This reminds me of a chapter I was reading in a book discussing the Abolitionists of Slavery the other day: “for all their moral seriousness and reforming zeal, these abolitionists were, nonetheless, having fun.”

Good work guys and Very cool.

Ian John Philoponus
Abolitionist Society of Oklahoma.

abolishhumanabortion.blogspot.com

Not Pro-Life——Anti-Choice!

Pro-Life is a misnomer, it’s Anti-Choice.  You don’t care if women die, because of lack of health care options!  You only care that the choice being made about a woman’s body is YOURS!

Nobody is Pro-Abortion—-you morons!  It’s a last choice in extreme circumstances and not a choice taken lightly, but still a CHOICE!

Beautiful demonstration.

Zellah’s comment is such a perfect illustration of Tim’s point.  The only thing pro-choicers have is hate and anger: hate for people of faith, hate for unborn children and hate for those of all political and religious stripes who want to protect their delicate and vulnerable bodies from dismemberment via abortion. They claim its “righteous indignation against injustice”, but hatred always hides behind that excuse from where it lobs insults and accusations based on lies and distortions.

Zellah,

Like the pro-slavery forces of the 19th century and the pro-segregation forces of the 20th century, they knew they had to come up with a vague positive term for their position. So they came up with “State’s Rights.”
Who could possibly be against the rights of a state? But it was only one primary right these folks wanted left to the states—to keep one group of people under control of another.

Similarly, the pro-choice people are focused on only one choice—that of abortion. But the actual choice is hard to sell on its own merits, so the focus is on “choice.”

Your comment violates rules of argument with an appeal to sentiment “You don’t care…” and name-calling “you morons!”

“It’s a last choice in extreme circumstances and not a choice taken lightly, but still a CHOICE.” Why is so much effort expended to cover up the actual process of abortion, and deny the possibility that not all women may come through it emotionally unscarred??

The number 1 lie is this epithet “Anti-Choice” these people manage to squeeze out of the one functioning neuron between them…as if opposing the dismemberment of an innocent child in the womb or opposing the premature delivery of a full term or near-term baby, stabbing it in the back of the head with scissors and suctioning out its brain were exactly the same thing as demanding that women be prohibited from leaving the house, from voting, from attending university or from even picking out their own clothes.  Taking a life is not a “choice” anyone has a right to.  The right to make “reproductive choices” doesn’t include killing a child in the womb anymore than it means smothering a two week old baby in its cradle.   

The second lie is the epithet “pro-choice” which these people choose for themselves.  The child in the womb is not given a “choice” whether to live or die, that decision is made by the mother, the mother’s boyfriend, husband, parents and doctor.  They impose that “choice” on an innocent being who has no voice and no rights, who didn’t ask to be conceived in a woman unwilling to have a baby. Although 99% of the time, one willing to perform the act that makes the baby in the first place!... to me its like inviting someone over to your house then calling them an intruder and shooting them.  There’s something psychotic about the pro-choice mindset, a dissociated mind incapable of seeing cause and effect,  can’t see that when you do what makes a baby, you create a human being.  They also can’t empathize with the fate of that person who didn’t ask to be created, but was, enough to understand why someone would defend its life, let alone consider it worth defending.

I couldn’t have said it better Barbara.

Zellah, I’m with you.  It is competing claims, Who rules a womans body, Her or a fetus. 

These folks believe that a fetus has complete claim on a woman. I believe the woman has claim on her body. 

I know those that disagree have very valid reasons and I appreciate that but, if someone is in my house and I don’t want them there, they will not remain for 9 months. 

I hate the analogy of the camels nose under the tent, but if they succede here, they will go after birth control.  Nothing short of a theocracy will be enough.

I really do appreciated the pro life position, you are motivated good people, but I believe a woman is a person, not an incubator.

THe woman’s choice came before she had sex.  (Less than 3% of all abortions are the result of rape, btw.)  It’s time for the boys and girls who are playing with their reproductive organs to grow up and recognize the consequence of their actions - another human being.
Your reproductive organs exist for the reproduction of the species - hormonal “feelings” are a plus to make sure it happens APPROPRIATELY, within the context of marriage.

