Breaking News: New York Times features photos of aborted babies; front page FAIR story on pro-life activism

Today the New York Times features a quite fair characterization of pro-life activists and activism on its front page - above the fold. Pro-lifers are portrayed as smart, convicted, and compelling. Oh, sure, I could nitpick. But really, the tone of the story is one of respect for our beliefs: what we do, and why we do it.

new york times front page october 10 2009.jpg

What's more, and just as importantly, the NYT Photography, Video, and Visual Journalism online section features a photo exposé of remains of aborted babies. That story, too, is very good. Click to enlarge....

monica 1b.jpg

Reported the subject of the exposé, Dr. Monica Miller, in an email last night:

Perhaps for the first time in the history of the pro-life movement, a nationally recognized paper - or any newspaper for that matter - has (at last!) deliberately printed photos of actual abortion victims.

This is a story written by reporter Damien Cave , who attended the memorial service for murdered pro-lifer Jim Pouillon. After the service, the reporter approached your Citizens for a Pro-life Society director [photographed above and below left] and asked me about the use of graphic images in pro-life work.

monica nyt.JPG

We later did a 2 hour interview and this story is the result. Two photos featured in this on-line edition are of a baby aborted by the saline method of abortion and the other is the foot of an unborn child murdered at the Women's Advisory abortion clinic in Livonia, MI [owned by now infamous abortionist Alberto Hodari] - retrieved from the trash by CPLS members in April 2008. The photos (of our photos) were taken by free lance photographer Stephen Mcgee.

This article IS A COUP - and is sure to generate much debate - but most importantly - we need to pray that hearts will be changed. Our goal is to show and tell the truth about the injustice of abortion. I hope this story helps awaken hearts and minds.

The story is accompanied by a 2 minute video featuring MI pro-life activists such as Deborah Anderson [JLS note: Haven't spotted that yet.]

Please make comments in the comments section of the site. This is a great opportunity to plant seeds in people reading the comments section who normally would not be exposed to the truth about abortion. Take part in the discussion! This is a great opportunity to witness in such a liberal forum such as the NYT. Do your part!

Here are the 4 photos of aborted babies featured. Click to enlarge...

monica 2.jpg

monica 3.jpg

monica 4.jpg

monica 5.jpg

monica 6.jpg

This is hopefully a real breakthrough. Think about it. The New York Times has published photos of aborted babies. I'm very proud of Monica.


Dear Jill Thanks for posting this NYTimes piece and the photos-- it's incredible. I am so excited and pro-lifers NEED TO MAKE HAY OUT OF IT!! Monica PS I have them other photos too, but they made the decision which ones to print. They printed no 1st trimester pictures for example. But--right--shall we nit-pick?

Posted by: Monica Migliorino Miller at October 10, 2009 8:33 AM

Yes, please make thoughtful comments. This is important.

Posted by: Maria at October 10, 2009 8:55 AM

I commented there and noticed the same old tired PC rhetoric. Sigh. We have much educating to do! Thank you NY TIMES!! Thank you Dr. Miller!!

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at October 10, 2009 9:47 AM

At least they printed them and its proof that the unborn baby is developing and not a piece of tissue / clump of cells. Plus, the pictures prove that abortions happen AFTER the 1st trimester.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at October 10, 2009 9:48 AM

applauds the NYT for putting this on front page. For whatever reason they did it, I dont even care. I am just glad they did.

Posted by: mary ann at October 10, 2009 9:50 AM

I agree that it's sad that no first-tri pictures were in the batch, and that two of the four were aborted using obsolete techniques no longer in widespread use. But you take what you can get.

Posted by: Christina at October 10, 2009 9:56 AM

Finally, after all these years! Thank you NYT. (never thought I'd live to say that) Thank you Dr Miller for your courage. And, thank you Jill for bringing it to our attention.

Posted by: Darlajune at October 10, 2009 10:00 AM


Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at October 10, 2009 10:01 AM

Thank you Dr. Miller!

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at October 10, 2009 10:07 AM

Its about time! If its just blobs of tissue then why didn't they do this sooner? Afraid of the truth? Whats that say about "journalists" today when they try to disguise the truth?

And think this all started at Jim's funeral. Who knows who will see these photos and have their hearts changed. Maybe a pregnant mom considering abortion will now choose life for her child. Something so evil as Jim's murder can be used for good by God. This is very emotional!

Posted by: Sydney M at October 10, 2009 10:11 AM

I will also say that while this is a great opportunity we as pro-life advocates have been given, I will comment that we have to be careful about how we say something. What I mean is that SOME are not ready to hear the word 'murder' who are pro-abortion. It connotes an extremism to them that does not help the cause of opening up their eyes and hearts.

Posted by: mary ann at October 10, 2009 10:12 AM

After reading the pro-choice comments on the link, I was reminded of how intellectually bankrupt and shallow the average abortion supporter's arguments are. Actually, it would be a misnomer to call most of them arguments, as they tend to be emotionally charged rhetoric. I forget that at least here at Jill's, our pro-choicers can usually put together cogent arguments and at least understand what the issue is.

How did it happen that SO many people simply regurgitate HORRIBLE arguments? And I mean HORRIBLE. Anyone who refelcts even for a moment on an argument like

"Miss Miller should takes pictures of single mothers who are overburdened with kids with no way to take care of them. She should also take pictures of poor, loitering children all over the world who have been abandoned and are now turning to the drug trade and gangs.

Miss Miller should also take pictures of individual women to show that they are people, not vessels that have no rights and no choice.

Pro-abortion means pro-women."

would realize that is has NOTHING to do with abortion. There is NOTHING about it that even remotely begins to hint at the idea that abortion does not take the life of an innocent human being without proper justification.

Such sloppy thinking. It would be comical if it didn't lead to the slaughter of 3500 unborn a day.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at October 10, 2009 10:24 AM

Thank you NY TIMES!! Thank you Dr. Miller!

Posted by: funny photos at October 10, 2009 10:27 AM

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 10, 2009 10:24 AM


I spent some time looking at the response to JoJo Ruba's (Canadian Center for Bioethical Reform) appearance at McGill University. You can watch some of it here:

There were no arguments for abortion at all. None. Just outright denial and anarchy.

Jumping to the last portions, when JoJo started to show the images of the various genocides, the protestors started to stare - and went silent.

In the end, their covering the screen was such a power visual of trying to cover up the truth - it tells the story so much better than JoJo could have presented to those who attended and wanted to hear what he had to say.

There was a sense of panic - a conviction, an yet in the end, their denial just looked incredibly sad and pathetic.

The truth is coming out. Capturing the cover-ups is reality.

Damien Cave must have argued long and hard to get this story in - apparently attending Jim's funeral deeply touched his sense of journalism and uncovering the truth.

NYT - more please. Thank you.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at October 10, 2009 10:50 AM

You are right! Judging by the comments section, we do have a lot of educating to do. It was sad and scary to read so many vile and vicious comments.

Posted by: Elizabeth at October 10, 2009 10:51 AM

I have to second all the comments here about the comments at NYT about the pictures. If wretched death is such a wonderful solution to problems, why aren't these people agitating for a massive nuclear strike of Darfur? Turning all those people into a sheet of charred green glass would certainly end their suffering. How about because decent people don't kill other people to ease their own personal burdens.

Posted by: Christina at October 10, 2009 11:04 AM

Bobby 10:24am--agreed.

The fact that those responses are given, so angrily, is an indicator that the pictures elicit strong emotions. The fact that the comments seek to deflect from the issue at hand is even more proof that abortion is wrong, wrong, wrong. Heinous. Hideous.

Those pictures show the truth...they are not blobs. They are children. OUR children. OUR offspring, tossed out like garbage, so women can continue to chase the myth of "reproductive freedom" and the license to have sex anytime, anywhere, and with anyone, "free of consequence."

Because as we know, all choices in life are free of consequence--

...What?? You mean all choices are NOT free of consequence? It's just sex that should be consequence-free? Well, that makes SO much sense...

Thank you, NYT, and thank you, Dr. Miller. I don't care if the photos aren't 1st trimester or might be from use of "outdated methods." The end result is the same. The end result is what you see in those pictures, and they are not fake or doctored. I hope this is a wake up call and a heart change for many people who see the photos.

Posted by: Kel at October 10, 2009 11:11 AM

HOORAY!!! Fasting & prayer does work miracles--I've been praying for media breakthroughs like this. AND OBAMA'S NOBEL PEACE PRIZE ARTICLE IS RIGHT NEXT TO IT. Remember MOTHER TERESA OF CALCUTTA'S Nobel Peace Prize speech? And YES we should make a big deal about no 1st trimester pics in the essay. The whole truth ought to be reported. YAHOOOOO!!!

Posted by: MEL at October 10, 2009 11:31 AM

Posted by: mary ann at October 10, 2009 10:12 AM

"What I mean is that SOME are not ready to hear the word 'murder' who are pro-abortion."


Involuntary servitude is much more palatable than slavery.

Borrowing sounds much sweeter than stealing.

Non-consenting sex is more innocuous than rape.

Spinning so much less offensive than lying.

My goodness, we would not want to harm the sensibilities of the murderers, thieves, rapists and liars or their fellow travelers, usefull idiots and apologists.

You might want to resort to pleantries in order to escape from these sociopaths, but once you are free from their evil clutches you should no longer be concerned with hurting their feelings.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at October 10, 2009 12:03 PM

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 10, 2009 10:24 AM

"How did it happen that SO many people simply regurgitate HORRIBLE arguments?"



Thinking is the hardest work of all and humans are stupid and some humans are really lazy.

Most humans who advocate killing pre-natal children are intellectually dishonest, but alas some are just too stupid to understand how stupid their excuses are.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at October 10, 2009 12:08 PM

HOORAY!!! Fasting & prayer does work miracles--I've been praying for media breakthroughs like this.

Posted by: MEL at October 10, 2009 11:31 AM


Thank you MEL for your faihtful and effective intercession.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at October 10, 2009 12:48 PM

Thanks, New York Times! A little annoyed that you called us "abortion foes" (because that doesn't give anyone an incorrect image about us), but really proud that the New York Times did this. You rock!

Posted by: Vannah at October 10, 2009 12:50 PM

The NYT article lacked context, particularly in its assumptions that Pouillion was a "martyr", and his murder was "the same as Tiller". Pouillion's murderer, Drake was found not competent to stand trial, and Pouillion, like Drake's other victim, a business owner, was a random victim of a mentally deranged person.

By contrast, Tiller was stalked for decades by the far right, including Fox News and Bill O'Reilley, was shot in 1994 and killed in church by another far right activist, with the aid and encouragement of several "pro life" organizations.

The story should have also pointed out that some of the activists pictured have undertaken stalking, harassment and threats against completely innocent people in their homes, merely because a neighbor is a subcontractor on a clinic.

Finally, the story should have pointed out that many anti-abortion activists are determined to outlaw all forms of birth control, an extreme position that 98% of the public rejects.

These facts could have given the reader a more complete picture of the "pro life" movement.

Posted by: Bystander at October 10, 2009 12:59 PM

I take offense that she's cited as Mrs. Miller and not Dr. Miller. I don't know if it's an attempt to denigrate her credibility or legitimacy, but nonetheless the woman earned her title.

It's DR. Miller.

Posted by: Jacqueline at October 10, 2009 1:23 PM

Bystander, Tiller's murderer was a paranoid schizophrenic. Don't act like he was a perfectly sane individual who represents the pro-life movement.

Posted by: Lauren at October 10, 2009 1:29 PM

Posted by: Bystander at October 10, 2009 12:59 PM

"By contrast, Tiller was stalked for decades by the far right, including Fox News and Bill O'Reilley, was shot in 1994 and killed in church by another far right activist, with the aid and encouragement of several "pro life" organizations."



BS'er, if you are going to make accusations, how about some corroborating evidence?

'Stalking' is a crime in most jurisdictions.

I am sure a 'child killing friendly' jusidiction like Wichita, Kansas would not only have 'stalking' ordinance on the books but would have enforced it multiple times.

As much attention as the mass murderer and serial killer George Tiller drew to himself for his publicly acknowedging that he personally killed more than 60,000 pre-natal children, many of them in the 2nd and 3rd trimester, and some of whom were viable outside the uterus, there has to have been at least one person who was charged with 'stalking' in the decades Tiller was stalking his victims.

Please give us the names or at least the number of people in Wichita, Kansas who were charged with 'stalking' and those who were convicted of 'stalking'.

BS'er, if you are going to make accusations, how about some corroborating evidence?

It ought to be a matter of public record.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at October 10, 2009 1:38 PM

Lauren, as you know Scott Roeder has not been diagnosed with any mental illness, and will stand trial for his crime. He is visited regularly in prison by 'pro life' leaders who fully support him and his crime, so clearly THEY believe he represents THEIR segment of the pro-life movement.

The thousands who have been arrested for various crimes near Tiller's clinic are a matter of public record. Perhaps ken was among them.

Posted by: Bystander at October 10, 2009 2:07 PM

Bystander, that was a really stupid comment. If ninety-eight percent of the population is pro-birth control or doesn't care about it and fifty percent of the population is pro-life...figure it out.

I know that you can't be that unbelievably thick.

But if you want to characterize the entire movement on a tiny minority, I'll be forced to do the same with pro-choicers.

Therefore the minority of pro-choicers who support abortion because they're a part of white supremacy groups now represent you.

Bystander: white supremacy.

Sounds good, doesn't it?

Posted by: Vannah at October 10, 2009 2:22 PM


If, as you assert, thousands have been arrested for various crimes, near Tillers clinic area, then it is a matter of public record and the number of those who have been cited for 'stalking' ought to easily obtainable.

While you are searching, look for Ken among those records and see if you find any who live or have lived in Texas, who were born 10-30-50.

I can not speak for Lauren, but 'I' do not know that Scott Roeder has NOT been diagnosed with any mental illness.

You have a right to your opionions, but you are not entitled to your facts.

We just want the facts, bystander, not BS.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at October 10, 2009 2:22 PM

Actually, according to court documents in his child custody case, Roeder is a diagnosed schizophrenic.

"Citation: 2005 WL 3948943 (Archer's Brief)

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Scott Phillip ROEDER, Appellee,
Susan ARCHER and Mark Archer, Appellants.
No. 00527MDA05.
June 28, 2005.

"There was plenty of testimony concerning the Appellee's incarceration in Federal Prison, his diagnosis as schizophrenic, a *15 chronic illness for which be takes no medication"

Whoops, try again,Bystander.

Posted by: Lauren at October 10, 2009 2:32 PM


While Pouillon may not have been a martyr, he was a unwilling victim to a violent and deadly crime.

I have not read anywhere that Pouillon ever carried a sign that said, 'Here I am, shoot me.'

From what I have been able to learn about Pouillon in the news accounts and on the web, he was never convicted or even charged with a violent crime or a felony.

I don't know if Pouillon was ever convicted or even charged with a misdemeanor.

As one who has been charged and convicted of class c misdemeanor 'criminal trespass' I can tell you none of the my co-defendants or myself ever threatened anyone or damaged any private property while we engaged in our passive non-violent direct action.

(In the 60's the leftists referred to them as 'sit-ins'.)

I have been charged, convicted and sentenced, but I have never surrendered a single cent to those who aid, abet and facilitate the murder of pre-natal children. I have spent a few hours in enjoying the accomodations of various juridictions.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at October 10, 2009 2:40 PM

Also, bystander, you want to substantiate any of your claims?

Posted by: Lauren at October 10, 2009 2:43 PM


When your mom was pregant with you, what species of embryo/fetus was resident in her uterus?

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at October 10, 2009 2:43 PM


The answer to that question should not require any research on your part.

Just the employement of 'elementary logic' (on your part) as Sherlock Holmes would say.

I have confidence that even you can reach the correct conclusion.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at October 10, 2009 2:47 PM


Dont try and make the issue about 'yo mama'. It was and is about YOU.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at October 10, 2009 3:14 PM

On the NYT website it says "Comments are no longer being accepted" on this article.

I am only guessing, but I suspect that the fact that the NYT is in danger of bankruptcy may be behind their sudden "thirst for the truth".

If so, may more and more such rags be faced with such dangers.

Posted by: Doyle Chadwick at October 10, 2009 4:45 PM

If you're online now and interested, there's a fantastic speech on ave maria radio right now, for the next hour.

Posted by: MaryRose at October 10, 2009 5:33 PM

By the way, the speech is about the responsibility of Catholic lawmakers in reference to abortion. Very well laid out.

Posted by: MaryRose at October 10, 2009 5:36 PM

God's providence IS marvelous.

Out of the hundreds who attended the memorial service for murdered pro-lifer Jim Pouillon, reporter Damien Cave honed in on Dr. Monica -- and the rest is now history.

Let's praise God from Whom all blessings flow.
Let's meditate on Romans 8:28, too.

Posted by: Angela at October 10, 2009 7:55 PM

There were no arguments for abortion at all. None. Just outright denial and anarchy.

This is because there is NO argument for abortion.

Finally, the story should have pointed out that many anti-abortion activists are determined to outlaw all forms of birth control, an extreme position that 98% of the public rejects.

Not really an extreme position. It was once, a mere 50 years ago, agreed by most people that contraception was evil and abortion was murder. This might come as a surprise to you Bystander, but just because 98% of people believe that something is right, does not make it morally right.

What I like about the NYT article is that it cuts down the whole proabort position that abortion pictures are fakes. I believe that was SoMG, asitis and Amanda's position on here a while back.

Posted by: angel at October 10, 2009 8:46 PM

Yay! Not only did the New York Times feature pictures of human rights violations (progesssive indeed!), but Progressive's failed attempt at being smug, cute, and witty put a smile on my face for the evening!


Posted by: Vannah at October 11, 2009 2:52 AM

Progressive @ 2:43 AM,

Since the NYT now features photos of aborted babies, it proves that pro-aborts are the new fringe and pro-lifers RULE. Woo hoo! Women of the 21st century aren't afraid to stand up for their right and privilege to carry their babies to term in spite of outdated progressive anti-child rhetoric.

Thanks Dr. Miller and NYT!

Posted by: Janet at October 11, 2009 5:18 AM

Progressive needs to take a look at who the majority is right now. The majority of folks are PROLIFE! 71% of the US are against tax-payer funded abortion!! Oh, and science proves that life begins at conception. Science is on our side.

A woman's "right" to kill her own child is simply not "forward thinking." Nice try.

Partying with you Vannah.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at October 11, 2009 7:09 AM

So here's a friendly suggestion, "pro-lifers": give up this insane crusade and join the rest of us in the 21st century, where we recognize science, modern medicine, and civil rights as good things, not horrible evils to be crushed under the weight of religious fervor.

Posted by: Progressive at October 11, 2009 2:43 AM

No problem - we'll give it all up and join you under one condition: That you prove scientifically and with valid logic that elective abortion doesn't take the life of an innocent human being.

Otherwise all you're doing is telling us not to use modern science, the most recent understanding of human embryonic science and medicine, valid evidence and sound reasoning when it comes to revealing the consequences of choices that cannot be reversed - the taking of innocent human lives on a massive scale.

By demanding we stop, do you wish to crush human rights and freedom of speech under the weight of tyrannical oppression and discrimination?

Would you be willing to go where the evidence leads, without assuming those to be born are undesirable medical waste?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at October 11, 2009 7:23 AM

On the NYT website it says "Comments are no longer being accepted" on this article.

They do that often, for some reason. I haven't figured out the reasoning but then again I haven't really tried. It's not about volume or time, I don't think, because 11 pages of comments can spring up on an article about travel shoes and nothing happens, and even though it's from early September comments are still open. I think it might be about the subject matter, the speed at which the replies are coming, etc. At the end of the day it's a newspaper, not a message board or even a blog, so I think that when it starts to become more of a shouting match rather than a reaction to the piece, comments just get turned off.

Posted by: Alexandra at October 11, 2009 7:48 AM

The NYT graphic abortion pictures make it (ever so briefly) on CBS “Sunday Morning” show. During an unrelated story about free stuff on the internet they were talking about the New York Times and their decisions to give out free content vs. making people subscribe. They showed the front page of several days as they were talking…they included the edition with graphic pictures (which were small and hard to really see or even know what it was unless you already knew) but you could easily read the picture title: ABORTION = MURDER It was on screen for about one second. They could have easily skipped over Saturday’s edition. Then again, they could have done a whole story about it.

Posted by: Tom R at October 11, 2009 8:38 AM

Whenever someone starts mentioning numbers of people who support abortion, I always think of something my mother used to tell me when I was a little girl.

"What's right is not always popular, what's popular is not always right."

I don't care if everyone else in the world supported abortion, I would still know it to be wrong, and fight to stop it.

Posted by: Lauren at October 11, 2009 9:05 AM

Posted by: Alexandra at October 11, 2009 7:48 AM

"At the end of the day it's a newspaper, not a message board or even a blog, so I think that when it starts to become more of a shouting match rather than a reaction to the piece, comments just get turned off."




I read every comment that was posted.

There was no shouting match.

There was a lot wailing and moaning and gnashing of teeth by the 'Dead Babies R Us' crowd.

The NYT editorial board most have fallen asleep at the switch and reverted to their old journalistic philosphy of reporting 'All the news that is fit to print' instead of 'All the news that fits' our progressive\liberal\humanistic world view.

You do have a gift for spinning.

Having you considered taking up crochet, knitting, or weaving?

