Victory: Abortion/Obama graphics displayed at liberal bastion Berkeley

Center for Bioethical Reform, Genocide Awareness, abortion, Berkeley 1.jpg

Yesterday was a landmark day for abortion awareness. The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform was finally able to launch its Genocide Awareness Project at one of America's most liberal universities: University of CA at Berkeley.

In addition to this feat, GAP unveiled a new set of 28 signs "that not only show the truth of abortion, but also highlight the hypocrisy of our current President, who talks about justice but denies it to the most helpless of all," according to an email from CBR's Fletcher Armstrong. Click on all photos and signs to enlarge...

Genocide Awareness Project, Center for Bioethical Reform, Barack Obama, Abortion 9.jpg

Genocide Awareness Project, Center for Bioethical Reform, Barack Obama, Abortion 5.jpg

Reported Fletcher:

We had a vigorous protest against us; they chanted "Our body, our choice" for hours on end. It was awesome, because it attracted an enormous amount of attention to the display. While they chanted, we engaged thousands and thousands of students with the images of abortion. Several hundreds wanted to talk about abortion with our crack team of pro-life apologists!

The 1st hurdle was getting a brave student to sponsor GAP, which after years and years CBR finally did in Alberto Gonzalez, president of Berkeley Students for Life.

But the bigger hurdle was the Berkeley administration. I have been copied for months on emails of the hardball legal wrangling between CBR and Berkeley. Berkeley originally forbade CBR from erecting its display at Sproul Plaza, the same Sproul Plaza where only 10 months ago university administrators sponsored a huge event celebrating the inauguration of President Barack Obama...

Sproul Plaza, Berkeley, Obama, Center for Bioethical Reform, Genocide Awareness Project, abortion.jpg

As CBR director Gregg Cunningham wrote on the eve of the GAP unveiling, "We are about to host a very different sort of Obama event on Sproul Plaza. Same audience, same subject, different message."

Genocide Awareness Project, Center for Bioethical Reform, Barack Obama, Abortion 3.jpg

Genocide Awareness Project, Center for Bioethical Reform, Barack Obama, Abortion 1.jpg

Reported the Daily Californian on GAP's 1st day:

A pro-life demonstration on Sproul Plaza today featuring graphic photographs of aborted fetuses drew approximately 40 UC Berkeley students in a spontaneous counter-demonstration....

Graduate student Ameer Hasan said during a discussion with event organizer Walter Hoye that an image of an aborted fetus next to a quarter was inappropriate.

"You have a quarter, and the word 'liberty' and 'in God we trust' ... is that a coincidence?" he said. "There's a lot of things that went into the production of that photograph ... It draws emotions, not necessarily logic."

Hasan was speaking of this graphic. Was it illogical... or Hasan?

Genocide Awareness Project, Center for Bioethical Reform, Barack Obama, Abortion 2.jpg

I'm posting more photos of Gap Day 1 at Berkeley below as well as other new Obama/abortion signs. And don't forget to donate to CBR!

Center for Bioethical Reform, Genocide Awareness Project, Barack Obama, abortion, display early.jpg

Center for Bioethical Reform, Genocide Awareness Project, Barack Obama, abortion display close-up.jpg

Genocide Awareness Project, Center for Bioethical Reform, Barack Obama, Abortion 4.jpg

Genocide Awareness Project, Center for Bioethical Reform, Barack Obama, Abortion 6.jpg

Genocide Awareness Project, Center for Bioethical Reform, Barack Obama, Abortion 7.jpg

Genocide Awareness Project, Center for Bioethical Reform, Barack Obama, Abortion 8.jpg

Genocide Awareness Project, Center for Bioethical Reform, Barack Obama, Abortion 10.jpg


Comments:

See them laughing and playing? It's a joke to them.

Posted by: xalisae at October 27, 2009 8:22 AM


What do you mean, X?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at October 27, 2009 8:50 AM


xalasie, perhaps they saw the pro life crowd as something of a joke.

Posted by: Hal at October 27, 2009 9:09 AM


Do you see it as a joke, Hal?
Those are Obama's words. Those pictures depict what he supports and promotes.
The PC crowd shouts the same old tired mantra. That is a joke.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at October 27, 2009 9:14 AM


Good for them!

Posted by: Phillymiss at October 27, 2009 9:15 AM


This reminds me of the Civil War claims made by the Confederacy. It was supposedly about "states' rights". But what did they want to have the "right" to do? In the case of the Civil War conflict, primarily to enslave and otherwise opress a certain race of people.

Gee... "my body, my choice"? "Choice" to do what? Answer: to kill any and all "inconvenient" children before birth (occasionally even after, in the case of "botched" late-term abortions). Seems like the appropriate time to make a "choice" about one's body was all the way back when the choice was made to drop one's pants.

It's all a bunch of rottenness disguised by a fluffy, politically-correct-sounding facade. ("states' rights" and "choice")

Posted by: army_wife at October 27, 2009 9:21 AM


x, I know I would be smiling inside if I were joining hands with this life-loving crowd educating people; you are right though that the subject is gruesome.

Posted by: truthseeker at October 27, 2009 9:29 AM


Carla, overall I don't take the anti-abortion lobby too seriously. It's not their stance on abortion so much, but all the other crazy stuff that gets included. (people shouldn't have sex unless they're married, gay people shouldn't get married, Obama is not a citizen, evolution is a hoax, etc, etc.) I do chuckle from time to time, sure. The only part of your movement I can agree with is that women who don't want abortions shouldn't get them. I have no qualms about women getting abortions if they decide that's the right decision for them.

Posted by: Hal at October 27, 2009 9:33 AM


I am glad that these images were shown, but was it necessary to put the Obama girls on one of them? They're kids and they aren't responsible for abortion.

In all honesty, I'm really glad that California is finally allowing this. It's amazing that people will stop censoring the truth at least from time to time. Censorship ought to never be permitted, but especially in times like this.

However, I think that this would go over better if pro-lifers stopped creating a concrete enemy. President Obama isn't evil or good: he's human and humans are many things. If we pro-lifers stopped making our opponents black and white and clearly evil (while, admittedly, most are motivated by bigotry), we can motivate more people to be pro-life and we can motivate everyone, even pro-choicers, to do as much good as possible.

