Planned Parenthood: “That’s not a baby growing inside of you”

posted at 2:20 pm on December 9, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Live Action has a new series of videos that launches today called the Rosa Acuna Project. Their new effort aims to expose manipulation by Planned Parenthood counselors intended to pressure women into having abortions, or at the very least, provide dishonest information to support false rationalizations for the procedure. In this clip from the Appleton, Wisconsin clinic, a counselor tells the woman that what’s growing inside her uterus isn’t a baby at all, or “anything like that” — and the doctor agrees:

In the undercover video, when the two women ask a Planned Parenthood counselor if the pregnant woman’s 10-week-old unborn child has a heartbeat, the counselor emphasizes “heart tones,” and answers, “Heart beat is when the fetus is active in the uterus–can survive–which is about seventeen or eighteen weeks.” On the contrary, embryologists agree that the heartbeat begins around 3 weeks. Wisconsin informed consent law requires that women receive medically accurate information before undergoing an abortion.

The counselor then says, “A fetus is what’s in the uterus right now. That is not a baby.” Dr. Polhaska, the abortion doctor, insists, “It’s not a baby at this stage or anything like that.” Polhaska also states that having an abortion will be “much safer than having a baby,” warning, “You know, women die having babies.” …

The investigation is organized by Live Action, a nonprofit student group. Lila Rose, the 21-year-old UCLA student and Live Action president, says medical lies and manipulative counseling are routine at Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion chain.

“They will do or say anything in order to sell more abortions to more women, whether it is covering up sexual abuse or lying to women about medical facts,” says Rose. “Our team has visited dozens of Planned Parenthood clinics undercover. Planned Parenthood, while claiming to support patient self-determination, operates with an ‘abortion-first mentality.’”

The explanation of “heart tones” is particularly dishonest. The counselor says it can’t be a heartbeat because the baby clump of cells isn’t viable, but that it becomes a heartbeat at 17-18 weeks.  But a child isn’t viable at that point, either.  It does come closer to corresponding with the legal limitations of Planned Parenthood’s abortion services, however.

As for a fetus not being “anything like” a baby, well, that’s hardly a shocking statement coming from PP, but it does demonstrate the depths of deception to which they’re prepared to plunge to rake in that abortion cash.  Of course it’s a baby growing inside of the uterus, one with its own DNA and independent biological functions that start within minutes of conception.  Unlike global warming, the science on human reproduction actually is settled.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

This Copenhagen deal could be a BOON to Planned Parenthood.

Global mandate of a ONE CHILD POLICY?

All about controlling us’ins the PEONS.

And awesome income stream for the Babykillers!!!!!

PappyD61 on December 10, 2009 at 1:08 PM

Global mandate of a ONE CHILD POLICY?

Is that on the table at Copenhagen?

englishqueen01 on December 10, 2009 at 1:14 PM

So what is wrong about saying someone with sixteen kids

should get fixed. Anyone who has sixteen kids needs to have their head examined. And it is about control–the control that you want to impose on everyone else because you’re a 20 or so year old, know-it-all Grad student devout Catholic who has so much more experience with life than us 50 or 60 year olds.

Jimbo3 on December 10, 2009 at 4:08 AM

—————
When Jimbo says it’s wrong for someone to have 16 children, it’s “control”, which means something totally different because, since he’s uncomfortable with the notion of the responsibilities that come with 16 children (and, actually, the Duggars are expecting #19 in a matter of weeks), his view is justifiable and it’s not control. Michelle Duggar is free to have as many kids as she wants, just so long as it’s no more than two.
————————

–Spare me the post-teenaged drama, Englishdramaqueen. I said they ought to have their heads examined. That’s different from saying that they ought to be prohibited from having sixteen (or seventeen) kids.

Jimbo3 on December 10, 2009 at 1:20 PM

It’s none of your business, first. Second, you are accusing “the 20 or so year old, know-it-all Grad student devout Catholic who has so much more experience with life than us 50 or 60 year olds”, so you are doing the same thing you accuse them of doing, and third, exctly what do you know about abortion and the lives it takes?

bloggless on December 10, 2009 at 8:39 AM

So, then, of course, the Englishqueen, or you, have no business talking about Tiger Woods, my views, your neighbors or your relatives? Because that would also be “none of your business” by your definition and the same thing I did.

Jimbo3 on December 10, 2009 at 1:27 PM

And whether it’s a fetus or a clump of cells, I as a biology/anatomy teacher understand the science behind conception.
But persepctive, wisdom, & experience is what shapes our attitudes about things.

And evidently, you have no children, so this type of statement ight be easy for you to make.
And if you do have children, I am curious as how you can hold a precious baby in your arms & think back to the time when it wasn’t a ‘viable’ human being, and only a ‘fetus, a ‘clump of cells’?

Badger40 on December 10, 2009 at 11:47 AM

–I do have kids. But I have no problems drawing the distinctions. And you as a science teacher know how a fetus is defined.

Jimbo3 on December 10, 2009 at 1:28 PM

I said they ought to have their heads examined. That’s different from saying that they ought to be prohibited from having sixteen (or seventeen) kids.

Only in that it’s the first step toward such control. You never articulated why you think people with big families need their heads examined. But, then again, I suppose it’s a foreign notion to pro-abortion folks that parents can love lots of kids.

Funny how you are hellbent on discrediting me because I’m in my 20s, yet you use pejoratives like “Englishdramaqueen” to make your point. More proof that age does not equal wisdom.

And PappyD61 was right – China’s calling for population control as part of Copenhagen. So you’ll get your wish. No more big families to offend your sensibilities.

englishqueen01 on December 10, 2009 at 1:32 PM

I don’t get the surprise. This has been the point of debate for as long as I’ve been an adult.

Defining that is based upon one’s beliefs.

AnninCA on December 9, 2009 at 9:12 PM

It is so tiresome to see people such as you continue to hide behind your deliberate, willful ignorance. Science long ago established that a new human life begins when egg and sperm join.

Perhaps you haven’t been here during one of the many other times I have said this: I have a copy of “The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology,” written in 1988 for medical students (not seminary students). It says quite clearly on page one that “Human development is a continuous process that begins when an ovum from a female is fertilized by a sperm from a male…A zygote is the beginning of a new human being.”

What part of that don’t you understand? What part of that is based on “one’s beliefs”?

KyMouse on December 10, 2009 at 1:32 PM

I said they ought to have their heads examined. That’s different from saying that they ought to be prohibited from having sixteen (or seventeen) kids.
Only in that it’s the first step toward such control. You never articulated why you think people with big families need their heads examined. But, then again, I suppose it’s a foreign notion to pro-abortion folks that parents can love lots of kids.

Funny how you are hellbent on discrediting me because I’m in my 20s, yet you use pejoratives like “Englishdramaqueen” to make your point. More proof that age does not equal wisdom.

And PappyD61 was right – China’s calling for population control as part of Copenhagen. So you’ll get your wish. No more big families to offend your sensibilities.

englishqueen01 on December 10, 2009 at 1:32 PM

–Oh, God forbid. You misquote/misconstrue me–intentionally or not– (or are paranoid) about “control”, get spun all out of shape and wonder why I think you are a dramaqueen.

You strike me as a know it all. I understand where you’re coming from, but I generally listened more and spoke less when I was your age. I don’t blame you for your age. But I do blame you for thinking you know it all and telling everyone what to do.

How many times have you been out of Milwaukee (Brookfield and Wauwatosa don’t count)?

Answer to your question: I think no one in their right minds would want the cost and responsibility of sixteen kids.

Jimbo3 on December 10, 2009 at 1:52 PM

It says quite clearly on page one that “Human development is a continuous process that begins when an ovum from a female is fertilized by a sperm from a male…A zygote is the beginning of a new human being.”

What part of that don’t you understand? What part of that is based on “one’s beliefs”?

KyMouse on December 10, 2009 at 1:32 PM

–You just proved my earlier point. Your science book says a embryo is human, but not a human being at conception. It’s the beginning of one.

Jimbo3 on December 10, 2009 at 1:54 PM

But if Rifqa Bary ran away from home to procure an abortion, the state would use every resource available (and make new ones, if need be) to assist Bary in obtaining that abortion – regardless of how her parents feel. Because at 17, Rifqa is not capable of making up her mind about religion but she is (as well as girls far younger than her) capable of making decisions regarding sex and reproduction without their parent’s knowledge or consent.

That is the liberal’s worldview. Scary, isn’t it?

englishqueen01 on December 10, 2009 at 9:16 AM
————————————-

During exploratory prenatal surgery, the baby grasps House’s finger. After the surgery, House stops referring to the baby as a “fetus” and calls him a baby.

At the end of the episode, House looks at the finger where the baby grabbed him.

It was an amazing moment in television, very much like the story of Samuel Armas, whose follow up story is here.

–More drama stuff from you. 1). Most states have parental consent/notice laws which apply to people younger than 18. So most states wouldn’t use every resource available to help her get an abortion since she’s 17.

2). The fetus was 20+ weeks old when it was operated on–it would normally have been viable at that time. Few abortions happen at that late date.

Jimbo3 on December 10, 2009 at 2:01 PM

The problem with the abortion issue is both sides are playing a “my way or the highway” argument. Anti-choice(pro-life) people have used language that follows belief to push their agenda, and the left doesn’t want to hear anything that takes away money from their “cause”. To me the whole thing is too personal for the government to come to the aid of either side. It’s a health issue best determined by a woman and her doctor, the morality between the woman and her God.

adamsmith on December 10, 2009 at 9:09 AM

If it seems that both sides are “playing a ‘my way or the highway’ argument,” perhaps it is because any middle ground still allows the deliberate killing of innocent babies. A baby is either alive or dead; he/she can’t be a little of either. Some horrors require a “yes” or “no” response:

Should Blacks be sold into slavery?
Should Jews be gassed in fake showers?
Should babies be aborted?

By the way, this whole topic brings to mind the question of abortion in cases of rape or incest. I always ask, “If your mother told you today that you were conceived in rape or incest, would you say, ‘You should have killed me back then; I’ll go kill myself right now, because my life isn’t worth living’?”

KyMouse on December 10, 2009 at 2:03 PM

If it seems that both sides are “playing a ‘my way or the highway’ argument,” perhaps it is because any middle ground still allows the deliberate killing of innocent babies. A baby is either alive or dead; he/she can’t be a little of either. Some horrors require a “yes” or “no” response:

Should Blacks be sold into slavery?
Should Jews be gassed in fake showers?
Should babies be aborted?

By the way, this whole topic brings to mind the question of abortion in cases of rape or incest. I always ask, “If your mother told you today that you were conceived in rape or incest, would you say, ‘You should have killed me back then; I’ll go kill myself right now, because my life isn’t worth living’?”

KyMouse on December 10, 2009 at 2:03 PM

–And America is generally in the squishy middle on abortion: Ok to some at some time periods, not okay to others. No opinion poll has ever shown more than roughly 20% of the US to have “extreme” positions on either side of this issue.

Jimbo3 on December 10, 2009 at 2:14 PM

It’s a health issue best determined by a woman and her doctor, the morality between the woman and her God.

adamsmith on December 10, 2009 at 9:09 AM

A health issue? Since when is abortion healthy for babies? It often isn’t healthful for their mothers, either. As I’ve said before, do a Google search of “Synthia Dennard” and “Lou Anne Herron” to see what can happen to mothers during “safe, legal” abortions. And there are many, many others.

And the old “between a woman and her doctor” myth is not what the vast majority of mothers experience in abortion mills. Ask a few how long they spent in consultation with kindly ol’ doc Abu Hayat (“the Butcher of Avenue A,” the New York Post called him in 1991) or John Biskind. Look up those guys and see what they did to show their compassion for pregnant mothers.

KyMouse on December 10, 2009 at 2:17 PM

–I do have kids. But I have no problems drawing the distinctions. And you as a science teacher know how a fetus is defined.

Jimbo3 on December 10, 2009 at 1:28 PM

When it’s your offspring, it’s good to be pro-life?
And when it’s not your offspring, then is it OK to be pro-choice?
You do not need to lecture me on the definition of a fetus.
I know what it is and it’s defined be PEOPLE.
Definitions in science change throughout time, with respect to our changing understanding as scientific knowledge is amassed.
1000 yrs ago there was probably no definition of a ‘fetus’.
My God, it wasn’t that long ago in history that people thought a man’s ‘seed’ was the only part that contributed to another human being and that the woman was only an incubator, having nothing to contribute to the new person.
Give me a break.
Your rationalization is just that- rationalizing someone unpleasant bcs people don’t want to deal with hard answers.
I don’t care how you define it- those cells grow into a human being that feels pain, emotion, etc.
How convenient for you that you got to be born.
Snuffing out the chances at life for millions of others is, however, OK with you?

Badger40 on December 10, 2009 at 2:25 PM

rationalizing someone somthing

Badger40 on December 10, 2009 at 2:26 PM

Jimbo3, I was talking about the yes-or-no nature of some questions, not about people’s ability to rationalize even the worst deeds whenever it suits them for one reason or another. Certainly, that happens all the time, as the abortion debate shows. Babies are being killed deliberately in this country at the rate of about two per minute, yet millions of people pretend that all is well. “Squishy” is a mild term for that.

KyMouse on December 10, 2009 at 2:27 PM

Something

Ugh. My keyboard sticks.

Badger40 on December 10, 2009 at 2:27 PM

“Squishy” is a mild term for that.

KyMouse on December 10, 2009 at 2:27 PM

And squishy is a definition which has multiple meanings.
I.e. mashed potatoes feel’squishy’ between the toes.
Aborting a fetus is ‘squishy’ work.

Rationalizing deniers make me ill.

Badger40 on December 10, 2009 at 2:28 PM

KyMouse on December 10, 2009 at 2:17 PM

Abortions can very often lead to later infertility in some women and there is no way of determining whether the patient will be one of those women or not.
Even when having a miscarriage, a woman really needs to consider if it’s truly necessary to get a D&C or wait for the miscarriage happen naturally.
Having a miscarriage recently, I can attest to the fact that it takes a while for your body to return to normal, but it eventually does.
Nature takes care of ‘inviable’ fetuses on its own.
But my loss was that of a human being, not a fetus, excuse me!

Badger40 on December 10, 2009 at 2:31 PM

2). The fetus was 20+ weeks old when it was operated on–it would normally have been viable at that time. Few abortions happen at that late date.

Jimbo3 on December 10, 2009 at 2:01 PM

Jimbo3, “the fetus” to whom you refer was Samuel Armas — a human being with a name — and he was at 21 weeks when the surgery was performed. He was and is a boy, not an “it.”

As far back as 1995, Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, admitted on ABC-TV’s “Nightline” that he had lied when he asserted in the past that late-term abortions were performed rarely, and only on women whose lives were in danger. He estimated that the figure was probably between 3,000 and 5,000 annually.

Fitzsimmons admitted that “the vast majority of partial-birth abortions are performed in the fifth and sixth months on healthy mothers of healthy babies.”

Beyond all of that, however, is the overall question of “viability.” Even the most basic levels of compassion and fair play would dictate that babies be allowed to remain in the womb until birth, in accordance with natural development. Any baby who is not yet “viable” deserves care and nourishment, not a suction machine and a medical-waste bucket. They should be allowed to live the lives they have begun.

KyMouse on December 10, 2009 at 2:46 PM

–I’ve looked at early abortion pictures and don’t find them offensive. Sorry tigerlily. I will pray for you to find God. You apparently are deluded into thinking you have.

Jimbo3 on December 10, 2009 at 4:16 AM

Let’s try this again, little man. Do you think you would “find it offensive” of the photos of a butchered human were of you?

tigerlily on December 10, 2009 at 3:27 PM

As for late term abortions… good ‘ol Tiller admitted in an interview that the vast majority of his late term patients were just teenagers who didn’t tell their parents that they were pregnant until it became obvious after about 20 weeks.

Most women who have late term abortions do so because they elect to, not because of any other reason.

Also, no women go to a late term abortionist if their lives are in danger. Hospitals will deliver a child early if the mother’s health is at risk and then do everything possible to save both the mother and the child. No need to travel to the midwest,kill your child with a shot of poison to the heart, stick some seaweed in your cervix, and wait two days at the super 8 before delivering a dead baby.

Vera on December 10, 2009 at 3:42 PM

Here’s the quote from the Kansas City Star (August 26, 1991) quoting Tiller spokeswoman Peggy Jarman said that “elective abortions should be considered acceptable into the 26th week because these fetuses are not capable of surviving outside the womb without artificial life supports. ‘You’re talking about the difference between natural survival and intensive care….”

In the same interview, Miss Jarman admitted that “about three-fourths of Tiller’s late–term patients are teenagers who have denied to themselves or their families that they were pregnant until it was too late to hide it”;

You have to buy the article from the archives if you want to see the whole thing.
http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_multi=KC|&p_product=KC&p_theme=realcities2&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_site=kansascity&s_trackval=KC&s_search_type=keyword&p_text_search-0=Tiller%20AND%20Peggy%20AND%20Jarman&s_dispstring=Tiller%20Peggy%20Jarman%20AND%20date(1991)&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date:B,E&p_text_date-0=1991&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no

It’s titled:

Abortions late in pregnancy push public, doctors to moral dilemma

Vera on December 10, 2009 at 3:50 PM

2). The fetus was 20+ weeks old when it was operated on–it would normally have been viable at that time. Few abortions happen at that late date.

Jimbo3 on December 10, 2009 at 2:01 PM
Jimbo3, “the fetus” to whom you refer was Samuel Armas — a human being with a name — and he was at 21 weeks when the surgery was performed. He was and is a boy, not an “it.”

As far back as 1995, Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, admitted on ABC-TV’s “Nightline” that he had lied when he asserted in the past that late-term abortions were performed rarely, and only on women whose lives were in danger. He estimated that the figure was probably between 3,000 and 5,000 annually.

Fitzsimmons admitted that “the vast majority of partial-birth abortions are performed in the fifth and sixth months on healthy mothers of healthy babies.”

Beyond all of that, however, is the overall question of “viability.” Even the most basic levels of compassion and fair play would dictate that babies be allowed to remain in the womb until birth, in accordance with natural development. Any baby who is not yet “viable” deserves care and nourishment, not a suction machine and a medical-waste bucket. They should be allowed to live the lives they have begun.

KyMouse on December 10, 2009 at 2:46 PM

jimbo doesn’t have basic facts straight. Firstly, second trimester abortions are hardly rare. Almost all abortion mills perpetrate them. At a mill where I sidewalk counsel, they average about 100-150 late term abortion per week. In that mill alone there are 5,000 late term abortions per year. Nationally, the number exceeds 250,000. Most second trimester abortions are pepetrated not using the partial birth abortion method, (partial birth abortions are perpetrated in the seventh to ninth months) where the child is stabbed in the base of the skull with a scissors, brain sucked out and then skull collasped (are you with us so far, Jim?, don’t find it offensive, just like you don’t find abortion photos offensive? Have you no ability to care for and defend a helpless baby?) No, abortions done on babies between fourteen and twenty six weeks are perpetrated using the “dilation and extraction” method, or “D&X”. D&X is pure butchery, and a well kept secret. In some ways it is more vile and gruesome, and much more pervasive than partial birth abortion. In the second trimester, where the baby is too large to be vacuumed out with the sharp ended curette, which also dismembers, as is done in the first trimester (this is called “D&E” or “dilation and evacuation”), the D&X method is employed. Here, the baby is gone after with a sharp pincer, which literally tears the child limb from limb. In this procedure, the doctor may first rip and pull out an arm, go back in and get a foot, or a leg. This barbarity continues until the baby is lying in pieces and of course has been killed while feeling all of it. A twenty week old baby would be killed using dilation and extraction, or D&X, without a doubt.
P.S. I apologize for calling you little man jimbo in an earlier post. I hope that you will apologize in your own heart to the God who we are all looking to find, knowingly or unknowingly, and to the babies whose savage deaths you have not cared about, and even publicly urge on.

tigerlily on December 10, 2009 at 4:05 PM

Oh, God forbid. You misquote/misconstrue me–intentionally or not– (or are paranoid) about “control”, get spun all out of shape and wonder why I think you are a dramaqueen.

You strike me as a know it all. I understand where you’re coming from, but I generally listened more and spoke less when I was your age. I don’t blame you for your age. But I do blame you for thinking you know it all and telling everyone what to do.

How many times have you been out of Milwaukee (Brookfield and Wauwatosa don’t count)?

Answer to your question: I think no one in their right minds would want the cost and responsibility of sixteen kids.

Jimbo3 on December 10, 2009 at 1:52 PM

You may be double englishqueen’s age and then some, but she has got double your intellect, as well as having double the wisdom. I applaud her and wish her to grow ever stronger as a righteous warrior for the unborn, and for our culture, where children used to be treasured, and large families were the norm.

By the way, just because you won’t admit what a freshman in high school learns, that human life begins at conception, doesn’t mean we all have to let you think you have us fooled. You also mentioned the word fetus, and said that another poster should know what it means. Do you know what it means? I don’t think you do. It is a term that measures the age of a human being in their trajectory of development.
Much like the term child is used for a human being from about one year to 12 years. Adolescent is a term for a human being in the years from 13 to 19. Adult is the term used for a human being in the years from twenty onward. Geriatric is a term for a human being after the age of 65.
None of these terms makes a human less human. Fetus is a term used for a human being approximately six months before and up to birth. It is a latin word, and far from dehumanizing the preborn human being, as it is used today by abortion pushers, it was chosen probably for it’s beauty and affection for the anticipated birth. It translates into english as “Little one” or “Young one”.

So much of what you have posted here, if not everything, is factually incorrect. With all due respect, I wonder why you know so little about this subject, but speak so feverishly about it anyway.

tigerlily on December 10, 2009 at 4:28 PM

Ok, I really don’t like abortion threads. Most abortions are because of poor choices or vanity. However, there are a couple of times I might support an abortion. Number 1 is: alien impregnation, and 2 one of these got you pregnant: B or B

PrettyD_Vicious on December 10, 2009 at 4:36 PM

John Stossel was the first man to ever become pregnant; it’s true just ask Planned Parenthood when they tried to get a woman using his urine sample to have an abortion.

Lime 5, read it, it’s a book.

father on December 10, 2009 at 4:52 PM

Let’s try this again, little man. Do you think you would “find it offensive” of the photos of a butchered human were of you?

tigerlily on December 10, 2009 at 3:27 PM

Brilliant,someone should pose this question to Herr Obama.

inevitable on December 10, 2009 at 4:55 PM

Let’s try this again, little man. Do you think you would “find it offensive” if the photos of a butchered human were of you?

tigerlily on December 10, 2009 at 3:27 PM
Brilliant,someone should pose this question to Herr Obama.

inevitable on December 10, 2009 at 4:55 PM

Yes, and all the rest of his cabal of ghouls, demons and degenerates.

tigerlily on December 10, 2009 at 5:22 PM

You may be double englishqueen’s age and then some, but she has got double your intellect, as well as having double the wisdom. I applaud her and wish her to grow ever stronger as a righteous warrior for the unborn, and for our culture, where children used to be treasured, and large families were the norm.

Thank you for the kind words.

As I said earlier, I believe I’m right. I know I’m right. There isn’t a doubt in my mind that being pro-life is the correct way to live. The fact that my faith has proved to be prophetic in the rise of the grave evil of abortion only cements my belief that abortion is wrong. Jimbo’s invective does not make me feel bad, belittled, or ashamed of my position.

The fact that I am personally attacked by people who think killing babies is a good thing only solidifies my position further; if calling me a drama queen or stupid or immature opens the eyes of a woman considering abortion and stops her, so be it. Mock me all you want because it will only let the mask slip a little further to reveal the grotesque ugliness that lurks under the facade of “pro-choice” rhetoric. I know the criticisms of Mrs. Duggar pushed me from being a liberal to a conservative. The anger radiating from the left will continue to turn people off to their cause.

I’ve given birth to two children, saw (and felt) them moving and breathing on the ultrasounds I received, and sucking thumbs in the womb. I know someone who adopted a baby scheduled to be aborted – every time I see an update on this child it takes my breath away to think that child could have been killed.

I was also born on the 10th “anniversary” of Roe v. Wade, so I – like my contemporaries – realize there was NOTHING standing between us and an abortionist’s hand except for our mother’s desire to give us life. A significant number of our peers were not so lucky.

And while I hate to reduce people to dollars and cents, I don’t understand how people can rationalize the fact that there are about 35 million missing adults that could be helping to make America great, including paying taxes, running businesses, treating the ill as doctors, serving our nation in the armed forces. They are gone because of abortion – something Democrats support with every fiber of their being – and then Democrats wonder why Social Security, Medicare, and other government programs are failing? They created a massive gap between pre- and post- contraception generations, where there are something like 2 Baby Boomers who’ll be drawing on Social Security for every 1 person working to pay into the system.

The impact of abortion does not stop with the woman. It creates a ripple effect that radiates throughout all of society. I will not support something so destructive.

englishqueen01 on December 10, 2009 at 5:26 PM

John Stossel was the first man to ever become pregnant; it’s true just ask Planned Parenthood when they tried to get a woman using his urine sample to have an abortion.

Lime 5, read it, it’s a book.

I’d really be interesting in a link to that.

englishqueen01 on December 10, 2009 at 5:31 PM

englishqueen01 on December 10, 2009 at 5:26 PM

englishqueen gives us ladies one more reason
to say it proud: “Right Wing Women Rock”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df6-RlQmu4o

tigerlily on December 10, 2009 at 5:43 PM

englishqueen01:

Lime 5, written by Mark Crutcher, exposes and destroys the second great pillar of lies which supports the abortion industry. …

http://www.priestsforlife.org/lime5.html

priestsforlife also has links to photos of aborted babies, information on post abortion counseling and testimony of women who have gone through abortion and what “choice” has done to them.

tigerlily on December 10, 2009 at 5:47 PM

priestsforlife also has links to photos of aborted babies, information on post abortion counseling and testimony of women who have gone through abortion and what “choice” has done to them.

Yes, I am aware of the good work of Fr. Pavone and Priests for Life.

Funny thing is, pro-abortion folks will never acknowledge the women who suffer from abortions. Further proof they really don’t care about women, just getting rich off killing babies.

Moloch would be proud.

englishqueen01 on December 10, 2009 at 5:56 PM


I’ve looked at early abortion pictures and don’t find them offensive. Sorry tigerlily. I will pray for you to find God. You apparently are deluded into thinking you have.

Jimbo3 on December 10, 2009 at 4:16 AM

Let’s try this again, little man. Do you think you would “find it offensive” of the photos of a butchered human were of you?

——————
So much of what you have posted here, if not everything, is factually incorrect. With all due respect, I wonder why you know so little about this subject, but speak so feverishly about it anyway.

tigerlily on December 10, 2009 at 4:28 PM

——————–

I do forgive you, tigerlily. With due respect, I never said second-trimester abortions were rare. I said abortions at 20+ weeks were very uncommon (or something similar). If you want to twist my words, fine. But don’t then accuse my twisted words of being factually incorrect. I said early term abortion pictures were not offensive. You changed that language like conservatives say liberals do and then insulted me. I pray that you find true Biblical-based truth on abortion. Because it looks like you need to twist what I write in order to personally attack me and my positions because your positions are so weak logically and Biblically.

Jimbo3 on December 10, 2009 at 9:18 PM

I pray that you find true Biblical-based truth on abortion. Because it looks like you need to twist what I write in order to personally attack me and my positions because your positions are so weak logically and Biblically.

Oh, please, professor of theology, tell me where the Bible condones or otherwise permits abortion in any way, shape, or form.

Because I clearly remember several passages that stand in contradiction to that assertion:

Isaiah 49:1 – “The LORD called me from birth, from my mother’s womb he gave me my name.”

Psalm 139:13 – “You formed my inmost being; you knit me in my mother’s womb.”

Isaiah 44:2 – “Thus says the LORD who made you, your help, who formed you from the womb: Fear not, O Jacob, my servant, the darling whom I have chosen.”

Psalm 71:6 – “On you I depend since birth; from my mother’s womb you are my strength; my hope in you never wavers.”

Deuteronomy 30:19-20 – “I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life, then, that you and your descendants may live, by loving the LORD, your God, heeding his voice, and holding fast to him.”

Genesis 35:11 – “God also said to him: ‘I am God Almighty; be fruitful and multiply.’”

And Psalm 128 – “A song of ascents. Happy are all who fear the LORD, who walk in the ways of God. What your hands provide you will enjoy; you will be happy and prosper: Like a fruitful vine your wife within your home, Like olive plants your children around your table. Just so will they be blessed who fear the LORD. May the LORD bless you from Zion, all the days of your life That you may share Jerusalem’s joy and live to see your children’s children. Peace upon Israel!”

No where does it say abortion is a moral good or that life is an imposition.

englishqueen01 on December 10, 2009 at 11:01 PM

do forgive you, tigerlily. With due respect, I never said second-trimester abortions were rare. I said abortions at 20+ weeks were very uncommon (or something similar). If you want to twist my words, fine. But don’t then accuse my twisted words of being factually incorrect. I said early term abortion pictures were not offensive. You changed that language like conservatives say liberals do and then insulted me. I pray that you find true Biblical-based truth on abortion. Because it looks like you need to twist what I write in order to personally attack me and my positions because your positions are so weak logically and Biblically.

Jimbo3 on December 10, 2009 at 9:18 PM

Jimbo, Jimbo, Jimbo. Are you saying that the terms “very uncommon” and “rare” are not synonyms? I don’t think that using the word “rare” in place of “very uncommon” could be remotely construed as twisting your words by most reasonable standards.

Next, are you saying that a pre-born baby at 20+ weeks is not considered to be in the second trimester of development? Because it is very much in the second trimester, and as I noted in an earlier post, an abortion mill that I sidewalk counsel at perpetrates about 5,000 second trimester abortions yearly at that one location. There are more than 250,000 second trimester abortions (babies killed in months 4-6) in the U.S. annually. Hardly “rare” or “very uncommon”.

And, if you saying that you don’t find photos of the smaller, first trimester aborted babies “offensive”, (although I question too, what you are “offended” by, specifically – do you find photos of Nazi death camp victims “offensive” – this word you use implies that it is more about you than them),could you elaborate on why you are not “offended” and also let us know if photos of second or third trimester killings are “offensive” to you, and if so, why.

As to your puzzling reference to Biblical truth on abortion, englishqueen01 has you at check and checkmate. If you are a pro-abort, the Bible is the last place you will find support for abortion.

Finally, I again wonder if photos of your dismembered relatives would “offend” you, and if so, why. They are no more or less human than a pre-born, just in a different stage of development and age. And, I again wonder why you are so punishingly pro-abort and why you are so short on factual knowledge.

P.S. englishqueen01, you’re a great tag-team partner. I think poor ol’ Jimbo is getting Roe-a-doped! :)

tigerlily on December 11, 2009 at 12:42 AM

I think if you became informed about the truth of abortion, it deleterious effects on the aborted babies parents and the humanity of the unborn, Jimbo, you might actually become a defender of the innocent; a helper of the helpless.
And we could all do more in that dept., myself included.

tigerlily on December 11, 2009 at 1:05 AM

No fear, this is not offensive, but this is what that clump of cells looks like as a 6-8 week human life.

Only 6-8 weeks…I’ve got news for them. That ain’t no random clump of cells. Abortion, at every stage, is murder. Planned Parenthood, YOU LIE!

They need to be defunded, NOW!

A nation that kills its own children, is a nation without hope.

pannw on December 11, 2009 at 10:36 AM

Next, are you saying that a pre-born baby at 20+ weeks is not considered to be in the second trimester of development? Because it is very much in the second trimester, and as I noted in an earlier post, an abortion mill that I sidewalk counsel at perpetrates about 5,000 second trimester abortions yearly at that one location. There are more than 250,000 second trimester abortions (babies killed in months 4-6) in the U.S. annually. Hardly “rare” or “very uncommon

–I am saying that abortions after twenty weeks are very rare, not second trimester abortions. Read my words. To support my facts:

From Wikipedia: United States: In 2003, from data collected in those areas that sufficiently reported gestational age, it was found that 6.2% of abortions were conducted from 13 to 15 weeks, 4.2% from 16 to 20 weeks, and 1.4% at or after 21 weeks.

Do you play fast and loose with the truth to the people that you sidewalk counsel the same way you twisted my words?
And none of those Bible passages deals with abortion.

Jimbo3 on December 11, 2009 at 11:58 AM

And none of those Bible passages deals with abortion.

They deal with life, and the case for protecting it because it is created by God.

And here’s your opportunity to show us which passages support abortion. Unless you do, your Biblical argument is – like so many other aspects of your position on abortion – based on a lie.

englishqueen01 on December 11, 2009 at 12:21 PM

Here’s Exodus 21:22 from your Catholic bible. Sorta seems like God didn’t think the death of a fetus was equivalent to the death of a human being. (I understand other versions translate this verse differently).

22 ‘If people, when brawling, hurt a pregnant woman and she suffers a miscarriage but no further harm is done, the person responsible will pay compensation as fixed by the woman’s master, paying as much as the judges decide.
23 If further harm is done, however, you will award life for life,
24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stroke for stroke.

Jimbo3 on December 11, 2009 at 12:25 PM

They deal with life, and the case for protecting it because it is created by God.

englishqueen01 on December 11, 2009 at 12:21 PM

–If everything created by God deserves protecting, how can you eat animals?

Jimbo3 on December 11, 2009 at 12:28 PM

From Wikipedia: United States: In 2003, from data collected in those areas that sufficiently reported gestational age, it was found that 6.2% of abortions were conducted from 13 to 15 weeks, 4.2% from 16 to 20 weeks, and 1.4% at or after 21 weeks.

Do you play fast and loose with the truth to the people that you sidewalk counsel the same way you twisted my words?
And none of those Bible passages deals with abortion.

Jimbo3 on December 11, 2009 at 11:58 AM

Just wanted to get this on the record even if you never read it.

You have proven my point once again that you are completely ignorant on the subject of abortion. You say that the sources you use to “prove your facts” is wikipedia. Wikipedia, in case you havn’t heard, is an internet free-for-all where ANYONE can post anything and that’s that. I wouldn’t let a first grader use wikipedia as a source for cathing cottontail rabbits.

Let’s just take your number of 1.4% of abortions being perpetrated after 21 weeks. That’s only 16,926 for the entire country. Priests for Life says that the abortion industry’s own statistic says it’s 19,650, almost 3,000 more lives snuffed out. If almost 20,000 one-day old infants were murdered every year in this country, what would you say about that?

Also, the abortionists are liars before they even get around to the murdering part. They have censored the truth about their savagery since 1973 and certainly will not tell the truth about abortions after 20-21 weeks because that is when people are more informed about the baby’s full development and they would be horrified to know how common it is.

And, as I said, the abortion mill that I sidewalk counsel at does about 5,000 second trimester abortions per year. About 1/3 of those are after 20-21 weeks. That is 1,500 post 20-21 week abortions in ONE LOCATION only in the USA.

Now, there are about 1500 abortion locations in the USA.
According to the abortion promoting Guttmacher Institute, about 20% do second trimester abortions. That is 300 abortion mills. If we give them a very low estimate average of only 500 abortions after 20-21 weeks, that would come out 150,000 per year. And that is being conservative.

So, Jimbo, I think you are projecting a little when you accuse me of twisting words. Your statitistics, as well as your morals are twisted when it comes to defending helpless fetuses (remember, I told you that word is Latin, for “Little ones”). As far as twisting words when I sidewalk counsel, well, I can give you the testimony of many happy mothers and fathers as they hold their children in their arms and speak about the lies they were told by the abortionists and how grateful they are that they spoke to me on the fateful day that their baby hung in the balance between life and death.

tigerlily on December 12, 2009 at 3:38 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4