Archive for the Pro-choice Logic Category

Abortion supporter “I hope your daughter gets raped”

Posted in Pro-choice Logic with tags , , , , on March 10, 2016 by saynsumthn

When this abortion supporter on the campus of the University of Arizona encountered opposition to the killing of children in the womb- his response was to say that, “I Hope your daughter gets raped” to the protester showing him what abortion looks like.

Why would he want a the man’s daughter to be raped?

So HER FATHER would know how it feels to have someone he loved – raped!

Really?

Why does this kind of logic from the abortion lobby not shock me?

Planned Parenthood supporter: abortion for “preserving white countries”

Posted in Planned Parenthood Supporter, Pro-choice Logic, Pro-choice People, William Shockley with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 26, 2015 by saynsumthn

I stumbled upon a tweet that read:

    I unfollow anyone who is against the right to an abortion. Get over #plannedparenthood “scandals” and focus on preserving white countries.

Planned Parenthood racism support white countries abortion

In another tweet he suggested that pro-life people who oppose abortion be “ethnically replaced.”

Capture4

The tweets came from user Edgar Ulrich who supports Planned Parenthood.

He even retweeted one of their messages:

Capture

Edgar Ulrich’s support of Planned Parenthood is not surprising. The organization was founded in eugenics and focused on a desire to limit the population of non-whites.

Edgar’s tweet revealed his support of abortion for infanticide:

Capture2

This Edgar Ulrich Tweet below implies that abortion eliminates those whose IQ’s are not in par with “Whites.”

Capture3

Again, that idea came from supporters of Planned Parenthood.

In the 1970’s, Dr. William Shockley, a national committee member of Planned Parenthood and a featured speaker at at least one Planned Parenthood conference, agreed with Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger that Blacks should be sterilized because their rates of reproduction was disproportionate.

William Shockly 1974 race

He also suggested that Black IQ was inferior to Whites:

William Shockly IQ Black

In 1967 the eugenicist and Nobel Prize caused a national uproar when he stated that it was a waste of taxpayer money to create better schools and welfare programs for what he called “Ghetto Negroes.”

Shockley advocated licensing women to have children.

He said what he called “unskilled Negroes” are reproducing at a much higher rate than unskilled whites.

He advocated birth control and said the Census Bureau would decide how many people could have children.

The Planned Parenthood speaker advocated Eugenics in this article – The Montreal Gazette – Dec 13, 1967:

Shockly license

He claimed to have research showing that people of African descent are genetically inferior to whites in intelligence and simply not smart enough to take advantage of programs designed to help them.

William Shockley Certificates to be pregnant

To save tax money, he proposed that the U.S. government implement forced birth control to lower the reproduction of the inferior classes and then issue certificates to become pregnant that would be sold on the New York stock exchange.

Mr. Ulrich would love for pro-life people to “get over the Planned Parenthood scandals” but that will never happen. He, by his own tweets is adding fuel to the “scandal” that the abortion biz was founded in racist eugenics.

The skewed logic of Planned Parenthood abortion supporters

Posted in Aborted Baby Body Parts, Pro-choice Logic with tags , , , , , on August 21, 2015 by saynsumthn

Pro-lifers are expected to gather outside Planned Parenthood in 47 states to expose their barbaric baby parts harvesting operation this weekend and the abortion advocates are fuming.

Desperate efforts are being levied to reel back losses abortion advocates sense in their blood thirst for child killing and none is so evident as what they are writing on the pro-life protest event page.

One such person called the national Protest Planned Parenthood event, “the most absurd anti-woman thing I’ve seen.”

Well, she certainly has a right to her opinion but outrage is a natural response to months of shocking video evidence about the callous way Planned Parenthood haggles with buyers for organs – human organs while the children they target are alive and kicking.

She continued, “Wld you prefer tissues go in the trash? I prefer the tissue become the light from the dark situation that a heartbroken woman endured.”

That ideology mimicked Nazi doctor Josef Mengele who saw the gassings of Jews as the only rational solution and argued that as the prisoners were going to be gassed anyway, there was no reason not to use them for medical experiments.

Then there is Sister Joan Chittister, O.S.B who is being hailed for the following statement:

    “I do not believe that just because you’re opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don’t? Because you don’t want any tax money to go there. That’s not pro-life. That’s pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is.”

Okay…can we just take a breadth here. I mean, the one thing abortion advocates like to do is to diffuse from the real issue – is the child in the womb a human person or not? It is really simple.

Sister Chittister’s statement is just a distraction and very inaccurate. I have been around pro-choice, reproductive rights advocates or whatever they call themselves these days for 30 plus years. This is an old argument that has zero merit. To assume that pro-life people would want a child born, but not want that child to be nurtured, protected, fed, housed and loved is ludicrous. Their very premise is false. But, if you look at her statement, it is not philosophical at all, but political. She is advocating her political views of government as nanny and apparently, unless we all buy into that view, we are not pro-life.

Uh – NO!

Something the very judgmental sister is lacking in is cold hard facts. She does not know every pro-life person, millions and millions of us personally. She can have no way to know what we contribute to, work for, volunteer with and support. It is a long and empty sentence.

But, for the sake of argument, let’s apply her logic to say…pro-life pregnancy centers where women are given food and clothing and shelter. Would the good sister and her abortion loving supporters advocate for tax dollars to fund those places? I think not. And, when they oppose it, as they have, what does that make them?

I like to say, keep it simple. No matter how charitable or uncharitable others are, it does not give them a right to kill me. That standard is pretty scary.

I recall a time in our history when rape was not rape or it was scrutinized and examined to such a degree as to allow men to abuse women and children. A woman would be asked what she wore, how she talked, dressed, how late she was out, where she went, if she invited the man into her house. The implication was that she somehow asked for it. But, society was educated and was able to whittle down the experience to whether or not she had the right to say NO! Simple- she said NO!

But when it comes to the taking of a baby’s life, the child is not asked. Instead, we do this circle and dance around fringe talking points and refuse to acknowledge that abortion takes the life of a human person and in every other context that is called murder. Simple!

In the end, the suggestion that if Planned Parenthood does any good or some good or mostly good means we must put on blinders to the absolute evil they commit when they kill preborn babies and chop them up for medical experimentation is stunning.

Imagine for a moment that we argued that groups that fight dogs for sport can exist as long as they also operate animal shelters. Or that a child pedophile should be given a wink and a nob because ravaging his victim was only a “small percent” of what he did all day. Suppose we said that as long as a person murdered no more 3% of all the people he met, we would give him federal money and call him a “good person.”

Not going to happen you say?

Really?

Because- it has!

Pro-choice man believes “post-natal abortion” is a woman’s right

Posted in Femen, Post-Natal abortion, Pro-choice Logic with tags , , , , , , on May 18, 2015 by saynsumthn

During Canada’s March for Life in May of which took place this weekend, a pro-choice man is interviewed and admits it would be okay to kill a baby after birth.

During the interview he is asked if abortion one month before a child is born is okay and the man agrees it would be.

prochoice Banada post natal abortion

He is then asked if it is okay to abort a baby one week before birth.

His reply, “That’s her decision again.”

A day?” he is asked.

Also her decision,” the pro-choice man says.

It’s not for me or any member of Parliament or religious institution organization to tell her otherwise,” he says in reply.

Prochoice man Canada March for life prenatal abortion

The man’s sign read, “A woman’s body is her own f-ing business.”

But, apparently, even if the baby’s body is separated from the woman’s body – this pro-choice male believes it is okay to murder the baby.

The interviewer with Rebel Media then asks him, “How about post-natal abortion?”

And he responds without hesitation, “Post-natal abortion? I mean – if that’s the option- that’s the option,” he says with absolutely no reluctance.

But, again, I’m not advocating murder of any kind,” he continues.

Uh – yeah you are !

“Again, it’s not my choice,” he rebuts with no emotion.

You cannot make this stuff up:

Capture

Femen canada 2015 breast abortion

There were more than 23,000 people who rallied in Canada to support the life of children in the womb. Of course, there was a handful of opposition, like the man in the video above as well as members of the radical feminist group, Femen, who like to bare their breasts as a form of protest.

But- majority ruled and the March for Life went forward without a hitch:

Abortion delusional writer compares dismembering an unborn baby to wrist surgery

Posted in D+E Abortion, Pro-choice Logic with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on April 28, 2015 by saynsumthn

An op-ed published by Sarah Erdreich who calls herself a “pro-choice activist” on her Twitter page, has made an absurd comparison regarding dismemberment abortion otherwise known as D+E abortion.

SarahErdreich_calendar

Erdreich writes this on the blog Talking Points Memo:

    In a few weeks a surgeon is going to slice so deep into my right arm that the muscle, bone and tendon will be exposed. Then that doctor will take a tendon from a dead body and place it between my radius and ulna bones, anchor it into the bones with what look like large plastic staples, and sew up the gash.

    That sounds incredibly gruesome, but it’s also essential for my health.

    Sure, there were other options, but they were even more radical and grisly and included phrases like “wrist prosthesis” and “one-bone forearm.” My doctor chose this option because in her opinion it is the best one available. And because my doctor spent four years in medical school and several more years in residency and fellowship, and now treats people like me as a routine part of her job, I trust her opinion.

    Wrist Surgery

    So if a politician or organization decided that this particular form of wrist surgery was just too disgusting to be tolerated and tried to ban it, I’d be pretty upset. And if they insisted that despite having no medical training of their own and no real clue as to why I or any other patient needed that kind of surgery, they still wanted it banned because it sounds barbaric to attach a cadaver tendon to another person’s bones, I’d be stunned at their arrogance.

    But this is pretty much the case in Kansas and Oklahoma, which recently banned dilation and evacuation, otherwise known as the most common form of second-trimester abortions. (Both states do allow an exemption if the woman’s life is in danger or her health is at serious risk.) Four decades of studies and evidence have made it clear that D&E is the most common for a reason—it’s the safest and least traumatic method available. So why are doctors in Kansas and Oklahoma now being told, under threat of both civil and criminal penalty, that they must stop giving their patients the safest care available?

    Here’s how a D&E is performed, in the most basic and accurate terms: a woman’s cervix is dilated. Then suction and medical instruments are used to remove the fetus and fetal tissue.

    Here’s how a D&E is performed, according to anti-choice activists: a fetus is extracted from a woman’s uterus! It might not all be extracted at once! So we’re going to make up the phrase “dismemberment abortion” and insist that it must be banned!

    “Dismemberment abortion” is not a medical term and doesn’t describe an abortion procedure. But it sounds gross and unpleasant, so therefore an incredibly safe medical procedure with forty years of documented efficacy is demonized.

de

D+E Abortion

Erdreich’s inability to know the difference between a medical procedure on a part of the human anatomy to benefit a human as opposed to the shredding and dismembering of the entire body of a human baby in the womb is mind boggling to me.

The abortion advocate’s title is even more absurd, and reads, “Take It From Me: Abortion Isn’t More Gruesome Than Any Other Surgery.”

Erdreich, who has made a presentation in partnership with Planned Parenthood, authored the book “ Generation Roe: Inside the Future of the Pro-Choice Movement“and has worked with the National Abortion Federation in the past, is so “abortion delusional,” a term I just coined, that she can’t see facts from fiction with regard to the developing unborn child.

Erdreich is also woefully ignorant of the affect that D+E abortions have on the abortion industry.

Late term abortionist Warren Hern once authored a study on the effects of D+E abortion called, What about us? Staff reactions to D+E with Billie Corrigan R.N.

Staff reactions to D E Abortion Warren Hern

Here are some of his findings:

1560434_1041585305857284_7588141590800972933_n

Reactions to fetus 1560434_1041585305857284_7588141590800972933_n

Dreams to abortion

Exactly what is a D+E abortion? Listen to former abortion doctor Dr. Anthony Levatino explain it here:

Levatino explains, “A second trimester D&E abortion is a blind procedure. The baby can be in any orientation or position inside the uterus. Picture yourself reaching in with the Sopher clamp and grasping anything you can. At twenty weeks gestation, the uterus is thin and soft so be careful not to perforate or puncture the walls. Once you have grasped something inside, squeeze on the clamp to set the jaws and pull hard – really hard. You feel something let go and out pops a fully formed leg about 4 to 5 inches long. Reach in again and grasp whatever you can. Set the jaw and pull really hard once again and out pops an arm about the same length. Reach in again and again with that clamp and tear out the spine, intestines, heart and lungs.

The toughest part of a D&E abortion is extracting the baby’s head. The head of a baby that age is about the size of a plum and is now free floating inside the uterine cavity. You can be pretty sure you have hold of it if the Sopher clamp is spread about as far as your fingers will allow. You will know you have it right when you crush down on the clamp and see a pure white gelatinous material issue from the cervix. That was the baby’s brains. You can then extract the skull pieces. If you have a really bad day like I often did, a little face may come out and stare back at you.”

According to Planned Parenthood, D&E – dilation and evacuation – is usually performed later than 16 weeks after a woman’s last period.”

Yet they also describe the unborn child at that stage this way:

PP Fetal develop 15 to 16 weeks

PP Fetal develop 17 to 18 weeks

Abortionist Dennis Christensen once allowed a film crew into his clinic where he performed an abortion.

He dismembers the unborn child in the video below:

You can clearly see the foot, hand and face of the once vibrant unborn baby.

That child is not a wrist, an arm, or piece of the human anatomy- the intact baby in the womb is a whole yet vulnerable human person – until the abortionist set his knife against him/her.

Pretty simple to me but not those who remain “abortion delusional.”

Actress aborts baby b/c she didn’t want to be attached to “this person” for rest of life

Posted in Abortion Stigma, Cecile Richards, Hollywood, Planned Parenthood and Hollywood, Pro-choice Logic with tags , , , , , , , , , , on April 14, 2015 by saynsumthn

Jemima Kirke an artist and actor in New York, told the Center for Reproductive Rights that she wasn’t sure if she wanted to be attached to “this person” for the rest of her life.

This person” could be Jemima’s boyfriend or as I originally took it – the unborn child she proudly aborted in 2007 because “my life just was not conducive to raising a healthy – happy child,” she said.

So – she killed the “child” instead.

Jemima Kirke abortion

I just didn’t feel it was fair,” she said.

Fair to who? The child you butchered?

Kirke had her abortion at a Planned Parenthood because we all know- when it comes to money- the abortion giant will kill your child for any reason and at any stage you “choose.”

Maybe that is why Planned Parenthood’s prez, Cecile Richards thanked the Girls actress on twitter:

Jemima kirke cecile richards

But, the poor girl had to actually pay for her abortion out of pocket….”empty my checking account- what I had in there” anyone feel sympathy for her?

NOPE!

Apparently she didn’t have enough for anesthesia – and I guess Planned Parenthood just did not care because Kirke seemed a little upset that she couldn’t scrounge enough money to completely numb herself during the procedure.

But- alas – it is the pro-life movement who Kirke targets as the bad guy here.

Go figure !!

Kirke now has two born children and she says she hopes abortion remains legal for their sake.

GAG!

Abortion is NEVER a humane, responsible choice

Posted in Abortion medical reasons, Disability, Pro-choice Logic, Trisomy with tags , , , , , , , , , , on January 22, 2015 by saynsumthn

If I told you that it was a good thing that I murdered my three-year-old daughter because, had I not done so, I would not have been willing to have my two-year-old son, what would you say?

Vistoria Barrett Twitter pic

Indianapolis resident, Victoria Barrett, basically says the same thing in an op-ed she submitted to the Indy Star over abortion legislation.

Senate Bill 334, was authored by Sen. Travis Holdman, Sen. Liz Brown, Sen. Amanda Banks and co-Authored by Sen. Dennis Kruse and the bill would “Prohibits a person from performing an abortion if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion because of: (1) the sex of the fetus; or (2) a diagnosis or potential diagnosis of the fetus having Down syndrome or any other disability. Makes it a Level 5 felony if a person knowingly or intentionally performs a sex selective abortion or an abortion conducted because of a diagnosis of Down syndrome or any other disability. Provides for civil relief.”

Vistoria Barrett Tweet

It was in response to this legislation that prompted Barrett to write her letter of protest. Barrette claimed that if SB334 had existed when she carried her daughter, diagnosed with a Trisomy 13, her son would not exist today.

My daughter’s “disability,” Barrett writes, “caused her to develop hydrocephaly; a heart with a missing chamber; a malformed, open abdominal wall; a cleft lip and palate on both sides of her mouth; and club feet; is called, by the medical establishment, “incompatible with life.” It’s deemed as such for a reason: no child with a full trisomy 13 anomaly ever survives more than a few days after birth. The vast majority spontaneously abort — the medical term for miscarriage — on their own. But my daughter, despite developmental problems so severe no fetus could possibly survive them, was still alive in my womb at 15 weeks of pregnancy.

Barrett says clearly that she loved her daughter – yet- she also states that ending her life, “before her suffering worsened” was, “the only humane, responsible choice. It was the only choice that could possibly have been made out of love.”

When I first read this, I did a double take – are you kidding me?

Who would actually accept this reasoning?

Abortion has so affected our culture that we have lost the ability to reason. In reality, if a mother wrote a letter admitting that she ended the life of her born daughter – we’d be outraged.

We do not know the exact time Barrett aborted her unborn daughter nor the procedure used to end her life.

But according to WebMD, at 15 weeks the most likely procedure used is Dilation and Evacuation or D+E.

They describe it this way:

    Pass a grasping instrument (forceps) into the uterus to grasp larger pieces of tissue. This is more likely in pregnancies of 16 weeks or more and is done before the uterine lining is scraped with a curette.
    Use a curved instrument (curette) to gently scrape the lining of the uterus and remove tissue in the uterus.
    Use suction. This may be done as a final step to make sure the uterine contents are completely removed.

That “loving, humane” D+E procedure is described by a former abortionist below:

What if, instead of writing about her 15 week unborn daughter, Barrett had said that ending the life of her 15-year-old daughter by ripping her diseased riddled body apart limb from limb, was “human, responsible, and loving?” What would we say?

To Barrett, protecting disabled children in the womb is an attack on- guess who? HER!

In fact, a quick google search turns up a blog where Ms. Barrett writes about her “loving and humane choice.”

But, instead of referring to her beloved and suffering daughter, she calls her, “a 15-week gestated fetus admitting, “I didn’t know how to grieve a half-formed human I had never met, and I felt like a tremendous failure.”

The surgeon had been concerned that it wouldn’t be possible to dilate my cervix sufficiently to remove a 15-week gestated fetus because I had never delivered a child. He wanted to be sure to use as much laminaria as possible, which turned out to be five sticks. I laid on the table, stoic, angry, as long as I could before I cried. The pain, already, before the seaweed began its work, radiated from the core of my being. It felt like nothing I had ever imagined,” Barrett wrote.

Vistoria Barrett abortion

About the moment Barret ended her daughter’s life, she writes:

    “The rest of the week went about as you might imagine: by morning I was fully dilated; we waited for five hours at the understaffed hospital before the 20-minute procedure began; a nurse insisted, on my behalf, on conscious sedation at a minimum. I walked into the operating room, was provided a stepping stool to get myself onto the sterile table under the blinding, hot lights, like stage lights. It seemed so odd that the operating room had a panoramic view of the city out enormous windows. The actual termination was over in a blink, painless, mostly a relief. And then our daughter was gone.

    “After my head cleared, for about an hour I felt a strange bodily elation, as though I could turn cartwheels right then and there. When the surgeon finally arrived to talk before we checked out, he asked, “Can you already tell you’re not pregnant?” I could.”

Barrett questions Holdman’s motives in sponsoring the bill by calling it, “mandated torture of the mothers.”

Really Ms. Barrett? YOU were the tortured one here?

Barrett’s words offer no compassion towards the many children with various levels of disability having protection – none!

After all, as Barrett states in her letter to the Indy-Star, “If I had been forced to carry my daughter until she spontaneously aborted — or worse, until she was delivered, suffered tremendously, and died in my arms — I would never have chosen to have another child.”

So, I suppose we are supposed to “celebrate” that this mother who so willingly “ended the life” of her disabled daughter in the womb – is now the mother of another child, a son?

I can’t and I won’t buy into this “murder is compassion” lie. I refuse to accept that Barrett made a difficult choice out of love and concern of her tiny baby girl.

Abortion is NEVER a humane, responsible choice.

No way….I wouldn’t accept this logic if Barrett’s daughter was 15-years-old and I won’t accept it if she is 15 weeks or more in the womb either. And neither should anyone else.