Instead of making President Obama the enemy, wouldn't it be better to make abortion our enemy?

Posted by: Vannah at October 27, 2009 9:37 AM


Good point Vannah. I think most people feel that way about Obama. Jill's still upset he didn't vote for some bill she supported many years ago, although I gather it later passed.

Posted by: Hal at October 27, 2009 9:41 AM


'My body, my choice'..sheesh!I wish someone would have confronted them with (point to the pictures) "That's 'your body'? Oh, really? Those are YOUR arms and legs ripped apart in an abortion?" For college students, they're awfully ignorant and 'uneducated'.

Posted by: Pamela at October 27, 2009 9:46 AM


Sorry, Vannah, but President Obama is as pro-abortion as they come. He is deeply committed to abortion, going so far as to allow born alive children to die so as not to "burden the original decision of the mother to abort."

On this, it really is black and white, and Obama sides with darkness.

Posted by: Lauren at October 27, 2009 9:46 AM


The only part of your movement I can agree with is that women who don't want abortions shouldn't get them. I have no qualms about women getting abortions if they decide that's the right decision for them.
Posted by: Hal at October 27, 2009 9:33 AM

what an immature response

that's like saying people who don't want to eat chocolate shouldn't eat it. And coming from a lawyer. Wow. That is deep.

talk about relativism at it's best.


Posted by: angel at October 27, 2009 9:54 AM


Hal—While some people who are pro-life also hold the views on other issues that you mention, a lot of them don't. It's unfair to dismiss a group of people because of the views that just some of them hold on largely unrelated issues.

Vannah—Jesus told us to love our enemies, which is as much as to say that we can expect to have some. Obama is our enemy on the abortion issue. If he's not, then nobody is; and if we have no enemies on abortion, of all things, I would suggest we have no enemies at all and therefore Jesus' words have no meaning.

Of course, we are to love our enemies, not to demonize them. But that's not what the CBR display is doing. They're not saying "Obama is a bad man," or anything like that. They're just pointing out the logical inconsistencies and hypocrisies underlying his support for abortion.

Considering that President Obama has become the foremost international advocate of abortion of our time, this is not only an appropriate strategy for the pro-life movement, it's nothing short of our duty.

Posted by: Eric Scheidler at October 27, 2009 10:04 AM


These pictures with these words, from our president, are absolutely breath taking! His real words! Their real deaths! I am literally speechless. Kudos to those college students for getting the truth out there. The truth hurts, but abortion hurts more!

Posted by: IDSCforlife at October 27, 2009 10:10 AM


Eric, I know that's true. And i'm even fond of some who do hold those views.

angel, sorry if I sound immature to you. Perhaps we just don't agree on the question of abortion.

Posted by: Hal at October 27, 2009 10:17 AM


Hi Hal,

Slavery supporters could have argued that those who don't approve of slavery shouldn't own slaves. Only those who think slavery is morally acceptable and are comfortable with their choice should own slaves. Seems fair doesn't it?

Unwanted children who are not aborted will flood our society with social problems, etc. They are better off aborted. Gee, I recall reading the argument that freed black people would be completely helpless to fend for themselves and are better off enslaved. Freed black people in fact proved themselves a remarkably resilient and resourceful group of people.

Unborn children aren't quite human, neither were black people.

Aborting babies makes good economic sense. Slavery was great for the economy.

Aborted children would have preferred being disposed of before birth rather than facing difficult lives. Black people were actually "happy" being enslaved.

Everything old is new again, right Hal??

Posted by: Mary at October 27, 2009 10:54 AM


Hal: "Carla, overall I don't take the anti-abortion lobby too seriously. It's not their stance on abortion so much, but all the other crazy stuff that gets included. (people shouldn't have sex unless they're married, gay people shouldn't get married, Obama is not a citizen, evolution is a hoax, etc, etc.)..."

And for each of those, you have some pro-lifers on one side and some on another. For that matter, the same can be said about pro-choicers: they don't all agree on all those issues.

Posted by: bmmg39 at October 27, 2009 11:04 AM


President Obama has become the foremost international advocate of abortion of our time Posted by: Eric Scheidler at October 27, 2009 10:04 AM

Do we know whether or to what extent the administration is supporting euthanasia initiatives in other countries? Don't mean to derail this thread by my question. Am just wondering what other aspects of the culture of death we are exporting along with abortion.

Posted by: Fed Up at October 27, 2009 11:04 AM


Pamela,i like how you put it.I find it a mockery for those who say im a christian yet are prochoice.God sure wasn't and isn't pro choice.I find it crazy for people who see the images of dismembered babies and can still say"my body, my choice.Infanticide worldwide! Just awful. We need to keep in prayer for the right people to come along and eliminate abortion once and for all.For it is said that the shedding of innocent blood is an abomination and those who continue are punished by fire FOREVER.

Posted by: crystal at October 27, 2009 11:10 AM


I think Fed Up just helped proved Hal's point...

Posted by: len at October 27, 2009 11:24 AM


Len, what makes my question "crazy stuff" that Hal referred to? PBHO has advisors who've published opinions in support of euthanasia and/or withholding care in certain circumstances. And one of the health care bills had a section written by assisted suicide advocates. My question isn't crazy unless PBHO has appointed advisors with views contrary to the administration's agenda.

Posted by: Fed Up at October 27, 2009 11:52 AM


Hal,
Do you have any reaction at all to the torn up little bodies? Anything? Nothing?

I care a lot about you and have been wondering about that.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at October 27, 2009 11:55 AM


Vannah,

On one hand, I agree with you. Perhaps using those images of Obama does make the abortion issue more polarizing than it ought to be and becomes a distraction from the heart of the matter. I suspect many people do not want to see someone they support being cast in a negative light, so their knee jerk reaction may be to refuse to give the demonstration any serious thought. However, I do find the Obama abortion signs to be important in giving his supporters some food for thought, a re-evaluation of where they stand. Are they truly on the same team as someone who talks about peace and human dignity, yet advocates violence against the unborn?

When I look at the juxtaposition of aborted babies with pro-choice quotes, I see it more as tearing down the euphemisms and showing how nonsensical the rhetoric becomes when measured against reality. What I would prefer is quotes and images of several different politicians and prominent pro-choice figures. I'd rather focus on dismantling the pro-choice arguments as a whole instead of focusing on Obama in particular.

