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

Funny how when libs don’t have a decent argument, they resort to semantics and word games. “Technically, we will use this word here (fetus) instead of that word there (baby) and VOILA, now its okay to kill it!!”

So sad, so very sad.

Fatal on December 9, 2009 at 6:34 PM

That’s not a baby growing inside you? Sounds like what the Nazis said about some of my relatives. “Those aren’t REAL people we are killing in the concentration camps. Those are Jews.” Or, as the U.S. government said about my other relatives, “Those aren’t REAL people we are killing on the Trail of Tears. Those are Cherokees.” Planned Parenthood is absoutely disgusting!

MeAlice on December 9, 2009 at 6:41 PM

Jimbo3 on December 9, 2009 at 6:14 PM

Now that you and I both know where the other stands, let’s agree to disagree, okay?

I’m sorry to know your dad is gone. Mine went Home 21 years ago, so I know how that feels.

On a lighter note, aren’t Celtic women the hottest in the world? You said you’re Irish, right?

Liam on December 9, 2009 at 6:41 PM

So sad, so very sad.

Fatal on December 9, 2009 at 6:34 PM

I find their ways to be more of a midnight horror. The Left’s ways are basically, in my mind, Hitler Lite.

Liam on December 9, 2009 at 6:46 PM

The product of two humans copulating isn’t human?

…right.

Of all the liberal logic I’ve ever heard, this is in the top five for level of complete denial of reality. Any doctor or biologist with a single functioning brain cell could give this ‘argument’ a Grade-A smackdown.

Dark-Star on December 9, 2009 at 6:47 PM

Dark-Star on December 9, 2009 at 6:47 PM

+1000

Liam on December 9, 2009 at 6:50 PM

tigerlily on December 9, 2009 at 5:03 PM
Thank you for doing what few do.

TimTebowSavesAmerica on December 9, 2009 at 5:36 PM

you’re welcome, Tim. However, many more are called and gifted for this work by God than they realize. Sometimes all it takes is a little soul searching and listening to the Lord from the heart and then just going out and learning, little by little. Start just by going to the mill and joining a prayer group once a week or so. You may be called to be a prayer warrior, or you may be called to counsel. Listen to Lord and you’ll know. Both are equally powerful and important ways God uses us to save babies and convert parent’s hearts.

tigerlily on December 9, 2009 at 7:35 PM

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.

Wow that’s disgusting how do these people live with themselves? Hard Liquor or Hard Drug use?

Dr Evil on December 9, 2009 at 7:50 PM

PP, Ogabe, Boxer, Pelosi, Reid…any and all who support abortion are despicable, evil people.

God will deal with them in his time and in his way.

Their punishment will be beyond description.

GrannyDee on December 9, 2009 at 8:44 PM

That’s not a baby growing inside you? Sounds like what the Nazis said about some of my relatives. “Those aren’t REAL people we are killing in the concentration camps. Those are Jews.” Or, as the U.S. government said about my other relatives, “Those aren’t REAL people we are killing on the Trail of Tears. Those are Cherokees.” Planned Parenthood is absoutely disgusting!

MeAlice on December 9, 2009 at 6:41 PM

Best post I’ve read this week. Your reference to those other genocides is an analogy that should open some eyes.

Red State State of Mind on December 9, 2009 at 9:05 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

I’m sorely tempted to write how I REALLY feel about these ‘people’ at planned demonhood. Before I suffer a lapse in judgement I’ll be over at AoS and Blackfive. Then when I’ve calmed down I’ll come back.

Blacksmith8 on December 9, 2009 at 9:14 PM

It’s not a baby until the stork brings it…

Axeman on December 9, 2009 at 9:46 PM

It’s not a baby until the stork brings it…

Axeman on December 9, 2009 at 9:46 PM

Or, as some dishonest Senator from CA once said, “It’s not a baby until it’s home from the hospital…”

I thought I had never heard something so jackass-laced coming from anyone… until now.

newton on December 9, 2009 at 9:49 PM

If it’s not a baby, why do they have to count the parts to make sure they got it all?

bloggless on December 9, 2009 at 9:58 PM

There have been 60 MILLION babies that have been killed since 1967.

60 MILLION

The liberal/progressives/Democrats have blood on their hands.

The Nazi’s killed 5 million Jews.

The pro-abortionists are the Eugenicists.

ms on December 9, 2009 at 9:58 PM

The Nazi’s killed 5 million Jews.

The pro-abortionists are the Eugenicists.

ms on December 9, 2009 at 9:58 PM

That’s a particularly harsh viewpoint. I sure don’t see it that way.

AnninCA on December 9, 2009 at 10:12 PM

. I sure don’t see it that way.

AnninCA on December 9, 2009 at 10:12 PM

you don’t huh? well the ‘sainted’ margaret sanger sure as hell did…she was obsessed with getting rid of ‘negroes’

you do know margaret sanger is the founder and patron saint of planned parenthood, right?

eugenics goes back to darwin, and his racist theory of evolution…his cousin Galton coined the term..

right4life on December 9, 2009 at 10:15 PM

right4life on December 9, 2009 at 10:15 PM

You do realize you may be addressing a piece of petrified wood, don’t you?

platypus on December 9, 2009 at 10:22 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

I assume you are saying that defining whether an unborn child is human or not is relative, and is or is not a human being based upon whether “one” believes it to be human or not. See Sarah Palin’s post regarding “political science”.
She’s talking about people like you and obama who will deny real hard science, DNA and the experience of human parents since the beginning of time, all in order to, as Sarah puts it, promote your “agenda driven science”. But even there, I’m being too generous. There is NOT A SHRED of scientific evidence that contradicts the fact that a human being, totally unique and unrepeatable, is brought into existence when human fertilization takes place. Kindergarten dismissed.

tigerlily on December 9, 2009 at 10:30 PM

…and they call us “deniers”…

Knott Buyinit on December 9, 2009 at 10:34 PM

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

Wow, okay so enlighten me, what is it? Alien? Tumor? Some kind of growth? And don’t say it’s a fetus. I’m so sick of playing the name game with leftists. There are mounds of scientific evidence to prove that from conception, it is a separate, unique entity. So let’s cut to the chase. Is it morally acceptable to terminate one life to make another’s easier.

SG1_Conservative on December 9, 2009 at 10:41 PM

This subject hits home to AnnIn as she is always trying to justify the fact that she aborted her own kids.

CWforFreedom on December 9, 2009 at 10:43 PM

That’s a particularly harsh viewpoint. I sure don’t see it that way.

Really? This is what Margaret Sanger had to say about her vision for contraception/eugenics:

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

And about her work with the Ku Klux Klan:

“Always to me any aroused group was a good group, and therefore I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan…In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered.”

Margaret Sanger wanted to use contraception, sterilization, and abortion to eliminate blacks, as well as mental defectives and others she deemed undesirable.

When was it that Lila Rose investigated Planned Parenthoods and found they were more than willing to accept donations specifically earmarked to kill an unborn black child? Oh, spring of 2008.

And when people talk about “saving the planet” by handing out condoms and other contraception, it’s always focused on nations where the population is black or brown-skinned. Just like when liberals banned DDT and it’s cost the lives of millions of Africans, mostly children.

There’s always an undercurrent, and sometimes tsunamis, of racism on the left. Always.

It’s because they don’t care about people; to them, we’re commodities to be controlled and used as serfs of the state and our elite masters.

So it makes perfect sense that liberals would want to exterminate life and support the murder of 50 million-plus unborn children. Their role models – communists and socialists – only killed 100 million in the 20th century, so they have to beat that mark to keep proving they’re authentic socialists.

englishqueen01 on December 9, 2009 at 10:57 PM

The people here who say that they truely know the Lord Jesus and still are pro abortions are blinded by the greatest liar of the universe. This liar will trick, deceive and do anything to promote evil. He is a master at making these evil things presentable to the world. Those who advocate abortion killing are truely now getting their reward. Not much of a reward later on for them because they believed a lie.

garydt on December 9, 2009 at 11:00 PM

For our younger readers, this is what sent the Looney Left over the mountain, across the shark, and around the dark side of the moon back when Noxin was President:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZSEDsWp7TQ

Del Dolemonte on December 9, 2009 at 11:06 PM

The Catholic Church had the power to stop the massacre in 1987. Instead they purposefully did nothing. Since that time, the Catholic Church has been the body most responsible for the continuation of the Great Atrocity. It is for a singular purpose that the Church diverts its members to an endless list of fake Democrat Party issues: Social Justice, opposition to war, illegal immigration, etc. etc., and that purpose is to prop up and shill for the Party of Death.

jay12 on December 9, 2009 at 3:39 PM

Does anyone know what this lunatic is talking about here?

tcn on December 9, 2009 at 11:12 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

Science should not be hampered by personal “belief.”

So, how long ago did you have your abortion? Are you in therapy yet?

tcn on December 9, 2009 at 11:13 PM

That’s a particularly harsh viewpoint. I sure don’t see it that way.
Really? This is what Margaret Sanger had to say about her vision for contraception/eugenics:

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
And about her work with the Ku Klux Klan:

“Always to me any aroused group was a good group, and therefore I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan…In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered.”
Margaret Sanger wanted to use contraception, sterilization, and abortion to eliminate blacks, as well as mental defectives and others she deemed undesirable.

When was it that Lila Rose investigated Planned Parenthoods and found they were more than willing to accept donations specifically earmarked to kill an unborn black child? Oh, spring of 2008.

And when people talk about “saving the planet” by handing out condoms and other contraception, it’s always focused on nations where the population is black or brown-skinned. Just like when liberals banned DDT and it’s cost the lives of millions of Africans, mostly children.

There’s always an undercurrent, and sometimes tsunamis, of racism on the left. Always.

It’s because they don’t care about people; to them, we’re commodities to be controlled and used as serfs of the state and our elite masters.

So it makes perfect sense that liberals would want to exterminate life and support the murder of 50 million-plus unborn children. Their role models – communists and socialists – only killed 100 million in the 20th century, so they have to beat that mark to keep proving they’re authentic socialists.

Great post, queenie. Anninca is trying to bait the hook. She has picked the wrong subject to be smug and know-it-all, judging others as harsh, when the horrors of abortion have diabolically ravaged millions. Does she want to see harsh? If I stay on this thread, and she continues her “above-it-all” attitude regarding these helpless little ones, someone is gonna see harsh, alright. I posted here earlier about a girl I know who was aborted without her knowledge or consent. Everyone who wants to say anything about abortion should google the photos of aborted babies, with their limbs and faces ripped off, their insides butchered, and all of this happening to them while they are alive! How’s that for harsh, Anninca?!!!!!

tigerlily on December 9, 2009 at 11:28 PM

There will have to be a special place in HELL for those connected with promoting and sanctioning this evil, (political incorrect sensor blaring here) demonic organization.

HITLER WOULD BE PROUD OF YOU PLANNED PARENTHOOD!!!

PappyD61 on December 9, 2009 at 11:34 PM

The Catholic Church had the power to stop the massacre in 1987. Instead they purposefully did nothing. Since that time, the Catholic Church has been the body most responsible for the continuation of the Great Atrocity. It is for a singular purpose that the Church diverts its members to an endless list of fake Democrat Party issues: Social Justice, opposition to war, illegal immigration, etc. etc., and that purpose is to prop up and shill for the Party of Death.

jay12 on December 9, 2009 at 3:39 PM

Does anyone know what this lunatic is talking about here?

tcn on December 9, 2009 at 11:12 PM

Yeah, he’s talking about the fact that the Catholic Church won’t shut up and do what the GOP tells us to do.

“Social justice” as defined by the Catholic Church and as defined by the Democrat Left are two wholly different things – one is borne of charity and a love of Christ and our fellow man, the other is borne of a love of Stalin and the desire for power that comes with socialism.

The Catholic Church has something called the “Just War” criteria – we are not, and never have been, pacifists. But we believe war should be conducted in a manner that is as respectful of life and human dignity as war can be, and that we have good reason for going to war. We do not prohibit violence, even the murder of another person, if that is done to protect innocents from unjust aggressors – be it one-on-one or nation-to-nation.

Teaching on immigration consists of the notion a prosperous nation is bound to help those who seek to better their lives, but that immigrants have an obligation to follow the laws of their adopted nation (see here).

There was a time when, yes, Catholics supported the Democrat party. And we could do so in good conscience. Today’s Democrat party, with its love of abortion and hatred of marriage and family is not the same as it was 40, 50, 60 years ago. It should not be supported by Catholics, but, sadly a lot of Catholics still do.

jay12 is, I’m guessing, a conservative or supporter of the GOP who has no use for Catholics when our teachings are co-opted, misinterpreted, and misconstrued by liberal Democrat hippies. Just as liberals and Democrats have no use for Catholics when we remind them that killing unborn children or the elderly/chronically ill/infirm, destroying the institution of marriage, or encouraging fornication/artificial contraception aren’t exactly in the best interest of society or souls.

To most politicians, we’re just pawns to be used as voting blocs every couple of years, then shuffled off to our parishes until our ballots are needed again.

jay12 should also learn what happens when persons of faith stand up to Moloch – how many calls for lawsuits and stripping of tax exemption have we heard since the passage of Prop 8?

englishqueen01 on December 9, 2009 at 11:40 PM

The first step toward rationalizing the killing of human beings is to dehumize them. This is affectively what PP is doing to easy their conscience and that of the woman having the abortion.

docdave on December 9, 2009 at 11:45 PM

englishqueen01 on December 9, 2009 at 11:40 PM

Ah yeah moloch, that is how these murderers should have to do the deed. Place their newborn into the red hot iron arms of loving moloch. Or maybe they can line up and toss their newborns into the valley of Gehenna.

If you want to be pagan, go all in.

daesleeper on December 9, 2009 at 11:50 PM

I posted here earlier about a girl I know who was aborted without her knowledge or consent.

Yes, because remember, tigerlily, it’s all about “choice”, right?

I know someone who couldn’t have children, and ended up adopting. The child they adopted was actually scheduled to be aborted before the birth mother changed her mind as in, she changed it RIGHT before the appointment. I mean, the child was a hair’s breadth away from death and today the child is less than a month older than my eldest son.

To think this child may not be around today!

I think every person who supports abortion should have to sit through a viewing of an abortion video. “The Silent Scream” is a good place to start. They should have to face, fully, what they are condoning.

Because a lot of them have a suspicion of what it is, but can’t bring themselves to fully understand it – which is why these people have fits if a pro-life group displays pictures of aborted babies during protests. “It might scare children,” they say – but they don’t care about the child it killed.

I used to be pro-choice, which was really pro-abortion, until I realized the hypocrisy of it all. ESPECIALLY when it comes to the left’s treatment of women who have children, like Sarah Palin or Michelle Duggar, about whom some of the following was written on a message board I used to frequent (emphasis on USED TO):

“She needs to be fixed.”

“This is just no way to live.”

“I wonder if the State is paying for any of their meals.”

“People like this are just freaks and need Ovcon.”

“…talk about no attention to all these kids. Geez, trouble makers on the loose.”

“[T]here should be a limit. My tax dollars will be going to their dumbasses at some point. He’ll leave her cause she is always PG, he’ll have an affair, the kids will be ADD or whatever cause they have no attention, one will murder someone. and on and on and on.”

“I think it should be 1 child per couple unless they pass a very tough parenting and drug test. “

Never mind that the Duggars have no debt, pay cash for everything, have a beautiful house and children who are educated, fed, clothed, and loved as well as any parent can love one, two, or twenty children.

It was stuff like this that led me to realize liberals really weren’t about “live and let live” and “tolerance”, but about control. Which is why I decided abortion was wrong; that position has only been cemented since I had my two sons. I would never have an abortion – even if my life were threatened by a pregnancy or if a child was conceived by rape.

There is no excuse for abortion. None whatsoever.

If you don’t want to get pregnant, don’t have sex. If you get pregnant and don’t want to have a child, find an adoptive family. If you’re raped and get pregnant, see a good therapist, not an abortionist because they do not care about you. And neither does any person who supports abortion.

englishqueen01 on December 9, 2009 at 11:53 PM

You do realize you may be addressing a piece of petrified wood, don’t you?

platypus on December 9, 2009 at 10:22 PM

LOL

right4life on December 9, 2009 at 11:54 PM

Ah yeah moloch, that is how these murderers should have to do the deed. Place their newborn into the red hot iron arms of loving moloch. Or maybe they can line up and toss their newborns into the valley of Gehenna.

If you want to be pagan, go all in.

Don’t give them any ideas.

englishqueen01 on December 9, 2009 at 11:55 PM

And we talk about how tribal and barbaric some Islamic societies are.

Speakup on December 9, 2009 at 11:58 PM

There was a time when, yes, Catholics supported the Democrat party. And we could do so in good conscience. Today’s Democrat party, with its love of abortion and hatred of marriage and family is not the same as it was 40, 50, 60 years ago. It should not be supported by Catholics, but, sadly a lot of Catholics still do.

englishqueen01 on December 9, 2009 at 11:40 PM

Support for the Democrats is inherited — especially amongst Irish Catholics. Drill down into the history of this and find that the Irish — at the bottom of the social ladder in the 1860′s — viewed potential freemen (freed slaves) as competition for their jobs. They were one of the few groups in the North which were adamantly pro-slavery. The anti-Republican Copperheads were primarily Irish-American, which was surprising, given the pro-Catholic immigration position of the Republicans.

unclesmrgol on December 9, 2009 at 11:58 PM

I’m sickened and disgusted that planned parenthood would resort to these kinds of lies and deceptions. Providing an abortion is one thing, pressuring someone to have an abortion and lying to them about it is quite another.

What the hell is the matter with these people?

leereyno on December 10, 2009 at 12:12 AM

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.

Is the baby viable in the delivery room? Lay it on the sidewalk for 60 days and see how it does. By their logic, your parents could have killed you before you finished school. You should have been able to live on your own.

apacalyps on December 10, 2009 at 12:14 AM

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

I ran that debate to its end a long time ago:

If
A) A Zygote is not human
and
B) A newborn baby is human,
then
X) Between conception, and birth, a fetus becomes human.

If
C) Humans develop along mostly similar rates
and
X) Between conception and birth, a fetus becomes human,
Then
Y) The point at when that transition occurs is mostly similar between people.

If
X) Between conception and birth, a fetus becomes human,
and
Y) The point at when that transition occurs is mostly similar between people
The question is:
Z) When does that transition occur?

I tried to answer Z), and could not, and it was a long attempt. In the end, I had to chose between a position of mandating someone give birth to something that may or may not be a person, or allowing something that may or may not be a person to be killed. Overall, I cannot see how the cost of a mistaken birth is greater than the cost of a mistaken death.

Voyager on December 10, 2009 at 12:25 AM

I’m surprised she didn’t try to talk her into getting the undercoating.

“Let’s talk turkey. What’s it going to take to get this baby into our dumpster today? I’ve talked to my boss and he says I can go as high as thirteen weeks.”

Murder is their business and business is good.

29Victor on December 10, 2009 at 12:37 AM

Voyager on December 10, 2009 at 12:25 AM

The difficulty is that humanity can’t be defined by a gradient scale. If it could then the scale we choose could be anything from fetal development to chronological age, IQ or skin color.

29Victor on December 10, 2009 at 12:40 AM

The question is:
Z) When does that transition occur?

When a woman decides she wants to keep the baby, unless, of course, the woman and/or her unborn child is harmed/killed in the commission of a crime. In which case the baby – despite the fact the mother wanted him – is not really human and cannot be protected under homicide laws because acknowledging that the baby who was killed was human threatens the liberal sacrament of abortion.

I am, of course, being facetious, but that’s how liberals think. NARAL and PP hate fetal homicide laws because they put a kink in their “sacred work” of killing innocent unborn children.

englishqueen01 on December 10, 2009 at 12:50 AM

GK Chesterton says it well. about these Eugenists, in his 1922 book Eugenics and Other Evils:

There is one strong, startling, outstanding thing about Eugenics, and that is its meanness. Wealth, and the social science supported by wealth, had tried an inhuman experiment. The experiment had entirely failed. They sought to make wealth accumulate–and they made men decay. Then, instead of confessing the error, and trying to restore the wealth, or attempting to repair the decay, they are trying to cover their first cruel experiment with a more cruel experiment. They put a poisonous plaster on a poisoned wound. Vilest of all, they actually quote the bewilderment produced among the poor by their first blunder as a reason for allowing them to blunder again. They are apparently ready to arrest all the opponents of their system as mad, merely because the system was maddening.

Yes, GKC saw Eugenics as evil, before Hitler tried to make it popular. And Abortion is just one part of Eugenics.

Cromagnum on December 10, 2009 at 1:48 AM

The difficulty is that humanity can’t be defined by a gradient scale. If it could then the scale we choose could be anything from fetal development to chronological age, IQ or skin color.

29Victor on December 10, 2009 at 12:40 AM

That’s pretty much the root of it. The difficulty is that life is binary: you are either alive, or dead, or a virus, and to apply a binary or discrete state to any continuous, you have to decide what level and what tilt of wrongness you are willing to tolerate, and being dead is kind of a hard thing to undo if you’re more wrong that you thought.

Voyager on December 10, 2009 at 2:15 AM

The Nazi’s killed 5 million Jews.

The pro-abortionists are the Eugenicists.

ms on December 9, 2009 at 9:58 PM

That’s a particularly harsh viewpoint. I sure don’t see it that way.

AnninCA on December 9, 2009 at 10:12 PM

I guessing you are Pro-Choice? Which would make you a pro-abortionist. Therefor, the personalization of the post. It is truly ugly, is it not?

IowaWoman on December 10, 2009 at 3:20 AM

Now that you and I both know where the other stands, let’s

agree to disagree, okay?

I’m sorry to know your dad is gone. Mine went Home 21 years ago, so I know how that feels.

On a lighter note, aren’t Celtic women the hottest in the world? You said you’re Irish, right?

Liam on December 9, 2009 at 6:41 PM

–They are, but I’ll also take some Swedish/northern European ones as well, Liam. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Jimbo3 on December 10, 2009 at 3:49 AM

The Nazi’s killed 5 million Jews.

The pro-abortionists are the Eugenicists.

ms on December 9, 2009 at 9:58 PM

That’s a particularly harsh viewpoint. I sure don’t see it that way.

AnninCA on December 9, 2009 at 10:12 PM

Learn more, Girl. The Nazis use abortion to control Jewish population … that’s history for you.

American Democrats in the past used Abortion to control Black population … That’s the real untold History of Democratic Party.

Seeing Obama and the Black population embracing abortion would break the heart of … Martin Luther King.

TheAlamos on December 10, 2009 at 3:51 AM

There is NOT A SHRED of scientific evidence that contradicts the fact that a human being, totally unique and unrepeatable, is brought into existence when human fertilization takes place. Kindergarten dismissed.

tigerlily on December 9, 2009 at 10:30 PM

–There is plenty of evidence that shows that what is formed at conception is human, but is not a human being at that time since it doesn’t have intelligence or speech or walk.

–Definition of human being: any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae characterized by superior intelligence, articulate speech, and erect carriage

Jimbo3 on December 10, 2009 at 3:57 AM

The Nazi’s killed 5 million Jews.

The pro-abortionists are the Eugenicists.

ms on December 9, 2009 at 9:58 PM

That’s a particularly harsh viewpoint. I sure don’t see it that way.

AnninCA on December 9, 2009 at 10:12 PM
Learn more, Girl. The Nazis use abortion to control Jewish population … that’s history for you.

American Democrats in the past used Abortion to control Black population … That’s the real untold History of Democratic Party.

Seeing Obama and the Black population embracing abortion would break the heart of … Martin Luther King.

TheAlamos on December 10, 2009 at 3:51 AM

–Talk to a Jew who had relatives killed by Hitler. Many of them find equating abortion to the Holocaust to be offensive.

Jimbo3 on December 10, 2009 at 4:00 AM

I used to be pro-choice, which was really pro-abortion, until I realized the hypocrisy of it all. ESPECIALLY when it comes to the left’s treatment of women who have children, like Sarah Palin or Michelle Duggar, about whom some of the following was written on a message board I used to frequent (emphasis on USED TO):

“She needs to be fixed.”

“This is just no way to live.”

“I wonder if the State is paying for any of their meals.”

“People like this are just freaks and need Ovcon.”

“…talk about no attention to all these kids. Geez, trouble makers on the loose.”

“[T]here should be a limit. My tax dollars will be going to their dumbasses at some point. He’ll leave her cause she is always PG, he’ll have an affair, the kids will be ADD or whatever cause they have no attention, one will murder someone. and on and on and on.”

“I think it should be 1 child per couple unless they pass a very tough parenting and drug test. “
Never mind that the Duggars have no debt, pay cash for everything, have a beautiful house and children who are educated, fed, clothed, and loved as well as any parent can love one, two, or twenty children.

It was stuff like this that led me to realize liberals really weren’t about “live and let live” and “tolerance”, but about control. Which is why I decided abortion was wrong; that position has only been cemented since I had my two sons. I would never have an abortion – even if my life were threatened by a pregnancy or if a child was conceived by rape.

There is no excuse for abortion. None whatsoever.

If you don’t want to get pregnant, don’t have sex. If you get pregnant and don’t want to have a child, find an adoptive family. If you’re raped and get pregnant, see a good therapist, not an abortionist because they do not care about you. And neither does any person who supports abortion.

englishqueen01 on December 9, 2009 at 11:53 P

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

Great post, queenie. Anninca is trying to bait the hook. She has picked the wrong subject to be smug and know-it-all, judging others as harsh, when the horrors of abortion have diabolically ravaged millions. Does she want to see harsh? If I stay on this thread, and she continues her “above-it-all” attitude regarding these helpless little ones, someone is gonna see harsh, alright. I posted here earlier about a girl I know who was aborted without her knowledge or consent. Everyone who wants to say anything about abortion should google the photos of aborted babies, with their limbs and faces ripped off, their insides butchered, and all of this happening to them while they are alive! How’s that for harsh, Anninca?!!!!!

tigerlily on December 9, 2009 at 11:28 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

You see Ms Doe that lump in your stomach is from overeating and goes away as soon as the stork arrives; or sooner if you opt to cancel his flight. We can help you in the latter case and you’ll be in your “slim” outfits just in time for the solstice festival.

Annar on December 10, 2009 at 5:58 AM

Then Congress can lop all pre-natal care off of health care. What’s the point of it?

drjohn on December 10, 2009 at 7:14 AM

I’ve caught up a little on the posts in this thread, and I can’t get over how easy it is for some to think abortion is just another ‘thing’, like driving a car.

How can anyone believe it’s okay to kill a baby in the womb? Nothing in the world is more innocent and defenseless.

We haven’t touched on partial-birth abortion at all. Were someone to put down a dog the way PB abortions are done, that person would be charged with animal cruelty and end up fined and/or in jail.

Liam on December 10, 2009 at 7:40 AM

Libs amaze me. They have no problem killing an unborn baby, but if a woman shoots her attempted rapist, they want that woman prosecuted.

Maybe if we change the term of that kind situation to something fancy like ex-post-retro abortion, libs won’t ever again try charging murder against a woman who uses a gun to defend herself.

Liam on December 10, 2009 at 7:47 AM

Talk to a Jew who had relatives killed by Hitler. Many of them find equating abortion to the Holocaust to be offensive.

I’ve met many such people, too. They’ve also invariably been pro-abortion.

Liam on December 10, 2009 at 7:55 AM

It’s beyond false left-right…IT’S ALL ABOUT EUGENICS!

After all Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger WAS A EUGENICIST!

BobAnthony on December 10, 2009 at 8:07 AM

–There is plenty of evidence that shows that what is formed at conception is human, but is not a human being at that time since it doesn’t have intelligence or speech or walk.

Um, my mother-in-law has ALS. So she no longer has speech and cannot walk, and is in an assisted living unit where everyone else is in the same boat. My infant son does not have speech, has developing intelligence, and cannot walk. So they’re not human now? What a lame, lame, argument.

I will pray for you to find God. You apparently are deluded into thinking you have.

We have. God is the author of human life; not Planned Parenthood. And not you.

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.

Age doesn’t make one wise. You’re living, breathing proof of that. I’m an adult and, therefore, my opinion is just as valid as yours. For what it’s worth, my mom and dad are in their 50s and 60s, respectively, and both anti-abortion. So what does your comment prove, really?

As for my faith, Humanae Vitae predicted, accurately, that a rise in the contraceptive mentality would lead to divorce, infidelity, increased abortions, and the objectification of women. All those things happen in spades today. It was a prophetic document, which gives the Catholic faith more sway over my beliefs than your ridecule. Since you seem determined to couch this issue in religious terms, however, I can tell you were I an atheist/agnostic, I’d still be pro-life. Why? Because abortion ends a life and is an exploitation of women (the original, true feminists, like Susan B. Anthony, knew this – why don’t we?).

I don’t want to make anyone have children they don’t want. So, please, spare me that straw-man. I know that biology says an unborn child is a human being, unique and individual, and that abortion ends a life. If that’s such a difficult concept for you to grasp, I can’t help you.

But thanks for proving my point – I think anyone who supports abortion needs to get his/her head examined. In that case, you think I’m wrong. You then turn around and say an adult, married woman cannot have sixteen children because you disagree, and you’re the paragon of morality? Jimbo, dear, you are the definition of hypocrisy. The Duggars exemplify the attitude that should be instilled in every man and woman – a respect for marriage and the sanctity of life as a wholly selfless act of giving. If America had more Duggars and – let’s say – fewer Jimbos, it’d be a much happier place.

I am perfectly fine with letting people do with their bodies what they please. The consequences fall on their souls. But the second a woman has living inside her a second, separate, unique human being she has no right to kill that child because she didn’t use birth control, or is afraid it’ll ruin her career (we have laws against discrimination, you know), or doesn’t want to have children.

And abortion provides no equality under the law. Were John Doe to get Jane Doe pregnant, he’d be on the hook for child support if she wanted the child and he didn’t. But if John wanted the child and Jane wanted to abort, John is screwed. He has no ability to raise his child, even though – on the mother’s whim – he could have to pay hundreds, even thousands, of dollars a month in support. Fathers have rights too; abortion denies them that and it’s an injustice. If abortion is about making women “equal” to men – then women should have to take responsibility for that child and either raise him or let the father raise him and pay child support or put the child up for adoption. Those are the “choices” men have, aren’t they?

englishqueen01 on December 10, 2009 at 8:13 AM

Libs amaze me. They have no problem killing an unborn baby, but if a woman shoots her attempted rapist, they want that woman prosecuted.

Maybe if we change the term of that kind situation to something fancy like ex-post-retro abortion, libs won’t ever again try charging murder against a woman who uses a gun to defend herself.

Yes, there’s a t-shirt that says something to the effect that liberals believe a woman lying dead in an alleyway, raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker suffered those SGWs.

I think it’s absolutely correct.

Liberals also think a woman who aborts her child is morally superior to a woman who gives her child life, because dead babies apparently make them feel good about themselves.

englishqueen01 on December 10, 2009 at 8:16 AM

The lengths “people” (I use people in ” ” because I question thieir humanity) will go to dehumanize life in the womb in an effort to justify killing it.

Sick, just sick.

Yakko77 on December 10, 2009 at 8:20 AM

englishqueen01 on December 10, 2009 at 8:16 AM

You’re right on all counts. I love that T-shirt logo, too!

Libs need to be smug, self-righteous. If they didn’t have such pomposity and false bravado, they couldn’t live with themselves. Their arrogance is nothing more than the coping mechanism of a deranged mind.

Liam on December 10, 2009 at 8:25 AM

englishqueen01 on December 10, 2009 at 8:13 AM

Good smack down.

Disturb the Universe on December 10, 2009 at 8:26 AM

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

This of course, was an interesting yet common segue. The whole murder/reproductive rights argument is relied upon the unacceptance of the other’s premise. In all societies, yes, we maintain impositions on people from violating others. In civil societies, these impositions are usually based in reason. They almost exclusively have nothing to do with the whims of 20 or so year old know it alls (Catholic or otherwise).

It is no secret that the bulk of the pro life position operates under the premise that abortion is murder. Given that murder is quite an imposition and certainly has a control element, it doesn’t seem advantageous for one to bring up these points when combating said position.

And while I’m at it, why would one be concerned with control and impositions after proclaiming that sixteen children is too many for someone else?

anuts on December 10, 2009 at 8:27 AM

And while I’m at it, why would one be concerned with control and impositions after proclaiming that sixteen children is too many for someone else?

Because there’s control and there’s “control”. When I say it’s wrong for someone to murder an unborn child, it’s control.

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.

englishqueen01 on December 10, 2009 at 8:33 AM

englishqueen01 on December 10, 2009 at 8:13 AM

Good smack down.

Disturb the Universe on December 10, 2009 at 8:26 AM

Thanks, although it’s not hard to pick apart the “logic” of the pro-abortion crowd.

englishqueen01 on December 10, 2009 at 8:36 AM

anuts on December 10, 2009 at 8:27 AM

Libs like limits (within limits, of course).

They like telling others how many children they can have, or how much money someone can make. I love their argument that no one ‘needs’ to make $15 million a year.

But don’t ever tell a lib that having 600 sex partners in his/her past is way out of line, and that you wouldn’t marry someone with that history. That would be ‘bigoted’.

Liam on December 10, 2009 at 8:36 AM

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

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

Liam on December 10, 2009 at 8:36 AM

Liam, you speak the truth. I was scrolling through the tv programing the other night and there was a show about men who have sexual relationships with their cars. I swear this is true. It was on a regular station and I watched a few minutes of the end to see exactly what kids might be watching(it was almost over). These liberal perverts truly have an agenda. They spoke about how they wanted others who struggle with acceptance of their sexual preference to know they are not alone and that they wanted society to accept them. One guy was walking around a car show sexually abusing the cars.

bloggless on December 10, 2009 at 8:45 AM

But don’t ever tell a lib that having 600 sex partners in his/her past is way out of line, and that you wouldn’t marry someone with that history. That would be ‘bigoted’.

No, just tell them no one “needs” to have sex. That’ll set them off.

englishqueen01 on December 10, 2009 at 8:46 AM

bloggless on December 10, 2009 at 8:45 AM

I can have so much fun with that! I mean, if a person has a fetish for white 1963 Chevy Impalas, is he also racist and/or ageist?

I’m okay with what consenting adults do in the bedroom, but for God’s sake! Keep it in the bedroom!

No, just tell them no one “needs” to have sex. That’ll set them off.

englishqueen01 on December 10, 2009 at 8:46 AM

Oh, I know! But, too, if more libs took sexual matters into their own hands, we’d have fewer libs and no more social problems in fifty years.

Liam on December 10, 2009 at 8:53 AM

Oh, I know! But, too, if more libs took sexual matters into their own hands, we’d have fewer libs and no more social problems in fifty years.

Actually, this isn’t exactly a secret to them, which is why they have to use public schools and colleges/universities to indoctrinate children – they’re aborting their own, and then they want the ability and access to brainwash MINE!

englishqueen01 on December 10, 2009 at 8:54 AM

Actually, this isn’t exactly a secret to them, which is why they have to use public schools and colleges/universities to indoctrinate children – they’re aborting their own, and then they want the ability and access to brainwash MINE!

englishqueen01 on December 10, 2009 at 8:54 AM

The gay agenda is the same way. Back in the 80s, one leader of a gay-rights group said they’ll ‘get’ our kids in schools, in the Scouts, and a number of other places. Part of their (libs in general) hate of home-schooling and other parental involvement. There used to be, among the teacher’s unions, a summer workshop so teachers and administrators can defeat the arguments of concerned parents about curricula.

Also, when my former state of PA passed a parental-notification law covering underage girls seeking abortions, a group popped up to ‘inform’ teachers on how they can help kids circumvent the law.

Liam on December 10, 2009 at 9:01 AM

I am a Pro-Choice conservative Libertarian, and I don’t expect to be loved here for that reason. I’m not going into why I’m pro-choice as it would take up too much space and bore everyone here.

That being said,as a Libertarian, I think Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional and should be overturned, leaving that vote on a state by state basis. I don’t believe any government agency should pay for any abortions. I believe Planned Parenthood is an evil entity that in no way should receive federal funding. They are just like SEIU and ACORN, agencies claiming to help all Americans, but have a definate socialist/communist agenda.

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. Once the government gets involved it becomes political, and God only knows there’s far too much government influence over our lives. Planned Parenthood should have had its funding cut yesterday…..

adamsmith on December 10, 2009 at 9:09 AM

That being said,as a Libertarian, I think Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional and should be overturned, leaving that vote on a state by state basis.
adamsmith on December 10, 2009 at 9:09 AM

As a total Con, I agree in full. The Roe decision took away the rights of the People, to have the matter settled either by direct ballot or through their various legislatures. And if we didn’t the result, we could vote with our feet and move to another State with laws more to our liking.

Roe is an imposition on us all. But that’s how libs are: they want results, often at cost to their own personal liberty.

Liam on December 10, 2009 at 9:14 AM

Also, when my former state of PA passed a parental-notification law covering underage girls seeking abortions, a group popped up to ‘inform’ teachers on how they can help kids circumvent the law.

Yes, and then when little Susie develops an infection or is depressed and commits suicide, liberals will go, “See, this is why we need MORE involvement in your child’s life! If only we raised taxes another 10%, we could have helped Susie!” Or if Susie is given a prescription for birth control pills from the school, then a medication from her primary doctor that interacts with the pill (because both the doctor and her parents are unaware she’s on the pill), and becomes pregnant – well, let’s whisk her off to Planned Parenthood (during the school day, so her parents don’t know) to take care of that little “punishment”.

You need look no further than the hypocrisy of the left on parental rights than the case of Rifqa Bary. At 17, she ran away from home because she converted from Islam to Christianity and feared being subject to an honor killing. The government is bringing to bear the full weight of its power on Rifqa, forcing her to dialogue with her parents, limiting her Internet/phone access (lest she entertain any crazy ideas about Jesus), and working toward a reconciliation with her family who she fears will kill her.

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

The correct name of the abortionist is Dr. Gary Prohaska . Check out the link for information on this criminal.

lyfsatrip on December 10, 2009 at 9:22 AM

These people are pure evil. How can someone convince themselves to kill unborn children for profit is beyond comprehension. I’m sure they see an even bigger payday ahead with the public tax money being promised to them by the dems.

Kissmygrits on December 10, 2009 at 9:23 AM

englishqueen01 on December 10, 2009 at 9:16 AM

Totally terrifying, yes. But I guess that makes people like you and me ‘unenlightened’.

Liberalism is a rabid dog on the way to biting its own tail, and it will snap eventually. But its proponents in the mainstream haven’t figured that out yet. When they do, it’ll be too late for them.

The only way a lib will change is when the things he/she has pushed for years turns on him/her. Like ‘free love’, and then mommy comes home to find ten-year-old Brittany in bed with 18-year-old Johnny.

Or maybe 12-year-old Johnny has genital herpes, which will torture him the rest of life and no woman in her right mind would want to marry him and run risk of being infected at age 20.

Yes, liberalism is a frightening thing in its ramifications.

Liam on December 10, 2009 at 9:27 AM

Speaking of liberal’s worldviews, I should also mention that I have an acquaintance who based their view on abortion on the film “Dirty Dancing.” For those of you who know the plot, bear with me, but if you don’t: one of the characters has a “back alley” abortion performed by a quack; she gets sick and it’s up to Jennifer Grey’s character’s father (Jerry Orbach) to remedy the situation.

This person said, in all seriousness, that because a fictitious character in an 80s movie faced complications, that they are in favor of legalized abortion.

Depth of argument, indeed.

englishqueen01 on December 10, 2009 at 9:28 AM

Liam on December 10, 2009 at 9:27 AM

This is because nature abhors a vacuum. Liberals may advocate for responsibility-free lifestyles, but you can only delay consequences for so long before they are brought down on you tenfold. The world will find balance.

englishqueen01 on December 10, 2009 at 9:31 AM

This person said, in all seriousness, that because a fictitious character in an 80s movie faced complications, that they are in favor of legalized abortion.

Depth of argument, indeed.

englishqueen01 on December 10, 2009 at 9:28 AM

My former sister-in-law had a ‘safe and legal’ abortion at age 16. After later marrying and wanting a baby of her own, along with every possible medical way at the cost of thousands of dollars, she had to finally adopt.

Abortion may be legal but it’s not always safe. That’s why, really, it should be done in only the most extreme of cases.

Liam on December 10, 2009 at 9:35 AM

After later marrying and wanting a baby of her own, along with every possible medical way at the cost of thousands of dollars, she had to finally adopt.

I’m sorry for your sister-in-law. Yet the left will never acknowledge the fact her abortion probably contributed to her later infertility. They no doubt see that as a bonus, given their love of sterilization and hatred of children (see: John Holdren).

Did you ever see the movie “Knocked Up”? Not a bad movie, typical Judd Apatow, but there was a scene with Allison (Katherine Heigl) and her mother, after Allison’s found out she’s pregnant, where her mother tells her to have an abortion so she can have a “real baby” later.

Between “Knocked Up” and “Juno”, the pro-abortion crowd was in a fit and I think it’s because that scene in “Knocked Up” is so harsh, cruel, and true-to-life that it scared them people might be waking up to the absurdity of their position.

englishqueen01 on December 10, 2009 at 9:43 AM

englishqueen01 on December 10, 2009 at 9:43 AM

I tend to avoid much of what Hollywood puts out nowadays, but that scene in Knocked Up surely hit a raw nerve!

Years ago, a movie came out where a woman got pregnant and decided to keep the baby. The NOW crowd freaked!

There is something terribly wrong with liberals. I can accept valid reasons for allowing abortion in extreme cases, but inconvenience isn’t one of them. I recall one woman telling me abortion should be allowed if the baby might grow in poverty. And she was a black woman! Basically, she advocated the willful genocide of a huge segment of American society.

Those people are nuts, in my book. It takes a high level of insanity to think it’s okay to murder the helpless for sake of convenience.

Liam on December 10, 2009 at 9:51 AM

I recall one woman telling me abortion should be allowed if the baby might grow in poverty.

Simply tell her this: poverty is a temporary state. Dead is permanent.

englishqueen01 on December 10, 2009 at 9:53 AM

Considering the heart starts beating @ 5 weeks it is a living being! This is how liberals justify themselves by calling it a fetus instead of a baby! Nothing more that murder!

xler8bmw on December 10, 2009 at 9:59 AM

Simply tell her this: poverty is a temporary state. Dead is permanent.

englishqueen01 on December 10, 2009 at 9:53 AM

That was a long time ago. I was so shocked I walked away from the discussion.

I also recall where anti-abortionists were sued by Leftists so posters showing the results of abortion couldn’t be carried in public. The libs used the RICO Act, which was passed against mobsters like Al Capone.

Wait, though, until the same arguments are put through to kill the elderly and infirm. The arguments among the Left are already there, but the practice has yet to happen on a large scale. If it does, liberals years from now will face what they have wrought, up-close and personal.

Judgment Day is going to be interesting, when those who aborted their unborn babies face the Lord and the eternal glorified ones they butchered.

Liam on December 10, 2009 at 10:00 AM

That was truly nauseating.

morganfrost on December 10, 2009 at 10:02 AM

The Planned Parenthood crowd hates ultrasounds more than just about anything else (except babies and their mothers). I like to recommend that people visit http://www.yourdevelopingbaby.com to see samples of unborn babies ‘dancing,’ yawning, chewing, winking and even ‘boxing’. The site has excerpts from “Your Developing Baby: Conception to Birth,” a book by Harvard radiology professors Peter Doubilet, M.D. and Carol Benson, M.D. (husband and wife). The book has 250 images of developing babies in the womb.

When you go to the site, click on “Peek inside the book,” and then click on any of the blue-highlighted chapters. “Shake it, Baby!” shows the above-mentioned images, but there are other good images in other chapters.

When I feel down about the ongoing Culture of Death in our country, I’m always comforted to read comments such as the ones in this Hot Air thread. Thanks, y’all!

KyMouse on December 10, 2009 at 10:04 AM

KyMouse on December 10, 2009 at 10:04 AM

One of the best photos I ever saw was a surgeon operating on an unborn baby. The pic shows that tiny hand holding the doctor’s finger from inside the mother’s womb.

The scene was duplicated in an episode of House.

Liam on December 10, 2009 at 10:09 AM

I just typed a comment that doesn’t seem to have “registered,” so here it is again. Sorry if it appears twice.

The Planned Parenthood crowd hates ultrasounds more than just about anything else (except babies and their mothers). I like to recommend that people visit http://www.yourdevelopingbaby.com, which has brief videos of babies yawning, winking, chewing, “dancing” and even “boxing.”

The images are provided by a husband-and-wife team of Harvard radiologists, who have written a book, “Your Developing Baby: Conception to Birth.”

When you go to the site, click on “Peek inside the book” and then choose any of the blue-highlighted chapter titles. “Shake it, baby!” is especially good.

Whenever I feel down about the Culture of Death in our country, reading comments from other Hot Air folks cheers me up. Thanks, y’all!

KyMouse on December 10, 2009 at 10:11 AM

One of the best photos I ever saw was a surgeon operating on an unborn baby. The pic shows that tiny hand holding the doctor’s finger from inside the mother’s womb.

The scene was duplicated in an episode of House.

Liam on December 10, 2009 at 10:09 AM

Liam, I’ll bet that photo was of Samuel Armas, who was born on Dec. 2, 1999. When he was diagnosed with spina bifida, he underwent surgery in utero to repair the lesion on his spinal cord. Dr. Joseph Bruner (Nashville) was the surgeon whose finger Samuel grasped.

The photographer, Michael Clancy, later said that Samuel not only grabbed the surgeon’s finger, but also waved his little arm around. Clancy does speaking engagements about his photo, which changed him into a strong pro-life advocate.

KyMouse on December 10, 2009 at 10:20 AM

KyMouse on December 10, 2009 at 10:20 AM

I didn’t know all those details. Thanks!

Liam on December 10, 2009 at 10:24 AM

One of the best photos I ever saw was a surgeon operating on an unborn baby. The pic shows that tiny hand holding the doctor’s finger from inside the mother’s womb.

Did you ever see the episode of “House” titled “Fetal Position“? In it, a pregnant photographer comes in to the hospital. Long story short, there are complications. House favors her aborting this child; the mother (and Dr. Cuddy) oppose.

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.

englishqueen01 on December 10, 2009 at 11:19 AM

Paul introduces his newest bill.

Spathi on December 10, 2009 at 11:25 AM

That’s a particularly harsh viewpoint. I sure don’t see it that way.

AnninCA on December 9, 2009 at 10:12 PM

That tells me all I need to know about you.
Good thing your mother was pro-life:at least when she chose to have you.
I’m thinking if she wasn’t, and if an aborted human being could come back in some way, you would have been pro-life.
butthen, you were just a ‘fetus’.
I have to say it would be pretty rotten to get aborted just bcs your mother ‘chose’ not have you, for whatever reason.
Luckily, my mother ‘chose’ to have me, despite my stupid father mentioning abortion.
Now I am his only child & all he has left in the world.
Consequently, my dad I am sure regrets mentioning abortion to my mother 40 yrs ago.

Badger40 on December 10, 2009 at 11:41 AM

–He said it wasn’t a baby “at that stage” or anything like it. Technically, he’s correct. It is a fetus from a technical and medical/scientific perspective at that stage.

Jimbo3 on December 9, 2009 at 4:45 PM

That tells me all I need to know about you, too, like AnninCA.
Your definitions are nothing more than personal rationalizations to deal with uncomfortable issues.
Man’s definitions means nothing, compared to what’s real.
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

And so basically, if a woman is a total screw up, then there are some people who think it’s ok to kill another human being growing inside them bcs they made a stupid mistake, or they were the victim of a crime, or they might be in danger of losing their life.
So to rationalize that maybe you wouldn’t abort the child in a certain circumstance, but that you can’t make that judgement for another person who may not be as strong as you is to condemn another ‘clump of cells’, a ‘
fetus’, a ‘non-viable human being’, to death.
What coul be is not as important as the selfish desires and fears of another.
Whether you believe in God or not, I fully believe there is a price to pay for actions such as this.
This type of rationalization cheapens life.
How can any nation aquire, or aspire to, greatness when it does not value it’s unborn?

Badger40 on December 10, 2009 at 11:51 AM

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

No of course not. It just magically turns into one as soon as it’s been delivered.

Bobbertsan on December 10, 2009 at 11:56 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4