-crunch doesn’t prevent it)… and I do not find it offensive that the Shoah is compared to the mass slaughter of the unborn. Of course, there are some differences between the two types of mass-murder; but that will be the case with all metaphors and analogies (they would be rather silly analogies, if they were forced to be identical!). It is not at all inappropriate to compare the literal mass-murder of unborn children to the literal mass-murder of Hitler’s victims… or Stalin’s victims, Pol Pot’s victims, etc. There is no need to be “vicariously offended” or hyper-sensitive on behalf of the Jewish people; not only is the metaphor (of “abortion holocaust”) apt, but Jews are hardly unanimous in their approach to references to it. (In fact, I’ve found that the Jews who are most prone to object to the analogy are those who are personally abortion-tolerant; their resistance seems to spring from their ideology, rather than protectiveness of their heritage.)