Photos from today’s “Stop the Killing” rally
About 120 pro-lifers attended the “Stop the Killing” rally today, sponsored by Live Action in front of late-term abortionist Cesare Santangelo’s Washington, D.C. clinic – only three blocks from the White House. Click both photos to enlarge…
I was pleased that the press came out in force, including CNN, Washington Post, Washington Times, World Magazine, and Media Research Center…
May.01, 2013 4:38 pm |
Abortionist quacks & pervs, Free Speech, Industry watch |
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.
Excellent!!
Congratulations. Pro-life industry you have found a new whipping boy. Lila Rose way to keep up with your pranks. I was wondering Lila is Rebecca Martinson your sister. BTW what Dr.SantaAngelo’s said is no different than Mother Theresa’s said to a man with cancer and Dr. Gosnell’s clinic is also no different than Mother Theresa’s clinics
Steve is smoking the wacky tobackey and visiting pro life blogs again…pretty comical!
The “rally” that was held outside the Dr.SantaAngelo’s clinic today by pro-life prankster Lila Rose was the actual comical stuff not what I am writing. What kind of wacky tobackey was Lila smoking when she did her pranks on Dr.SantaAgnelo. I am just helping you trolls do something productive with your life. Please learn to stop these pranks they are destructive not productive
Wait…who’s the troll here?
I’ve checked the WashPo site a few times but haven’t seen any reference to the rally.
I did find this though – http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/authorities-2-year-old-kentucky-girl-accidentally-shot-killed-by-5-year-old-brother/2013/04/30/c1832fee-b206-11e2-9fb1-62de9581c946_story.html?hpid=z3
It is a start. The media completely ignored 400,000 or more people descending on DC for the March for Life, so to coax them out for this event is significant.
Lila Rose is terrific. Keep ’em coming Lila!
And to think, Reality, if only that 2 year old girl would’ve been killed about 2 1/2 years earlier at the behest of her mother, you’d be completely fine with it.
En Garde xalisae!
And to think, if only it was recognised that a person who lives, loves and laughs warrants more support and protection than a gestating fetus who may or may not come to be.
A worthwhile “Stop the Killing” rally would have been held outside NRA headquarters.
That story about the little girl getting shot is horrific, I really dislike gun owners who don’t use proper gun safety, especially around children.
” And to think, if only it was recognised that a person who lives, loves and laughs warrants more support and protection than a gestating fetus who may or may not come to be.
A worthwhile “Stop the Killing” rally would have been held outside NRA headquarters.”
Well guns kill some thousands a year (about double the amount of suicides than murders, though, so I think working on our mental healthcare system might do more good than protesting the NRA), abortion kills over a million in the US. Lot more loss of life from abortion than guns. All loss of life is terrible though.
Yes, yes, “potential” life, fetuses aren’t loved yet (as if that was a justification for killing anyone, how loved they are), etc etc etc.
I’m sure many here will claim that they do indeed love their gestating fetuses Jack. And I’m not inclined to argue with them. Their fetuses can’t exactly love them back though.
I was talking about those who are capable of loving, I said “a person who lives, loves and laughs”.
Many people contemplating suicide never follow through because they don’t have an immediate, guaranteed method. If they have a gun its instant and easy. But you are right, the mental health budget could be increased tenfold and still barely be adequate.
“I’m sure many here will claim that they do indeed love their gestating fetuses Jack. And I’m not inclined to argue with them. Their fetuses can’t exactly love them back though.
I was talking about those who are capable of loving, I said “a person who lives, loves and laughs””
See for such a rational, smart guy you say the weirdest things. Newborns don’t love, toddlers and small children are extremely self-centered and aren’t yet capable of that love that adults feel. Heck my oldest is four and I don’t believe he genuinely “loves” me in any real sense yet. Some people with brain injuries and mental issues are incapable of love, doesn’t mean they aren’t deserving of basic right to life. I have a mild attachment disorder, it’s extremely hard for me to form loving attachments to people. Does that make my death less sad than someone who loves easily? Some people who have a more severe form of this disorder can’t form attachments at all. I don’t think that means we get to kill them or it’s less sad when they die.
” Many people contemplating suicide never follow through because they don’t have an immediate, guaranteed method. If they have a gun its instant and easy. But you are right, the mental health budget could be increased tenfold and still barely be adequate.”
That I do agree with.
So you don’t think that newborns, toddlers, four year olds or yourself possess any greater ability to live, love and laugh than a gestating fetus does. Is that what you’re saying?
I’ve seen plenty of toddlers laughing. I experienced love from my son before he was four. It might not have been ‘adult love’ whatever that means, but it was genuine love.
“So you don’t think that newborns, toddlers, four year olds or yourself possess any greater ability to live, love and laugh than a gestating fetus does. Is that what you’re saying?”
No, I don’t think it’s all on the same level, I stated my point poorly. It varies (though it sincerely doubt that a newborn has much more capability to love than a 38-week gestation fetus. I do think all humans have varying abilities to live, laugh, love, and it’s a really poor subjective criteria to base their ability to be “human” or deserving of life.
“I experienced love from my son before he was four. It might not have been ‘adult love’ whatever that means, but it was genuine love.”
I didn’t mean kids can’t love, I do think they’re little balls of id though, lol, and don’t learn the more self-sacrificing, wishing the best for another person part of love until they are much older (and some people have trouble with that for ages!). It’s just brain development, a child’s ability is less than most adults.
And to think, if only it was recognised that a person who lives, loves and laughs warrants more support and protection than a gestating fetus who may or may not come to be.
And to think, some people think the value and rights of human beings are INTRINSIC to humanity and don’t come from one’s abilities but by virtue of the organism they are. Anti-ableism is just terrible, ain’t it, pal?
I’m just saying that someone walking around in possession of these faculties warrants more support and protection than a developing fetus Jack.
I’ve seen quite young children taking what I consider to be self-sacrificing actions.
Esquive xalisae!
Indeed they are, but when a choice needs to be made….
You tell me, you’re one encouraging it.
Well done!
(Great pic with you, Jill, posted on fb by SBA List!)
Indeed they are, but when a choice needs to be made….
And the “choice” to kill a child in an elective abortion isn’t a “choice” that “needs” to be made. Hence the word “elective”.
You tell me, you’re one encouraging it.
No. No, it’s NOT terrible. I spent a year of my life working with and for PEOPLE many who showed no evidence whatsoever of being capable of the things you’ve listed off as pre-requisites for basic human rights recognized by law. PEOPLE with profound disabilities. They deserved and deserve the right to live every bit as much as you, or I, or your son, or my daughter, or ANYONE.
“I’m just saying that someone walking around in possession of these faculties warrants more support and protection than a developing fetus Jack.”
Yes because you say so. I haven’t seen anything in your rationale that would prevent a woman from smothering her unwanted newborn, who can’t speak or walk or laugh or really “live” depending on how you’re defining life here.
“I’ve seen quite young children taking what I consider to be self-sacrificing actions.”
Well my son did once give his popsicle to his sister because she dropped hers and was wailing. She promptly dropped it lol.
Fleche xalisae!
You can’t judge someone else’s needs!
“the things you’ve listed off as pre-requisites for basic human rights recognized by law.” – stop trying to put words in my mouth, it’s rude.
” You can’t judge someone else’s needs!”
Yes you can! Some pedos think they “need” to abuse children. Some people think they “need” hit their spouse for whatever reasons. Some parents think they need to beat their children to get them to behave. We can and do judge all kinds of behavior as being unacceptable regardless of “need”, you’re just not comfortable with her judging this particular one.
I applaud your son Jack. Did his sister stop wailing, at least momentarily?
I didn’t mean judge as in ‘cast judgement upon’ Jack.
“the things you’ve listed off as pre-requisites for basic human rights recognized by law.” – stop trying to put words in my mouth, it’s rude.
The only thing being put in your mouth is your foot, and you are the culprit.
“I applaud your son Jack. Did his sister stop wailing, at least momentarily?”
As I remember it she did. And then she tried to eat the second popsicle when it was covered in dirt. I got them both new ones and made her sit in her high chair to eat hers lol. My son is actually a really good big bro. One I made my daughter sit in the time out chair for a minute because she was pitching a fit, go to do dishes and hear them giggling. Look in the living room and he was sitting on top of her in the time out chair, because he thought if she had to be in trouble he was going to be too lol.
” I didn’t mean judge as in ‘cast judgement upon’ Jack.”
Did you mean as in “you can’t judge whether someone feels they need something”?
Well nyah nyah to you too xalisae. You know I didn’t say what you claimed I did.
“Did you mean as in “you can’t judge whether someone feels they need something”?” – that’s more like it.
Reality is mad because a child died and Planned Parenthood didn’t get paid to kill him.
Steve is just mad, I guess.
The good news is that the media is finally reporting the news. Months after Gosnell’s gruesome habits were revealed, the late term abortion industry is still killing children who are born alive, and selling inadequate and dangerous healthcare to vulnerable women. This is important news for public safety and awareness.
The media missed Gosnell, Carhart, and Planned Parenthood of Delaware. The public should know the names of Tonya Reaves, Jennifer Morbelli and Karnamaya Mongar like we remember Terri Schiavo. Victims of the abortion industry’s shoddy medical practices might finally get the justice and respect that they deserve, if the liberal media care about women at all.
I am glad Steve has shown up again – this will provide lots of entertainment.
“Reality” is showing everyone how we liberals make it sound palatable to discriminate between different classes of people – for our purposes of putting ourselves in control of humanity.
If you do not yet have the capacity to color within the lines, you are only partly deserving of human rights. If you are using a diaper, either at the beginning of life or end of life, you are not fully human, and do not deserve human rights. This line of argument could go on all day.
Classic picking and choosing here. Lax gun laws mean almost certainly that innocent people will die, but these are deaths you’re willing to accept in the name of the Second Amendment. Curious that this concept is rooted in a strong belief in property rights. And what more important piece of property is there to the individual but their very body? It’s almost like you’re making the pro-choice argument for me.
Blue Velvet,
LOL Talk about picking and choosing. You pro-choicers are all up and arms about protecting children’s right-to-life and calling them innocent as long as they’re OUTSIDE the womb. However, you applaud women who terminate the existence of an innocent human being whose only so-called crime is existing inside the womb he or she was conceived within.
@ Mother In Texas: Do you believe we will ever conquer unwanted pregnancies?
Will young women ever come of age without the possibility of a unacceptable pregnancy hanging over their heads?
Girls and women shouldn’t have abortions. They should get pregnant because they yearn to have babies!
Denise Noe,
I don’t know. I can’t predict the future–only God knows that. Free Will is a tricky thing. However, I have hope. And sometimes hope is the difference between working towards a better world and despair.
Classic picking and choosing here. Lax gun laws mean almost certainly that innocent people will die, but these are deaths you’re willing to accept in the name of the Second Amendment. Curious that this concept is rooted in a strong belief in property rights. And what more important piece of property is there to the individual but their very body? It’s almost like you’re making the pro-choice argument for me.
Lol, right. Only if we were trying to campaign to make it legal to use guns to kill children. It’s not. We’re not. The “choice” in “pro-choice argument” you’re talking about is the choice to legally kill your child in utero. That is NOT the purpose of opposing gun laws. Nice try though.
I’m looking at CDC data showing that that were 2700 firearm-related deaths among children and adolescents in 2010. That’s like one Twin Tower attack, with only child-adolescent fatalities, and the rates are pretty steady for each year. So whether you claim that anti gun laws aren’t intended to harm, the result is the same.
as opposed to abortion, which has harming/killing children as it’s SOLE intent, to the tune of 3,500+ A DAY.
Regardless of the number, there are some deaths you’re willing to accept as an unfortunate and inevitable part of living in a society that safeguards the right to own dangerous weapons. I accept abortion as an inevitable part of a society that safeguards a woman’s right to decide what kind of labor she will use her body to perform.
How sweet of you Del. May I suggest you put that on a placard. Perhaps parade it outside NRA headquarters.
I can’t see it happening anytime soon DeniseNoe. So I guess abortion will be with us for some time yet too.
Regardless of the number, there are some deaths you’re willing to accept as an unfortunate and inevitable part of living in a society
No we are not willing to accept those deaths. That’s why we throw people in jail who kill innocent people with guns.
This gestating fetus, is actually a son or daughter. Lets call it what it is. Abortion is the elective killing of sons and daughters (for that matter, grand sons and grand daughters, neices, etc.) so that our other, older sons and daughters can not be troubled by natural consequences of their actions. Life is life. To weigh who’s life is more important than who’s smacks of something the Nazis would have done.
A woman’s choice begins when she decides to either abstain or use some kind of birth control other than killing a child. Once the baby is conceived, her choices should be to keep the baby or give it up for adoption. The damage this culture of death is doing to these young women is horrible. More horrible than delivering a baby. They are brain washed by the culture of death industry ($$$) into thinking ‘choice’ doesnt mean a horrific death and that she will not suffer from this ‘choice’. Sad, sad, sad.
It’s also sad that there are not more people out there helping support the small clinics of life, championing the lives of the little girls and boys who cannot defend themselves.
No we are not willing to accept those deaths. That’s why we throw people in jail who kill innocent people with guns.
I already tried to point that out to her before, ts. Fell on deaf ears. She’s trying to draw a parallel that isn’t there in order to comfort herself. Leave her to it, because it will never sink in until she lets it.
I tried to illustrate the differences here:
Only if we were trying to campaign to make it legal to use guns to kill children. It’s not.
and here:
…harming/killing children as it’s SOLE intent…
Some people just HAVE to blur the lines, lest their consciences awaken.
badgermom says:
May 2, 2013 at 7:38 pm
This gestating fetus, is actually a son or daughter. Lets call it what it is. Abortion is the elective killing of sons and daughters (for that matter, grand sons and grand daughters, neices, etc.) so that our other, older sons and daughters can not be troubled by natural consequences of their actions. Life is life. To weigh who’s life is more important than who’s smacks of something the Nazis would have done.A woman’s choice begins when she decides to either abstain or use some kind of birth control other than killing a child.
(Denise) Don’t we have to change the perception of the typical sex act? What is usually called having sex is excellent at 2 things: 1) Pleasure for the male and 2) Causing a pregnancy. Can’t people enjoy good sex lives while limiting their sexual behavior to acts that CANNOT cause pregnancy?
If we could persuade people to adopt a view of sexuality that is more female-centric, we could drastically reduce the number of abortions. That women are unwillingly pregnant and seek abortions is not evidence of women’s “liberation” but of their failure to put themselves first.
<<Once the baby is conceived, her choices should be to keep the baby or give it up for adoption. >> Please take a look at “Primal Wound: Understanding the Adopted Child” by Nancy Verrier. I don’t oppose adoption but adoption inevitably inflicts wounds on both the mother who places for adoption and the child whose relationship with the birthmother is severed through adoption.
I will not engage with Denise’s nonsense, I will not engage with Denise’s nonsense…