Pro-life video of the day: Abortion with a smiley face
by Hans Johnson
A recurring theme in science fiction is portraying euthanasia as a pleasant, voluntary experience for the victim. This is not lost on Planned Parenthood, which released this video to “inform” the “one third of women who ‘experience’ abortion.” Notice the pleasant smiles throughout, especially that of the “patient’s” mother, who you would think is sending her daughter off to have her teeth cleaned.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RQ3H2tnxfw&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
E-mail your video suggestions to dailyvid@jillstanek.com
[HT: Jill]
Aug.09, 2012 12:00 pm |
Video of the day |
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.
The rattlesnake camouflages himself in the grass before he “goes in for the kill” to hide what he REALLY is…
Same with Planned Parenthood.
My favorite lines in the video, aka Deep Thoughts by Planned Parenthood:
Patient: “I’ve thought about this a lot….”
Counselor: “It sounds like you’ve put a lot of thought into your decision.”
My friend Eleanor Cooney put no thought into deciding to have an abortion when it was illegal. She automatically and immediately searched for an abortion as soon as she realized she was pregnant which was in the 4th month of pregnancy. She says that “never for one minute” did she consider completing the pregnancy.
She believes there was no possibility of “Deep Thoughts” or of any other decision. As soon as she realized she was pregnant, the physical conditions of pregnancy were felt as intolerable by her and she had to end the pregnancy as soon as possible.
I just saw this video the other day when I looked up the word “propaganda.”
Seriously… this is the text book definition.
Clinic worker: “All it takes is about five minutes!” (for us to ruin your life forever…)
disgusting. >:-(
I just wanted to throw up when I was watching this. They look like devils to me. I mean it’s like the commercials for side effects to medicine…”take ___ and you may experience suicidal thoughts, death, etc..” and PP says 1 in 3 women “experience” an abortion. SERIOUSLY!! They also say termination…what are they terminating…a pregnancy aka a human baby. I can’t wait to see PP aborted.
“It is normal to feel many different emotions after an abortion: sadness, anger, relief, and the feeling of being alone are common. We want you to know that you’re not alone. One in three women will experience an abortion sometime in her lifetime.”
Well, gee, that’s helpful. You’re feeling alone because you just killed your child and you feel you can’t talk to anyone about your shameful secret. Just look around and know that 1 in 3 women you see shares the same shameful secret.
Does PP refer for after-abortion counseling? What services do they provide to those women that regret their abortions?
That just makes me sick. I hate that video.
Todd
ProLifeBook.com
This video just screams propaganda! It’s sickening!
“What services do they provide to those women that regret their abortions?”
They refer them to appropriate counseling agencies.
and PP says 1 in 3 women “experience” an abortion.
Yeah. Their uteri wander out at night while they sleep, get themselves pregnant, and then the pregnant woman trips and lands accidentally on a curette several weeks later. Whoops!
“It is normal to feel many different emotions after an abortion: sadness, anger, relief, and the feeling of being alone are common. ”
Yep. Just a routine medical procedure. Just like getting my wisdom teeth removed. This one time, I had an ingrown toenail cut out, then became a suicidal alcoholic.
Guess again, CC.
CC,” They refer them to appropriate counseling agencies. ” Just like their breast cancer screening since they don’t have mammograms.
Classic psychological conditioning. “Do we not know that Satan and his agents disguise themselves as angels of light?” It’s not shameful to be duped by PP as a naive young person. It is shameful not to speak out against this evil having discovered the truth. When more women learn to despise the shame of the past, in favor of exposing this present evil, we shall see the last of PP and other abortion mills. But you must NOT be shamed into silence.
Oh, there’s something so wrong here. This takes me back to high school in the 70’s, to my Advanced English class, where we grappled with possible scenarios of the future. How impossible it seemed at the time that people would ever be able to think in certain ways, so blind to the truth. Now so many of those scenarios seem to be coming true in my lifetime. Like the old Twilight Zone shows….how can this really be happening? Like that woman just nonchalantly picking up a magazine while her grandchild is about to be killed. Like all is right in her world now that they’ve come to this place with all the answers for them. I keep seeing that there is some kind of a spirit of deceit over the land.
“It’s important that this decision is entirely yours.”
Why? Seriously. Why? No one talks this way about other kinds of decisions in life — it’s “important” that it’s “entirely” yours.
Such blatant departures from normal reality betokens propaganda, of course, befitting a politicized issue where the stakes are high enough for one side that they have to convince the gullible through osmosis that they must depart from normal patterns of human decision-making for this particular issue.
At 2:50, the patient’s look of bliss is laughably profane (if that’s possible): “I’ve received my grace in this sacrament, oh joy!”
Of the several phrases that rang out like a bell, the “will experience an abortion” really stood out for me, too. “Will experience getting hit by a Mack truck…” is about the same.
1. Yeah, the counsiling seems pretty realistic. “I’ve thought a lot about this.” “Obviously you’ve given this a lot of thought.” Check that box off and move on.
2. I’d love to do a poll of women who’ve undergone abortions and ask how realistic they think the rest of it is:
*Everybody is patient and kind, explains everything to you individually, and never makes you feel rushed.
*You’re not already in the stirrups when the doctor walks in.
*The recovery room is clean and allows for some privacy with curtains at least.
3. Funny how they tell you that feeling angry, sad, or alone after the abortion is normal, but don’t bother to mention that feeling ambivalence or fear BEFORE the abortion is normal and doesn’t mean that abortion will really alleviate your distress.
So much is glossed over and zombie-ish, it’s like they all are belong to a cult. Aw yes, Planned Parenthood, the great charismatic leader, who will take care of all your needs if you just submit to this gentle suction of this gentle cannula. (If it is so gentle, why do these young girls experience cramps and need pain medicine? And if their sex education and birth control methods work so well, why do 1 in 3 women experience abortion?)
“experience abortion”
Yeah, that seems to lack all the agency that CHOICE is suppose to bestow on us. You are in control! No wait, no you’re not – this is just happening to you. But don’t worry, it happens to lots of women. That silly uterus!
They look like devils to me.
I thought this too, Jessica. I was waiting for the horns and pitchforks to appear. Evil.
This reminds me of the reactions I got when I suggested we do something to encourage girls and women to carry to term and give babies up for adoption. (I wasn’t familiar with the adoption serial murder link or the adoption parricide link.) I suggested we start a tradition of having showers for relinquishing birthmothers in which she is given a variety of gifts such as new clothes. Someone wrote, “Your suggestion is macabre and foul.” Another person wrote, “It would be like having a party for a cancer patient.”
“They look like devils to me.”
That’s how low-paid actresses are going to look when they got a gig they find tasteless, and are pressed into an expressive mold rather than being free to flesh out a persona on their own.
Seriously, can you imagine?
CC, 6:33PM
What do they do when a woman suffers complications? You know, like Tonya Reaves did.
Me, too, X. Both my ingrown toenail removal and my wisdom teeth removal left me bitter, depressed, and a raging alcoholic. I search out people who don’t believe in medical procedures to argue with them and tell them how liberated and empowered I am because I don’t have my wisdom teeth. IT WAS MY CHOICE!!!!!!!!!!! IT WAS BEST FOR MY EXISTING TEETH! I AM THE BEST TOOTH-PARENT EVVVVERRRRR!! and look at how HAPPY I AM while I drink my woes away……
/end sarcasm
CC,
Also, what does PP do when someone wants a sex selection abortion to dispose of a female, when a sex offender wants to cover the exploitation of a minor or minors, or when a racist calls and wants money specifically spent on aborting a black baby?
I have a question for the posters on this site, and I am hoping to receive a thoughtful, civil and honest answer. Do all of you believe that once a woman has conceived, the embryo/fetus she carries is inherently more valuable a “person” than the woman? The reason I ask this, is because almost every anti-rights person I know is against abortion in ALL circumstances (rape, incest, severe fetal deformity); some even espouse the right of a physician/hospital to refuse on “moral” grounds to perform abortion to save a mother’s life. Do you believe females are merely vessels of a superior form of human being upon pregnancy, and if not why do so many of you still believe she has less right to ownership and use of her body than the fetus? I understand you are coming from a religious point of view, but If you believe killing an unborn child is immoral, why can you not accept that forcing a woman to act as an unwilling breeder–whether by her own action, by accident (failed contraception), or by violence–is treating her as a lesser person; one whose worth and rights are literally less than the not-yet-person growing in her uterus? This belief means that rights to individual autonomy of conscience and body of a living, sentient person, are superseded by the mere IDEA or POSSIBILITY of a person, because that which is not born is not yet SENTIENT. Do you truly believe it is moral to value the not-yet-living fetus over the LIVING woman. I am not being facetious, it really am curious as to how the anti-rights movement justifies these moral inconsistencies.
I have a question for the posters on this site, and I am hoping to receive a thoughtful, civil and honest answer. Do all of you believe that once a woman has conceived, the embryo/fetus she carries is inherently more valuable a “person” than the woman?
No.
The reason I ask this, is because almost every anti-rights person I know is against abortion in ALL circumstances (rape, incest, severe fetal deformity); some even espouse the right of a physician/hospital to refuse on “moral” grounds to perform abortion to save a mother’s life.
There are very few circumstances in which an abortion, specifically, becomes a “life-saving” procedure for the woman. Most pro-lifers do believe, however, that treatment of a life-threatening illness while pregnant is acceptable and should be the choice of the woman. Aborting in order to treat = not ok. Treating while pregnant = ok. If, for some reason, treatment could result in the death of the preborn child, then that is very unfortunate, but is not the same as an abortion. Hopefully that makes sense.
Do you believe females are merely vessels of a superior form of human being upon pregnancy, and if not why do so many of you still believe she has less right to ownership and use of her body than the fetus?
First off, women are never “mere vessels.” They are mothers of their own children.
“A superior form of human being upon pregnancy?” No. Just a very much human child.
“Why do so many of you still believe she has less right to ownership and use of her body than the fetus?”
We don’t. When I was pregnant, I owned my body, without question. I did not become “less” because I was carrying another human life, and I did not own my child’s body. It has always belonged to my child. I did not lose bodily autonomy because I was pregnant. Our view is that the woman’s fetus is as human as his mother. Another point: If the fetus is removed and is disallowed from – as you put it – “using” his mother’s body for survival, the fetus dies. The woman does not die when she allows reproduction and birth to continue naturally. There is no “forced birth.” Birth will happen if the process is simply allowed to play out as nature intended. It’s called mammalian reproduction.
I understand you are coming from a religious point of view
Well, that’s where you would be wrong. Plenty of pro-lifers hold no religion whatsoever. This isn’t difficult, from a scientific standpoint. Human DNA = human.
but If you believe killing an unborn child is immoral
Just as we believe killing BORN children is immoral. Don’t you?
why can you not accept that forcing a woman to act as an unwilling breeder–whether by her own action, by accident (failed contraception), or by violence–is treating her as a lesser person
I would say calling a woman “breeder” is what is really treating her as a lesser person. I am not a “breeder” because I have children. No woman is. I am a mother, and became a mother the moment my children were conceived. Our stance is that fetuses are not a separate class of subhuman entities. They are the children of their mothers – their biological offspring.
one whose worth and rights are literally less than the not-yet-person growing in her uterus?
And what are those “rights” you assign to the “not-yet-person growing in her uterus?” Because there is only one right that the “not-yet-person” needs, and that is life. The woman has her right to life. She is seeking to deny that right to her preborn child when she seeks an abortion. This is what happens. And of course, you’ve already played your hand. You didn’t come here to “ask” anyone a question. You came here to spout unscientific drivel and propaganda, just like every other abortion proponent. You have to claim women’s rights are somehow diminished by their reproductive capacity. They aren’t. You have to claim that fetuses are “not yet persons.” Well, then what are they? Are they biologically human? If this doesn’t make them human, then what subjective criteria would you care to assign to already human humans that would qualify them, in your opinion, to be *actual* humans?
This belief means that rights to individual autonomy of conscience and body of a living, sentient person, are superseded by the mere IDEA or POSSIBILITY of a person, because that which is not born is not yet SENTIENT.
Oh, and there it is. Look, before sperm and egg unite, Sherlock, there is the “possibility” of a person. Once they are united, there is a completely new individual. It’s called biology. You know, reproduction. Humanity does not depend on sentience and never has. And another thing – newborns are just as sentient as 8-9 month old preborn fetuses. Is it acceptable to kill newborns due to lack of perceived sentience? If not, then your sentience argument is crap and isn’t an argument abortion proponents ought to be using.
Do you truly believe it is moral to value the not-yet-living fetus over the LIVING woman.
The fetus is not yet living?? So, a living sperm cell unites with a living egg cell and the result is… a non-living blob of tissue? Really? I must have missed that in high school biology class.
I am not being facetious
Excuse me, but like he** you aren’t.
it really am curious as to how the anti-rights movement justifies these moral inconsistencies.
Abortion proponents are the ones with moral inconsistencies. You can’t even make a coherent argument. You have to dehumanize, deny, and just plain make yourselves look stupid in order to defend the taking of innocent human life. I guess you do what you have to do.
Rachel, your movement is anti-rights, not ours. The proper term for ours is pro-life, or if it must be anti-something anti-abortion is also acceptable.
Hi Rachel. I’d be happy to discuss your questions.
“Do all of you believe that once a woman has conceived, the embryo/fetus she carries is inherently more valuable a “person” than the woman?”
No, as human persons they both have inherent dignity and moral worth.
“The reason I ask this: almost every anti-rights person I know is against abortion in ALL circumstances (rape, incest, severe fetal deformity); some even espouse the right of a physician/hospital to refuse on “moral” grounds to perform abortion to save a mother’s life.”
This reason you gave above does not warrant the question you asked, except for possibly the issue of life of the mother. If you assume for the sake of argument that both the mother and fetus are full fledged members of the human species with the same inherent dignity and moral worth, then it easily follows that you can never directly and willfully kill one of them. Now, if one of them is going to die if something is not done to the other, that is a different situation (i.e. life of the mother) and there are certain moral ways to save the mother’s life while allowing, foreseen but not desired, the death of the fetus. This is the moral principle of double effect. You can never directly and willfully kill an innocent human being as a means or an end, but you can in the case of teh life of the mother take actions that save the mother’s life but which, as I mentioned above, result in the foreseen but unintended consequence of the death of the fetus. I can expound on this if need be.
” Do you believe females are merely vessels of a superior form of human being upon pregnancy, and if not why do so many of you still believe she has less right to ownership and use of her body than the fetus?”
No to teh first part of your question. As to your follow up, I would not frame the question this way. The alternative is that she directly and willfully kills an innocent human being. It isn’t so much about ownership about her body as it is the fact that the woman’s womb was designed by God or evolution or what have you to carry a fetus. The very purpose of that part of the woman’s body is to carry a fetus and bring him/her to term. A fetus who is inside of a woman is EXACTLY where he/she should be. A fetus belongs inside of a woman’s body in virtue of what it means to be a fetus. Conversely, if a woman’s body is carrying a fetus, it is doing exactly what it is supposed to do. If it really was all about bodily ownership, then there would be nothing wrong with a woman who drank heavily when pregnant, used drugs, tortured the fetus for fun, or any other kind of thing during her pregnancy.
” I understand you are coming from a religious point of view”
No. It is prima facie wrong to kill an innocent human person. Abortion kills an innocent human person. Thus, abortion is prima facie wrong. The idea that “you don’t kill innocent humans simply in light of the fact that they are innocent humans” needs no appeal to religion.
“why can you not accept that forcing a woman to act as an unwilling breeder–whether by her own action, by accident (failed contraception), or by violence–is treating her as a lesser person; one whose worth and rights are literally less than the not-yet-person growing in her uterus?”
See above on the nature of the female body and the reductio ad absurdum if we simply take the idea that “women should be allowed to control their bodies without any qualifications” to its logical conclusion.
“This belief means that rights to individual autonomy of conscience and body of a living, sentient person, are superseded by the mere IDEA or POSSIBILITY of a person, because that which is not born is not yet SENTIENT. ”
Here you are now switching your justification for abortion. Before it was all based on the bodily ownership of the women, and thus, the moral status of the fetus would be inconsequential. Now you are arguing in favor of abortion based on the moral status of the fetus i.e. the fetus is not a full fledged person like you or I because it can’t _________ . So first note that this is a different argument you are giving in favor of the pro-choice position. But why value sentience? Is sentience what gives human beings their value and moral worth? If I ask you “why can’t I kill my next door neighbor?” would your response be “he is sentient.”? I would think it would be because he is human. But let us consider a thought experiment. Suppose we could operate on a not-yet sentient fetus in the womb to be able to ensure that the fetus would never become sentient. He would grow and look just like a regular human being, but he would never become sentient. Would it be morally permissible to use this non-sentient human as my personal sex slave? Because he isn’t sentient ever, he is never a person, and thus, not only could I kill him at any age, but I could use him however I wanted, for sex, as my slave, etc. He does not have the value of a person since he isn’t sentient, so there does not seem to be anything wrong with this. But clearly such a position is absurd. Thus, I would conclude that the sentience criteria is not a good one for determining personhood. Rather, personhood is granted because an agent is a member of the human species. Period.
” Do you truly believe it is moral to value the not-yet-living fetus over the LIVING woman”
I would be glad to supply any number of quotes to show that the fetus is alive. It undergoes cell division, for example, so it is most certainly alive. Perhaps you mean “have a life”? I won’t speculate on what exactly you mean here, but leave it up to you to clarify.
“it really am curious as to how the anti-rights movement justifies these moral inconsistencies.”
Given everything you have written previously, this is an odd claim to make. What is morally inconsistent? Rather, I think you mean that we are starting from false assumptions. You haven’t even claimed that anything is inconsistent- more that our priorities are incorrect (valuing the fetus “over” the mother) or we are engaged in sloppy thinking. So I am simply not at all seeing where the claim of inconsistency is.
If it really was all about bodily ownership, then there would be nothing wrong with a woman who drank heavily when pregnant, used drugs, tortured the fetus for fun, or any other kind of thing during her pregnancy.
Wow. What a good point, and one I haven’t seen/heard before.
There are actually several variations of that, Andrew. You can also ask if there would be anything wrong with a woman performing in-utero female mutilation genital mutilation to her unborn daughter. Would it be wrong to take thalidomide while pregnant which takes care of headaches but causes severe birth defects (like being born without limbs. Google image thalidomide if you are brave.) Would it be wrong to tear off a limb, maybe an arm or a leg of the fetus while in utero, just because you desire a handicapped child? Would it be wrong to deliver the child part way feet first with the head still inside the mother (like they do for D and X aka partial birth abortion), but instead of stabbing the fetus in the back of the head with scissors and sucking his brains out, just sodomize the fetus, then deliver it? Your bodily ownership, right? You can cook up all sorts of sick and twisted scenarios which must be approved of by the abortion-choice advocate who bases his belief on unqualified bodily ownership. Of course, this does not work as a counter argument to the more nuanced bodily ownership views espoused by those such as Judith Jarvis Thompson and David Boonin, but those are for another day…
Sex-slavery and the sodomization of aborted fetuses. Just…wow. You people really are the American Taliban.
OK, Rachel I’ll just take that as a “I don’t actually have any way to refute the arguments made above”.
“Sex-slavery and the sodomization of aborted fetuses. Just…wow. You people really are the American Taliban. ”
Sadly, this is the kind of response I have come to expect from many pro-choicers. Not only do we see several paragraphs by two commentators of questions taht were carefully answered blow-off in 2 sentences, but we see that the blown off fails to even get one of the arguments correct. The argument is not that “you can have sex with dead fetuses”; rather, it is that if bodily ownership in an unqualified sense as I interpreted it in Rachel’s original post is correct, then if it is morally permissible to deliver a fetus halfway and stab scissors in teh back of its head and remove its brains, then it seems to also be morally permissible to deliver a fetus halfway and sodomize the (very much alive) fetus, and THEN deliver a healthy, living, freshly sodomized baby. That is the argument.
I assume the blow-off is because you saw “sodomization” and immediately concluded that something had to be wrong. Well, yes, but it is your position. It will simply not do to blow off all the arguments you have been given with a shocked incredulity that in no way interacts with the argument given “I can’t believe you would compare a woman’s right to choose with forcibly raping a baby! No wonder people don’t take you seriously!” or some other thoughtless vituperation.
Let us go through this one more time, carefully, and you can point out to me where my error is. From what I can gather from your extremely un-nuanced argument in favor of abortion above, you (originally) defend abortion based on the fact that women have control over their bodies. Without adding any further qualifications, this implies that a women has such direct control over her body that she can directly and willfully kill an innocent human being. So again, from what I gathered above, you hold to the following premise:
1) Women have control over their bodies and can do what they want with them.
I don’t hold to that, but you seem to. Consider the next premise
2) Woman X wishes to tear off one leg and one arm from her unborn fetus because she wants to raise a deformed child.
If we suppose that woman X exists, and we combine your premise 1) with 2), we obtain that
Thus, because woman X has control over her body and wishes to tear off one leg and one arm from her unborn fetus, she can do that.
You will need to show why we don’t have your premise 1) correct or why the conclusion does not follow from teh 2 premises. But again, simply an incredulous blow-off about how shocked you are and how sick we are or whatever simply will not do as a reasonable response.
But again, simply an incredulous blow-off about how shocked you are and how sick we are or whatever simply will not do as a reasonable response.
Were you actually expecting a reasonable response? Her comeback is pretty hilarious, considering how she said she wanted “a thoughtful, civil and honest answer” from pro-lifers, and when we gave her exactly that, she came back with a not-so-thoughtful, not-so-civil, and not-so-honest response. Yep. Pretty standard!
They don’t really want to know our position, Bobby. They just want to kill their children (oh, pardon me “control their health” – wink, wink), laugh it off, then come here with a “how dare you fetus fetishists.” The only thing I can hope is that someone who is on the fence will read the pro-life response and might actually begin to rationally think things through.
Rachel – Calling us the taliban for holding signs in front of someone’s house is pretty disrespectful to the countless people whose lives were destroyed by the taliban – the women who were raped, families burned alive, and those whose dead bodies were hung from lamp posts. I can confidently say that all the tears caused by pro-life sign holding over 40 years doesn’t come remotely close to the torment inflicted by the taliban in any given 24 hour period … or by anyone who works for the abortion industry.