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at October 11, 2009 12:00 PM

Not sure what your point is, Ken. My point was that, in my very lazy observations, the NY Times shuts down comments when it just becomes a mass of people whining -- wailing, moaning, gnashing teeth, if you will -- either into the ether or at each other. As opposed to leaving comments open when people are actually, for the most part, responding with a relevant, paper-worthy reaction. I think that observation, with the caveat included, is pretty devoid of spin.

I already knit, btw, though I'm far better at sewing.

Posted by: Alexandra at October 11, 2009 12:13 PM

My point, of course, was that the NY Times closing comments on this article is not out of the ordinary, and while it is no doubt linked to the passionate reaction to the subject matter, it was probably not BECAUSE of the subject matter. They close comments on many of their articles.

Posted by: Alexandra at October 11, 2009 12:16 PM

Ken, it's not a liberal point of view to be pro-choice. Lots of liberals are pro-life. I'm a liberal pro-lifer (not super-liberal, but liberal).

Abortion has nothing to do with politics: it's a human rights issue.

I'm of the opinion that, no matter what they say, you can't be a progressive and a pro-choicer. It just doesn't fit. Supporting equal rights is progressive, so if you don't support equal rights for everyone, then you're not fully a progressive.

But either way, we can't allow abortion to be characterized as political swordplay. It's about rights not politics.

Posted by: Vannah at October 11, 2009 12:59 PM

These pictures are making an impact! Here's one of the comments from the NYT page.

"This deeply saddens me. I never thought of myself as a pro-lifer. The more I read and see, the more I become one. Especially late term. How can any of us say that isn’t murder. It is. I saw the photos. They are babies, ripped to shreds. This made me cry!"

— Kara P

Also, I think comments are open again.

Posted by: Lauren at October 11, 2009 1:17 PM


I tell you what I will give you one dollar for every progressive/liberal/pro-lifer you can round up if you give me 10 cents for every conservative pro-lifer I can produce.

and or I will give you one dollar for every 'choice for child killing' conservative you can produce if you will give me a dime for every pro-life conservative I can produce.

Same proposition for atheist and humanists.

There are a few consistently intellectually honest progessive, liberal, atheist, humanists but they are not one in ten.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at October 11, 2009 2:38 PM


You are naive if you belive what they say or think you know what they mean when they say it.

Progressives are just liberals who are shrewd enough to know the term 'liberal' has a negative connotation in todays culture. So the manipulators focus group shopped terms and phrases til they came up with one that they could successfully traffic in the market place of ideas.

Progressives/liberals have no objective standard. Objective standards are anathema to them.

If a definition does not suit them they find one that will, or they dismiss the commonly accepted definition as 'post modern' or an archaic convention from another era.

Distorting the definition of 'marriage' to include homosexuals is a perfect example.

The real goal is not to change the definition but to change the culture.

Progressive/liberal/humanists falsely claim to adhere to logic and reason but when their convolutions fail to persuade they eschew logic and reason and resort to emotional appeals.

When they have consolidated their power, they just do what they want. They do not bother with persuasion. They just condemn their opposition as 'couter revolutionary' and view them merely as temporary obstacles to be destroyed because they are not worth the effort to convert to their godless ideology.

This why you can never have a meaningful agreement, contract, treaty with a Marxist/humanist. They will honor the agreement only as long as they view it as a means to advance their agenda. They will even go three steps backward if they believe it will result in the ultimae advance of their agenda.

Pay close attention to how B.O. and his progressive/liberal comrads and fellow travelers operate. They feint, they shift, they manuever but they are always advancing their agenda.

You should put the humanist manifesto side by side with the communist manifesto and attempt to identify the differences.

You might be surprised how much you are in sympathty with the asserted principles.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at October 11, 2009 3:12 PM

"What he said", to Doyle, about NYT's motive arising from financial desperation.

Also, sometimes the libs get an odd feeling of generosity to opposition which they no longer feel is a threat -- sort of dripping a tear for the endangered species.

(Sometimes in their sentimentality, they forget about their other tenet of Natural Selection....)

Posted by: Pharmer at October 11, 2009 4:45 PM

Posted by: kbhvac at October 11, 2009 5:32 PM

someone doesn't have that generous feeling yet...

I noted the NYT Sept article on James Puillion's death. The headline, that he loved the controversy his protests generated, was quite misleading.

In the body of the article, the quote comes from a guy who was discussing their debates about politics - a whole different issue. He also said that James knew how to get his goat. I would have liked that guy.

This new article is a bit more carefully done, by a different author. Might be interesting to see what else Damien Cave writes.

I remember a CBS crew coming to interview, a while back. They were actually the camera people, providing the uplink for television. I made them use a hotel room- (never let the big networks tour the Pharm).

One of the crew was asking some questions as they set up, and she admitted that she never had taken time to think about the issues I was bringing up.

Sometimes I think that understanding and protecting the youngest of humans is a professional sub-specialty.

Posted by: pharmer at October 11, 2009 5:39 PM

THe new article

wrong again about the sign........

"The day he was shot, Mr. Pouillon was showing a mangled fetus, part of an almost daily effort to put abortion into the minds of his neighbors. “It’s all about the eyes,” he used to say to fellow demonstrators. “It’s all about the eyes.”

A sign showing a living baby was found with James' body, as I recall.

The Washington times also recalls:

"Some news outlets initially reported that Mr. Pouillon had been displaying a graphic picture of an aborted fetus, but Mr. Trewhella said it was actually a photo of an infant. The baby in the photo is Mr. Trewhella's son, who is now a teenager."

Posted by: pharmer at October 11, 2009 5:56 PM

Here are pro-life groups or individuals who tend to be liberal or support liberal politics:

Feminists for Life
Pro-Woman Pro-Life (albeit, they seem quite varied)
Democrats for Life
Pretty in Pink (Kate)
My mom
Left Out
The vast majority of college students in Poland (so I've read)
Scratch that: the majority of pro-lifers in Europe
Left Out
Christian Liberal (Person on Wordpress)
Politically Liberal and Pro-Life (Facebook Group)
Susan B. Anthony
Elizabeth Cady Stanton
Alice Paul
Mary Wollstonecraft
Emma Goldman
Mattie Brinkerhoff
Matilda Gage
Sarah Norton
Victoria Woodhull (became pro-choice later, after also becoming a racist and classist)
Teddy Roosevelt
Many more contemporary groups that I'm too lazy to look up at the moment
Basically everyone before the propaganda of pro-choice kicked in

From what I know about liberals, I notice that there's a lot of pressure to be pro-choice. Most liberals will therefore say, "I am pro-choice but..."

Essentially, they're pro-life, but pro-life the word has an ugly image strapped to it. Also, there's pressure from a faction of liberals who like to control everyone else and strap us with that dreaded "fauxgressive" label.

And if I might say, I'm not a liberal because I'm naive. I'm naive, I'm certain, about a lot of things. I'm liberal because I like the politics.

Posted by: Vannah at October 11, 2009 6:12 PM

I guess I'd prefer that these vile, misleading images appear in a newspaper where viewing them is optional than being shown in front of family planning centers as an attempt to guilt-trip women into keeping their unwanted pregnancies. Still, the New York Times should have known better.

Posted by: PRO-CHOICE at October 11, 2009 5:10 PM

What makes the pictures vile and misleading?

While I would prefer they not be shown to young children - the fact that human beings are being viciously shredded is all too apparent. Remember, most of the photos come from abortionists - not pro-lifers.