What follows, as Peter Singer, Princeton’s “Bioethicist” claims, that parents should have the “choice” od killing their newborn infant within three months AFTER BIRTH if they CHOOSE not to be parents after all.

Fr. Michael, you are reacting to a letter of allegations that you have no
idea if they are true. There not , but how can you punish Fr. Corapi by
putting him out of commission——Do you have any idea how this can hurt
Father’s wonderful reputation.You are making a reckless decision when you
can make a good holy priest suffer for a letter that is way-way out of
bounds—
Matt Ulrich

Rover, no pro-lifer believes that women are mere “incubators”, nor that the unborn child has control of a woman’s body.  There is an issue here of legal responsibility.  Children have the legal right to expect their parents will look out for their well-being by ensuring they provide food, shelter and attention. This is why we have child-welfare laws which ensure that children do not suffer criminal neglect or abuse.  If you take the unborn child to be a person with rights, then making abortion illegal is merely an extension of the protection we already give to children through legal obligations, protections which do curb the freedom of the parents to some degree, however Therese’s point bears repeating.  If you don’t want to mother or father a child, don’t do the thing that makes you a mother or father.  That is where you have a right to exercise your freedom of choice.  Once a child is conceived, there is a dependent human being in the fray, choice ends and responsibility begins.

If a mother of a six week old, or six month old decides that she doesn’t want to be a mom anymore does she have the right to smother her baby in the cradle? does she have a right to leave the baby on a hillside somewhere so that it dies of starvation, thirst or hypothermia? The illegality of these acts is not creating a “theocracy” nor “intruding on her rights”.  It is placing appropriate limits on personal freedom in order to protect the vulnerable. 

Your support for abortion rights seem to be based on an irrational fear of giving any type of credibility or power pro-lifers and religious people, not a level-headed consideration of the implications of the issue, on what abortion is or what it does.  You, as with most pro-choice people have a caricaturesque view of pro-lifers as this shadowy force of theocrats secretly trying to undermine human rights laws and create a Christian Saudi Arabia where women are refused even the most basic rights. 

I would sincerely suggest you take a long hard look at this “enemy” you have contrived us to be and ask yourself if what you believe about us is really true, then you might be more willing to listen to your conscience on this issue.  Being pro-choice shouldn’t be a default position because “while I hate abortion and see it as an act of violence, I just don’t want to be associated with THOSE people”

There are different terms you can call the two sides of this issue. They all mean the same thing on each side. The three main nouns use to describe these positions are abortion, choice, and life. Then you ask questions about these words. Should abortion be allowed? Should women be allowed to choose if they kill their unborn child? Should the unborn granted the right to live under the law? Depending on your side, you are either anti-abortion, anti-choice, and pro-life, or you are pro-abortion, pro-choice, and anti-life. It really doesn’t matter what you label yourself or your opposition as, what really matters is the reasoning behind your position.

Just a quick follow up, yes, to be pro-life is also to be anti-choice. Our laws restrict a number of choices, such as the choice to murder someone. One of the purposes of government is to restrict our freedoms. It is called the social contract, you should have learned about that in high school. Our freedoms are restricted to protect the civil rights of every individual. We could live in perfect freedom, also called anarchy, but few people want that.

Look around at any prolife prayer vigil, abortion business sidewalk counseling, any prolife event and you will see why it is not a matter of if but a matter of when there will be a prolife victory - in addition to the fact that almighty God is on the prolife side it is infused and ennervated by the courage and optimism of young people and youth. These young folks are teaching us older folks how it is done. My remarks at a recen 1/2 way 40 Dyas rally in Corpus Christi Tx were directed to the young:  concluding remarks at the Corpus 1/2 Way rally yesterday:

[after telling them about Abby Johnson’s ocnversion and the role a young girl had in that]

“God didn’t have you born in 10 BC or 20 BC. He didn’t have you stand and pray in Bethlehem after Jesus was born while Herod’s men killed the baby boys, the Holy Innocents of Bethlehem.  You weren’t born in 1920 or 1930 so you could stand outside the gas chambers at Dachau, or Bergen Belsen or Auschwitz while the Nazis killed over 6,000,000 people including fathers, mothers, children and babies. No, God formed you in your mother’s womb more recently, in the 1990s or the 19080s, or like me in the 1940s so you could stand here outside this fence in Corpus Christi Texas while over 54,000,000 babies are killed in this country.

When Jesus was alive thousands heard Him speak and were impressed with His teaching. Thousands saw His miracles and came to believe he was the Messiah. But the four gospels tell us that there were only five of his followers at the foot of the cross during the crucifixion-Mary His mother; Mary of Cleophas; Mary Magadalene; and Salome. Peter the tough strong fisherman was not there. James, who was known as one of the “Sons of Thunder” was not there. None of his apostles and disciples were there, except one - and all of you young people here, take note – it was John, the youngest apostle.

It will be a different story when they write the good news of the prolife victory over abortion. Each of your names will be mentioned because you stood here with Jesus at what is the mouth of Hell; but you also stood here at what is a gateway to Heaven for the several thousand babies killed here and your name will be in the gospel of life because you stood here not only with Jesus but with the Holy Innocents of Corpus Christi. I ask that God bless you and keep you and that, whenever you stand here, He hold you safe in the palm of His hand.”

My friend, I cried over this one.

For so long I have watched this country suffering over abortion, and even though many states are genuinely pushing back, it is sometimes discouraging.  This little film and story defend us from the disappointment over the slow pace of change, and the visage of hatred clearly available for all to see on the face of the pro-abortion protesters.

@Rover and Zellah: How many women do you know who have contemplated abortion?  How many do you know who have chosen abortion over life? Life over abortion?  You say it’s a woman’s right over her own body vs. the fetus… first of all, let’s name this correctly: a fetus is a living human.  Period.  Secondly, so many women agonize over this decision precisely because they are coerced into abortion by the very people who are supposed to protect them: their mothers and fathers, their “significant others” (boyfriend/husband), and their doctors.  If you look at one of the primary functions of these important relationships, it lies in their responsibility to *protect* these women, rather than lead them on a path to destruction.  Lastly, let’s look at a little something we in the medical field like to call “normal physiology:”  Pregnancy—which occurs at the moment of conception, and is detectable by the presence of various hormones and proteins BEFORE implantation—is a state of NORMAL physiology.  Those who work in medicine to subvert this process shame the rest of us in medicine who work tirelessly to restore people to health and maintain their normal physiology.  Messing with this process has numerous consequences, some of them permanent and some of them severe.  The myth that limiting “access to abortion” will lead to an uptick in maternal death is flatly untrue and is a line taken mostly from “evidence” that completely disregards all the advances in maternal-fetal medicine of the last 30 years.

Barbara, an excellent post! I would disagree with calling my post an “irrational fear”.  Your “side” (I hate taking sides but in this case, it is one or the other,no middle ground) is against ANY reproducitive freedom with the exception of NFP.  This is intruding on my life as an atheist in a secular society. If you had your way, You would have birth control pills (I know, they are abortion pills on in your opinion), condoms, and probably any position other than missionary outlawed.  Life is too short.  As I said, I enjoyed your well thought out comments, I see your side, I just disagree.

RMMT, I know women that have contemplated and not had and had abortions.  A good friend of mine was married and trying to get pregnant, she was involved with some kids that had measles so she got the MMR vacine. She then found out she was 6 weeks pregnant. She had an abortion on her doctors suggestion.  You would be against this since the baby MIGHT have been born alive and lived a bit.

EVERY Catholic I have ever met has used birth control or had a Vasectomy, every one!  Every one that has turned 50 along with his wife is now against all forms of birth control. 

As an atheist, I appreiciate situational ethics.  I have 2 children because I chose to stop at 2.  NFP is the churches way of pretending you have some control on your reproduction but, in the end, you are in exactly the same position as wild animals (I appologize for the poor wording of that, it is not meant to imply you are animals in any way).

Rover.

Hi Rover.

I’ve been thinking about your comment regarding birth control and it did give me pause, so I’m going to write a blog-post about it, since writing it here would be quite long.  If you want to read it and respond you can find it here: http://intimategeography.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/in-response-to-a-comment-on-birth-control-and-abortion/

Pro-Life = Anti-Choice?... um, not really. But using that ‘logic’: Pro-Choice = Anti-Life.
On the birth control issue, artificial contraception is what debases the human intellect, turning human beings into “wild animals.” Only the Catholic stance on birth control actually elevates the human intellect above that of the animals. And yes, birth control is organically linked to abortion. The cultural acceptance of birth control preceded the acceptance of butchering a child in his own mother’s womb. It had to. Indeed, birth control causes abortion. As Chesterton says, birth control is just a scheme of preventing birth in order to escape control. Thank God the Church is here to keep some of us from falling into the moral adolescence of our age.

Barbara—
You may find this excellent article by Mary Eberstadt of interest for your discussion on birth control: “The Vindication of Humanae Vitae” published in First Things magazine, August/September 2008. Another piece that should help is “The Illusion of Freedom Separated From Moral Virtue” by Raymond Dennehy at ignatiusinsight.com, 2007. Finally, Donald DeMarco’s piece “When Tolerance Trumps Truth” at the National Catholic Register (2/08) explains the ‘dictatorship of relativism’ and exposes the moral immaturity that permeates our times. Good luck.

Barbara, I’ll read and comment there. 

Mark. Are you serious?  “pro choice = anti life”?  I want every child wanted.  I have NEVER met a pro abortion person, Have you truely ever?  As I said earlier, it is competing interests and in this case, the woman wins.  I can understand you wanting the fetus to win.  I have alot of “pro life” friends that support the death penalty, that makes them more “anti choice” than “pro life”. 

You quote the Catholic teaching very well re: birth control.  It seems to have very little effect on most (in my limited experience) of the flock. The Chesterton quote was the icing.  I am so glad to be a freethinker, unencumbered by dogma.

I’m out all, Been a pleasure interacting with you,
Rover.

But, Robert, has anyone met or known of a wild animal that does abortion? Even when animals follow their coupling instinct seemingly without any consciousness of their choice of pro-creating or not, and whether they have or have not ever been guided by any dogma or teaching one way or the other, they don’t kill their unborn babies. Neither do they advertise, advocate, or go to any extent of thinking, legalizing, or demanding protection for such a “right”.

I also hate abortion, and I hate even more the two main means of performing the abortion, that is tearing something apart or cutting it up while it is still alive. This reminds me of the gruesome crimes of the inquisition that your church has been guilty of over the centuries.  At the same time, I am opposed to any state regulation to ban abortion, for this violates women’s privacy. If Women lose their privacy rights, then who is next to lose theirs?
Getting back to abortion, let us deal with this in a logical manner.  If we are able to totally prevent the unplanned pregnancy in the same way we succeeded with polio years ago, we eliminate more than 95% of these abortions and also reduce our birth rate to where our population can fall back to 1960 level so as to gain back some of our lost quality of life.
I have lived in a country, that is up against the wall, where they have no choice other than use drastic legislation toward one-child families.  I have been teaching English to university students who have complained about how hard it is to start earning an honest living, even with China’s economy growing by leaps and bounds.  They may be facing this problem for another 30 years before their population does balance out with their economy.  I wish America will learn from China before we find ourselves in the same boat.
The next in mind is why does the Catholic church still hold onto this bad doctrine against birth control when most of the Protestant churches eliminated this bad doctrine after seeing the writing on the wall in 1930 of over population having such a negative impact on the economy.  Are they also promoting the abortion industry or are they promoting a society where organized crime runs the show as in Mexico?
To sum it up, I do understand personal feelings about abortion, so why do we all not work at total prevention of the unintended pregnancy.  Why do we not come up with developing a contraceptive that can also be used as a food or a beverage?  What about the male contraceptive that I have heard about that is available in Europe but not in America?

Why viewers still use to read news papers when in this technological globe all is existing on net?

If you want to grow your experience only keep visiting this web site and be updated with the most up-to-date gossip posted here.

This piece of writing is related to website programming is really good for me because I am web programmer. Thanks for sharing keep it up.
http://dc4u.ru/away.php/?to=http://nanopatch.net

Sharing some thing is better than keeping up-to our self, thus the YouTube video that is posted here I am going to share by my relatives and mates.
http://www.g-idol.com/url.cgi/bbs/?http://xn—kp-propecia-rfb.se