Posts Tagged ‘infanticide’

Planned Parenthood Director Abby Johnson Becomes Pro-Life After Seeing Abortion Ultrasound

November 3, 09

UPDATE: Many more are turning pro-life after viewing ultrasounds of unborn children!


Via Moonbattery via Gateway Pundit which has video:

Planned Parenthood has been a part of Abby Johnson’s life for the past eight years; that is until last month, when Abby resigned. Johnson said she realized she wanted to leave, after watching an ultrasound of an abortion procedure.

“I just thought I can’t do this anymore, and it was just like a flash that hit me and I thought that’s it,” said Jonhson.

She handed in her resignation October 6. Johnson worked as the Bryan Planned Parenthood Director for two years.

Johnson now supports the Coalition For Life, the pro-life group with a building down the street from Planned Parenthood. Coalition volunteers can regularly be seen praying on the sidewalk in front of Planned Parenthood. Johnson has been meeting with the coalition’s executive director, Shawn Carney, and has prayed with volunteers outside Planned Parenthood.

As Moonbattery poster Gregory of Yardale adds:

And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. – Acts 9:18

Know too that anesthesia is used on fetuses when operating on them in the womb. If they don’t feel pain, then why is anesthesia used? If they do, then what the heck are abortionists doing?

For more on why exactly seeing what an abortion looks like might make Abby Johnson become pro-life instead of pro-infanticide, see the following:

  • Hey, Do You Think We Should We Kill Babies? – Then I inserted my forceps into the uterus and applied them to the head of the fetus, which was still alive, since fetal injection is not done at that stage of pregnancy. I closed the forceps, crushing the skull of the fetus, and withdrew the forceps. The fetus, now dead, slid out more or less intact.”

Everyone Against Abortion, Please Raise Your Hand

March 9, 09

Via Moonbattery, just take 1 minute and 2 seconds to load and watch this video:

See also President Obama’s financing of infanticide wordlwide, Obama’s genocide of Blacks, and how soon fetuses have human features.

Abortion isn’t murder? Please.

If Abortion is Legal, So Should Killing 27-day Old Babies Be

May 15, 08

Peter Singer is an atheist. He is also a proponent of abortion.

Here are some of his quotes on why the right to abort a fetus based on its mental capacity should be extended a little further:

“My colleague Helga Kuhse and I suggest that a period of twenty-eight days after birth might be allowed before an infant is accepted as having the same right to life as others.”

The calf, the pig, and the much-derided chicken come out well ahead of the fetus at any stage of pregnancy, while if we make the comparison with a fetus of less than three months, a fish would show more signs of consciousness.”

“Characteristics like rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness… make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings.”

Atheism and Child Murder, correlated by Wikipedia on Peter Singer

Get that? Peter Singer argues that fetuses in their mother’s womb can be legally, morally, ethically aborted because they have no conciousness… No self-awareness… No mind.

This is exactly what everyday pro-abortion groups argue.

The difference is that Peter Singer takes this argument to its logical conclusion – that since babies in the crib are similarly non-sentient, they should also be legal to ‘abort’.

Now, the everyday abortion-lover will decry such a horrific, monstrous worldview. That is not who we are!, they will protest.

But really, what’s the difference? Both are similarly un-sentient, un-self aware, not fully concious.

So by what logical disconnect do abortion supporters argue that killing babies in the playroom is worse than killing babies in their mother’s womb?

Is it because killing an infant is so visual and impacting, as opposed to a mother undergoing an abortion who does not see the bloody, gory mess that is ripped from her womb?

Bloody, gory mess such as in this video.

Because by 12 weeks (which is the First Trimester, totally legal to abort) the fetus already has hands, ribs and a face… Just like the 4-week old baby in the crib.

You go to this link, follow the links there to the pictures, and tell me you can guiltlessly go through with an abortion having those images in your mind.

Let’s take it further… If soundness of mind and mental activity is the criteria we use, then involuntary euthanasia of vegetable-ized hospital patients should be as legal as abortion.

Both the fetus and the mind-cripple do not have sentience or conciousness on par with human adults.

The only difference being, give them both another few months, and the fetus would be fully functioning and on its way to full sentience. Whereas the mental cripple would likely not.

So why is it moral to end the life of the fetus, but deplorable ‘eugenics’ to end the life of the mental handicap? Shouldn’t it be other way around? The fetus has up to 80 years more of life to go, the comatose geriatric only half a decade.

Oh, wait… Liberal doctors are already justifying their forced euthanasia of less-than-fully-sentient patients:

FIRST, Dutch euthanasia advocates said that patient killing will be limited to the competent, terminally ill who ask for it.

Then, when doctors began euthanizing patients who clearly were not terminally ill, sweat not, they soothed: medicalized killing will be limited to competent people with incurable illnesses or disabilities.

Then, when doctors began killing patients who were depressed but not physically ill, not to worry, they told us: only competent depressed people whose desire to commit suicide is “rational” will have their deaths facilitated.