Here - watch the last two minutes of this video:

Make sure you watch as the abortionist checks for all the body parts, and measures the length of the foot.

Tell us then, if abortion is not morally wrong, why are such images vile and disgusting?

Is it because you know the truth and wish to cover it up?

Would you still wish to cover up such barbarity if done to a more fully developed human being?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at October 11, 2009 6:29 PM

Finally, someone had the courage to present abortion as it is "killing of the innocents" in the country of the Nobel PEACE Prize winner. What a parody! This article and pictures must be shown in every newspaper in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Posted by: florian matsalla at October 11, 2009 6:46 PM

"Essentially, they're pro-life, but pro-life the word has an ugly image strapped to it."

Then they're cowards. Cowards who aren't truly pro-life, because if they understood what abortion does, they would NEVER give any ground on their position. EVER. Thus, they aren't lying when they say they're pro-choice. Scratch everyone on that list who's like that.

The early feminists were not liberal as America recognizes liberals today. They were progressive thinkers mainly because they agreed that women needed a more comfortable niche in the world. Don't get me wrong, I think they did awesome work and I respect them. But their policies did not have modern liberalist leanings, not at all (they were, forgive me my bluntness, also a touch racist, or at least Burns was).

Now, when you say liberal, do you mean socialist? What are your policies, exactly? Because I have tons of liberal friends who can't give me a straight answer on that--all they seem to have in common is that they hate America and are pro-abortion.

Posted by: Abel at October 11, 2009 8:00 PM

Hey, Abel.

I'm not a socialist. That's extremely liberal- too liberal for me. And, though I'm no history genius, I do know enough about Eastern Europe to see that socialism has been a spectacular failure. It's a two-dimensional idea stuck in a three-dimensional world and so I don't support socialism. As far as the policies that I do support go, I support staples of mainstream liberal ideas: gay marriage, year-long schooling, gun control, adequate childcare, ending capital punishment (actually, this is more because I'm pro-life on abortion so it didn't make sense to me how I could say, "Life is a right that no human has the ability to take away!" and support the death penalty), pacifism (though in a more conservative vein, I support veteran's health and respect and soldiers), and I'm an avid environmentalist.

I'm not incredibly liberal- I have serious qualms with the Clintons. I mean, I'm not a socialist, I don't support legalizing drugs, and I don't deny the basic biology that gender is real.

I'll point out that I don't have a problem with anyone's politics so long as they're two things:

1). Well-informed. Do your research.
2). Not bigoted. Which usually is avoided with self-education in the slightest degree.

For example, I am absolutely okay with Xalisae and Carla (and Bethany and my best friend Katie...). They are both very well-versed in politics and both of them present logical reasoning behind being conservatives. Carla has experience that has led her to her beliefs and Xalisae approaches conservatism through observation. So I'm okay with that. No problem here.


Posted by: Vannah at October 11, 2009 9:09 PM

And about the liberal pressure to be pro-choice:

It's not as easy as being simply afraid. There are two main issues separating liberals from adopting a fully progressive stance on human rights, including fetal rights.

The first is the issue of the patina of the word "pro-life." It's not as simple as saying, "That's what I am but am too cowardly to admit." In reality, it seems to me that a small societal faction- the original "pro-choice"- made it out to be a civil rights issue so that it would be embraced by a large majority. However, that meant that, because propaganda convinced them that it was the civil rights thing to do, liberals jumped on it. Therefore, with abortion successfully masked as a "civil right," being against abortion is automatically assumed to be against civil rights. Therefore they don't often support it.

However, when asked to define their position on abortion, I noticed that most liberals bypass the simple black-and-white phrasing of pro-choice versus pro-life and simply say, "I hate abortion. It's a horrible, tragic thing. I support things like healthcare and whatnot. And I don't support it throughout all of this and that."

If you want to get technical, that means you're pro-life (with some slight disagreements in legality). So the second thing that gets in the way of the liberal push is the fact that no one is aware of the definition of what pro-life is. That's a saddening success on the part of the pro-choice movement.

All in all, I'd say that the liberals who you read about don't represent the mainstream liberal mindset. Most people in America are relatively moderate caught between two extremes who just keep talking like they know everything. Don't listen to people like Pelosi or, yes, I'll say it, fauxgressives- they are extremely left and don't represent the majority of liberals, Americans, or humans in general.


Posted by: Vannah at October 11, 2009 9:20 PM

Okay, I think that if you want to understand where most liberals stand, you need to understand that we're not too far off from conservatives.

Read an essay by Alexander Hamilton. It's called "Federalist 10." It's eery how amazingly accurate it is about American politics to this day.

And it highlights the differences between moderate in America and the factions that make us forget about it.

So definitely check out "Federalist 10."

Posted by: Vannah at October 11, 2009 9:24 PM

Plus, the pictures prove that abortions happen AFTER the 1st trimester

Um, yeah. The legal limit in New York state is 22 weeks, 6 days.

Posted by: Dhalgren at October 11, 2009 10:09 PM

Yes, but did you read that Dr. Miller does have images of 1st trimester abortions & did submit some of these images as well, however the NYT chose to publish the 2nd & 3rd trimester photos.

Posted by: Rachael C. at October 11, 2009 10:48 PM

Also that doesn't mean that second and third trimester abortions aren't being preformed at later gestational ages in other states or that it's right. Even according to pro-choice Alan Guttmacher Institute, over 90% of late term abortions are preformed for elective reasons, not for endangerment to the mother's health or poor prenatal diagnosis as abortion-rights advocates like to claim.

Posted by: Rachael C. at October 11, 2009 10:59 PM

My only concern here is that it might indicate a change in strategy from pro-aborts; embrace and acknowledge the humanity of the unborn, but still argue that abortion is acceptable. Maybe this would be the first step in desensitizing the masses? Just thinking out loud about WHY they would do this. To believe that the NYT is advocating for the pro-life position I think would be to let down our guard. Pro-lifers have begun to win by forcing the hand of PCers with graphic photos and scientific facts, so they really have no alternative but to acknowledge this aspect of abortion; however, their next statement is; "so what?" That's when it could get scarier before it gets better.

Posted by: Michelle at October 12, 2009 6:44 AM

Vannah, I know what you mean about the politics of the abortion issue. I'm agnostic, and relatively liberal on many other issues. I'm politically independent.

But it's undeniable that I'm a part of a relatively small minority among "liberals". And that, IMO, is evidence of the human folly of playing "follow the herd" in politics. So many people treat politics as if it was like being a member of a fraternity or sorority. They focus on the "unity of the group" more than on forming honest individual opinions, and thereby take up what they perceive as "group positions" on many issues, even if it requires them to betray their true feelings on a particular subject.

It's sad but true that all social and political groups have many members who are only there in order to "fit in with the crowd".

Thankfully, there are a few of us who swim against the current, and don't follow the herd.

Posted by: Doyle Chadwick at October 12, 2009 7:13 AM


I do not think that strategy would work at all. The majority of people who get abortions or think abortion is okay believe that it is a blob of cells. They have no idea the reality of a baby's development. So, if the plan is to "desensitize". I say, "Go ahead. Please show the pictures and try to desensitize the public". It is to the advantage of the pro-lifers. It makes our job a lot easier. Science and fetology is on OUR side completely.

Posted by: kmann at October 12, 2009 7:49 AM

For those that continue to harp about gestational age and why don't we have pictures of earlier abortions when most abortions occur and blah, blah, blah....
Please remember that later term abortions are dumped in dumpsters illegally because the babie's bodies are too big for the high powered garbage disposal, the tinier babies are kept in jars in fridges and freezers. One would have to break in and steal the bodies to photograph them wouldn't they?

Check this out
There is a graphic video of an abortion if you care to have a look-see. Go to abortion photos to view 7, 8,9 and 10 weeks babies.

and keep on spewing.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at October 12, 2009 8:22 AM

kmann: I must respectfully disagree with you. Those who say such things (as "blob of cells"}, IMO, are simply rationalizing their actions with what they know {but will not admit they know} to be a lie. They are making excuses that they know to be untrue.

As far as "desensitizing" anyone, why is that even a consideration? If anyone is capable of being desensitized to the sight of an aborted baby, we have no chance of reaching them with ANY message.

No, it is far more important, IMO, to try to reach those with a healthy conscience by showing them what abortion does to a baby, than to worry about those who become "desensitized". I have seen the graphic images reach people's hearts instantly, I know they work for the good of the unborn.

Posted by: Doyle Chadwick at October 12, 2009 8:29 AM

That video is so horrifying and I wish it was not real! ...I just keep wondering how an abortionist can ever sleep at night with those images in their heads. Maybe that is why so many of them are drugged up. I mean, really, how else could you function?

Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at October 12, 2009 8:36 AM

Doyle, I agree completely. Most people with a conscience are very disturbed by the images, and are able to recognize that it is terribly unjust and should not be happening at all! A lot of people really don't *know* until they see images!

Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at October 12, 2009 8:39 AM

I am sorry about that. I have watched it quite a few times too and I can only sit and cry.

I agree!!

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at October 12, 2009 9:05 AM

Does anyone know WHERE in section 71 of Holy Sepulchre Cemetery in Southfield Michingan the Hodari aborted babies are buried? my husband and I went to pay our respects and could not find their grave.

Posted by: Sydney M at October 12, 2009 9:16 AM

"though in a more conservative vein, I support veteran's health and respect and soldiers"

That's not a conservative thing, that's a human decency sort of thing.
AKA something most liberals (not extremists) do support. A more 'conservative vein' would be saying you are subscribing to a more hawkish point of view on war.

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 12, 2009 9:17 AM

When abortion is hidden,
abortion is tolerated.
When abortion is seen,
everything changes.
CBR exists to make abortion
impossible to ignore or
trivialize until people are
bothered enough to stop the
killing. Don't hate the
messenger...hate the injustice.

From the video of a graphic abortion.
Center for Bio-Ethical Reform

There is also a button to click To Confirm The Authenticity of These Photos. It says that CBR is getting ready to sue proaborts who falsely accuse CBR of "photo fraud."

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at October 12, 2009 9:18 AM


You are so right. I flipped through those arguments and they were totally ridiculous. I don't know how many "don't like abortion? Don't have one?" phrases I saw thrown out there. They also continued to perpetuate the lies that most pro-lifers are violent terrorists "just as bad as the taliban or bin laden" that don't support birth control or health care reform.
I would reply but I know it would be a waste of time. Sigh.

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 12, 2009 9:21 AM

Hey, Pretty in Pink. How are things? :)

And I agree with you about the independent thinking, Doyle. Absolutely. I think that everyone needs to be open to forming his or her own opinions. So I'm not condoning the position of liberals and abortion, just explaining where I think that it comes from.

I can't speak for every liberal, obviously. That's just my experience. :)

Posted by: Vannah at October 12, 2009 9:54 AM

Our priest gave a sermon yesterday on prolife activism and his message centered on the idea that love and showing it through sacrifice is the way to change hearts and minds and a way that transcends ideologies and perspectives. I think this is proof of that reasoning.

Posted by: Jordan3 at October 12, 2009 10:02 AM

Stressful, but good. How are you Vannah?

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 12, 2009 10:05 AM

I'm more tired than stressed, but I think that once I wake up I'll panic about having just three days to finish an eight page essay (well, and start on it) for history midterms.

But things are fine.

Are you stressed about school?

Posted by: Vannah at October 12, 2009 10:38 AM

I read the piece and made a comment. Thanks, Jill, for bringing this to our attention. I pray that our all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful God will continue to touch the consciences of Americans and turn more and more people toward loving, respecting and protecting the unborn. With our wonderful God, there is hope!

Posted by: Valerie at October 12, 2009 11:30 AM

Michelle at October 12, 2009 6:44 AM

I think that Michelle has hit upon a profound truth.

Many years ago there was a tv program about alcoholics who had a profound personality change when they were on booze. They disbelieved any kind of negative review of this shift. To break this stalemate of views, it was undertaken to videotape their behavior. When confronted with the evidence, they could hardly believe that it was them, and they did stop (for a while). The 'break' was short-lived. Within 2-3 months, they were back drinking hard. Their new slogan was 'so what?"

Do we have the same kind of situation here? How would you answer "So what?"? How do you now answer "So what?"?

Posted by: John McDonell at October 12, 2009 11:57 AM

John McDonell,

Lately, I have been noticing a shift from denying science and/or willful ignorance to a "so what?" attitude. It's been a very long time since I've heard anyone (in person, that is) deny that abortion kills a living human being. They acknowledge this and provide excuses for why it's acceptable - poverty, teen pregnancy, career conflict, etc. My response is to point out that these circumstances can be improved without taking innocent lives. They shrug, or say "Yeh, I guess," then say that they still support abortion. Essentially, it all boils down to a "so what?"

People seem to be getting to the point where they no longer care whether something is unethical or hurtful or violent. They are more interested in what they can get away with and keeping their thoughts away from the gruesome consequences.

Posted by: Janette at October 12, 2009 1:03 PM

And I forgot to answer your question, "How do you now answer so what?"

My answer is to point out that if we use the "might makes right" reasoning to kill certain segments of the population, that sets a dangerous precedent which could be used to victimize other groups that cannot effectively defend themselves. People may not care so much about tiny human beings being killed behind closed doors, but applying their same logic in favor of killing born humans essentially forces them to care. Generally, I can see gears turning a little bit, but they are unwilling to give up their pro-choice badge. Like Vannah and others have pointed out, many people identify as pro-choice before they've been presented with a decent opposing argument, and they'd rather maintain their identity among their peer group than start from scratch.

Posted by: Janette at October 12, 2009 1:16 PM

I have tried twice to comment on the NY Times thread. I talked about my abortion at 10 weeks and the miscarriage I had later at 10 weeks when I held that baby in my hand.
They will not publish my comment.
What to do. What to do.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at October 12, 2009 2:24 PM

Vannah- yeah, this week is hell. I have a physiology test tomorrow which is killing me (I was never good at cardiac physiology) as well as a project due tomorrow that pretty much took most of this weekend to complete. I also have a test on friday on statistics and probably a quiz on genetics, as well as a medical terminology quiz on thursday. Luckily, fall break is after this week so I get to go home. I just really need to pass this physiology exam because the two quizzes prior I did not do well. There is just SO MUCH material on the exam, we are covering all of audition, muscles, blood, and most of cardiac physiology, and not enough time in the day to go over every single detail and our prof is known to test on things he spent all of 30 seconds covering.

Whew. I'm just going to be glad when tomorrow is over.

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 12, 2009 3:31 PM

Very strange, Carla. They've let me post anything I want. Try to tie in the pictures to your posts about your miscarriages and abortion. They said they're more likely to approve comments that discuss the photos.

Posted by: Lauren at October 12, 2009 3:42 PM

The photos show the gruesome nature of abortion. Abortion kills, plain and simple. This country has legally allowed the holocaust of over millions of unborn babies in the last 36 years.

Posted by: Tersamerica at October 12, 2009 5:51 PM

That sounds intense.

What are you majoring in?

My sister is pissed because she might have to audit her class or drop it entirely. She's thinking about majoring in psychology or anthropology...but she is failing anthropology at the moment and is perhaps incapable of making it up.

My only issues are math (I finally turned in that assignment...that I told you about a couple of weeks ago) and history. I have writer's block. :(

Well, good luck on your physiology. I'll root for you. Woot woot. Woot woot. :)

Posted by: Vannah at October 12, 2009 5:56 PM

Here is the link to the four part series by David Shaw, Ombudsman for the L.A. Times, 'Abortion and the Media'

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at October 12, 2009 6:28 PM

Highlights of the series' findings:
The news media consistently use language and images that frame the entire abortion debate in terms that implicitly favor abortion-rights advocates.

Abortion-rights advocates are often quoted more frequently and characterized more favorably than are abortion opponents.

Events and issues favorable to abortion opponents are sometimes ignored or given minimal attention by the media.

Many news organizations have given more prominent play to stories on rallies and electoral and legislative victories by abortion-rights advocates than to stories on rallies and electoral and legislative victories by abortion rights opponents.

Columns of commentary favoring abortion rights outnumber those opposing abortion by a margin of more than 2 to 1 on the op-ed pages of most of the nation's major daily newspapers.

Newspaper editorial writers and columnists alike, long sensitive to violations of First Amendment rights and other civil liberties in cases involving minority and anti-war protests, have largely ignored these questions when Operation Rescue and other abortion opponents have raised them.

Most media organizations, including the Associated Press , the world's largest news agency, use the label "pro-choice", the preferred label of abortion-rights advocates, but not "pro-life", the preferred label of those who oppose abortion. During the first nine months of 1989, the TV networks used "pro-choice" in 74% of their references to abortion-rights advocates and used "pro-life" in only 6% of their references to abortion opponents.

Abortion opponents are often described as "conservatives"; abortion-rights supporters are rarely labeled as "liberals." Abortion opponents are sometimes identified as Catholics (or fundamentalist Christians), even when their religion is not demonstrably relevant to a given story; abortion-rights advocates are rarely identified by religion. Abortion opponents are often described as "militant" or "strident"; such characterizations are seldom used to describe abortion-rights advocates, many of whom can also be militant or strident -- or both.

When the Supreme Court issued Roe, initial news accounts emphasized the part of the ruling that said a woman would be allowed to have an abortion without restriction during the first three months of pregnancy. Even now, some in the media write about Roe in terms that suggest it legalized abortion only during that first trimester, even though it made abortion legal for any reason throughout the first and second trimesters of pregnancy (and for broadly-defined "health" reasons even in the third).

The Alan Guttmacher Institute in New York is probably the single-most widely quoted source for studies and statistics on abortion, for example, but the media rarely point out that the institute is special affiliate of Planned Parenthood of America, a major leader in the battle for abortion rights.

The media is generally careful to include comments from abortion-rights advocates in stories about abortion protests, but coverage of abortion-rights activities sometimes fail to include balancing comments from abortion opponents.

When Roman Catholic bishops individually spoke out on abortion or, collectively, hired a public relations firm to aid them in the battle against abortion, some in the media grumbled about the church's intrusion into the political arena. Similar media lamentations were forthcoming when bishops criticized (and raised the specter of ex-communication for) public officials who refuse to oppose abortion. But no such criticism was levied at the bishops in earlier years, when they endorsed a nuclear freeze or opposed Reagan Administration economic policies.

The major media paid no attention to the discovery by Bob Woodward of the Washington Post that two justices who had played a major role in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion had conceded, in private memos, that they knew they were "legislating policy and exceeding (the court's) authority as the interpreter, not the maker of law," as Woodward wrote.

"When pro-choice candidates win, it is perhaps more easily accepted than it should be that their pro-choice position was the reason, and when pro-life candidates win, perhaps it is more easily accepted (than it should be) that that was really irrelevant to the race," says Douglas Bailey, an abortion-rights supporter who publishes the nonpartisan "Abortion Report," a daily compendium of news on abortion and politics. There have been a number of races in which the media said an abortion-rights advocate's victory showed the political strength of that movement when, in fact, most of the votes in the race actually went to anti- abortion candidates.

Posted by: kbhvac at October 12, 2009 6:32 PM

Hi Lauren,
They published my comment! :)

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at October 12, 2009 7:31 PM

Thanks Vannah :) I'm currently a physician assistant student. That's the scary thing. We have to keep a 3.0 to stay in the program. Anything below a C is failing. So here goes nothing!

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 12, 2009 7:50 PM

Also, I"m glad things are going well for you. Writer's block has always been a problem of mine, but that's why I am not doing anything that involves serious writing! What are you majoring in again?

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 12, 2009 7:54 PM

Thank you Dr. Miller for procuring and publishing these pictures from the death camps---horror has a name and now an image.

Posted by: Dan at October 12, 2009 7:56 PM

I'm in high school. I'm a junior now. My sister is the one majoring...right now, in psychology.

I don't know that I'm going to college, really. I don't think so. But if I did I would probably study linguistics: Germanic languages and Romance languages. Though I do that now and can speak English, a good deal of Spanish, a good deal of Latin (okay, well, I can't speak it, but I can read it and write it decently enough now), some French, and am just starting work on German and Icelandic.

Because I'm a dork like that. But Icelandic is amazing.

Do you speak any other languages? :)

But being a physician's assistant sounds so neat. Are you hoping to be a doctor? That's cool. I would kill someone (by accident, of course). My cousin wants to be a doctor- he's going to work on reconstructive surgery because he's passionate about helping poor people with cleft facial features or burns.

What kind of physician would you be? :)

Posted by: Vannah at October 12, 2009 10:08 PM

I think it is good to show graphic images of legalized infanticide. You never know how ugly you really are until you see yourself in the mirror. Abortion is the most vile of acts a human can partake in, and it needs to stop. The only reason there is a debate on whether abortion is murder or not is because the churches (Catholic and Protestant) are more worried about tax exemption and tithes than speaking the truth. The graphic images confront people to deal with the issue whether they like it or not.

Posted by: Rocco at October 12, 2009 11:51 PM

Nice!! I don't fluently speak any other languages. I have studied some Spanish and I can read spanish harry potter books generally well. I want to be fluent in it for my profession, so I am taking a med spanish course next year hopefully. I think the best way to learn it is to be around spanish speakers though, so I'll get there ;)

Well a physician assistant is basically a master's degree in medical sciences. It is an alternative version of the medical model. Physician assistants diagnose and treat illnesses, they write prescriptions, and they can work within almost any specialty but most tend to stay in primary care. When I was younger I wanted to be a doctor b/c I didn't know that physician assistants existed but this is so much better. I get to spend time with my patients working on their health and I don't have to worry about insurance issues as much. I will also have a physician above me who I can counsel with in case I have an issue. I am thinking about going into emergency medicine, but I am holding off on judgement until clinicals are over with. I have such a history with EM, it's too long to write out here :P

Here is the wikipedia entry:

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 13, 2009 12:20 AM

I think my comment yesterday was misunderstood. I was commenting on the post of liberals trying to desensitize by publishing the photos. I was saying I do not think it is possible to do that. Most people try not to think about the reality of abortion and the development of the baby. When it is put in their face where they have to face it. Then they cannot claim it is just a blob of cell or just like a tumor.
Sorry that I was not clearer yesterday.

Posted by: kmann at October 13, 2009 8:49 AM

Oh, that's so neat! :)

I think that it's good that you're becoming a doctor. Will you do the traveling and stuff to help out impoverished parts of the world?

And I'm only fluent in English, it's just that I'm getting better at Spanish, Latin, and some French. I think that it will be awhile before I can consider myself fluent in Spanish- I speak Castilian Spanish and know some, but not all, Spanish slang. I only know a couple of words in Latin American Spanish slang. :)

I want to learn Arabic after that, though I might have met my match. I tried teaching myself- it's way too hard and I panic reading the alphabet.

Then after that I want to learn Elfdalian. Yes, it's a real language. Everyone thinks that it's some sort of Lord of the Rings thing. It's a minority Scandinavian language in Sweden and it's endangered. I want to learn at least three endangered languages fluently so I can contribute, in a small way, to their survival (curse you, imperialism!).

I think that emergency medicine would be great. Emergency rooms are stuffed because of lack of doctors and so many emergencies are children so you could save a young life!


Posted by: Vannah at October 13, 2009 9:43 AM

It is about time society sees the truth of abortion... how can anyone now say the above pictures are only those of "tissue?" How can anyone now not recognize the bodies of children?!

Posted by: Elizabeth at October 13, 2009 10:56 AM

someone had to gall to comment that some of the 50 million that we "claim" have been aborted (the # I mean) probably would have grown up in poverty. Someone should point out that our PRESIDENT grew up in poverty! And he could have been the victim of abortion, too.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at October 13, 2009 11:09 AM


I would have loved to work with Doctors Without Borders but just like the army or navy i cannot contribute. I take too many meds and for all the wrong stuff! But I do plan on working for underserved populations here in the U.S. The ER is one of several ways to do it (another being free clinic which is also an option for me). I do love being there for someone in their time of need and most vulnerable. You have to be really passionate and chances are most people in the ED are. Love to be a part of a team like that.

You sound very talented with language- I admire that! I'm an old dog, slow learner with language. It'll take me a while :) Good luck with all of your studies!

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 13, 2009 12:31 PM

Go, Pip, go! :)

So, what kind of education do you have to get to be a doctor?

Posted by: Vannah at October 13, 2009 12:41 PM

Oh, Pip- quick question.

Are you religious or spiritual?

I'm trying to get churches around my area to do the faith-based pro-Darfur things, whether it's a day or prayer or a fundraiser for the Save Darfur Coalition.

If you have any groups in the area (Save Darfur is faith-based and wants to spread the news through church) could you ask them to do something? This is, I think, because of the influence of God/church/spirituality in a people's lives- they think that they can get a lot more force if more churches back them, and I agree.

Well, not just Pip, but anyone? Please.

I don't go to church but I'm hoping that I can get someone to do something. I think that the local Baptist church would be willing to do a pancake breakfast or something; they're big food people. :)


Posted by: Vannah at October 13, 2009 12:47 PM


Is there any sort of website or other sources of information about the Save Darfur Coalition? My mom is the pastor's secretary at a Baptist church here in Alabama, and if I had some information about the group and ways churches can participate, I'd be happy to pass it along to her.

Posted by: Janette at October 13, 2009 1:40 PM

The comments over at the NYT are up to 248 and are now running almost exclusively PL. I think we're wearing 'em down.

Nationally, it is clear that our side is steadily and surely gaining converts and gathering momentum. Recent polls confirm that as the graphic imagery forces the debate to the court of public opinion, people are being convicted of the truth.

40 Days campaigns are saving babies and changing hearts.

The dodo birds clinging to their pro-death lies and opinions are looking more and more foolish as they try to defend their untenable position.

Love is winning!

We've got to keep up the pressure because the Lord only knows what kind of squirrely judges BO is liable to appoint yet this term.

Posted by: Ed at October 13, 2009 1:54 PM

Ed, I saw this some weeks back and your comment brought it back to mind. I have felt led lately to specifically pray for those in authority to have true discernment, judges particularly. We'll keep fighting the good fight, trusting and knowing God can reach places we can't. I think 40 Days for Life is producing incredible fruit because of the adherence to what Julie Meyer describes in the video.

Posted by: klynn73 at October 13, 2009 2:16 PM


Thanks for the link! I love Julie's testimony when Jesus took her to see His friends, maybe you've seen it:

Your link is really encouraging. It reminds me of the scripture: The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, Like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He wishes. Pr 21:1

Glory to God! He's so good! He can use squirrely judges and justices, rocks, me, (similar to the rocks) He's amazing.

Posted by: Ed at October 13, 2009 2:56 PM

No, Ed, I hadn't seen it. Amazing and heart-rending, also encouraging! Thank you. The part about the Rabbis and Israel made me think of Rabbi Yitzhak Kaduri, . 1 Thess 4:16-18.

Posted by: klynn73 at October 13, 2009 4:13 PM


Perhaps you should check out what's going on at some colleges in your area. Here I go to a Jesuit school and there are a lot of christian/catholic/spiritual oriented social justice groups. The school funds a lot of activities across the U.S. for them. Of course there are a lot of secular groups too. But in any case, there are tons of active people that are also spiritual around there.

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 13, 2009 5:22 PM

I won't post the link, because it will get stuck in limbo, but it goes here:

The movement is called Moved By Faith. It comes right up on what any religious group can do (or secular- they're not going to turn help away just because you're an atheist).

Thanks for taking an interest, Pip and Janette (spelled it correctly that time). I'm going to finish my essay tonight and tomorrow get started on writing a letter to the local Methodist Church.


Posted by: Vannah at October 13, 2009 6:20 PM

I don't know that I'm going to college, really. I don't think so. But if I did I would probably study linguistics: Germanic languages and Romance languages. Though I do that now and can speak English, a good deal of Spanish, a good deal of Latin (okay, well, I can't speak it, but I can read it and write it decently enough now), some French, and am just starting work on German and Icelandic.

Vannah, have you considered the diplomatic corps? If you are good in languages maybe you might consider learning Russian and Chinese.

Posted by: angel at October 14, 2009 7:01 AM

Thanks, Angel, I'll look into it. :)

Posted by: Vannah at October 14, 2009 9:38 AM

God Bless you Dr Miller,
There will be rejoicing here in the UK from all Pro-Lifers for the stand you have taken to have graphic photos of our aborted bothers and sisters printed in the NYT.
I also thank the NYT for the mighty and courageous revelation of this HORROR. I know this will rock the hearts of many who are pro-abortion and please God will change their minds and hearts.
Well done!

Posted by: Paula at October 17, 2009 3:58 AM