Abortion advocate: I love abortion and I don’t want it to be “rare”

posted at 6:50 pm on March 15, 2012 by Tina Korbe

Talk about an all-out advocate for abortion. “Pro-choice activist” Jessica DelBalzo says it all in a new post for RH Reality Check (h/t LifeNews.com):

“I love abortion. I don’t accept it. I don’t view it as a necessary evil. I embrace it. I donate to abortion funds. I write about how important it is to make sure that every woman has access to safe, legal abortion services. I have bumper stickers and buttons and t-shirts proclaiming my support for reproductive freedom. I love abortion,” DelBalzo declares. …

As Delbalzo writes, “And I bristle every time a fellow activist uses a trendy catch-phrase or rallying cry meant to placate pro-lifers. The first of these, “Make abortion safe, legal, and rare!” has been used for decades as a call for abortion rights.”

“Safe and legal are concepts I fully support, but rare is something I cannot abide. I understand the theoretical mindset: it is better for a woman to prevent an unwanted pregnancy than to bear the physical and financial burden of an abortion. While my own abortion involved very little pain and a minimal financial expense, one which my ex-boyfriend was willing to share with me, even I can admit that using condoms or the pill is preferable to eight weeks of nausea and weight gain,” she writes. “However, there is no need to suggest that abortion be rare. To say so implies a value judgement [sic], promoting the idea that abortion is somehow distasteful or immoral and should be avoided. Even with affordable, accessible birth control, there will be user errors, condoms that break, moments of spontaneity. The best contraceptive access in the world won’t change the fact that we are merely human and imperfect in our routines.”

Whew. What she writes makes me a little sick to my stomach — but at least she’s internally consistent. “Safe, legal and rare” has always puzzled me. If life begins at conception and abortion takes the life of an innocent unborn baby, as I believe it does, then why should abortion be safe and legal? If life doesn’t begin at conception and abortion is just some sterile medical procedure to purge the body from some nonhuman parasitical something, then why should it be rare? Population considerations?

DelBalzo admits she has had an abortion and it’s hard not to wonder how much of the vehemence of her position stems from denial — denial of the reality that her own child existed within her and then did not. Either way, if more abortion advocates owned their positions, as DelBalzo does, the abortion debate would grow infinitely easier. More people would see clearly the choice before them: Will they choose to accept the reality that life begins at conception or deny it? Will they choose to protect the right to life or choose to be arbiters of that right?


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

Did he say that? He said it is the law of the land, which it is. It’s irrelevant if he agrees with it or not.

By the way, it seems you are unaware that case was Scott v Sandford overruled LONNGGGG ago. No such thing has happened with Roe v Wade. So it’s still law of the land. And has been, longer than the Dred Scott decision ever was.

Daikokuco on March 15, 2012 at 8:13 PM

Yes, he did say that. You will note that Dred Scott was the law of the land until after the Civil War. The point here is that sometimes the Supremes get it wrong. Roe v. Wade was one of those times. Rights were pulled whole cloth from the ether to allow the idea that states had no right to prevent women from killing their unborn children. Yet somehow that same bunch of activists don’t view what the Constitution clearly enumerates as rights as really meaning what the Constitution says (see the 2nd amendment as a example)

Plessey vs. Ferguson and Kelo are still law of the land also. Doesn’t make it right. In the case of Roe v. Wade children are being killed over this.

Oh, and the slippery slope argument is being shown to be true: Now the idea that post-birth “abortion” should be acceptable is being explored by medical ethicists.

AZfederalist on March 15, 2012 at 8:40 PM

Plessey vs. Ferguson and Kelo are still law of the land also. Doesn’t make it right. In the case of Roe v. Wade children are being killed over this.

AZfederalist on March 15, 2012 at 8:40 PM

I agree. Doesn’t change the fact that they are the law of the land. That was what that guy was saying visavis “abortion rights”. Right now, abortion rights do exist. Your municipality also has the right to seize your property and hand it over to a corporate developer (Kelo). Acknowledgment doesn’t necessarily equal agreement, you know.

Daikokuco on March 15, 2012 at 8:46 PM

Really illuminating to see how principled you anti-abortion warriors are. Seriously. You hate abortion, except when you advocate it for the people you disagree with.

Daikokuco on March 15, 2012 at 7:10 PM

It’s called irony. Have you ever heard of it? There are several on line dictionaries if you need help.

JannyMae on March 15, 2012 at 8:46 PM

The only compelling circumstance for me when it comes to abortion is “saving the life of the mother” concept. At that point, you are dealing with choosing between two lives and if that is true the decision is legitimate on medical grounds. Not so much when “saving the life the mother” means that she would be inconvenienced by giving birth.

Happy Nomad on March 15, 2012 at 8:22 PM

Agreed, and given that strictly adhering to that criterion would get us down to about 7-8 abortions a year in the U.S., I think it is a fair compromise.

Mr. Arkadin on March 15, 2012 at 8:47 PM

Thank goodness she isn’t contributing to the gene pool.

txmomof6 on March 15, 2012 at 8:48 PM

I am an atheist and not against abortion and this woman sickens me.

Borgcube on March 15, 2012 at 8:49 PM

“I love abortion. I don’t accept it. I don’t view it as a necessary evil. I embrace it. I donate to abortion funds.

Abortion doesn’t believe you. It said an embrace and donations are not enough.

It wants you to know the only way it will believe you is for you to become aborted.

Since you love and embrace it, you should be just fine with that.

rukiddingme on March 15, 2012 at 8:53 PM

Doesn’t bother me. I’ve never cared how many or how few abortions there are either. In the context of this issue, my concern begins and ends with ensuring that the government encumbers the free exchange of goods and services as little as possible, and regulating abortion to satisfy nanny state holy rollers is such an encumbrance.

Armin Tamzarian on March 15, 2012 at 7:34 PM

Do you think government should stay out of transactions involving hit men? Or is there no point at which government’s obligation to protect innocent life justifies intrusions into private transactions?

NukeRidingCowboy on March 15, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Either way, if more abortion advocates owned their positions, as DelBalzo does, the abortion debate would grow infinitely easier. More people would see clearly the choice before them: Will they choose to accept the reality that life begins at conception or deny it? Will they choose to protect the right to life or choose to be arbiters of that right?

I wouldn’t count on the pro-life side winning the debate if abortion advocates where more consistent and frank. I am 100% behind what Ms. DelBalzo has to say. In fact, I reject calling myself pro-choice, because I am pro-abortion. It is my hope that it will be the position of the GOP, because pro-abortion is the pro-family position. I am sickened by how the pro-life movement has left our nation full of unmarried teenagers with babies.

thuja on March 15, 2012 at 8:57 PM

Okay, then, let me restate my question:

As long as it remains a legal medical procedure in this country, shouldn’t it also remain as safe as possible?

MadisonConservative on March 15, 2012 at 7:29 PM

I don’t understand what your point is, in asking this question. It’s the pro-abort crowd that resists standards at abortion clinics to protect women.

Abortion has the same risks as any similar medical procedures. The pro-aborts talk about it as if it’s as easy as getting a pedicure. It’s not. If a woman has serious complications, or dies as a result of one, then who is to blame?

JannyMae on March 15, 2012 at 9:00 PM

thuja on March 15, 2012 at 8:57 PM

And I am sickened that you don’t have the intelligence to realize that alternative to that is adoption, not abortion.

Also, It isn’t the pro-life movement that’s caused that problem, it’s the welfare system, that lets fathers off the hook by providing for those “unwanted” children.

JannyMae on March 15, 2012 at 9:05 PM

Abortion has the same risks as any similar medical procedures. The pro-aborts talk about it as if it’s as easy as getting a pedicure. It’s not. If a woman has serious complications, or dies as a result of one, then who is to blame?

JannyMae on March 15, 2012 at 9:00 PM

I completely understand, but it was Tina who asked why it should be safe and legal. I was countering her, asking why it shouldn’t be safe, given that it is, and will remain, legal.

MadisonConservative on March 15, 2012 at 9:06 PM

Very very few. As in about 1-2%, at most. It is a pathetic and weak excuse, but many Americans agree with having this “condition” (that abortion is okay sometimes) so I guess it’s effective…

Daikokuco on March 15, 2012 at 8:15 PM

I don’t know why but this made me think of the Fritzl woman held captive by her own father for 24 years. Her children, fathered by her own father. And yet she strikes me as an incredibly strong, loving mother.

redmama on March 15, 2012 at 9:07 PM

I am sickened by how the pro-life movement Lyndon Baines Johnson has left our nation full of unmarried teenagers with babies.

thuja on March 15, 2012 at 8:57 PM

You’re welcome.

hillbillyjim on March 15, 2012 at 9:09 PM

Also, It isn’t the pro-life movement that’s caused that problem, it’s the welfare system, that lets fathers off the hook by providing for those “unwanted” children.

JannyMae on March 15, 2012 at 9:05 PM

So your solution to the pro-life movement encouragement of unmarried teenage motherhood is to involve the teenage sperm donors more in the life of a child who they don’t care about. That should work well.

thuja on March 15, 2012 at 9:09 PM

And I am sickened that you don’t have the intelligence to realize that alternative to that is adoption, not abortion.

JannyMae on March 15, 2012 at 9:05 PM

And where is the responsibility here? A woman has a baby and someone else does the work.

thuja on March 15, 2012 at 9:11 PM

This particular zealot isn’t just pro-abortion, she’s anti-adoption! With a completely straight face she slams “the adoption industry” as being all about (horrors!) the parents (and without a trace of irony, the money)! Yes, indeed, it’s not about finding a home for a poor little baby, it’s about those parents wanting those unwanted babies! In fact, she probably wouldn’t be surprised if those nasty parents-to-be weren’t encouraging teenaged unwed mothers!

Check out her website.

The woman is unhinged.

AJsDaddie on March 15, 2012 at 9:11 PM

And where is the responsibility here? A woman has a baby and someone else does the work.

thuja on March 15, 2012 at 9:11 PM

Are you actually opining that carrying a baby to term isn’t work? Seriously? Dude.

AJsDaddie on March 15, 2012 at 9:12 PM

So your solution to the pro-life movement encouragement of unmarried teenage motherhood is to involve the teenage sperm donors more in the life of a child who they don’t care about. That should work well.

thuja on March 15, 2012 at 9:09 PM

A good start would be removing the incentive for getting knocked up for some lovin’ from Uncle Sugar.

hillbillyjim on March 15, 2012 at 9:13 PM

I am sickened by how the pro-life movement Lyndon Baines Johnson has left our nation full of unmarried teenagers with babies.

thuja on March 15, 2012 at 8:57 PM

You’re welcome.

hillbillyjim on March 15, 2012 at 9:09 PM

How many times have “conservative” pro-lifers in Congress fallen for the socialist welfare program and voted for them to help save the babies? They have often provided the majority vote.

thuja on March 15, 2012 at 9:14 PM

So your solution to the pro-life movement encouragement of unmarried teenage motherhood is to involve the teenage sperm donors more in the life of a child who they don’t care about. That should work well.

thuja on March 15, 2012 at 9:09 PM

One fallacious argument after another. Some things you pro death freaks have in common: Dihonesty, the ability to twist others’ words, and a disdain for humanity.

CW on March 15, 2012 at 9:14 PM

How many times have “conservative” pro-lifers in Congress fallen for the socialist welfare program and voted for them to help save the babies? They have often provided the majority vote.

thuja on March 15, 2012 at 9:14 PM
=

Another fallacious argument. You never fail at that. Congrats. Dishonesty is the best fried of the pro deathers.

CW on March 15, 2012 at 9:16 PM

Way I figure it, if we allow these libs to continue to abort their young we won’t have too many libs to worry about in 50 years.

goflyers on March 15, 2012 at 9:17 PM

So your solution to the pro-life movement encouragement of unmarried teenage motherhood is to involve the teenage sperm donors more in the life of a child who they don’t care about. That should work well.

thuja on March 15, 2012 at 9:09 PM

Right, so just kill the baby and be done with it. That solves that. Next?…

2L8 on March 15, 2012 at 9:17 PM

It is my hope that it will be the position of the GOP, because pro-abortion is the pro-family position. I am sickened by how the pro-life movement has left our nation full of unmarried teenagers with babies.

thuja on March 15, 2012 at 8:57 PM

Oh nevermind. I should have remembered that you’re a troll. But just in case you’re actually serious (Dude?): there is nothing even faintly pro-family about killing unborn children. There are horrific extenuating circumstances under which it might be countenanced, but it’s never embraced or even accepted. At most it is tolerated and the victims mourned.

AJsDaddie on March 15, 2012 at 9:17 PM

How many times have “conservative” pro-lifers in Congress fallen for the socialist welfare program and voted for them to help save the babies? They have often provided the majority vote.

thuja on March 15, 2012 at 9:14 PM

If they supported socialist welfare programs, they are not conservative.
Killing unborn children is just wrong no matter how many strawmen you build.

hillbillyjim on March 15, 2012 at 9:17 PM

thuja is quite serious and frank with it’s opinion about abortion. More honest than most. To the point it does not care if the baby feels pain during the abortion procedure.

hawkdriver on March 15, 2012 at 9:18 PM

Another fallacious argument. You never fail at that. Congrats. Dishonesty is the best fried of the pro deathers.

CW on March 15, 2012 at 9:16 PM

Dude, if you want to claim my arguments are fallacious, you really should explain why.

thuja on March 15, 2012 at 9:19 PM

I think the poor should be aborted…they are inconvenience to me and pretty much disgust me when I have to drive by their rental houses with yards filled with broken GoodWill toys and soiled diapers.

In fact, take all the money that we are wasting supporting these “adults” and put it toward the raising of abandoned children.

ClassicCon on March 15, 2012 at 9:20 PM

thuja on March 15, 2012 at 9:11 PM

So the solution is to murder the inconvenient. How do you not see how illogical your argument is? If life is not our most important interest and thus face the challenges that life brings in order to improve the human condition, then what the hell is the point? Why not advocate for mass suicide? That would end all ills.

NotCoach on March 15, 2012 at 9:22 PM

As long as it remains a legal medical procedure in this country, shouldn’t it also remain as safe as possible?

MadisonConservative on March 15, 2012 at 7:29 PM

I’ve been gone for a while and just saw your comment addressed to me.

Yes, it should be, but that means it has to be regulated and met medical standards; however, as I said, abortionists fight licensing and medical regulations tooth and nail.

From Time:

“Kansas will now just have one clinic in the state allowed to provide abortions, as the state signaled Thursday that Kansas’ only other two providers are out of business due to tough, new licensing requirements….

“This is radical, extreme government intrusion into private health care,” Peter Brownlie, president of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri, said Thursday as his clinic filed suit in U.S. District Court to have the new regulations thrown out….”

You have to read this amazing quote, also from the Time article. Aborting babies is the surgical equivalent of pulling teeth? And “drunk” post-abortive moms need no recovery time…

“[Jeff] Pederson, of the Aid for Women… not[ed] one of the new codes mandates a two-hour recovery period. He said when he accompanied his father to get his teeth pulled, his dad was sedated, yet they left 10 minutes after the procedure was complete. “The women don’t want to stay here two hours, and they don’t need to. They have a caregiver with them. They’re drunk, but they’re walking.”

Safe, legal, and rare? Who’s kidding who?

INC on March 15, 2012 at 9:22 PM

I would like to see those who favor abortion subjected to post natal abortion. It seems like there are those who do not value human life and IMHO should be subjected to their values. Harshly

Zelsdorf Ragshaft on March 15, 2012 at 9:23 PM

It is my hope that it will be the position of the GOP, because pro-abortion is the pro-family position. I am sickened by how the pro-life movement has left our nation full of unmarried teenagers with babies.

thuja on March 15, 2012 at 8:57 PM

This almost makes me want to vomit.

The government has taken over society’s role in determining it’s own values and morals. The left has made women, and especially young girls feel like outcasts if they don’t give into every request for sex. They glorify promiscuity, and treat the creation of a life as an evil and burden.

The government promotes irresponsibility while the left promotes promiscuity and murder.

New government ad: Don’t be responsible, we’ll give you taxpayer money! Have sex! Start young! A baby is a burden! You deserve a life free of any responsibility! Become a feminist today!

darwin on March 15, 2012 at 9:26 PM

thuja is quite serious and frank with it’s opinion about abortion. More honest than most. To the point it does not care if the baby feels pain during the abortion procedure.

hawkdriver on March 15, 2012 at 9:18 PM

I believe I have pointed out to you before that almost all fetuses can not feel pain at the point of time of most abortion. Obviously, we have a moral obligation to avoid a torturous pain in those fetus being aborted who can feel pain. But that doesn’t imply all pain. Death is going to somewhat painful for almost all of us. Even plants are stressed as they die.

thuja on March 15, 2012 at 9:26 PM

you are the sick f-cks! every day there are several prolife posts in HA and you guys seem to have your political priority revolving around what is happening in others people uterus.

nathor on March 15, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Your uterus does not concern me. I stay away from cavernous, dark, and moldy places.

katy the mean old lady on March 15, 2012 at 9:28 PM

thuja on March 15, 2012 at 9:26 PM

Sorry, we had a conversation about this and what you said was the need to anesthetize the baby was medically unnecessary. You even took time to consider it prior to your answer.

hawkdriver on March 15, 2012 at 9:29 PM

PappyD61….. Awesome website! Thanks!!!

lisa fox on March 15, 2012 at 9:30 PM

I am sickened by how the pro-life movement has left our nation full of unmarried teenagers with babies.

thuja on March 15, 2012 at 8:57 PM

Another psychotic pathological liar. Most leftist man children are great at it. See Clinton, Wiener who can lie without hesitation.

Little thuja, you know very well that it was your generation of feral hippie spawn raised by slut single mothers who fought tooth and nail to remove any sort of judgement in our society that has led to all sorts of abominations.

It used to be that a single mother was rare because pressure from society was so strongly against it. Now it is encouraged. That was not our side which you already know, but are too mentally warped now to ever admit it.

ClassicCon on March 15, 2012 at 9:31 PM

I believe I have pointed out to you before that almost all fetuses can not feel pain at the point of time of most abortion.

thuja on March 15, 2012 at 9:26 PM

This attitude towards the unborn, and sometimes partially birthed … desensitizes people to the value of life and eventually spreads until there is no limit on who can be killed or for what.

The left started with early term abortions. They progressed to partial birth abortions … and now the talk is of killing a baby well into it’s life for reasons as simple as you are tired of dealing with it.

darwin on March 15, 2012 at 9:33 PM

I believe I have pointed out to you before that almost all fetuses can not feel pain at the point of time of most abortion. Obviously, we have a moral obligation to avoid a torturous pain in those fetus being aborted who can feel pain. But that doesn’t imply all pain. Death is going to somewhat painful for almost all of us. Even plants are stressed as they die.

thuja on March 15, 2012 at 9:26 PM

2 authors of fetal-pain paper accused of bias

A medical student who has worked for an abortion rights group and the director of a clinic that provides abortions were among authors of a report on the highly charged issue of fetal pain published Wednesday.