Then, when doctors began killing incompetent people, such as those with Alzheimer’s, it’s all under control, they crooned: non-voluntary killing will be limited to patients who would have asked for it if they were competent.

And now they want to euthanize children.

Or imagine if your brain got zapped in some electromagnetic accident. Your conciousness and sentience get reset to zero, your vital systems cease to function without artificial aid.

However, you would begin to recover your thoughts in about, say, 9 months. After 5 more years, you’d be well on the road to 100% capability again.

How justified would it be to put you to sleep before those crucial 9 months had passed, on the basis of you having no discernible mental capacity? Would it be fair, knowing that you would begin to be self-aware after 9 months and then would become more sentient every day that passed?

So likewise, how justified is it to abort a human fetus before he or she is born, when it is certain that after 9 months he would be fully functioning physically and begin to develop full sentience not long after that?

How does killing an individual a few weeks before he gains full legal rights make it any more excusable?

To close, I conjecture that the pro-abortion liberal individual will never even attempt to address the logic that Peter Singer demonstrates.

Because if they agree with him that the right to live should be basd on mental capacity, that means that they advocate the legalized murder of infants less than a month old.

Whereas if they disagree with him that the right to live should be basd on mental capacity, that means they are guilty of the murder of 1.2 million human beings every single month.

A false dilemma? Less false than you might think.

As this report says, if the baby is killed with chemicals or a scalpel while in the mothers womb… It is a legal abortion.

If it is aborted yet survives the attempt, but left to die in the clinic… It is murder.

Killing a baby in a crib = MURDER

Killing a pregnant woman = DOUBLE MURDER (one for the woman, one for the unborn child)

Killing a baby in the womb = LEGAL ABORTION


Abortion is murder, any way you try and spin it.

Fifty Babies a Year Alive After Abortions in UK

February 4, 08

So tell me, pro-abortion supporters…

How do you continue to justify abortion by marking an arbitrary between ‘Fetus with no human rights to life VS Baby human protected from infanticide’?

Or ‘Fetus incapable of survival VS Baby human born prematurely but kept alive with modern healthcare’?

As the report below says, if the baby is KILLED with chemicals or a scalpel while in the mothers womb… It is a legal abortion. If it is aborted yet survives the attempt, but left to die in the clinic… It is murder.

Killing a baby in a crib = MURDER

Killing a pregnant woman = DOUBLE MURDER (one for the woman, one for the unborn child)

Killing a baby in the womb = LEGAL ABORTION


Or how do you explain away these well-formed, 11-week old arms, legs, ribcage and face? With more at here.

It is repeatedly accused by liberal atheists that Bible-believing Christians PERHAPS, MAYBE, MIGHT, INTEND TO, POTENTIALLY, POSSIBLY, HOPE TO, THERE IS A CHANCE, EVENTUALLY COULD kill people, children and babies because they THINK their God commands them to. Yet nothing even remotely like this has happened in centuries.

Meanwhile, these same liberal smear-mongers murder young human beings in the wombs of their mothers – supposedly the safest place in the world, with the most loving person in the world – under the pretext that the babies are a few months away from gaining ‘full human rights’ and therefore are not, in reality, human.

Millions of babies. Every single year.

Alleged, purported, unproven Christian intention to commit genocide… Versus thousands of actual and real infanticides every single day.

Who are the real religious fanatics commiting murder in the name of their god here?


Excerpts from Times Online UK:

Fifty babies a year are alive after abortion
Lois Rogers
A GOVERNMENT agency is launching an inquiry into doctors’ reports that up to 50 babies a year are born alive after botched National Health Service abortions.

The investigation, by the Confidential Enquiry into Maternal and Child Health (CEMACH), comes amid growing unease among clinicians over a legal ambiguity that could see them being charged with infanticide.

Its guidelines say that babies aborted after more than 21 weeks and six days of gestation should have their hearts stopped by an injection of potassium chloride before being delivered. In practice, few doctors are willing or able to perform the delicate procedure.

For the abortion of younger foetuses, labour is induced by drugs in the expectation that the infant will not survive the birth process. Guidelines say that doctors should ensure that the drugs they use prevent such babies being alive at birth.

In practice, according to Stuart Campbell, former professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at St George’s hospital, London, a number do survive.

“They can be born breathing and crying at 19 weeks’ gestation,” he said. “I am not anti-abortion, but as far as I am concerned this is sub-standard medicine.”

The number of terminations carried out in the 18th week of pregnancy or later has risen from 5,166 in 1994 to 7,432 last year. Prenatal diagnosis for conditions such as Down’s syndrome is increasing and foetuses with the condition are routinely aborted, even though many might be capable of leading fulfilling lives.

In the past decade, doctors’ skill in saving the lives of premature babies has improved radically: at least 70%-80% of babies in their 23rd or 24th week of gestation now survive long-term.

Abortion on demand is allowed in Britain up to 24 weeks — more than halfway through a normal pregnancy and the highest legal limit for such terminations in Europe. France and Germany permit “social” abortions only up to the 10th and 12th weeks respectively.