Posted by: Janette at October 27, 2009 12:55 PM


This display by the Center for Bioethical Reform is absolutely stunning. I don't comprehend how anyone cannot be moved by the images of tiny human beings who have been so violently tortured and dismembered.

It is beyond comprehension how anyone can deny the humanity of these little babies and even defend abortion as nothing other than a "medical procedure."

Every city and town in the U.S.A. and the entire world should have a display like this, so that everyone may know just what abortion is.

Posted by: Anonymous in IL at October 27, 2009 1:31 PM


Considering that President Obama has become the foremost international advocate of abortion of our time, this is not only an appropriate strategy for the pro-life movement, it's nothing short of our duty.
Posted by: Eric Scheidler at October 27, 2009 10:04 AM

yup. Obama will be known to future generations as "the abortion president"

But I firmly believe that Obama owes his presidency to the financial backing of the gay and proabortion lobby.
I think he knows he HAS to pay back these people first, especially if he wants a second term presidency.

Posted by: angel at October 27, 2009 1:36 PM


I am very happy that this display was allowed at Berkley Perhaps we do have hope for California! When people see abortion, they can't help but reject abortion. They may have blinders on when first confronted with the ugly details, but it is a beginning.

How striking to see Obama's magazine covers next to aborted fetuses. How dreadful if his mom had made that horrible decision so many years ago! The irony is not lost on most of us.

Posted by: Eileen at October 27, 2009 3:09 PM


Some see the phrase 'culture of death' as over-dramatic and crazy, Fed Up.

Posted by: len at October 27, 2009 3:18 PM


Instead of making President Obama the enemy, wouldn't it be better to make abortion our enemy?

No one is making president Obama the enemy. He has made himself the enemy of life, liberty, and freedom by his actions and words.

Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at October 27, 2009 3:19 PM


Some see the phrase 'culture of death' as over-dramatic and crazy, Fed Up.

Some see the phrase 'freedom of choice' as being a delusion, especially when coupled with images of that "choice" (death).

Please explain how 'culture of death' is over-dramatic or crazy.

Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at October 27, 2009 3:25 PM


The way in which ROE V WADE was engineered by the choose-to-kill-babies-crowd was immoral and devious, as the woman they used for this sham didn't realize what they where using her for until it was all over!

She is now a staunch opponent of unborn baby killing!

The asinine mantra of "My body my choice" is indicative of brainwashed ignorance of the left as they try to deny the rights of the unborn in their quest for tyrannical power over the rest of us!

Posted by: Tommy Barrios at October 27, 2009 3:27 PM


It is hypocritical for all these leftist loons to scream and holler about the horrors of war, the horrors of capital punishment, the horrors of this, that, and the other, yet they will support this disgusting despicable vile Machiavellian instilled HORROR!

Maybe it is time for a real revolutionary purge in this country and Berkeley would be a good start!

Posted by: Tommy Barrios at October 27, 2009 3:39 PM


Notice how Len deflects attention from the real issue of the pro-abortion and pro-euthanasia positions of presidential advisors by belittling a phrase?

Posted by: Fed Up at October 27, 2009 3:40 PM


Isaiah 66:9 "Shall I bring to the time of birth and not cause delivery?" says the Lord. "Shall I Who cause delivery shut up the womb?" says your God.

Posted by: Robyn at October 27, 2009 3:42 PM


Minnow,

"Culture of death" could also describe an obsession with population control. The Environmentalistas view people as an "enemy" because they produce a CO2 toxin in order to breathe. How are those things not anti-life?

Posted by: Janet at October 27, 2009 4:09 PM


It is amazing what a little truth can do to expose the lie of "choice?"

Posted by: Abortion Support at October 27, 2009 4:22 PM


The Daily Californian has 52 comments so far, none of which present a logical argument for why abortion is necessary on its own merits. I don't see any here either. Hmm...

Posted by: Janet at October 27, 2009 4:40 PM


Janet, you're not going to win with logic. I don't mean this to be a flippant comment. Deeply held views don't change often, don't change easily, and very seldom change because of logical arguments. People use logic (or try to) to defend their positions, not to reach their decisions.

Posted by: Hal at October 27, 2009 5:08 PM


Minnow,

Actually I did consider that, and maybe I'm way off on this. On CO2 - Pollution and greenhouse gases contain CO2, right? Isn't Cap and Trade based on limiting carbon emissions? So how am I wrong about the perceived toxicity of carbon dioxide? (I was being facetious about humans breathing too much, but hey, those breaths add up.) Humans on this planet are looked at as liabilities by many of these people who think they can "save our planet" if only the right steps are taken. Population control is one solution.
How is population control not anti-life?

Posted by: Janet at October 27, 2009 5:09 PM


Hi Minnow,

What about the pollution produced by nature?
By this I mean volcanoes, oil seeping up through the ocean floors,and the massive forest fires triggered by ligtening? I've heard of actual temporary climatic changes caused by volcanic eruptions. Not to mention the destruction caused by hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, mudslides, landslides, blizzards, lightening storms, droughts, tidal waves, and earthquakes.

I've read there is concern about the methane expelled by cows, a supposed "greenhouse gas". Since climate is controlled by the sun, earth/sun rotation, and earth axis, I think "greenhouse gases" are a crock. How did the earth survive all the methane expelled by dinosaurs? How about elephants, rhinos, and grizzlies and their methane? I think its unfair to pick on the poor cows.

I've read that vegetarians depend on beans for their protein. Millions of people eating an excess amount of beans. I don't think I need to elaborate on what that means concerning methane.

Posted by: Mary at October 27, 2009 5:20 PM


Hi Janet, 5:09PM

You mean "Crap and Tax" don't you? :)

Posted by: Mary at October 27, 2009 5:23 PM


Mary- the concern regarding methane from cows (and also pigs) is more related to the fact that we breed them on a massive scale in order to subsidize our food markets- we forcibly breed livestock at a hugely exponential rate as opposed to the numbers they would naturally reproduce at in the wild. That's where the way larger amount of methane emmissions comes in. I don't know a whole lot about the issue, but it's not just the fact that cows are flatulent, it's that their numbers are way off the scale in terms of natural gaseous emmissions because of their populations.

Posted by: Erin at October 27, 2009 5:41 PM


Umm...out here I see cows in the fields all of the time...no force necessary (I think they might even enjoy it!). :/

Posted by: xalisae at October 27, 2009 5:46 PM


Hi Janet, 5:09PM
You mean "Crap and Tax" don't you? :)

Posted by: Mary at October 27, 2009 5:23 PM

Hi Mary,
Ha! Yes!


Posted by: Janet at October 27, 2009 5:57 PM


Posted by: Janet at October 27, 2009 4:40 PM

"The Daily Californian has 52 comments so far, none of which present a logical argument for why abortion is necessary on its own merits. I don't see any here either. Hmm..."


Posted by: Hal at October 27, 2009 5:08 PM

"Janet, you're not going to win with logic. I don't mean this to be a flippant comment. Deeply held views don't change often, don't change easily, and very seldom change because of logical arguments. People use logic (or try to) to defend their positions, not to reach their decisions."

Look at lawyers. They change people's minds all the time. The way I see the abortion fight, we just need to change one heart at a time. Just like a lawyer working a jury. By logic, or emotion, whatever it takes. Have a good evening.


Posted by: Janet at October 27, 2009 6:02 PM


"Jill's still upset he didn't vote for some bill she supported many years ago, although I gather it later passed."

-Hal


Blacks are still upset that they were enslaved, although later slavery was abolished.


Hal just thinks human rights are only for some, not everyone. Naturally those with power should make the decision.

Posted by: hippie at October 27, 2009 6:04 PM


Look at lawyers. They change people's minds all the time.
Posted by: Janet at October 27, 2009 6:02 PM

I wish. You have a good evening too.

Posted by: Hal at October 27, 2009 6:25 PM


Hi Erin,

I'd be more worried about all those bean eaters, especially if we get rid of the cows and turn vegetarian!

Posted by: Mary at October 27, 2009 7:06 PM


Give me a break. There probably isn't a college student in the United States who hasn't seen this kind of crap before. People come to university campuses hawking political and religious causes like this all the time. Only the truly ignorant and weak-minded could let a couple pictures like this radically change their beliefs about a political issue like abortion. This display advertises nothing more than the fact that the people responsible for it have poor taste. It isn't even enough to focus solely on the abortion aspect--the organizers of this display felt it necessary to drag our president and his family into the matter as well, based on some obscure bills he voted a certain way on many years ago as state senator.

Posted by: Sean at October 27, 2009 9:30 PM


just to let the mods and maybe Jill know, the video link to the Law & Order episode that Bethany found. Well, the advertisement on it (just saw it as I scrolled down to that post) was a topless woman with a caption above her that said "Come to me my lord". Not to be a prude or anything, but it definitley wasn't decent!

I refreshed, and it's a new ad.

Anyway, not sure if you guys knew about this or not. Just wanted to let you know!

Posted by: Marie at October 27, 2009 9:49 PM


"Carla, overall I don't take the anti-abortion lobby too seriously"

Hal lives at this forum for what reason???

;-)

Obama is currently the foremost face of abortion, therefore the abortion/obama display is perfectly appropriate.

Obama, campaigning at the Compassion Forum in PA said that if his daughters (then SIX AND NINE YEARS OLD) made a mistake, he wouldn't want them "punished with baby".

There is no normal father who thinks of his girls, at single digit ages, having sex, and wanting abortions for them if they get pregnant. Speaking of them publicly in this way, means that Obama has no idea that the mere thought is abnormal and sick.

The contrast of showing living kids alongside kids who have been killed before birth has long been used to illustrate the lost human potential caused by the abortion holocaust.
The use of Obama's girls in this illustration brings no kind of shame to them. Certainly it nothing so disgusting as Obama's use of them to illustrate his support for abortion, and desire to kill any unwanted grandchildren, should his girls be statutorily raped.

Posted by: Pharmer at October 27, 2009 9:57 PM


Sean- The "obsure" bill that Obummer voted against was a bill that would have made it illegal to kill a live baby outside the womb. I think you are the one with poor taste calling the displays crap. The truth hurts sometimes, does'nt it Sean boy.

Posted by: George at October 27, 2009 10:14 PM


AS for the fact that the President of the United States' daughters are pictured in the display, while I find it so sad, that they have been brought into this, I was SHOCKED that he actually said the words he said in that picture!! After all, wouldn't this be premeditative murder? How could he want this for his daughters when they are so young over having a grandchild? I was shocked by his words then as much as I am now!! So should his girls be in the pictures? NO. Because he should have never wanted this for them in the first place, then he would not have said this!!

Posted by: IDSCforlife at October 27, 2009 10:17 PM


Dred Scott: Negroes are not regarded people - - - Roe V Wade - The Unborn have never been regarded as people.

When we we as a nation STOP making the same mistakes?

Posted by: CatholicForLife at October 27, 2009 10:23 PM


Sean said:

Only the truly ignorant and weak-minded could let a couple pictures like this radically change their beliefs about a political issue like abortion.

Sean - currently, you look at pictures of shredded human beings and say that abortion is nothing more than a political issue.

Not true. It's personal. Very personal.

If someone were to shred your body in the same way, you'd find out how personal it was. If you were a woman who okayed that destruction, then realized what you did to your child years later, you'd find out how personal it still is.

As far as POTUS political beliefs are concerned, they have not changed one bit. There is no greater form of discrimination than declaring a human being a non-human for the express purpose of wantonly destroying that human being. It's even more morally repugnant to use those heaping bodies of dead children and wounded women as stepping stones to the highest office in the land.

Despite your claims, there's only two questions regarding the photos: 1) Are they real? and 2) Do they depict shredded human beings from elective abortions?

Let's go back to you being shredded up like them. If someone were to take pictures of your shredded body and showed them to others as evidence of a horrible wrong, would you want others to callously dismiss such evidence?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at October 28, 2009 7:19 AM


I was reading my update from 40 Days for Life and there was a woman who almost had an abortion, but after seeing an ultrasound and learning her child already had a heart beat at 21 days after conception, chose LIFE for her baby. She thought the heart didn't begin to beat until 6 months!


How someone could look at these pictures and not be outraged is beyond me. 4000 a day! 4000!

50 MILLION ABORTIONS!


I thought it was supposed to be RARE?

These tiny humans are rejected because they came about at a time that was inconvenient.

There are NO unwanted children. Why do you suppose there are 1000s of couples waiting to adopt a child? And even want to adopt a special needs child with Downs or another disability?

These children are our future and we are tossing them away as medical waste and inconvenience. And we wonder why we have a SS crisis?

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at October 28, 2009 10:22 AM


My body, my choice.
Please watch the following:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCmLmZDpB4I&feature=related

Posted by: Pancho at October 28, 2009 11:38 AM


Hal wrote:

Janet, you're not going to win with logic. I don't mean this to be a flippant comment. Deeply held views don't change often, don't change easily, and very seldom change because of logical arguments. People use logic (or try to) to defend their positions, not to reach their decisions.

That may (sadly) be what many people DO; but isn't it relevant to ask whether they SHOULD? People speed, punch neighbours in the face, etc., also... but morality needs to ask, "SHOULD they?" Logic is indeed useful to answer *that*.

Posted by: Paladin at October 28, 2009 12:36 PM


Posted by: Chris Arsenault at October 28, 2009 7:19 AM

Okay--first off, it is a political issue. Both supporters and opponents of abortion appeal to the political system to regulate abortion according to their preferences. That means it's a political issue. This display is political speech and that is the only thing protecting it from being considered obscenity. It's only a "personal issue" to people who make it so.

As for your questions, well--you tell me. Are they real? I have my doubts. For that matter, it's not a sure thing that even if they are real that they resulted from "elective abortions"--can you factually say that none of the abortions that resulted in these supposed "shredded fetuses" were performed for the purposes of medical necessity?

Posted by: Sean at October 28, 2009 2:15 PM


Abortion is NEVER necessary.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at October 28, 2009 2:20 PM


As Christians we are called to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ which will now inexorably violate Obama’s new Hate Crimes Law
After reading some historical facts about our early Roman Christian history written by Deacon Keith Fournier, in an article printed for “Catholic online” (www.catholic.org) on 10/17/09, titled: “The “two-step” of the New Censors - A threat to Catholics?” I feel it would be prudent for us to remember what the good Deacon said, regarding these early Christians of Rome, as not having been persecuted and put to death for “Religion” (after all the Romans were polytheistic) but rather they were condemned to death as, “enemies of the State” as well as “odium humani generis” for “Hatred of the Human Race”.
How could this possibly happen when everyone knows that Christians are some of the most loving and responsible pro-life people in the world? How could anyone ever charge them with having any hatred towards the human race? During this time of persecution, ancient Rome was a self-proclaimed “enlightened society” that willingly embraced all forms of debauchery, abortion, and the “practice of exposure” which was infamously universal throughout the empire, especially in regards to female infants (considered worthless) who would be carried outside the walls of the city and left to die on the ground from “exposure to the elements” or simply held under water to silence their cries.
These barbaric Roman practices against humanity were summarily rejected by the early Christians as a wrongful and depraved behavior that did not conform to the sacred teachings of their Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Rome however; felt this new found Christian philosophy a threat to their promiscuous and enlightened society, so therefore, any Roman citizen who proclaimed the teachings of Jesus Christ over the laws of Caesar would be charged as “enemies of the state” punishable by death in the Roman Coliseum.
Are we not beginning to see a similar prototype emerging today with the present clash between this same counter-cultural seeking to criminalize Americans for exercising their right to free speech? Are we as Christians not allowed to morally challenge the depravity of abortion, or to stand in witness of “marriage” as a sacred union between one man, and one woman, or to speak out against the state’s indoctrination and promotion of President Obama’s, Mmmm Mmmm Mmm B.H.O. Mmmm Mmmm Mmm, political propaganda to grade school children, as well as the public schools attempt to teach our children alternative sexual lifestyles that are in direct moral conflict with their religious faith?
It is not the job of the Public School System to teach our children anti-God; anti-Christian, “Praise Mother Earth” pagan ideologies in school. The floodgates of Obama’s Hate Crimes Bill will soon engulf us like the early Christians of Ancient Rome should we dare speak the truth concerning our belief in the true teachings of Jesus Christ which would be in violation of Obama’s “Hate Crimes law” and thus be charged as enemies of the state, as well as “Odium humani generis”. As a nation we are becoming no different than pagan Rome. May God help the United States of America before we all perish.

John McDougall, Retired Sheriff, Lee County Florida

Posted by: John McDougall at October 28, 2009 4:08 PM


Posted by: Hal at October 27, 2009 5:08 PM

"Janet, you're not going to win with logic. I don't mean this to be a flippant comment. Deeply held views don't change often, don't change easily, and very seldom change because of logical arguments. People use logic (or try to) to defend their positions, not to reach their decisions."

Paladin, Thank you for bringing this comment by Hal to the fore again. I agree, moral thinking (as in "what should I do?" definitely requires logic.

Hal,
Your last comment may apply to some people who are not so bright, There are certainly a lot of them, but not all people fall into that category. Those who believe there is Truth and are looking for it use logic to make decisions all the time, whether it be in business, philosophy, medicine, etc... (I'm assuming that you are using the words "decisions" and "positions" somewhat interchangeably, as positions often determine the course of decisions.)

Anyone who's been on a debate team knows that they are often asked to debate both sides of an issue. This can't be done without logical thinking. Debates change minds and affect positions.

Now, look at the current Administration and their attempt to change the healthcare system. Are they presenting logical facts or emotional rhetoric? I'm not seeing facts, and the polls show that the debate isn't going well for the Democrats.
This seems to prove the opposite of what you are saying in your last sentence. Please tell me if I'm wrong.

Posted by: Janet at October 28, 2009 4:26 PM


Posted by: John McDougall at October 28, 2009 4:08 PM

As a Christian, I agree with you. It would be interesting to hear from the "other side".

Posted by: Janet at October 28, 2009 4:35 PM


Janet, there is a ton of relatively new neuro-science research on how people make decisions and what positions they take. People are really hard-wired. (generally, not universally). It's one thing to score a debate, but when it comes to real life, most people don't change their views by logical argument. The presidential debates are good examples.


Posted by: Hal at October 28, 2009 5:10 PM


"most people don't change their views by logical argument."

Hal,
Ha. I think you just described most Liberals before the light-bulb goes on.

Posted by: Janet at October 28, 2009 5:43 PM


Here is a copy of my email to the reporter from the campus newspaper who covered the event two day in a row.
----------------------------------------------------
"A pro-life demonstration on Sproul Plaza today featuring graphic photographs of aborted

fetuses

drew approximately 40 UC Berkeley students in a spontaneous counter-demonstration."



"Pro-life activists at UC Berkeley concluded a two-day display of graphic images of aborted

fetuses

on Upper Sproul Plaza Tuesday, but some said the demonstration challenged the limits of free speech permitted on the plaza."



Mr. Williams,

First I want to thank you for covering the event and for showing some of the 'graphic' photos as well.

I have a few questions concerning your article.

My first question is: What species of 'fetus'?

This is just a minor detail that would have made you article more complete journalistically.

My second questin is: When you mother was pregnant with you, what species of 'embryo/fetus' was resident in her uterus?

The answer to the second question is the same as the answer to first question.

The other thing that makes curious is the word 'graphic'.

From Miriam Webster on line:

3 usually graphic a : marked by clear lifelike or vividly realistic description b : vividly or plainly shown or described

We have all seen the 'graphic' photos and video of the alien/extraterrestial autopsy. Those photos and video were graphic, but few people would believe that was the body of a real alien/extraterrestial.

Many of us have seen the video of the Jew hating mass murderers and serial killers sawing the head off a living human being.

I have not read of anyone who thought that 'graphic' footage was the product of special effects.

How did the oranizers of the event obtain these 'graphic' photos of aleged aborted fetuses?

Were these photos of actual human fetuses or reproductions made to simulate the real deal?

Was that real blood and gore or ketchup and a Barbie doll?

Again, thanks for covering the story.

Respectfully
yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at October 28, 2009 6:14 PM


Posted by: Hal at October 28, 2009 5:10 PM

..."when it comes to real life, most people don't change their views by logical argument. The presidential debates are good examples."

------------------------------------------------------

HAL,

You have admitted what most of us already knew to be true.

Most people who voted for B.O. and his cadre progressive/liberal/humanist banditos were not using the same logic they employ when they balance their check book.

But now that they cannot reconcile their checkbook without using red ink, many have re-engaged their capacity to use logic and reason to reach a wise and correct conclusion:

B.O. and company are a pox on all our houses.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at October 28, 2009 6:29 PM


hmm, I use MEDICAL SCIENCE to defend my position.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at October 28, 2009 6:33 PM


Posted by: Hal at October 27, 2009 5:08 PM

"Janet, you're not going to win with logic."

--------------------------------------------------

HAL,

Are you suggesting we resort to the methods of progressive/liberal/humanists and manipulate people with emotion, deception, and out right lying.

The truth will out. All you seem to understand is winning and avoid losing at all costs and the end justifies all the means.

I think better of you than that.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at October 28, 2009 6:35 PM


Janet 5:43 my thoughts EXACTLY!

Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at October 28, 2009 6:55 PM


most people don't change their views by logical argument.

I take issue with that! :P

I guess I'm not most people, but I have been accused of being too logical/not emotional enough. The idea of committing a logical error bothers me more than the idea of changing my mind.

Posted by: Alexandra at October 28, 2009 7:01 PM


Okay--first off, it is a political issue. Both supporters and opponents of abortion appeal to the political system to regulate abortion according to their preferences. That means it's a political issue. This display is political speech and that is the only thing protecting it from being considered obscenity. It's only a "personal issue" to people who make it so.

Uhhh... women who go to abortion clinics are going for *political* reasons, right? You know, in much the same way as they go to the polling booth.

Sorry, but since when were political and personal issues mutually exclusive?

Posted by: Louise at October 28, 2009 7:54 PM


Posted by: Alexandra at October 28, 2009 7:01 PM
-------

That's because you're intellectually honest. :-)

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at October 28, 2009 8:12 PM


"The idea of committing a logical error bothers me more than the idea of changing my mind."

Posted by: Alexandra at October 28, 2009 7:01 PM

That phrase would be good on a T-shirt, a poster, or a letter to Congress. :)

Posted by: Janet at October 28, 2009 8:28 PM


bahahaha, its so amusing, their pathetic attempt to draw attention away from the pictures and to their little protest.

Posted by: Stephanie at October 28, 2009 8:31 PM


Sean, according to the Alan Guttamacher Institute, medically necessary abortions comprise of less than 1 percent of abortions, the majority are preformed on healthy women, pregnant with healthy fetuses for elective, socio-economic reasons. Also, there is growing evidence that the vast majority of late-term abortions are increasingly being preformed for socio-economic reasons, not medically-indicated reasons as previously believed.

Posted by: Rachael C. at October 28, 2009 8:36 PM


I can gladly provide documentation of this upon request, as well as direct you to medical authentication of aborted fetus images by a medical pathologist.

Posted by: Rachael C. at October 28, 2009 8:44 PM


Louise 7:54, great point!

Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at October 28, 2009 8:51 PM


Guys, I spend most of the last 25 years trying to convince people in a courtroom. Talking to jurors afterwords,(and now reading studies on the human mind) I have learned a thing or two about how hard it is to change someone's mind one they've decided something. The mind filters all new information through the prism of what the person already believes. Some jurors, for example, just won't find that a doctor committed malpractices (no matter how strong the evidence) because somewhere deep in their mind they fear that a verdict against doctors will make it more difficult to get the care their family needs in the future. They won't express their decision that way, they'll find some fact to "logically" rest their decision on and refuse to budge. Only by convincing them that a negligent doctor and a health care system that lets it happen is more of a danger, can the innocent victim prevail. [this is only an example, I don't actually do medical malpractice cases]

Sure, we all try to be intellectually honest and keep an open mind, and most of us think we can do it. Try using "logic" to get someone who believes gays shouldn't be allowed to marry to change his mind. Try using logic to get someone to really examine the rationality of their faith (or for that matter, their lack of faith).

How many Reagan supports were outraged at Iran-Contra. How many Clinton supporters thought there really was something fishy about Whitewater?


Posted by: Hal at October 28, 2009 9:02 PM


*Posted by: Hal at October 28, 2009 5:10 PM*

Actually, I decided to be pro-life based on logic. I was pro-choice as a teenager and believed the entire "it's a blob" pack of lies spouted by NOW, NARAL, and all the rest. As a young adult, I decided to actually find the truth about abortion - fetal development, everything.

Didn't take too long to realize I had bought into a selfish, disgusting, pro-choice load of crap.

I decided (to be pro-life) based on all the facts of what I found out - about the abortion industry itself, the exact nature of the fetus and its development, and about pro-choice lobbying organizations as well as the truth regarding pre-Roe v. Wade abortions, trumped-up "statistics" spouted by pro-abortion-legalization folks back in the day (who later admitted that the numbers were fabricated), and the "safe and legal" and "mother's health" myths.

I decided - based on TRUTH and LOGIC - to become pro-life. It makes me angry now (and somewhat embarassed) that I ever believed any of the PC rhetoric I used to believe. The pro-choice movement as a whole deceives women in the worst way imaginable. When I finally realized all this, I have to say I felt very betrayed by them. I am sure I'm not the only one.

Posted by: army_wife at October 28, 2009 9:10 PM


I do think think Hall has a point that if someone has made up his mind based on emotion, it will be very difficult to change it with logic. However, some folks do not base their decisions on emotion--they use reason and logic. But that depends on how one is educated--whether one is even exposed and taught logic an reason. I believe there has been an assault on reason and philosophy precisely because emotions are easier to manipulate than reason.

So, the pro-life movement has learned to appeal to both the reasonable people and the emotional ones--those who use logic or reason to make decisions and those who don't.

For those who don't, I truly believe it comes down to the simple fact that they want license to have sex whenever, wherever and with whomever without consequences. But that is an unreality that only naive sexually immature people believe. Our bodies are made so that sex ALWAYS has consequences. And that is where some of you hate the morality of pro-lifers. You see it as some kind of freakish cult of sex-deniers and kill-joys.

I challenge you to read one or two paragraph on the Theology of the Body and enter into the realm of sex as sacred (and I am not talking some Babylonian cult of prostitution, either). Enter into a world where sex goes beyond mere pleasure, but gives life in all facets of life. That is the real pro-life message. Life is so incredibly valuable that even sex is far more sacred and valuable than our culture which buys and sells it is willing to concede.

Posted by: Elsa Rose at October 28, 2009 9:53 PM


"Some jurors, for example, just won't find that a doctor committed malpractices (no matter how strong the evidence) because somewhere deep in their mind they fear that a verdict against doctors will make it more difficult to get the care their family needs in the future."

Hal, I don't understand this. It seems making this decision would be more a practical matter in their mind than one resulting from some deep-seated belief.

I think a deep-seated belief in God or a higher being is one of the strongest we can have. The strength of a belief based on one's own morally relativistic feelings instead of that of a higher being is naturally weaker, therefore more prone to persuasion with the right evidence/proof/logic.

Posted by: Janet at October 28, 2009 10:05 PM


Hal, The fact that we cannot prove that God doesn't exist opens us to the real possibility that he DOES. This is logic at work. We can't deny logic.

I know this isn't really a discussion about the existence of God, but if one is open to the possibility of his existence, isn't also possible to feel more strongly that God exists when one stands at the base of a beautiful snow-capped mountain, or on a high cliff overlooking a vast ocean, knowing that no human had a hand in its creation?

Posted by: Janet at October 28, 2009 10:15 PM


Hal, I don't understand this. It seems making this decision would be more a practical matter in their mind than one resulting from some deep-seated belief.

Janet, I think Hal's point is that this is all subconscious, rather than a conscious refusal to listen to or be swayed by evidence. That people [on juries] don't always do what would rationally make sense, even when they think they are doing just that. I remember reading, once, that women on juries in rape trials can often be hard to persuade in favor of a guilty verdict; allegedly because, as a woman and a potential rape victim, it is easier for them to cope, mentally, with the reality of a woman getting herself into a bad situation and then exaggerating things, than with a man harming a woman against her will. One puts the power (to be safe or hurt) in the woman's hands, and one takes it away - so many times women will instinctively side with a not-guilty reasoning for the man. Not because it's what the evidence says, but because it is subconsciously, inherently easier for them to live with as a concept of the world.

People often act on subconscious emotions. I, personally, think that acknowledging and recognizing these emotions is a good thing, because it gets people thinking about why they do what they do.

Chris - thanks. :)

Posted by: Alexandra at October 28, 2009 10:19 PM


Are you serious, Minnow? I didn't realise pregnancy might be the *only* consequence of sex. What about STIs, or a broken heart?

Posted by: Louise at October 28, 2009 10:24 PM


Minnow, I am not just talking about fertility. I am talking about bonding. Clearly the notion that sex is about pleasure OR a baby is incredibly limited. And the consequences are medical, as well--STD, anal intercourse leading to all kinds of medical issues, etc. etc.etc. But look up oxytocin and see just how powerfully consequential sex is whether you want it to be casual or not--it never is. You can pretend or fool yourself that it's just for fun, but it has a way of engraving itself on our souls.

Posted by: Elsa Rose at October 28, 2009 10:26 PM


Just because those things don't always happen doesn't mean they won't, and throwing sex around carelessly just to get your kicks is stupid because those things can and do happen. Wearing a seatbelt every time you drive is a good idea because you COULD get into an accident and you should assume every time you drive that you MIGHT, because the alternative leads to recklessness and is generally a bad idea.

Posted by: xalisae at October 28, 2009 10:57 PM


Nope, Minnow, sex DOES always have consequences. It's human nature. It is what it is. I mean, consequences are neutral things. But we cannot deny that sex will leave a mark--for good or for ill. Only in the silly romantic comedies that Hollywood pumps out do we see directors trying to portray casual sex without consequences. But whether one gets STD's or not, gets pregnant or not--something always happens to the individuals, and they are left changed--whether they admit it or not. Sex is never casual unless someone is in denial on some level.

Posted by: Elsa Rose at October 28, 2009 10:59 PM


Elsa Rose thank you for post. I appreciate it very much. I have had discussion on this blog about the meaning and purpose of sex. On this prolife website, we are trying to stop the killing of innocent, preborn babies who 99% of the time are the result of consensual premarital sex. There are a few prolifers who believe that having selective premarital sex is fine and unplanned babies should not be aborted, I do appreciate their stance on life. However, it is important to realize that the so-called "need" for a woman's "right to choose" to abort is fueled by a woman and a man's so-called "need" to have premarital sex whenever they want with whoever they want and not have to pay the consequences for their immorality (which Obama expressed regarding his own daughters as "being punished by having a baby"). Abortion is being used as birth control by some women but is considered as backup birth control by many women when contraception fails. The latest Guttmacher Institute research says "54% of women with unplanned pregnancies were using some form of contraception when they got pregnant". The Pandora's box of our so -called "freedom" as women now includes the "right" to kill our unborn. How tragic. If we only knew how valuable, precious and sacred we are, our babies are and sex was, how much heartbreak, diseased bodies, destroyed lives and how many dead babies would be saved.

Posted by: Prolifer L at October 28, 2009 11:14 PM


"Janet, I think Hal's point is that this is all subconscious, rather than a conscious refusal to listen to or be swayed by evidence."

Alexandra,

Hal would have to answer to that.

In your example, It sounds like you may be describing the reasoning ability of a rape victim who is experiencing post-traumatic stress syndrome. I don't think that was what Hal had in mind when he wrote about "deeply-held views"
being unaffected by logic. I may be wrong.

Posted by: Janet at October 28, 2009 11:29 PM


Thanks Elsa Rose for your explaination about there always being consequences of sex if not physical then spiritual, emotional, psychological and hormonal. I don't buy that "no regrets" stuff, either they have bought the cultural lies, are either are in denial or are too spiritually blinded to the beauty of who they are, how valuable they are and the gift of sex the way it was created to be. Kind of reminds me of the post-abortive women who insist that killing their baby in utero "never bothered me" and that they have "no regrets". The Whoopi Goldberg types are so hardened best thing you can do is to pray for them. Got to go. Good night.

Posted by: Prolifer L at October 28, 2009 11:37 PM


Thank you, Prolifer L, it does seem so trite and even sad to realize that is all comes down to sex and the lack of self-mastery. "I want to have sex and not have to think--just go with the flow and be spontaneous." I think that hippy, '68'er mantra is still alive and well with young people, as well as sexually immature people. Only slowly is the biology catching up and showing us how false this notion is. And again, I hope folks will look up oxytocin and its powerful effects. Even mainstream media is talking about the power of pheromones. But these are realities that cannot be manipulated or controlled.

Just as a teaser, oxytocin bonds women more powerfully than men because of the levels of estrogen found in women. And women, therefore bond very deeply when nursing, giving birth and experiencing any and all forms of sexual arousal. That's not an accident of nature. It is nature trying to tell us something that we can only deny to our detriment.

Posted by: Elsa Rose at October 28, 2009 11:41 PM


Elsa Rose, have you read a new book "Hooked: New Science On How Casual Sex if Affecting Our Children" by Dr. Joe McIlhaney MD and Dr. Freda McKissic Bush MD (Northfield Publishing)? It gives very good research and practical conclusions of the brain research and of the hormonal effects of oxytocin in women and vasopressin in men of sexual bonding. Why our society and especially teens are being destroyed by premarital sex, promiscuouity and cohabitation which promotes infidelity and divorce.

Posted by: Prolifer L at October 29, 2009 11:23 AM


I will get a copy. Looks like an informative read. Thanks for the tip.

Posted by: Elsa Rose at October 29, 2009 5:43 PM


I am sorry Elsa Rose the sub-title of the book is "New Science On How Casual Sex IS Affecting Our Children" not If. God bless.

Posted by: Prolifer L at October 29, 2009 9:01 PM


If anyone doubts the effectiveness of this project, please go to www.ProLifeOnCampus.com.

Posted by: Fletcher Armstrong at October 29, 2009 10:16 PM


Thank you for posting this victory for TRUTH and LIFE.

Posted by: OBAMANATION at NOTRE DAME at October 30, 2009 12:06 AM


May God Have Mercy On Us All!!! Come Lord Jesus Come!

Posted by: Sarah Ward at October 30, 2009 1:45 PM


Did I miss it? Did Hal ever share with us what the sight of those torn-up little human bodies does to him, if anything?

Posted by: Prolifemama at October 30, 2009 4:33 PM


This abortion president and his minions contiually hide behind such wordsmith quotes such as "A woman's right to choose." To choose what?
Death of an infant. God help us and our country for the crimes we have committed.

Posted by: Hugh J. Moy at October 31, 2009 10:05 AM


In your example, It sounds like you may be describing the reasoning ability of a rape victim who is experiencing post-traumatic stress syndrome. I don't think that was what Hal had in mind when he wrote about "deeply-held views" being unaffected by logic. I may be wrong.

If you re-read what I said, that's not what I was talking about at all. I am talking about jurors, not rape victims - and rape-trial juries are usually vetted so that any victims of rape are not on them. There can be a deeply - and often unknowingly - held emotional view, which often remains unaffected by logic or evidence.

Posted by: Alexandra at October 31, 2009 10:32 AM


Abortion is murder. The decision should have been before conception. We use to teach that sex was for after marriage. It was to remain something sacred. We were taught to abstane from promiscuity. To save one's self for the wedding night.

That fetus is a life, it has a heart beat, a soul. It develops rather quickly with it's tiny features. What if you were an unconvenience? Should you have been aborted? Taking any life is a crime and a grevous sin against God. There are no maybes here no ifs. It's wrong! I am the mother of 4 and grandmother of 6.

Posted by: Barbara Iversen at October 31, 2009 3:26 PM


Alexandra,
If what Hal is saying makes sense to you, more power to ya! We (Hal and I) don't speak the same language.

Posted by: Janet at October 31, 2009 5:03 PM


Abortion supporters have been brainwashed, they need a thorough deprogramming, like the Muslims. Religion of Peace? Founded on bloodshed, much, advocated by their leader who 'married' among others a 6 year old girl and his own daughter-in-law after he raped her. But they can look past that; same as pro abortionists, they are blinded, deceived by the devil.

Posted by: andy at November 7, 2009 10:11 PM