The report, published in The Journal of the American Medical Association, concluded that fetuses probably don’t feel pain until around the seventh month of pregnancy. It drew immediate criticism from anti-abortion activists and other researchers. One of them, Kanwaljeet Anand of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, predicted that it would “inflame a lot of scientists who are … far more knowledgeable in this area than the authors appear to be.”

INC on March 15, 2012 at 9:34 PM

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/Fetal_Pain/Fetal-Pain-The-Evidence.pdf

http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com/

Pain receptors are present throughout the unborn child’s entire body by no later than 16 weeks after fertilization, and nerves link these receptors to the brain’s thalamus and subcortical plate by no later than 20 weeks. For unborn children, says Dr. Paul Ranalli, a neurologist at the University of Toronto, 20 weeks is a “uniquely vulnerable time, since the pain system is fully established, yet the higher level pain-modifying system has barely begun to develop.” As a result, unborn babies at this age probably feel pain more intensely than adults….

By 8 weeks after fertilization, the unborn child reacts to touch. By 20 weeks post-fertilization, the unborn child reacts to stimuli that would be recognized as painful if applied to an adult human—for example, by recoiling. Surgeons entering the womb to perform corrective procedures on unborn children have seen those babies flinch, jerk and recoil from sharp objects and incisions. In addition, ultrasound technology shows that unborn babies at 20 weeks and earlier react physically to outside stimuli such as sound, light and touch….

The application of painful stimuli is associated with significant increases in the unborn child’s stress hormones. During fetal surgery, anesthesia is routinely administered to the unborn baby and is associated with a decrease in stress hormones compared to their level when painful stimuli is applied without such anesthesia.

If by 8 weeks the baby reacts to touch, the baby is certainly feeling something!

INC on March 15, 2012 at 9:37 PM

I am sickened by how the pro-life movement has left our nation full of unmarried teenagers with babies.

thuja on March 15, 2012 at 8:57 PM

Another psychotic pathological liar. Most leftist man children are great at it. See Clinton, Wiener who can lie without hesitation.

Little thuja, you know very well that it was your generation of feral hippie spawn raised by slut single mothers who fought tooth and nail to remove any sort of judgement in our society that has led to all sorts of abominations.

It used to be that a single mother was rare because pressure from society was so strongly against it. Now it is encouraged. That was not our side which you already know, but are too mentally warped now to ever admit it.

ClassicCon on March 15, 2012 at 9:31 PM

I’m sure how you deal with disagreement serves you well in life. As a minor detail, I would like to point out that my views are what normal society considers right-wing.

I would like single motherhood to be rare because of strong society pressure against it. The pro-life movement is an obstacle.

thuja on March 15, 2012 at 9:38 PM

Since she had one, she has to be proud of it. It must be Ok. It must be no big deal.

The alternative is unthinkable.

jms on March 15, 2012 at 9:41 PM

@INC on March 15, 2012 at 9:34 PM

I will look over the evidence you provide about fetal pain tomorrow afternoon. This doesn’t mean I will accept it. It just means I will be honestly open about it. I sincerely want to argue based on the best facts. And thanks for providing this information.

thuja on March 15, 2012 at 9:42 PM

I would like single motherhood to be rare because of strong society pressure against it. The pro-life movement is an obstacle.

thuja on March 15, 2012 at 9:38 PM

Oh really? I mean all I see are conservatives marching in the streets demanding that women have five kids by the age of 21 and encouraging the deadbeat dads to run away as fast as possible.

Are you sanely attempting to make that position?

By the way, my wife works in a pediatric ICU so I have seen more fallout from leftist policies than you ever will. I speak from first hand knowledge, not some Hollywood, Lifetime channel myth.

ClassicCon on March 15, 2012 at 9:43 PM

I would like single motherhood to be rare because of strong society pressure against it. The pro-life movement is an obstacle.

thuja on March 15, 2012 at 9:38 PM

You don’t make single motherhood rare by killing babies. You make it rare by instilling values, morals and principles in children. You make it rare by getting the government out of the business of dictating societies morals and values.

The left has spent decades taking them out of children and glorifying promiscutiy.

darwin on March 15, 2012 at 9:44 PM

jms on March 15, 2012 at 9:41 PM

The vast majority of mothers know the score. Many though are able to pretend something else in order to bury their guilt. Nobody, unless they are a pathological narcissist, is proud of an abortion.

NotCoach on March 15, 2012 at 9:45 PM

Just substitute the word “murder’ every time this woman says “abortion” and you will need all you need to know about her and her values.

lukjuj on March 15, 2012 at 9:48 PM

JannyMae on March 15, 2012 at 9:05 PM

And where is the responsibility here? A woman has a baby and someone else does the work.

thuja on March 15, 2012 at 9:11 PM

My wife and I would have done anything to be subjected to the “work” involved in raising an adopted infant. We lost a kid. We had a second. We wanted to try on a third but I spent too much time away. Being deployed all the time also prevented our family from being considered stabile enough for adoption.

This is probably the least logical point you’ve ever made about this entire subject.

hawkdriver on March 15, 2012 at 9:48 PM

My wife and I would have done anything to be subjected to the “work” involved in raising an adopted infant. We lost a kid. We had a second. We wanted to try on a third but I spent too much time away. Being deployed all the time also prevented our family from being considered stabile enough for adoption.

This is probably the least logical point you’ve ever made about this entire subject.

hawkdriver on March 15, 2012 at 9:48 PM

Wow man, gotta say between your service and home life you are a really stand up guy. Your wife and kids are lucky to have you around. Nice work.

ClassicCon on March 15, 2012 at 9:50 PM

I truly found this woman’s comments to be repulsive. I’m 61 years old and it’s been very disconcerting to see the issue of women’s rights shift from what I supported – equal opportunity, access to women’s health care and birth control to the arrogant, heartless, vulgar attitude represented by this woman.
The women I know who did get abortions – NEVER EVER GOT OVER IT. And as time went on it bothered them more and more. Obviously, Ms. Delbazo is devoid of a soul or conscience. She represents the young women of today who feel their objective should be to become the type of men we all hated. The love ‘em/ leave’em/ screw ‘em and forget ‘em.
In some insane concept of attaching liberation with abortion, women have been conned into give up all decency. Women were, if nothing else, the arbiters of decency historically. We were the ones who would say NO to protect our honor. We were the compassionate, caring sex. The radical feminists have taken all of that away from younger generations of women. And what has been the benefit of this? Statistically the percentage of women breaking the glass ceiling has DECREASED. And just how God Damned liberated have women become that they will abort a child to be accepted?? If women were truly liberated they would stand firm that having a child was one of their God given rights.
And Ms. DelBrazo – doesn’t love anything as much as she loves herself. She has to – who would want someone like her as a friend or a wife?

IlonaE on March 15, 2012 at 9:52 PM

why should abortion be safe and legal?

Seriously? You can’t mock the insanity of a pro-choice quote and then come up with this doozy.
Yes, let’s roll back the clock to those great days when abortions were illegal and unsafe.
It’s like the cartoon version of the abortion debate.

contrarytopopularbelief on March 15, 2012 at 9:52 PM

You don’t make single motherhood rare by killing babies. You make it rare by instilling values, morals and principles in children. You make it rare by getting the government out of the business of dictating societies morals and values.

The left has spent decades taking them out of children and glorifying promiscutiy.

darwin on March 15, 2012 at 9:44 PM

If the left has been successful for decades at this game, what do you think are the odds of going back to the values before they started winning? Keep in mind that those values are going to seem cruel to many people. I think we should take the aim of those old values, good environments for children, and adapt them for out time.

thuja on March 15, 2012 at 9:55 PM

Hey, just stopped back into this thread before bolting for dinner, and I see that Daikokuco has stepped into the breach for me on the whole “right to abortion” part of this topic. Thanks, whoever you are!

The point I was making (too snarkily, in retrospect)was the obvious one: all our legal rights as Americans derive from the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s interpretation thereof. So yes, American women have a clear, established, 40-year-old legal right to terminate their pregnancy.

That doesn’t mean that legal right will last forever, you Dred Scott citers, but it does exist now. The ongoing dispute is whether or not women have a moral right to not carry to term, and that question can never be decided to everyone’s satisfaction.

Drew Lowell on March 15, 2012 at 9:57 PM

The capricious way that human life is treated today is a testament to the shortcomings in the American pulpit.

tom daschle concerned on March 15, 2012 at 10:01 PM

If the left has been successful for decades at this game, what do you think are the odds of going back to the values before they started winning? Keep in mind that those values are going to seem cruel to many people. I think we should take the aim of those old values, good environments for children, and adapt them for out time.

thuja on March 15, 2012 at 9:55 PM

The quickest way is to stop the entitlement gravy train. Taxpayer money should only be used for those who cannot care for themselves and have no family. In all other cases families should be responsible for familes. Familes put pressure on family members not to screw up, especially when the family will have to be financially responsible for whatever mistake you make … whether it be an out of wedlock pregnancy or you’re just a lazy bum who doesn’t want to work.

darwin on March 15, 2012 at 10:01 PM

Drew Lowell on March 15, 2012 at 9:57 PM

I see now why you have such a cavalier attitude about rights. Our rights are not derived from the Constitution or SCOTUS. In some instances the Constitution is supposed to protect our rights, but our rights always existed. They cannot be granted by the government, only taken.

NotCoach on March 15, 2012 at 10:03 PM

So yes, American women have a clear, established, 40-year-old legal right to terminate their pregnancy.

Drew Lowell on March 15, 2012 at 9:57 PM

They don’t have a “right” to have the taxpayer pay for it.

Concerned pro-abortion folks are free to pay for abortions out of their own pocket.

darwin on March 15, 2012 at 10:04 PM

The quickest way is to stop the entitlement gravy train. Taxpayer money should only be used for those who cannot care for themselves and have no family. In all other cases families should be responsible for familes. Familes put pressure on family members not to screw up, especially when the family will have to be financially responsible for whatever mistake you make … whether it be an out of wedlock pregnancy or you’re just a lazy bum who doesn’t want to work.

darwin on March 15, 2012 at 10:01 PM

We do have considerable areas of agreement.

thuja on March 15, 2012 at 10:11 PM

I am an atheist and not against abortion and this woman sickens me.

Borgcube on March 15, 2012 at 8:49 PM

Why do atheists always have to announce they are atheist before they share their opinion about something?

The Notorious G.O.P on March 15, 2012 at 10:17 PM

We do have considerable areas of agreement.

thuja on March 15, 2012 at 10:11 PM

Well, good. In the meantime no one should be subsidized with taxpayer money for an abortion.

darwin on March 15, 2012 at 10:26 PM

thuja on March 15, 2012 at 9:26 PM

You are a vile monster.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 15, 2012 at 10:36 PM

Why do atheists always have to announce they are atheist before they share their opinion about something?

The Notorious G.O.P on March 15, 2012 at 10:17 PM

Because sensible atheists are a favorite target, dumpkoff.

MelonCollie on March 15, 2012 at 10:38 PM

DelBalzo is one disgusting POS.

MisterPundit on March 15, 2012 at 10:39 PM

ClassicCon on March 15, 2012 at 9:50 PM

We’re nothing special. I have friends in the same boat.

hawkdriver on March 15, 2012 at 10:39 PM

Because sensible atheists are a favorite target, dumpkoff.

MelonCollie on March 15, 2012 at 10:38 PM

What? Target for who?

darwin on March 15, 2012 at 10:58 PM

Ah, the outspoken abortion warrior who would abort his own child if its gay speaks.

That is what you were saying, isn’t it? Since you brought up the gay thing and all, and how it would lead to the mass abortion of gays…

Or do you have so little faith in your fellow so-cons that you think they’d abort their fetuses if they knew they’d end up gay? Because the only uptick in gay abortions would have to come from people who otherwise wouldn’t abort.

Daikokuco on March 15, 2012 at 7:18 PM

This is more a problem for your side, not for social conservatives, who, while many regard homosexuality as immoral and as a sin, would not advocate the murder of homosexuals (in womb or not).

However, I don’t see how someone such as yourself could object if anyone (so. con. or not) wanted to abort a baby (if it could be proven that the unborn is a homosexual, or will become one), since many abortion advocates do believe that women should be able to have abortions as often as they want, at any stage of pregnancy, for any reason.

Many women in parts of the world already abort females (they want sons).

I’m sure that is not a problem for most abortion supporters (even though they claim to be feminists too), so how can you not be consistent on this point yourself and say you would not support a woman who wants to abort a homosexual or lesbian off-spring?