Doctors are increasingly uneasy about aborting babies who could be born alive. “If viability is the basis on which they set the 24-week limit for abortion, then the simplest answer is to change the law and reduce the upper limit to 18 weeks,” said Campbell, who last year published a book showing images of foetuses’ facial expressions and “walking” movements taken with a form of 3-D ultrasound.

The Department of Health was alerted three months ago to the issue of babies surviving failed terminations. In August clinicians in Manchester published an analysis of 31 such babies born in northwest England between 1996 and 2001.

“If a baby is born alive following a failed abortion and then dies (because of lack of care), you could potentially be charged with murder,” said Shantala Vadeyar, a consultant obstetrician at South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust, who led the study.

A systematic investigation of data collected through the CEMACH indicated that there are at least 50 cases a year nationwide in which babies survive abortion attempts.

It is not known how many babies who survive attempted abortions go on to live into adulthood.
The issue will be highlighted by Gianna Jessen, 28, who survived an attempt to abort her. She is to speak at a parliamentary meeting on December 6 organised by the Alive and Kicking campaign, which is lobbying for a reduction of the abortion limit to 18 weeks.

Jessen, a musician from Nashville, Tennessee, was left with cerebral palsy but is to run in the London marathon next April to raise funds for fellow sufferers.

“If abortion is about women’s rights, then what were my rights?” she asked.

“If people are going to talk about abortion, then it’s important for them to know that these are babies that can be born alive and survive.”

Full, Uncensored Video Footage of Abortion on Spain TV

December 19, 07

If you or anyone you know has EVER considered having an abortion… Get educated on the facts and watch the below video.

No matter how you want to define it technically or what you try to argue politically or philosophically, ABORTION IS THE MURDER OF INNOCENT HUMAN BABIES.

Via Moonbattery, excerpted from LifeSite (WARNING: link contains some disturbing images):


Chopped Up Body Parts of Late-Term Fetus Displayed to Millions of People

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

MADRID, December 14, 2007 ( – For what is probably the first time in history, a television network in Spain has shown an abortion on national television.  

The video, shot during a hidden-camera exposé on Spain’s abortion industry, shows a nurse injecting deadly poison into the fetus through the vagina of a pregnant woman, who then expels her dead child, about five months old.  The doctor immediately covers the body.

“The baby is born dead.  His cradle: a trash can,” says the commentator in voice-over on the tape.  An abortion of the baby of  a second woman is also shown.

After showing the second abortion, the commentator remarks. “As soon as the baby is born, the doctor must cover it up.  No one looks at it.  No one examines it.”

Later, the undercover reporter examines one of the dead children. “Hands, feet, a face. The cadaver of a human being,” the commentator notes.  The doctor, a woman, remarks that the baby is 21 weeks old, but says she “never” looks at the bodies of the fetuses.

“Never?” asks the undercover reporter, who is posing as a doctor looking for work at the clinic. “Never,” the woman repeats “Never, never, never again!”  When asked why, the doctor says “Because I don’t like it.”  “Of course, you are a mother, I assume, right?” the reporter asks.  No answer is given.

All of the patients preparing for abortions were over five months pregnant, “a period in which the fetus is completely formed and in possession of all of its senses,” notes the voice-over.  One of the patients is only 15 years old.

The doctor explicitly acknowledges in the video that many of the patients have no valid reason for their abortions.

In the video, the owner explains that they used to have the nurses do the abortions, although the law will no longer allow this.  He blithely describes the procedure as it was done by nurses, telling the undercover reporter (who is posing as a job applicant) that it is only necessary to “wait until the woman expels it (the fetus), and to take it out by its rear end. If the placenta doesn’t come out they call me.”

He assures the undercover reporter that if if that happens “you grab the pincers…and ‘pin pin pin’ and that’s it,” waving his hands around with a casual look on his face.

Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue, noted the importance of the event.  “I believe that if we have a straight up debate on abortion, on exactly what abortion is, exactly what it does to the baby, the detrimental effects on the mother, the pro-life movement wins hands down one hundred percent of the time,” he told LifeSiteNews.

Asked why the American media has never shown such images to the public, Newman said that “there is an active coverup within the media to deny the actual truth about what goes on during an abortion,” attributing the situation to liberal, pro-abortion bias.


(Also has lower-half nudity, expulsion of bloody murdered baby, and uncensored footage of the tiny, half-formed, yet recognizably human fetus from 9 mins 11 secs into the video)


See also:

Liberal Vampires Would Kill Millions of Stem Cell Babies to Live Longer

SCHIP and Abortion Moonbat Back-to-Square-One Argument

Liberal Definition of A ‘Person’

Back to the Future Stem Cells

Are Your Babies Inside Your Parents?

You Reach Your Right Hand In, And Pull The Baby’s Brains Out

Hey, Do You Think We Should We Kill Babies?

Are Your Babies Inside Your Parents?

Mommy Why Don’t You Love Me

%d bloggers like this: