Forced, sex-selective, or elective: Abortion always destroys children
We’ve been told we have to allow abortion even if that thing in the pit of our stomachs won’t leave us in peace. We’ve been told to disregard that voice in our heads screaming that it can’t possibly be okay to kill a child.
We’ve been told abortion is a good thing for women and society, and those unsightly remains of bloody babies are just anti-woman propaganda. Yeah, it’s not pretty to look at, so do yourself a favor and stop looking at it. Forget the baby; it’s not human anyway.
All we’re left with is a mere feeling of uneasiness and discomfort at the idea of targeting girls in the womb, and now that discomfort, we’re told, we must swallow down and “get over.”
… [T]ake a good, long look at the photos of Feng Jianmei and her dead baby. Be horrified, if you still can be. Look at the baby. That’s no blank slate. That’s a child. That’s what your precious “choice” destroys while you play deaf, dumb, and blind to everything but your sacrosanct “right.”
All of you who insist you can personally be opposed to abortion but cannot “impose” your beliefs on anyone else, take a good, long look at that child….
That’s abortion. Don’t just gulp and get over it.
~ Jennifer Hartline, Catholic Online, June 19
[16 week ultrasound image via vidoevo.com]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Be horrified, if you still can be.
That’s the problem – I don’t think they can.
It seems showing pictures to hardened hearts won’t change them. Even showing an ultrasound lately hasn’t seemed to have the impact it once did. They need a cathartic experience like Abby Johnson. Though the motion on the ultrasound indicated life, I imagine the “Be me up Scotty” callous remark by the abortionist punctured any sense of a regretful, painful mission.
It wasn’t the act of abortion which profoundly impacted Abby, it was her participation in it that changed her heart.
Don’t underestimate the impact of that callous remark – it’s what put the silver on the mirror, which reflected the ugliness of the act in Abby’s eyes.
Until the sinner sees themselves as the sin, there will be no change.
And yes, we are all that self centered.
Well said, Chris.
Unfortunately, it isn’t just people who are pro-abortion who remain unmoved by ultrasounds and evidence of life – that’s to be expected. They need to cover up their consciences, so of course they’ll scream over what you have to say. They’re desperate to convince themselves that the blood on their hands is only…. red dye. Ketchup. Red paint. Anything.
What I find more disturbing is the general lack of concern from everyone – Christians included. So many, whether they’re for abortion or not, or claim to have no opinion about it, simply shrug their shoulders and say, “Well, it’s bad but what can I do about it?” (Many of us are guilty of this – including myself). How terribly tragic that innocent human babies are being killed every day! How heart wrenching that day by day, women are lied to, led astray, their consciences and peace are slayed even as the abortionist rips her baby out of his or her protection in the womb!
May we all wake up and be honestly grieved over the tragedy that occurs daily under our very noses! May I never become so calloused that a picture of an aborted baby doesn’t move me emotionally, that the though of those being killed every day doesn’t weigh on my soul. May all of hearts be softened to those that suffer from the tragedy of abortion daily – the babies, the mothers, the fathers, the grandparents, the cousins, the siblings, the community…
Chris, that’s exactly the statement I was going to hit on. We have several proaborts on this blog who, I think, have no gag factor. Nothing horrifies them. (Well, except for the “pro life street theater, lol). They are numbed and calloused, especially the women. You have to wonder: just what intellectual gymnastice and/or suckyt life experiences did these women have to endure to be able to look at a picture of a torn apart child, and cry out, in a rather Pavolovian manner, CHOICE! LIBERATION! AUTONOMY!
Courtnay, I think that cry arises from the same place as “Crucify Him”. The very pit of hell. But that’s just me.
Break our hearts with what breaks Yours Lord.
I am beyond tired of hearing from those that claim to be prolife…”I just love your heart for the unborn.” And THAT is the extent of their involvement.
Carla,
You’re so right. I’ve been on the sidelines too long. Now I’ve put my helmet on and I’m getting involved. :)
Drawing my sword as you draw yours, Hans.
CHARGE!!
Hey! I want to join the charge!! :) Glad we’re on the side of love… the side that wins!
And fear not, all trolls and abortion tolerators! Our swords are the Swords of Truth!
Or is that what you’re REALLY afraid of?
It’s like it’s so terrible, people can’t even make themselves try to comprehend it. It’s easier for them to convince themselves it’s no big deal and ignore it.
Jennifer Hartline writes some great articles. She’s always consistently pro-life, as I like it, 100% without apology.
I am beyond being able to be galled by the abortion advocates who look at Feng’s photos and say, “oh, this is just as bad as forced pregnancy!” In that frame of mind, they’ve become complete slaves to their rhetoric and have come unhinged from objective reality.
Ninek, people have said that about Feng!? O.o If you can’t be horrified by that, I don’t know what will horrify you. Even abortion advocates should be appalled… but then again, I guess if they’ve hardened themselves against elective abortion, forced abortion is no worse.
And forced pregnancy?! That term irks me.
Oh, yes, I’ve seen such cold-hearted comments, for example on LiveAction’s blog comments section after their coverage of Feng’s forced abortion.
We are on the side of science, biology, and DNA.
Abortionists deny reality and find themselves motivated by rhetoric, hyperbole, arguments against imaginary adversaries (strawman arguments), and the poli-sci term called “might makes right.”
Yeah. Everyone knows live babies are just as bad as dead babies. 9_9
“We are on the side of science, biology, and DNA”
Then why isn’t the scientific community clamoring for an end to abortion? Why are the medical science departments of major universities still teaching medical students how to perform abortions? You folks bray about being on the side of science but they don’t seem to be on your side where it counts!
OH, CC! Your wit abounds!
Who’s the old mule now??
“oh, this is just as bad as forced pregnancy!”
Absolutely. Women should have the right to control what they do with their reproductive systems and when they do it. Thought you folks hated “big government” and when government gets inside women’s vaginas, it doesn’t get any bigger. In this case, as they say, size matters.
I can’t even imagine what kind of mind-set it takes to hold a LIVING baby in your hands.. and drop him/her into a bucket of water. But I’m not in such delusional denial that I would say it doesn’t happen- that it’s just a “made-up” story.
Yet, those who are FOR abortion manage to do that very thing.
Must be nice there in “La-La Land” where nothing is real, and “reality” is whatever you convince yourself it is.
In case you haven’t noticed, we don’t exactly believe outlawing the killing of innocent humans to be “big government intrusion.” We are for government protecting the vulnerable.
LibertyBelle says:
June 21, 2012 at 2:10 pm
Ninek, people have said that about Feng!? O.o If you can’t be horrified by that, I don’t know what will horrify you. Even abortion advocates should be appalled… but then again, I guess if they’ve hardened themselves against elective abortion, forced abortion is no worse.
And forced pregnancy?! That term irks me.
(Denise) Whether the female was raped or consented to sex, your policies didn’t force the pregnancy on her. The policies you support attempt to force the continuation of pregnancy to its natural end in birth.
“We are for government protecting the vulnerable”
Translation – the rights of a fetus supersede the rights of the woman who is carrying it.
“Yet, those who are FOR abortion manage to do that very thing”
Love the histrionic hyperbole which, in the case of late term abortion as practiced in this country, is medically inaccurate.
“Histrionic Hyperboles”…..
I’m sensing an addition to the summer tour line-up, folks.
I’m sure a lot of those academics have blood on their hands, CC. They have denial, too. They have to, or else they’d have to confront the reality of what they’ve done, or participated in, or supported. Unreasonable and irrational denial is not the sole property of the uneducated.
http://www.prolifephysicians.org/lifebegins.htm
You know, CC, I shouldn’t take the bait.
But how on earth is asking a woman to carry a baby to term “superseding” her rights? What rights, may I ask? She can still vote, can’t she? She is still entitled to trial by jury, buy and sell property. Jeez, you pro-aborts seem to think that pregnant women are chained, prisoners, in a room. Have you ever actually *seen* a pregnant woman, I wonder? I have. And I don’t think they have less rights when they’re pregnant. What country do you live in, exactly?
Also, they are totally free to place their children in the care of someone else – even the state, if they wish. They aren’t obligated to raise the baby. Are women truly so wrapped up in themselves that they can’t wait nine months to give life to the human they helped to create?
I don’t want government in women’s vaginas. But newsflash: We’re not trying to govern the sex lives of women, just what they do to the lives that come about as a result. (Pssst. You know, sex makes babies. I know. Shocking news.)
Anyway. Sorry for the snark but your arguments are so ridiculous and irk me. :) Have a good day and as the good Dr. Nadal says, Get well soon, okay! :)
CC says:
June 21, 2012 at 3:36 pm
“We are for government protecting the vulnerable”
Translation – the rights of a fetus supersede the rights of the woman who is carrying it.
(Denise) Precisely. Those who want abortion outlawed believe the right of the unborn to life supercedes the ordeal that may be required of the woman to carry to term.
Young men are required to suffer the ordeals and dangers of combat.
Girls and women — already pregnant — can be legally required to suffer the ordeals and dangers of carrying a pregnancy to term.
Life outweighs ordeal. People survive any and every kind of ordeal: mass rape, burned, beaten, forced to eat excrement, forced to sit in excrement, repeatedly cut, limbs dislocated and broken, and many others.
Embryos and fetuses don’t survive abortions.
Nor do they survive the deaths of the females who carry them.
A female must carry to term if they are to live.
“We are for government protecting the vulnerable”
Translation – the rights of a fetus supersede the rights of the woman who is carrying it.
Unless someone is legally going around chasing pregnant women with extra-large gauged cannulas attached to cordless wet-dry shop vacs, then no. Not even close.
June 21, 2012 at 3:54 pm
Wow, Denise, that might be the most poignant, coherent thing you’ve ever said here. Brava! Well done!
Life outweighs ordeal. People survive any and every kind of ordeal: mass rape, burned, beaten, forced to eat excrement, forced to sit in excrement, repeatedly cut, limbs dislocated and broken, and many others.
Embryos and fetuses don’t survive abortions.
Wow. This may be the first and only time I can quote Denise Noe and say I am in agreement with what she said here.
The “rights of the fetus” do not supersede the rights of the woman. The rights of the fetus should be the SAME as those of the woman. The woman has a right to her body. The preborn child should have a right to his/her body. The woman has a right to life. The preborn child should have a right to life.
I lost no human rights when I became pregnant.
BTW, CC, as usual, your “translations” suck.
Since I have been off-the-couch and actively pro-life, I have met a whole lot of people with advanced degrees, many of them doctors and nurses for example. Scientists ARE on our side, and you can read and hear them if you’re willing to look and listen. But of course, you have to take the anti-science cotton out of your ears first.
Tell us, cc, what is YOUR degree? Hmm? You like to brag that your so edjumacated, so do tell! Is YOUR degree in Human Physiology? Mircobiology? Physics? or did you get a degree in “wymyn’s studies”?
*note: I don’t put much stock in women who can’t spell women because they’re so overly politicized they can’t abide the English language. I also don’t put much stock in women who can’t understand the word “equal” as in the mother and child both have an equal right to their own lives.
A question for our pro-abortion readers:
If, in fact, as you argue, that a new human being does not exist until it’s mother declares that it exists, THEN, why does the zygote immediately begin to divide and grow? If, as you believe, it is ENTIRELY up to the mother’s WILL, then WHY doesn’t the sperm and egg hover in a holding pattern until the mother gives her express permission for growth to begin?
Golly, if I didn’t know better, I’d think that the zygote had some kind of innate ability to develop (gasp!) and that the growth and development might be ordered by… the DNA of the new and individual person! Shocking! I can’t wrap my brain around it… It’s almost like that wild phenomenon of healing. Like, when I cut my finger, for some reason it will start to heal before I expressly order it to, like as if the body KNOWS what to do! Whoa!!!!!
I was referring to CHINA’S Forced abortions, and the way they kill babies who come out alive, CC.
Someone mentioned Feng’s forced abortion.
You really ARE out of touch with reality, CC.
Kel says:
June 21, 2012 at 4:03 pm
Life outweighs ordeal. People survive any and every kind of ordeal: mass rape, burned, beaten, forced to eat excrement, forced to sit in excrement, repeatedly cut, limbs dislocated and broken, and many others.Embryos and fetuses don’t survive abortions.
Wow. This may be the first and only time I can quote Denise Noe and say I am in agreement with what she said here.
The “rights of the fetus” do not supersede the rights of the woman. The rights of the fetus should be the SAME as those of the woman.
(Denise) Embryos and fetuses die with “equal” rights. Their “right to life” depends on superior rights based on their extremely special circumstances. No born person has a right to anyone else’s body. The womb of the female is the natural habitat of the unborn. If the unborn are to live, they must be accorded special rights that are not accorded to the born.
ninek says:
June 21, 2012 at 4:38 pm
I also don’t put much stock in women who can’t understand the word “equal” as in the mother and child both have an equal right to their own lives.
(Denise) A right to life for the unborn requires granting them superior rights. They are in special circumstances so superiority of rights is arguable on the grounds that the womb is their natural habitat.
With equal rights, they die.
No, I disagree: with equal rights, they both live.
Only if we consider the ability to murder someone smaller than us a “right” would we have a situation where the “right to murder” supercedes the “right to live.”
A developing child cannot possibly exercise a ‘right to murder’ because he or she isn’t developed enough or strong enough to decide to murder and then carry it out. In order for everyone to have an equal right to murder another, then, babies must be allowed to grow to term so that they can grow up and murder, too. So, there can be no ‘right to murder’ because ‘rights’ are something everyone has. Since the baby can’t murder at will, then the baby does not have equal power over the mother. The mother is in a position of power over the baby and only by abusing that power is the baby deliberately snuffed out.
When we say one group has more rights than the other group, we are living on George Orwell’s Animal Farm. (In a bed.. with sheets…)
PS note to cc: see how we are all conversing without resorting to rhetoric and insults? see how Denise makes good points using logic? try that sometime.
“Also, they are totally free to place their children in the care of someone else”
So no big whoop that they’re forced into (if they can’t afford a nice, legal D& C) to carry the fetus to term. They just give them away – just like stud mares or brood cows. But hey, they can still vote so it’s all good…And my Masters Degree Ninek – “counseling” – what’s yours in?
And Ninek – puleezze tell me which scientists and members of academia, other than those to whom you allegedly speak, are actively lobbying to stop abortion. You didn’t answer my question the first time so I’m giving you the opportunity to do so again. Bueller? Bueller?
“We’re not trying to govern the sex lives of women, just what they do to the lives that come about as a result.”
Pssst, fetuses are not independent “lives” so stop trying to control them.
“The woman has a right to life. The preborn child should have a right to life”
The “pre-born” (what an amazing euphemism) are not, by law, “persons” and they thus have no right that supersedes she who carries the fetus. But in the case of a woman who will die if she does not have an abortion (right, it’s just myth) a decision needs to be made. The Catholic Church says save the fetus. Other faith traditions don’t. Riddle me that. Oh, right, they’re heretics and baby killers….
” If the unborn are to live, they must be accorded special rights that are not accorded to the born.”
Oh wow, just wow. Thanks for the incredible screen grab. Fetuses must have special rights not granted by the 14th Amendment and enumerations thereof. Just wow. But hey, the fetus worshiping cult says declares it so it must be true. LOL.
ninek says:
June 21, 2012 at 5:29 pm
No, I disagree: with equal rights, they both live.
(Denise) The unborn are in a special situation. For example, say a woman is 3 months pregnant. She dies. The fetus automatically dies with her because she is the life support system the unborn need to live.
Born people have no right to any other person’s body — even if that body part is required for life. They can’t use a kidney, bone marrow, etc. A person who will die without a pint of your blood has no right to take it even if taking it — surely an inconvenience rather than an ordeal — is necessary to live.
If the embryo or fetus has a “right to life,” it must have a right to the most intimate possible use of another’s body. That use is inherently dangerous and puts the pregnant female in certain types of jeopardy.
It is altogether arguable that, because of its special circumstances, and because the womb is its natural habitat, the unborn can be accorded special privileges that no born person is accorded.
However, superior rights are necessary if abortion is to be outlawed.
“Like, when I cut my finger, for some reason it will start to heal before I expressly order it to, like as if the body KNOWS what to do! Whoa!!”
And if you want to cut off your finger, I have no right to tell you not to do so. It’s your body. Your business. What right do you have to control another woman’s uterus? And Ninek, do you have your priest do a funeral every month for the little “babies” that might appear in your toilet during your period? You do realize that some babies get flushed? And BTW, when are you and your papal armies going to shut down the IV-F labs with all those “babies” in test tubes that need liberating.
toxic cactus
Psst you are NOT ‘independent’.
You are ‘lame’ in body, mind and spirit. You make missy Pelosi look brilliant by comparison.
Even if you were sane and sound in body, you would still not be ‘independent’.
Whenever I remove your pathetic c panderings from the bottom of my shoe, I pause and ‘think of a man and then take away reason and accountability.
It is females like you who give real women a bad reputation.
“It is females like you who give real women a bad reputation”
And it’s misogynist, racist anti-choice terrorists like you who really give anti-choicers a worse name than they already have. BTW, did they ever catch the person who vandalized the Planned Parenthood in your neck of the Arlington, Texas woods?
And Ken, “Sod Buster?” Really? Inside joke folks.
Dear Readers, please let this thread serve as a cautionary tale. When you send your children to school, whether it is junior high, high school, undergraduate, or graduate school, please make sure that the faculty know the difference between a menstrual cycle and a miscarriage. It’s just a crying shame that some commenters don’t know such simple biological facts. Remember! A waste is a terrible thing to mind!!
PS One of our trolls wants to know who in the pro-life movement has a college education. Who’s website is this?! Bucket of duh.
“A question for our pro-abortion readers:
If, in fact, as you argue, that a new human being does not exist until it’s mother declares that it exists, THEN, why does the zygote immediately begin to divide and grow?”
What was that you were saying about strawman arguments earlier? Exactly which “pro-abortion readers” are you soliciting and where have they argued that a “new human being does not exist until it’s [sic] mother declares that it exists”? Talk about “[coming] unhinged from objective reality”; I’m convinced you spend a good portion of your day hosting imaginary debates in your head with imaginary people and you’re gradually losing the ability to distinguish between that fiction and whatever words are exchanged here.
ninek says:
June 21, 2012 at 7:09 pm
Dear Readers, please let this thread serve as a cautionary tale. When you send your children to school, whether it is junior high, high school, undergraduate, or graduate school, please make sure that the faculty know the difference between a menstrual cycle and a miscarriage. It’s just a crying shame that some commenters don’t know such simple biological facts. Remember! A waste is a terrible thing to mind!!
(Denise) The person is referring to zygotes that failed to implant in the uterus. Those go out with the menstrual period.
“So no big whoop that they’re forced into (if they can’t afford a nice, legal D& C) to carry the fetus to term. They just give them away – just like stud mares or brood cows.”
CC — just wondering… if the mother was willing to kill the child anyway, then why the fuss over giving the child away to a waiting family? You call that being a brood cow, but I don’t understand your qualm. I mean, what’s the big deal about giving away something you were going to throw away anyhow?
Brood cow is your term, by the way. I think women who give their child life and then give them to a loving home are heroes. There’s nothing derogatory about that.
It’s incredibly ironic and disingenuous of you to insist that calling the child in the womb “pre-born” is a euphemism. It’s simply an accurate term. The mother of all euphemisms is “choice.” And “terminating a pregnancy.” Now there’s a euphemism! As though a woman can be pregnant absent a baby! (Is it a cucumber in there?) You’re terminating the baby, not the pregnancy.
Jen says:
June 21, 2012 at 7:34 pm
“So no big whoop that they’re forced into (if they can’t afford a nice, legal D& C) to carry the fetus to term. They just give them away – just like stud mares or brood cows.”
CC — just wondering… if the mother was willing to kill the child anyway, then why the fuss over giving the child away to a waiting family? You call that being a brood cow, but I don’t understand your qualm. I mean, what’s the big deal about giving away something you were going to throw away anyhow?
Brood cow is your term, by the way. I think women who give their child life and then give them to a loving home are heroes. There’s nothing derogatory about that.
(Denise) I used to consider them heroes. Until I learned that adoptees are 2-3% of the population — and 16% of serial murderers. And that they are 15 times more likely to kill 1 or both parents than other people.
The reason placing a baby for adoption is a big deal is that it has grown for 9 months in a girl or woman’s body. This automatically forms a powerful emotional attachment. The girl or woman has endured the agony of giving birth to a baby which also forms a strong attachment.
Her body has been prepared by the pregnancy to nourish the baby. Her breasts are filled with breast milk.
The “attachment” may go 2 ways which explains the special problems adoptees suffer. A baby that has spent 9 months in a particular body comes out with an automatic emotional attachment to that particular body. When he or she is completely severed from all contact with the girl or woman who carried and gave birth, some sort of injury — not fully understood but real — may inevitably result.
We tend to think of having a baby and placing for adoption as emotionally hard on the birthmother but noble.
It may also be automatically hard on the baby which may explain why that baby is more apt than others to grow into headline-grabbing monster.
I’m sorry, I can only keep track of one Sybil at a time.
A partial list of Pro-life “scientists and members of academia”:
Benjamin Carson, pediatric neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins University
Peter Lawler, professor of government at Berry College in Georgia
Robert George, professor at Princeton University
Gilbert Meilaender, professor at Valparaiso University
Patrick Lee, professor at the Franciscan University of Steubenville
Peter Kreeft, professor at Boston College
Scott Hahn, professor at the Franciscan University of Steubenville
Mary Ann Glendon, professor at Harvard Law School
All those on this membership list for University Faculty for Life: http://www.uffl.org/membershiplist.html
The 2500 doctors that are members of AAPLOG
Wow, I didn’t know about University Faculty for Life, Lrning. That’s great. I’ll be adding my name to that list.
Dear cc – I humbly confess that I have a ph.d. in linguistics. I regret to inform you that not every course at every university, therefore, is indoctrinating the next generation with pro-abortion ideals. I try to teach my students to be logical instead. Be worried.
‘”Sod Buster?’ Really? Inside joke folks.”
accomplice
When you have to explain the joke, it’s pretty much an epic failure.
As I have pointed out repeatedly: Liberals don’t have ‘sense’ of humor.
Feministas and feminazis are particularly challenged when it comes to ‘comedy’.
They are absent the gene for a ‘funny bone’.
They sometimes attempt to compensate by the use of a ‘prosthetic’.
I was in Arlington just this afternoon. I don’t re-call seeing a pp whore house, but I was in the high rent district.
CC you have a degree in counciling which you are supposed to use to help people by listening objectively and then making suggestions on how they can better their lives….yet you find it “invigorating” to be nasty to other people anonymously on the internet…
Anyone else find this sad?
You know something I’ve noticed on this blog? CC and Joan’s silly little comments always seem to have exactly 2 “likes,” unless only one of them is participating, then each comment has 1 “like.” Coincidence?
“Also, they are totally free to place their children in the care of someone else”
So no big whoop that they’re forced into (if they can’t afford a nice, legal D& C) to carry the fetus to term. They just give them away – just like stud mares or brood cows. But hey, they can still vote so it’s all good
CC, your toxicity is making me ill. It was you who claimed that women are somehow stripped of their rights when they are pregnant. I asked you what rights.
But, I do believe that our disagreements stem from two fundamental ideas: 1) I appear to have a totally different opinion than you on what a “right” is, as opposed to a “benefit from society.” I believe people have the right to life, liberty, justice, the ability to own property free-and-clear, and to own the fruits of their labor (among few other things). Other things are simply benefits of society. What do you say rights are? Right to murder? Right to have a fancy car? Right to eat at restaurants? Right to crushing debt, and forcing other people to pay it off? So if your definition of rights is different than mine, than we’ll have to agree to disagree. But please, enlighten me about which rights you believe are violated when a woman is pregnant. I’ll be waiting.
2) We have a difference in how we view the unborn. Your comment about how the unborn are not independent lives isn’t true; they are independent lives. Again, I can’t change your mind, so I’ll just have to agree to disagree.
All the learning in the world can’t make up for what you lack in wisdom and compassion, CC.