A Dilemma for the Pro-Gay, Pro-Abortion Left

A doctor is working on a way to treat and detect lesbianism in unborn babies

someone refuses to enter prolifers guilt trips and the prolifers heads pop!
I really not amazed people think like this.

nathor on March 15, 2012 at 7:13 PM

That pro-abortion types refuse to see that abortion = murder of babies is astounding. Abortion is based in selfishness.

You’re the same guy who thinks down’s syndrome babies (or any mentally or physically handicapped individuals) are not fully human and should be killed. I remember you from other kids.

In posts of about a month ago when talking to you, I even named dropped Stephen Hawking, Joni Eareckson Tada, and Nick Vujicic as examples of disabled people who contribute to society, who are loved and valued, and you still do not care.

TigerPaw on March 15, 2012 at 11:12 PM

Correction,”I remember you from other kids”
That should read “from other THREADS”

TigerPaw on March 15, 2012 at 11:13 PM

bla bla bla, its not children, its fetuses or embryos. people can make choices, such as, abort now to have child latter(yes the all mighty god of convenience), or have baby now and use better contraceptives latter. so what? good, go for it! take your choice an ignore profilers guilt trips.

nathor on March 15, 2012 at 7:24 PM

And you, like us all, were once a clump of cells, an embryo and a fetus.

TigerPaw on March 15, 2012 at 11:21 PM

If gay babies could be detected in the womb, those that would have the babies are the Sarah Palin-conservatives of the world, and the first to abort would be the elite liberals that would think it just too much to deal with. What would they think down at the Country Club?

slickwillie2001 on March 15, 2012 at 7:29 PM

I remember when Cher’s daughter, Chastity, decided to go public as a lesbian and then later, go through with a gender change, Cher, who is not right wing in the least, was not happy about either development for months or a few years.

I think I read somewhere that Chastity’s dad, Sonny (who was a conservative) was not thrilled with any of it, but he did not ostracize Chastity or rant at her as Cher did; he stood by her.

TigerPaw on March 15, 2012 at 11:27 PM

Okay, then, let me restate my question:

As long as it remains a legal medical procedure in this country, shouldn’t it also remain as safe as possible?

MadisonConservative on March 15, 2012 at 7:29 PM

Should the doctor performing the abortion be permitted to spit all over the abortion implements, wipe his muddy shoes all over them, before sticking them into the woman who has her legs in the stirrups?

Of course not, but the pertinent question is, should society permit women to get abortions to start with? (The answer is no, it shouldn’t.)

TigerPaw on March 15, 2012 at 11:29 PM

from the real problems.

KMC1 on March 15, 2012 at 7:39 PM

The murders of millions of defenseless humans is a real problem.

Even if it doesn’t tug your heartstrings (and it should), I’ve seen I don’t know how many news segments pointing out that Europe is being over run by extremist Muslims populations because they’re out breeding their native European counterparts, and in the USA, it’s a loss of more tax payers.

TigerPaw on March 15, 2012 at 11:37 PM

She called the father a “boy friend” not her lover, and said he shared the expense for her abortion. They do not have any emotional relationship but a financial deal. He does not want her to be the mother of his children and will leave her when he finds a decent woman. Hopefully she will remain childless for the sake of an innocent baby.

dunce on March 15, 2012 at 11:40 PM

I dont post much here but read everyday. I am a 53 year old grandmother who had an abortion in 1979. Not a day goes by that I dont think about the little baby whose life I ended that hot July day. It was a physically painful as well as emotional experience. I have asked God for forgiveness and knowthat He has but thedeed has been done and no matter how much I wish I wouldnt have done it, the guilt and sorrow never go away. If you have never lived through it you cannot know what I have gone through. When prolifers (I am one by the way) call people who have had an abortion murderers and monsters, it is extremely hurtful. I do agree that this woman is probably stuffing her own guilt so deeply she probably doesn’t or can’t cope with the loss, she still needs prayer and compassion and for God’s love to change her heart. I weep for all the unborn and women who have had an abortion. It truly scars you for life.

AmayasNana on March 15, 2012 at 11:40 PM

If gays were going to be mass aborted it would HAVE to come from people who otherwise wouldn’t have an abortion: right-wing partisan faux anti-abortion nutters. And its that same group that has a problem with gays in the first place. Hmmm.

Daikokuco on March 15, 2012 at 7:42 PM

You’re incorrect, because those very people (social conservatives, especially of the Christian variety) believe that human life is valuable and abortion to be murder, even if the unborn could be shown to be homosexual.

Christians would not suddenly begin saying, “Golly, I’m usually against this abortion stuff, but since the doc says our kid will be homosexual, let’s make an exception to our values just this once and get him aborted!”

It’s not “gays” per se that Christian social conservatives have an issue with, we just regard homosexuality as a sin, since the Bible says that it is.

I’ve known homosexuals before and got along just fine with them. You seem to have this very ill informed and weird view that if a soc. con. meets a homosexual, we go into attack mode, and pick up a bat and beat them in their heads.

I do not, however, approve of militant homosexual groups who try to push their sexuality down the throats of the American public (e.g., the trashy sex parades they put on), or who try to sue Christians (who oppose homosexuality) into silence.

TigerPaw on March 15, 2012 at 11:44 PM

My second daughter is gay – and I would never have considered aborting her if I had known ahead of time.

But you might be surprised at how many pro-choice people WOULD have an abortion if they knew that their child was going to be gay.

For all of their talk of “tolerance”, many of them really aren’t.

TeresainFortWorth on March 15, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Interesting point. I’ve seen the other guy on this thread (“nathor”) argue in older threads that abortion is okay if performed on disabled babies, like ones with down’s syndrome.

I’m against abortion regardless the reason – but this is a stickler for the pro-abortion sorts, isn’t it? If they think it’s morally acceptable to abort a kid if the kid has brain damage, down’s, or whatever, why would they object to a kid being aborted if it could be shown the kid were homosexual?

I wonder, would Nathor object to a couple aborting their homosexual baby, if they felt that homosexuality in a kid was just too great a burden or shame to bear? Would he tell them “Oh just ignore the pro lifer guilt trips”?

TigerPaw on March 15, 2012 at 11:52 PM

Anyone who is irresponsible enough to not use birth control when they have no desire to have a baby, and is callous enough to destroy a human life in order to remedy their irresponsible behavior, should have no problem getting a back alley abortion.

There are lots of things that are illegal that you can still get a hold of if you want it bad enough, like drugs, prostitutes, etc. You’ll never be able to totally get rid of these things, but by making them illegal, you keep it down to a minimum.

So I accept the fact that there will always be people who will find a way to get an abortion, and they’ll always be people who will be willing to perform abortions.

But no, I don’t think it should safe, or clean, or legal. Back alley abortions don’t bother me one bit, at least not for the reasons that pro-choice activists think that it should bother me.

ardenenoch on March 15, 2012 at 11:54 PM

Did you know you were conceived by one sperm in a batch of hundreds of millions? Any and all of those would have resulted in an entirely different person. Yet you denied them that opportunity. Evil, evil/

Daikokuco on March 15, 2012 at 7:48 PM

That event occurs in the human body on its own; nobody is making a decision on that one – which sperm gets to the egg first, so I don’t grasp your point.

I also fail to see how a person abstaining from sex is in any way similar to a woman who is already pregnant, getting an abortion.

TigerPaw on March 15, 2012 at 11:56 PM

If abortion is really murder, then why don’t anti-abortion activists advocate treating the woman who has an abortion as a murderer?

wbcoleman on March 15, 2012 at 11:58 PM

I believe you. But then why is it so commonly brought up by so-cons that liberals would be against abortion if there was a way to detect teh gayz, like CW did?
Daikokuco on March 15, 2012 at 7:52 PM

Because there are probably some people who would abort a baby for that reason, but not social conservatives or Christians.

TigerPaw on March 16, 2012 at 12:01 AM

If abortion is really murder, then why don’t anti-abortion activists advocate treating the woman who has an abortion as a murderer?

wbcoleman on March 15, 2012 at 11:58 PM

Maybe for the same reason there are different degrees of punishment depending on motive and intent in murders.

Some murders are accidental and don’t receive as harsh a penalty as ones that are proven to be deliberate and planned.

Maybe some of us regard women who get abortions as being duped or naive, and in part, victims of the whole ordeal. Women have been taught (misled/ brainwashed) for decades that it’s not a baby growing inside them, it’s “just a clump of cells.”

TigerPaw on March 16, 2012 at 12:04 AM

Or is it projection? Again, its not the “left” that has a problem with gays. It’s the “right”.

Daikokuco on March 15, 2012 at 7:52 PM

No, the “right” doesn’t have a problem with homosexuals. Several in this thread have already said they have homosexual kids. I’ve worked with them and befriended a few, and I don’t have a problem with them.

I kind of agree with her. Lots of people out there are unfit to be parents. If you don’t want a baby and are willing to kill it, go for it. I’d rather that child never be born than born to a mother who despises him/her.

Think about it, would you want to be raised by someone who wanted to kill you but didn’t because it was illegal or too expensive or the nearest facility was too far away?

angryed on March 15, 2012 at 7:53 PM

So you’re saying murder is better than putting a kid up for adoption? Abortion is a rather permanent solution.

TigerPaw on March 16, 2012 at 12:06 AM

lol! see, guilt trip right there you emotional troll. there is no facts on your side, just religious motivated gross exaggerations.

now now, do you feel better after venting like that? i not a murderer but Delbalzo is. so what? your extremist opinion is but a minority in this country, so suck it up!

nathor on March 15, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Didn’t you say on an old thread that you and your spouse aborted your down syndrome’s child because it would just be too hard to raise such a child?

If you’re totally fine with your decision, why do you keep returning to abortion threads to debate this issue?

I would think if you were truly at peace with it, you’d be able to steer clear of abortion threads… are you trying to convince us that you aborting your own child was not murder, or yourself?

TigerPaw on March 16, 2012 at 12:10 AM

TigerPaw on March 16, 2012 at 12:06 AM

Thank you so much for your defense of life against all the evil and reprobates.

tom daschle concerned on March 16, 2012 at 12:11 AM

You know very well not every unwanted baby is given up for adoption. There are tens if not hundreds of thousands of kids who are abused by their parents every year. Yes, I’d rather have these kids not born at all than live a shitty life.

angryed on March 15, 2012 at 8:01 PM

By that rationale, all of us should commit suicide right now on the spot.

Life is tough for everyone at times, not just kids in households where they weren’t wanted.

I’ve read and seen testimonies by people like that (including one man, now in his 50s) who, when he was a child, was raped repeatedly by his own biological father (and his dad let his buddies rape the son), and the son is now doing okay.

Joyce Meyer (female preacher on TV) gave a similar testimony. Her dad used to rape her when she was a teen, but she got past the pain, and says in a way, it made her a better, stronger person.

TigerPaw on March 16, 2012 at 12:14 AM

Thank you so much for your defense of life against all the evil and reprobates.

tom daschle concerned on March 16, 2012 at 12:11 AM

You’re welcome.

I hope nobody minds that I tend to post on some topics more than others. I do chime in more on the abortion threads (sometimes not, though, since the debate can get repetitive).

I’m a Christian and social conservative, so these types of threads draw me in more than ones like the Republican party in-fighting type topics.

(You’ll also find me on the ‘Walking Dead’ television show threads, whenever AP posts those.)

TigerPaw on March 16, 2012 at 12:18 AM

you are the sick f-cks! every day there are several prolife posts in HA and you guys seem to have your political priority revolving around what is happening in others people uterus.

nathor on March 15, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Wouldn’t you find it more than a little strange and disturbing if we pro-lifers did not object as much as we do? We’re being consistent on things.

Since we regard abortion to be the unjust taking of human life, of course we are going to speak out against it. It would be very weird if we did not.

TigerPaw on March 16, 2012 at 12:22 AM

AmayasNana on March 15, 2012 at 11:40 PM

“God loves you as you are, and not as you should be.” –Brennan Manning

Nom de Boom on March 16, 2012 at 12:23 AM

AmayasNana on March 15, 2012 at 11:40 PM

Here’s another good one for all you sinners out there.

Nom de Boom on March 16, 2012 at 12:30 AM

Again, its faux anti-abortion rightists who have a problem with abortion.
Daikokuco on March 15, 2012 at 8:08 PM

There is nothing “faux” about my pro-life position.

I would also think that other pro-lifers are just as sincere about their pro-life position as much as pro-choicers are about being pro-choice.

I don’t doubt that you are sincere in your views. I just disagree with them.

They also have a problem with gays. There is NOTHING hypocritical about a liberal pointing out that a right-wing anti-abortion nut will violate their own “beliefs” when it comes to aborting a gay kid. It illustrates that they aren’t quite as anti-abortion as they pretend to be. Calling out the other side for their hypocrisy is nothing new, and it has NOTHING to do with some lefty desire to “save teh gayz”.

Daikokuco on March 15, 2012 at 8:08 PM

No, anti abortion types don’t have a problem with homosexuals. You keep repeating that as if saying it makes it true.

A Christian / social conservative may regard homosexuality as sinful, but we would not abort a baby if it were shown that the baby is homosexual.

On an individual level, we are taught to “hate the sin and love the sinner,” not to “hate the sin and murder the sinner.”

There might just be left wing, progressive, or a-political people who think homosexuality is disgraceful and choose to abort a homosexual baby.

I’ve noticed that liberals (who claim to support women and blacks) are totally un-supportive and go into attack mode on women and blacks who choose to be conservatives.

So even though liberals claim to be supportive of homosexuals, if that homosexual were to say ‘I’m a Republican, not a Democrat,’ you liberal tolerance for that homosexual would vanish instantly.

So, I’m curious, Daikokuco:
if a test could show that the unborn baby in a woman’s womb was a conservative/ Republican/ pro-life homosexual, would it be okay with you if they mother aborted him? Or not?

Are you only in support of protecting the unborn homosexuals who would grow up liberal and be in support pro-choice?

Progressives, to be consistent with their abortion views (most don’t seem to want any limits on abortion at all), would pretty much have to support that (abortion of homosexual kids), since many of you support people aborting because the fetus has down’s sydrome, is brain damaged, is blind, missing limbs, or is the product or rape or incest.

Some women in other nations get abortions if the gender is female because their cultures prefer males. I don’t see too many American feminists / pro-choicers trying to halt that or who speak out against it.

TigerPaw on March 16, 2012 at 12:38 AM

Her take is basically the other end of the extreme that, illegal even in cases of rape and incest is on the other end.

Boomer_Sooner on March 15, 2012 at 8:08 PM

Seen testimonies by people (including pastor James Robison) who (now in their 40s and up) who were conceived by rape, and they’re sure glad they were here and not aborted.

Why does the baby have to be aborted for the sins of the father?

TigerPaw on March 16, 2012 at 12:43 AM

Dang!

“Delbalzo’s the name…

and killin’ babies is my game.”

applebutter on March 16, 2012 at 12:45 AM

I wouldn’t count on the pro-life side winning the debate if abortion advocates where more consistent and frank. I am 100% behind what Ms. DelBalzo has to say. In fact, I reject calling myself pro-choice, because I am pro-abortion. It is my hope that it will be the position of the GOP, because pro-abortion is the pro-family position. I am sickened by how the pro-life movement has left our nation full of unmarried teenagers with babies.

thuja on March 15, 2012 at 8:57 PM

What? Pro Life people don’t put guns to the heads of teenagers and force them to have sex and get pregnant.

TigerPaw on March 16, 2012 at 12:51 AM

So your solution to the pro-life movement encouragement of unmarried teenage motherhood is to involve the teenage sperm donors more in the life of a child who they don’t care about. That should work well.

thuja on March 15, 2012 at 9:09 PM

There’s no societal shame associated with fornication anymore.

Maybe if there were, kids wouldn’t think it’s okay to have sex outside of marriage, and there would not be as many pregnancies out of wedlock.

The teens should not be having sex to start with, and adults who counter “but they will anyway” (or “lets give them all free condoms”) are actually feeding into the problem by basically telling the teens “we have low expectations for you,” and if you have low standards, they’re not going to shoot higher, they figure “Mom and dad and the teachers think I’m going to screw around anyway, I might as well grab some free condoms [or not] and screw around.”

TigerPaw on March 16, 2012 at 12:55 AM

And where is the responsibility here? A woman has a baby and someone else does the work.

thuja on March 15, 2012 at 9:11 PM

I don’t understand your post. I’m not an expert on all things adoption, but I’ve read plenty of times about adoptive parents who foot the medical bills for the mother of the kid they’re adopting from her. In that case, they’re willing to “do the work.”

TigerPaw on March 16, 2012 at 12:57 AM

Check out her website.

The woman is unhinged.

AJsDaddie on March 15, 2012 at 9:11 PM

I looked over the first entry on her site, “Politicians and Adoption”.

She has some strange logic going on, much like one guy up this thread who thinks it’s better to abort a kid who might grow up unwanted/aborted and have an imperfect start than to live life.

Here is one comment she makes about adoption:

If the child is surrendered to adopters, the parents have no closure, just the heartache of knowing that their child is growing and changing without them. And that’s not even considering the psychological impact on the child!

So…. killing a baby (via abortion) is preferable to allowing the child to be born and grow up in an imperfect situation, or for the biological parents not to have closure??

I do not understand the tagline at the top of her site which says,
“Preventing adoption, preserving families, and raising awareness!”

Isn’t preventing adoption the opposite of “preserving families,” in a sense?

TigerPaw on March 16, 2012 at 1:03 AM

Gaaaahhhhh….

I work with geneticists and obstetricians. Alot. We see disastrous prenancies with fair frequencies: chromosomal anomalies and congenital defects that make a baby’s life nasty, brutish and short. It is difficult for me to advocate that these infants be consigned to be born into a world of nothing but pain and encroaching death, and that the parents should simply suck that up and live with it. In my opinion, abortion in such cases must be available. I simply cannot think otherwise. I do recognise why others think differently, and I respect that.

But every abortion is a disaster. A confession of despair. To embrace disaster and despair as a good thing…..Rot them. Rot them in hell.

zensunni on March 16, 2012 at 1:06 AM

zensunni on March 16, 2012 at 1:06 AM

Baby Adam Story

TigerPaw on March 16, 2012 at 1:09 AM

I would like single motherhood to be rare because of strong society pressure against it. The pro-life movement is an obstacle.

thuja on March 15, 2012 at 9:38 PM

I don’t see how.

TigerPaw on March 16, 2012 at 1:24 AM

If the left has been successful for decades at this game, what do you think are the odds of going back to the values before they started winning? Keep in mind that those values are going to seem cruel to many people. I think we should take the aim of those old values, good environments for children, and adapt them for out time.

thuja on March 15, 2012 at 9:55 PM

I’ve seen news stories that younger Americans are turning more conservative and against abortion than their parents.

I wouldn’t be surprised if seeing the chaos and trash that rejecting traditional values has had on families and society has made an impression on them. Maybe there is hope.

TigerPaw on March 16, 2012 at 1:30 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4