Posts Tagged ‘pro life’

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.

Obama Punished With A Baby Motivational Poster

October 14, 08

Found at Steve Ray’s blog, click for full size:

Obama Baby is Punishment

I also like the indicting irony of Guess which one is NOT protected?:

Obama Baby is Punishment

See also related:

  • Is Your Baby a Blessing or Punishment? – Which has quote and video of Obama saying it
  • Baby Blessing or Punishment

  • Liberal Definition of A Person
  • How Obama is a Genocidal Anti-Black Racist
  • And many more posts on the demonic child sacrifice known as abortion.

    Abortion is the Con-Choice

    September 12, 08

    Supporters and detractors of abortion use very different language to describe the right of a woman to have an abortion even if there are no health complications whatsoever.

    Detractors of abortion call it murder, infanticide, the killing of innocent babies who did nothing to deserve a death sentence. Fittingly, they refer to themselves as pro-life.

    Supporters of abortion put the emphasis on choice – the woman’s right to choose whether or not to have a baby. They portray restrictions on abortion as a removal of freedom. Thus they refer to themselves as pro-choice.

    But is support of abortion really a stand that upholds the right of choice?

    Let’s use the example of a young woman, unmarried but dating. Being a liberal feminist, she sees no problem with having multiple sex partners. Free love is the philosophy!

    Then one day, discovers that she is pregant. And being a liberal feminist, she heads straight for the abortion clinic to be rid of the ‘inconvenience’ and ‘punishment’ and get back to her carefree, high-flying lifestyle.

    Now before she made the ‘choice’ to have an abortion, the ‘choice’ which the pro-abortion side makes such a big deal about, she had the following ‘choices’ to make:

    She had the choice not to have premarital sex.

    She had the choice not to have sex around her fertile time of the month.

    She had the choice to use contraception while having sex.

    She had the choice to seek support from the baby’s father (if she even knows which guy that is), from her family, from social services, from the local (pro-life) church, from adoption agencies.

    Instead, she makes the choice to terminate the pregnancy…

    And that removes the right of choice from the person who stands to lose the most from the abortion – the baby.

    Did anyone ask the baby if he or she made the choice not to be carried to term? Did anyone ask the baby if he or she made the choice to be murdered? Did anyone ask the baby if he or she made the choice to surrender life just like that?

    What if the baby had been allowed to be born, grow up and becomes fully mature… And then be asked his or her opinion on what choice to pick now – life or death? And if he or she agrees to it, then the forestalled murder can be carried out?

    Does anyone really think the potentially-aborted person would wish his or her life had been snuffed out all those years ago?

    Would YOU, o pro-abortion activist, agree to be ‘aborted’ today to prove your point?

    “I’ve noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born.”Ronald Reagan

    Abortion is not the right of choice. It is the ill-conceived privilege to make mutiple bad choices, and then escape from the consequences of those choices by denying the right of the baby to make any choices at all.

    Pro-abortion is pro-choice? More like con-choice. Both con as a negative, and con as a big fat lie of being about real choice.

    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.

    Planned Parenthood’s Racist Anti-Black Eugenics

    February 29, 08

    Via video at Moonbattery, from original source The Advocate, here’s the truth behind Planned Parenthood’s ‘lending a hand’ to overburdened minority communities:




    With new vids as of April 2008 at Michelle Malkin.

    “A racial analysis of abortion statistics is quite revealing. According to a Health and Human Services Administration report, as many as forty-three percent of all abortions are performed on Blacks and another ten percent on Hispanics. This, despite the fact that Blacks only make up eleven percent of the total U.S.  population and Hispanics only about eight percent. A National Academy of Sciences investigation released more conservative–but no less telling-figures: thirty-two percent of all abortions are performed on minority mothers.” – Life Research Institute

    What, are you surprised? Planned Parenthood’s founder Margaret Sanger was, after all, a blatant racist and eugenecist:

    “The campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics.” 

    “A stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.”

    “The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind.”

    “Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”

    “Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives.”

    “We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.”

    “[Our objective is] unlimited sexual gratification without the burden of unwanted children…”

    That last quote says it all about what liberalism enshrines as its highest goal: Kill children so that we all can have endless, carefree sex.

    With policies like these (along with pro-homosexual nonreproduction), no wonder the U.S. Democrats (another historically racist group btw) have to resort to giving voting rights to illegal immigrants and prisoners in order to replenish their voter base.

    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.”

    Pictures of Aborted Fetuses – They Look Human, They ARE Human

    January 25, 08

    Abortion sickens me, but ‘pro-choice’ abortion suppoters who argue that ‘the aborted gunk is just blood and mucus’ or ‘an embryo or a fetus isn’t a human’ sicken me even more.

    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


    If you think not-born-yet = not-human, then take a look at the following links. Even at the totally-legal-to-abort First Trimester (0 – 3 months pregnant), you can’t deny the explicit humanness of the tiny baby.

    They can even survive so well, that 50 babies survive attempted abortions every year in the UK – and then if left to die, is counted as infanticide. So killed in womb = abortion, attempted kill then left to die in clinic = murder.

    Take a good, long look. Puke your guts out, then come back and tell me how the following are not considered humans – living and growing, until they were murdered by abortionists.


    Google Images


    Meanwhile, thousands of pro-life supporters marched on Washington in protest of the 35th anniversary of Roe vs Wade, which removed the human right to life of unborn babies in favour of the right of irresponsible mothers to not be emotionally annoyed.

    And of course, this is how the supremely biased, lie-beral MSM portrays it, via Ryskind:


    It’s not like peaceful and dignified Walk for Lifers don’t have enough rabid, anarchic opposition already.

    More cartoons:








    See also:

    Full Uncensored Video Footage of Abortion on Spain TV

    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

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

    December 12, 07

    I’m going to take this mostly direct from Moonbattery:


    Time Magazine Laments Science Moving Past Stem Cell Research

    Scientists have discovered how to use normal skin cells for the sort of research that liberals want done on cloned embryos, thus voiding any valid reason to create human life for the sake of experimenting on it.

    Great news, right? Not for Time magazine, whose Parkinson-afflicted Michael Kinsley bleats in outrage that stem cell research ought to be pursued anyway:

    If stem cells, or something like them, can be obtained without the use of embryos, that eliminates the supposed ethical problem that led President George W. Bush to ban almost all federal financing of embryonic-stem-cell research in 2001. The result has been a severe reduction in embryonic-stem-cell research.

    The issue has been agony for many Republicans, torn between the majority of voters, eager for the benefits of this scientific advance, and the small but intense minority who believe that a clump of a few dozen cells floating in a petri dish has the same human rights as you or I.

    But any Republicans who think the stem-cell breakthrough gets them off the hook are going to end up very unhappy. This issue will not go away.

    First, even the scientists who achieved the latest success believe strongly that embryonic-stem-cell research should continue.

    No one knows for sure whether the new method of producing pluripotent cells will pan out or where the next big developments will come from. We are still many thresholds away from anything that can be of practical value to me and others. Scientifically, it makes no sense to abandon any promising avenue just because another has opened up.

    Second, even if this were a true turning point in stem-cell research, people like me are not going to quickly forget those six lost years. I am 56. Last year I had a kind of brain surgery that dramatically reduces the symptoms of Parkinson’s. It received government approval only five years ago.

    Every year that goes by, science opens new doors, and every year, as you get older and your symptoms perhaps get worse, doors get shut. Six years of delay in a field moving as fast as stem-cell research means a lot of people for whom doors may not open until it is time for them to shut.

    If I can make any sense of his argument, he seems to be saying that President Bush cost Parkinson patients several years of research by hesitating to spend federal money on ghoulish experiments. Therefore, Kinsley wants to press forward by killing some embryos, scientific justification be damned.

    Kinsley also argues that since embryos are killed in fertility clinics, they ought to be killed in research clinics too. He also asserts that paths of inquiry shouldn’t be abandoned, just because better ones have been discovered.

    Hopefully the skin cell research will yield results soon enough to help Kinsley think more clearly.

    Once again it becomes apparent that liberal support of stem cell research is not based on science, but on a need to establish that the soul is a superstition, and that human life has no inherent value. Not only would this support their nihilistic ideology, it would justify the legality and taxpayer funding of abortion. Also, their beloved socialized medicine will lead inevitably to rationing of healthcare, which in turn will force a reliance on euthanasia for those no longer in a position to be of use to the State. 


    As I put it to Moonbattery’s Van Helsing, the liberal babykillers think it more worthwhile to destroy the entire lifespans of thousands or millions of babies to improve the few remaining years of life of 56-year old whiners.

    In other words, people who have already lived their lives would steal the futures of thousands of innocents just to add a few years to their own crumbling lifespan.

    This reminds me of nothing less than vampires and queens who bathe in the blood of virgins.

    I think this sums it up quite nicely, from The Ryskind Sketchbook:


    See also:

    Liberal Definition of A ‘Person’

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

    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?

    %d bloggers like this: