Nation Marks 43 Years Since Roe v. Wade, Nearly 60 Million Babies Killed and Counting

Baby-pdWASHINGTON — Today marks 43 years since the issuance of the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Roe v. Wade, which has resulted in the deaths of nearly 60 million American babies and counting through “legalized” abortion.

As previously reported, the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade dealt with an admitted false claim of rape by a single Texas woman named Norma McCorvey, who challenged the state’s laws criminalizing abortion with the exception of the life of the mother. McCorvey is now pro-life and speaks against abortion.

Out of the seven justices that ruled in favor of Roe, five were Republicans. The court discussed the reasons why abortion has historically been outlawed in the nation, including the binding vow of the Hippocratic Oath and the influence of Christian ethics. It also noted that in pagan nations such as Greece and Rome, “[a]ncient religion did not bar abortion.”

Judge Harry Blackmun, nominated by Richard Nixon, wrote the majority opinion issued on Jan. 22, 1973. Blackmun stated that the Constitution does not include the unborn as being persons, and therefore, they may not receive equal protection.

“The Constitution does not define ‘person’ in so many words,” he wrote. “[I]n nearly all these instances [where it is cited], the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.”

“All this, together with our observation, supra, that, throughout the major portion of the 19th century, prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word ‘person,’ as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn,” he continued. “In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.”

The court’s comments about the “viability” of the child—when the infant could live apart from his or her mother outside of the womb—also influenced future rulings that have allowed abortion to continue.

  • Connect with Christian News

“Physicians and their scientific colleagues have regarded [the concept of ‘quickening’] with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable,’ … albeit with artificial aid,” Blackmun wrote. “Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.”

However, some believe that the Supreme Court’s logic was faulty and contend that gestational age does not make the child less human or unworthy of life. The film “Come What May,” produced by Patrick Henry College students, centers on this argument.

“They tear the baby out of its only means of life support, and say, ‘Wow, look at that; our machines can’t sustain it’s life,’ and somehow, that proves it’s not viable?” Caleb Hogan, played by Austin Kearney, declares in the production.

The following year after the issuance of Roe, thousands of Americans marched outside of the U.S. Supreme Court on the anniversary of the ruling to speak against the killing of unborn children. Tens of thousands are expected to march today despite snow storm Jonas, which is closing many offices throughout the Washington, D.C. area.

“The peaceful demonstration that has followed on this somber anniversary every year since [1973] is a witness to the truth concerning the greatest human rights violation of our time, abortion,” reads a statement on the March for Life website.

2016 is expected to again be a significant year for the Supreme Court surrounding the issue of abortion. As previously reported, the court has agreed to hear another case out of Texas that challenges safety regulations for abortion facilities, including the requirement that abortionists have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the facility, and that facilities be held to the same standards as surgical centers.

The abortion giant Planned Parenthood, which reported last month that it aborted 323,999 babies in 2014, is among those challenging the Texas law as it contends that it will result in the closure of most abortion facilities in the state.

“Texas is the second-most-populous state in the nation—home to 5.4 million women of reproductive age,” read the petition filed to the court by several abortion facilities, including Whole Woman’s Health, Austin Women’s Health Center and Killeen Women’s Health Center. “More than 60,000 of those women choose to have an abortion each year.”

A ruling is expected from the high court in June.

Abortion is Murder from I’ll Be Honest on Vimeo.

A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • afchief

    “I’m a Christian as well, but I have struggled with this question…What about abortion when the life of the mother is at stake? Shouldn’t a woman be allowed to make that choice?”

    “What a terrible choice to be confronted with,” I answered her. “But it is my experience that a case in which the mother has to make that choice is very rare. I cannot speak for you, or for anyone else. But I can tell you this; if my wife were confronted with that choice there is no question what she would do. My wife would sacrifice her life for the life of her child because Jesus taught us that ‘greater love has no man than this, than He would lay down His life for his friends.’ The greatest demonstration of love that we can ever show is to give our life for another.”

    A student asked, “What about rape? You don’t think a woman should have to carry a child from a rape, do you?” All eyes in the room were boring in on me, and all ears were open, as the Truth of God’s view pierced their hearts.

    “Let me use my wife as an example again,” I explained. Suppose she was made pregnant through a rape. Isn’t that child she is carrying half her, just like the rest of our 3 children? Just because my wife’s 4th child happens to have a different father does the baby not deserve to live? Will having an abortion take away the memory of the rape? Do two wrongs make a right? My Faith teaches that life is never a mistake, but a gift from God. And even though the rape was a horrendous experience, my wife and I would make the decision to give the child life and trust that the Lord would make something great come from the horrible situation. I’ll make you a bet that in 2 years that little bugger’s picture will be on our refrigerator.” “And, by the way, why would we give the child the death penalty for the actions of his father?”

    • http://biblewordstudy.org Adam in Christ

      Amen, chief.

      An innocent baby should have to be punished due to the sins of the father. Rape is a wicked act indeed, but the baby should still be allowed to have its life.

      • gizmo23

        I guess didn’t read his post where he blames the rape victim

      • gizmo23

        I notice no one hear talks about the responsiblity of the rapists

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          I will bet that you are against the death penalty for rapists while being for the death penalty for 3000 innocent defenseless babies in the womb each day. Now THAT is one messed up moral compass.

          • gizmo23

            You are completely mistaken

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            A very slowly dead, but first cut off their d!ck.

    • gizmo23

      If that mother went on welfare you would complain about that.

      • afchief

        Who pays for welfare?

        • gizmo23

          Us

          • afchief

            That’s right! Welfare is stealing from others labor. They did not earn it. It is theft. I believe in personal accountability and responsibility. If welfare was not available women would not be popping out kids to get a bigger check.

            Get a job and WORK!!!

          • gizmo23

            So a raped pregnant women should have an abortion. After all she and her unborn job are stealing from us.
            You are a pro lifers worst nightmare and show why the pro abortion movement wins many times

          • afchief

            You baby killer liberals make me sick!!! Kill the baby because she cannot afford it.

            Evil!!! Pure evil!!!

          • gizmo23

            You are the one that claims the baby would be stealing

          • afchief

            Are you for real???? The baby is the innocent victim here. There are women who pop out kid after kid just to increase their welfare check. Take away welfare and people will start being MORE responsible with their lives. There is an old saying “life is not fair”. Deal with it!!! Look at the black race….before welfare they had a 6% illegitimacy rate. Today is is close to 75%. Did I need to say why????

            Let me ask you this question; Do you think people have a right to other’s labor?

          • gizmo23

            You are the one that claims a raped pregnant woman getting help is stealing.

          • afchief

            You did not answer my question; Do you think people have a right to other’s labor?

            Besides if a woman is raped and does not want to keep the baby, put the baby up for adoption.

          • gizmo23

            You realize someone has to pay for the adoption. But the pro life movement never promotes adoptive help
            In some cases yes. We all pay taxes for military pay, farm subsidies, healghealth care care for the poor, SSI for others, etc. The list is pretty big.
            I suppose you would prefer a society where everyone does wantever they want with no responsibility to others

          • afchief

            This is why liberalism/socialism is EVIL!!!! You have NO right to someone else’s labor You have NO right to what someone else had produced?

            Christianity and conservative says “what’s mine is yours” Liberalism and Socialism says “What’s yours is mine” as you can see, it is the complete opposite satan works in opposites, turning the world upside down and the brainwashed think the Christians are turning the world upside down when the attempt is right side up

            Capitalism is man taking care of himself in a competitive but predominately cooperative market system. Capitalism breeds independence, interdependence, personal responsibility, freedom, etc.

            Socialism is the government micromanaging the details in everyone’s lives by means of taking from those who have and distributing it in a very unproductive way to those who don’t have so much. Socialism breeds corruption, laziness, oppression, etc.

            You can’t “spread” wealth. By “spreading” wealth you only destroy it. That has been proven again and again.

            Although the leftists deny it, wealth is nothing without the people that create it. There is a reason that some people are rich and others are not.

            After the “spreaded” wealth has been consumed it will be the same people that are rich and the same that cry for having nothing

          • gizmo23

            Who is talking about socialism. I’m merely pointing that you believe a raped pregnant woman that needs assistance is stealing so she should get an abortion

          • afchief

            Yep I sure am!!! Killing an unborn child is MURDER!!!!

          • gizmo23

            Well at least you admit you like murder

          • afchief

            I like murder? Yes, more proof liberalism truly IS a mental disorder!!!

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            You are dealing with people in total darkness here, Chief. There are a million excuses in their minds for knocking off babies in the womb.

            “If the child does not have the perfect lollipop-filled childhood, we can kill them.”

            “If conservatives do not vote for communism, we can kill them.”

            “If pro-lifers do not adopt EVERY single unwanted child, we can kill them.”

            I have heard them all – you are correct, it is worse than disgusting, it is depraved beyond imagination. Pro-aborts would have been right onboard with slavery and Jew gassing, because there were a million reasons to do those things too. We are dealing with the modern-day goose-steppers here, never forget that.

            “It’s legal, I have the right to choose, it should be allowed for economic reasons, they aren’t persons, it’s better for them too, who are you to force your religion on me?”

            Is this a 21st century Democrat defender of the “right” to abort or a 19th century Democrat defender of the “right” to own black people? Answer: Both.

          • Becky

            Spot on, WGC!!

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Right back atya, Becky – keep up the great fight! Jesus loves the little babies in the womb – and the defenders of same. God bless you, Girl!

          • Becky

            Amen! Thank you, WGC ; )

          • afchief

            Yes I know! In fact I know some of these trolls are paid to disrupt our conversations on Christian and conservative sites. They get paid by the number of responses to their posts.

            You can tell these people the truth over and over and nothing sinks in. That is because the Word of God is so true.

            2 Corinthians 4:4 (NASB) in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

            Not only has the god of this world blinded their minds. They have been given over to a reprobate mind to do abominations and believe lies.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Amen – great Bible verse – thank you! It makes you wonder if so many pro-aborts have hardened their hearts beyond redemption and God has let them go right on down that path just like Pharaoh.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            They get payed? Where do I sign up? Could use some extra cash.

          • gizmo23

            Tell me what the pro life movemnet has done to lessen abortion?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I thought you said “bye?” Why is it that when pro-aborts say “bye,” they are lying? 🙂

            1. Changing hearts and minds through education.
            2. Building and supporting thousands of crisis pregnancy centers (through private donations) that give abortion-minded women another choice besides knocking off their babies.
            3. Standing on sidewalks and saving babies directly.
            4. Coordinating with adoption agencies and setting up private ones. Adoption is a great option!
            5. Writing and passing laws, especially at the state level, to protect the most vulnerable humans on the planet.

            That is a short summary. Now, I have done all five of those. What have you PERSONALLY done, besides argue with pro-lifers on this page and others?

          • Becky

            “Pro abortion movement wins many times”

            Wow. Very cold.

            The defenseless, innocent baby is the one that loses. His/her life is ended through torture. And, in the end, if the mother doesn’t repent, she will lose, too…her salvation. But hey…as long as the “Pro abortion movement” is winning.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            So if a woman gets unwanted pregnant by rape, has the kid, wants to take care of the kid. So she goes on welfare so she is able to take care of the kid, is stealing? But you people also get into a fit when that woman wants an abortion cause she has to quit her job to take care of the kid and isn’t able too. And some of you are like, mom should stay home to take care of the children. So what about those women who get pregnant unwanted, rape, and are not able to take care of the kid? Adoption is a solution, but not every woman wants to do that.

          • gizmo23

            Don’t tell me, it’s afchief that thinks a raped woman that collects assistance is stealing

          • Ann Morgan

            ** His/her life is ended through torture**

            Enlighten me. Precisely how does one ‘torture’ something with no brain function, even if you specifically wanted to? Because I can’t really see how that is even possible.

      • Angel Jabbins

        No problem with the mother going on Welfare for a while, but not to live off it the rest of her life and her children then becoming dependent upon it as well so that it becomes a way of life for generations who never learn how to become productive, tax-paying citizens. We all need a little help along the way and some people may need that help. I would not deny it to one is truly destitute and has no other means of support. The problem we have is generations on it now and a Welfare system that has exploded. It does nothing to end poverty if it becomes a long term situation. It just breeds more problems.

      • Oboehner

        Roll that train back up, the mother could choose adoption.

        • gizmo23

          And who would pay for it? Public funds might have to pay for it which according to af would be stealing

          • Oboehner

            Most couples wanting to adopt are more than willing to pay for it.

          • gizmo23

            Their not enough people that have the resources to cover the medical and legal costs. Do you know anyone that has tried to do this?

          • Oboehner

            Yes I do, it worked out just fine.

          • gizmo23

            Here it is about $15,000 to do it

          • Oboehner

            Your point? Abortions cost money too, how do you suppose abortion doctors can afford those Mercedes?

      • Bob Johnson

        Actually there are more pressing problems for the new mother. Hopefully our resident legal expert can help.

        1. Should the mother apply for a Social Security Number as soon as she realizes she missed her period? Considering that 75% of fertilized eggs spontaneously miscarry will these extra SSNs require death certificate be sent to SSA?

        2. Does the unborn child qualify as a IRS tax exemption for the nine months prior to birth?

        3. Can the mother be charged with “child endangerment” for riding a bicycle 3 days after having sex.

        Just as gay marriage is a way to deal with the 1500 state and federal laws that give rights to married couples, we will now needs to examine all laws that define human and extend those rights even for the 75% who never make it to a live birth.

        • Ann Morgan

          Bear in mind that hiding a corpse is a felony in most states, so simply throwing tampons in the trash is out. If a widdle zygote is a ‘legal person’ from the very magical moment of conception, then it follows that an unimplanted zygote is a corpse, and attempting to hide it by throwing it in the trash would be a felony. All tampons will have to be turned in and inspected by the police. Expect taxes to go up drastically to fund this.

    • Josey

      Amen…Faith in God that He can and will work out all things for our good, we just have to trust Him. What a wonderful post!

    • Jolanda Tiellemans

      So she rather leave her other kids without a mom, then give up one child? That is selfish.

    • Ann Morgan

      In other words, you are rewarding the rapist by making rape a successful reproductive strategy, and also passing on genes for violent behavior, thereby punishing your wife and other women of future generations (who may be raped by the descendents of the rapist) out of sad feelies for as-yet mindless cells that you choose to equate to a full term infant, partly out of sad feelies, partly out of the convenience of using an embryo to punish a woman for sex.

      • afchief

        Does the baby have a choice to live of die?

  • FoJC_Forever

    The blood of the innocent will be avenged. False religion, politics, and money will not deliver America from its Judgement.

    Follow Jesus, find Salvation.

  • WorldGoneCrazy

    Surely all reasonable men and women can come together and show both compassion for human beings and a respect for settled science. The argument against abortion is a moral and scientific one:

    1. Human beings have intrinsic moral value. (basic morality)

    2. What is located in the human womb, post-conception, is a human being. (settled science)

    3. Therefore, abortion intentionally kills a human being with intrinsic moral value – one who is guilty of no crime.

    The only difference between a human being in the womb and one outside of it is size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency. And each one of those factors, if used to argue for abortion, could be also used as a reason for killing a child OUTSIDE of the womb. In abortion clinics all across America today, nearly 3000 human beings with intrinsic moral value – guilty of no crime but their mere existence – are being led to their deaths, and gruesome ones at that.

    • Ann Morgan

      **1. Human beings have intrinsic moral value. (basic morality)

      2. What is located in the human womb, post-conception, is a human being. (settled science)**

      Google ‘equivocation fallacy’. You are switching from one meaning of the term ‘human being’ to another. You argument is basically as juvenile as the following:

      1. Gold is worth $1000/oz (basic economics)

      2. The crayon in my box of crayolas is gold (basic color theory)

      3. Therefore you owe me $1000 for the box of crayons you stole from me.

      **. And each one of those factors, if used to argue for abortion, could be also used as a reason for killing a child OUTSIDE of the womb.**

      I notice you are very carefully omitting the factors of having no brain function, and being attached to another person’s organs. Which in fact, can and are used as arguments to kill people outside the womb. See Shimp vs McFall, or ask a local doctor if it’s acceptable to cut up the brain dead for their organs. You are also dismissing the factor of location, in which case you are justifying rape.

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        No equivocation, Ann. But not surprising that the deranged stalker who claimed elsewhere that sperm and snot are human beings does not know what human beings are.

        That abortion video is getting to you, Ann. Don’t think about that video before you go to sleep, OK? Sweet dreams, Ann.

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        BTW, why is the location of the killing a relevant factor? Do you think that homicide should be legal inside of a person’s house, but not on the street?

        • Ann Morgan

          **BTW, why is the location of the killing a relevant factor?**

          It is, and has ALWAYS BEEN a ‘relevent factor’. Case in point, if you try to get into such ‘mere locations’ as the Oval Office, or a nuclear weapons facility, you will be shot, based on your ‘mere location’.

          A woman has the right to kill a rapist, but not the man standing behind her in the elevator, based on what may only be a 6 – 12 inch difference in the ‘mere location’ of his penis.

          As for your house vs the street, google ‘Castle Doctrine’. In many states, you have the right to shoot anyone who has broken into your house.

          You are trying to assert that the fetus has a magical, special right to other people’s bodies and organs. There is no such right. Not to a kidney. Not to a uterus. The fact that the fetus happens to be there is irrelevent. Occupation or possession of a location or object is irrelevent to rights, otherwise the moment a trespasser somehow managed to get into your house, he would own it, and the moment a theif managed to steal your wallet the money would belong to him. However, that is not the case. Trespassers will be ejected from your house, and your money will be taken back from a thief. Even if it requires force, even if it takes lethal force, and even if the trespasser or thief might need your house or your money for their ‘very lives’.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “It is, and has ALWAYS BEEN a ‘relevent factor’.”

            If you go into someone’s house and gun them down or gun them down in their driveway, it is still homicide, Ann. Unless you are now inventing crimes that the human in the womb is guilty of committing that warrants the death penalty. Crimes besides your feeewings or the fact that you want a porn career or can’t fit into your wedding dress.

            Now you have babies trespassing and committing burglary. (smh) Pro-aborts really are delusional.

            Whatever you do, Ann – don’t think of that abortion video I made you watch, OK?!? 🙂

          • Ann Morgan

            **If you go into someone’s house and gun them down or gun them down in their driveway, it is still homicide, Ann**

            We aren’t talking about ‘someone else’s house’. We are talking about the owner’s house. Do you think this sort of babbling is impressive?

            **Now you have babies trespassing and committing burglary.**

            First of all, it is not a ‘baby’. Get a medical dictionary. It is an embryo or fetus. Secondly, It’s occupying someone else’s body and using someone else’s organs. There is no such right to do so.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “We aren’t talking about ‘someone else’s house’. We are talking about the owner’s house.”

            The womb is the baby’s “house,” silly.

            “First of all, it is not a ‘baby’.”

            We have been through this, Ann, but you are a slow learner:

            “If you can either call or email these guys to let them know that “they’re so obsessed with fetuses to the point of calling them babies”, I’ll consider becoming a pro abort like you:

            http://www .nlm .nih .gov/medline…

            http://www .mayoclinic .org/heal…

            http://www .babycenter.com/preg…

            http://www .parents .com/pregnan…

            http://www .webmd .com/baby/ss/s…

            http://americanpregnancy .org/w…

            et al, to let them know that if they don’t stop referring to a fetus as an “imaginary” baby, they’ll be seriously making you look silly.

            *Be sure to contact all the obgyn’s who do the same. I know my OB always referred to my babies when they were in the womb, as babies. Please let all these doctors know that they are “obsessed with fetuses to the point of calling them babies”.” — PJ4

            “Secondly, It’s occupying someone else’s body and using someone else’s organs. There is no such right to do so.”

            The womb is the baby’s house, Ann – you are invoking the death penalty on a human in her house for no crime committed. No can do.

          • Ann Morgan

            **The womb is the baby’s “house,” silly.**

            Sorry, no. The womb belongs to the woman, not the fetus. The fact that someone has managed to physically occupy a location does not create the right of ownership.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Don’t steal the baby’s house, Ann. Don’t enter into the baby’s house and kill her. 🙂

            Sweet dreams tonight – whatever you do – don’t think about the abortion videos. Why don’t you watch the one on this page before you go beddy bye?!?

      • afchief

        A Physician Tells Why Abortion Is Murder

        by Pastor E. L. Bynum

        I am a physician. I have been trained to protect and preserve life. Since medical school, I have delivered many babies, though the bulk of my training and practice is in pediatrics – the care of babies and children. As one who loves children (my wife and I have six), I speak today on behalf of children – children of all ages: Toddlers, babies and especially those little pre-born humans who today reside inside their mothers or who later will be received and delivered (or murdered).

        During the months leading to the Emancipation Proclamation, President Lincoln repeatedly discussed the matter with his cabinet. During one difficult discussion, he asked: “Gentlemen, how many legs does a sheep have?” Each man answered correctly, “Four, Mr. President.” He proceeded, “Let’s call his tail a leg. Now how many legs?” Each man replied, “Five, Mr. President.” Mr. Lincoln retorted, “Nope, still only four. Just because we call it a leg doesn’t make it one.”

        Mr. Lincoln’s wit and wisdom speak to our present day confusion about abortion. Let me explain.

        Abortion is murder. Each abortion snuffs out an innocent human life. Tragically, doctors have deceived the American public. Referring to unborn babies as “fetus,” “embryo,” or “zygote,” may be scientifically correct, but does not change the fact: These little ones are little human beings. Though called “parasite,” “blob,” or “tissue,” give each wee creature about 266 days after conception and see what emerges from his mother’s womb. It will be a human baby, not a zebra, a trout, frog or an orangutan.

        Remember Mr. Lincoln. Don’t be deceived by folks (even doctors) who call a tail a leg – or humans anything but humans. When a human egg and a human sperm unite, the resulting individual is simply human. Given time, nutrition and protection, he or she will grow to maturity. Calling abortion a “termination” or “evacuating the uterus” doesn’t change its reality as murder-slaughtering a human being with premeditated malice.

        Some Comments Comical

        Were it not tragic, some abortion comments could be comical. A previous guest writer on this page, Dr. Harrison, said the unborn baby is “a parasite without feeling, thought, or experience… the fetus simply does not have the things required to feel pain…”

        But nerves are in place by six to eight weeks after conception. The chemicals necessary to send messages over nerve pathways to the brain are present by 12 weeks. Ask yourself – if you were stuck, pinched, grabbed, cut or crushed, how would you react? You likely would squirm, thrash, try to escape or fight. Your blood pressure would go up; your pulse would speed up.

        That’s how pre-born babies respond. Before being cut to pieces, sucked apart, chemically killed, or otherwise abused (to death), these little humans struggle, seeking to escape the destruction. In my opinion, abortionists have forfeited the privilege to be called “physicians”, for they have abandoned the responsibility of acting like physicians.

        What about rape? What about incest? These horrors defy descriptive condemnation. They represent the least human and most selfish acts imaginable – along with murder – and they deserve swift and severe punishment. A woman or girl abused by rape or incest should be seen promptly, evaluated with compassion and treated appropriately to prevent conception. Should pregnancy occur, the tragedy should not be compounded by another crime: Murdering the baby.

        Rape and incest deserve one further note: They (thank God) represent a relatively uncommon cause of pregnancy – and figure in less than 2 percent of abortions. The other 98 percent are done for the sake of convenience (not that of the baby). Abortion represents the most common surgical procedure performed in America today. Enough human lives are snuffed out each day to populate Mena, De Queen, or Fordyce. Each week, abortionists slaughter a group of babies equal in number to the population of Springdale or El Dorado.

        One more tragedy – often delayed and overlooked – concerns the mother of the aborted baby. I have cared for and counseled such women – women who find it difficult to live with an awakened conscience. Though duped, squelched or ignored, a conscience awakened to reality may produce guilt, grief and pain. Even with the reality of forgiveness, the scars may produce long-standing consequences.

        One last ‘leg-tail’ deserves comment. Can you remember folks saying, “Don’t push your morality on me!” when foes of abortion challenge its practise? Most folk appreciate our society’s restrictions on rape, robbery, assault and murder – and those restrictions are based on morality, as is every aspect of our lives, whether collectively or individually.

        As a believer in Jesus Christ, I’m convinced that moral absolutes exist. My convictions as a Christian and as a physician include the sanctity of human life. If each individual human (including unborn babies) does not have worth, if we do not acknowledge our responsibility to care for the unwanted and the defenseless, we will find our collective path ending at the ovens of Auschwitz, the Gulags of Siberia, or the Abortion Chambers of America.

        • Ann Morgan

          **Abortion is murder. Each abortion snuffs out an innocent human life.**

          Sorry, no. Something without a mind is not capable of ‘innocence’ or ‘guilt’. And murder is not wrong because it stops human cells with speshul human DNA from metabolizing, it’s wrong because it destroys a human mind. Which the widdle embwyo does not have.

          **But nerves are in place by six to eight weeks after conception. The chemicals necessary to send messages over nerve pathways to the brain are present by 12 weeks.**

          And other parts of the brain necessary for brain function are not present until 25 weeks…

          **Should pregnancy occur, the tragedy should not be compounded by another crime: Murdering the baby.**

          In other words, he prefers to enslave and torture a thinking, feeling person rather than ‘kill’ mindless cells.

          **Ask yourself – if you were stuck, pinched, grabbed, cut or crushed, how would you react? You likely would squirm, thrash, try to escape or fight. Your blood pressure would go up; your pulse would speed up**

          Wow, so something that is not only unconscious, but has no brain function, thrashes around and tries to escape. Tell me, precisely how is surgery possible, since patients being operated on are merely unconscious, and still have brain function? Surely they must be ‘thrashing around and trying to escape!!’

          **Before being cut to pieces, sucked apart, chemically killed, or otherwise abused (to death), these little humans struggle, seeking to escape the destruction.**

          Sorry, no, they don’t. ‘Silent Scream’ has been completely and thoroughly debunked.

          **As a believer in Jesus Christ, I’m convinced that moral absolutes exist**

          The fact that he is convinced that moral absolutes exist does not prove that they exist. Nor, even if moral absolutes do exist, does it prove that they are what he says they are.

          ** we will find our collective path ending at the ovens of Auschwitz, the Gulags of Siberia, or the Abortion Chambers of America.**

          So, basically he is claiming that thinking, feeling Jews and Russians have no more value than mindless cells.

          • afchief

            That is a lie straight from the pits of hell!!!!

            Fact #1: Every abortion kills an innocent human being.

            It is false to claim that no one knows when life begins and dishonest to argue that abortion does not kill a human being.

            Every new life begins at conception. This is an irrefutable fact of biology. It is true for animals and true for humans. When considered alongside the law of biogenesis – that every species reproduces after its own kind – we can draw only one conclusion in regard to abortion. No matter what the circumstances of conception, no matter how far along in the pregnancy, abortion always ends the life of an individual human being. Every honest abortion advocate concedes this simple fact.

            Faye Wattleton, the longest reigning president of the largest abortion provider in the United States – Planned Parenthood – argued as far back as 1997 that everyone already knows that abortion kills. She proclaims the following in an interview with Ms. Magazine: [1]

            I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don’t know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus.

            On the other side of the pond, Ann Furedi, the chief executive of the largest independent abortion provider in the UK, said this in a 2008 debate: [2]

            We can accept that the embryo is a living thing in the fact that it has a beating heart, that it has its own genetic system within it. It’s clearly human in the sense that it’s not a gerbil, and we can recognize that it is human life… the point is not when does human life begin, but when does it really begin to matter?

            Naomi Wolf, a prominent feminist author and abortion supporter, makes a similar concession when she writes: [3]

            Clinging to a rhetoric about abortion in which there is no life and no death, we entangle our beliefs in a series of self-delusions, fibs and evasions. And we risk becoming precisely what our critics charge us with being: callous, selfish and casually destructive men and women who share a cheapened view of human life…we need to contextualize the fight to defend abortion rights within a moral framework that admits that the death of a fetus is a real death.

            David Boonin, in his book, A Defense of Abortion, makes this startling admission: [4]

            In the top drawer of my desk, I keep [a picture of my son]. This picture was taken on September 7, 1993, 24 weeks before he was born. The sonogram image is murky, but it reveals clear enough a small head tilted back slightly, and an arm raised up and bent, with the hand pointing back toward the face and the thumb extended out toward the mouth. There is no doubt in my mind that this picture, too, shows [my son] at a very early stage in his physical development. And there is no question that the position I defend in this book entails that it would have been morally permissible to end his life at this point.

            Peter Singer, contemporary philosopher and public abortion advocate, joins the chorus in his book, Practical Ethics. He writes: [5]

            It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo sapiens’. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being.

            Bernard Nathanson co-founded one of the most influential abortion advocacy groups in the world (NARAL) and once served as medical director for the largest abortion clinic in America. In 1974, he wrote an article for the New England Journal of Medicine in which he states: [6]

            There is no longer serious doubt in my mind that human life exists within the womb from the very onset of pregnancy…

            Some years later, he would reiterate: [7]

            There is simply no doubt that even the early embryo is a human being. All its genetic coding and all its features are indisputably human. As to being, there is no doubt that it exists, is alive, is self-directed, and is not the the same being as the mother–and is therefore a unified whole.

            Fact #2: Every human being is a person.

            Personhood is properly defined by membership in the human species, not by stage of development within that species.

            A living being’s designation to a species is determined not by the stage of development but by the sum total of its biological characteristics— actual and potential—which are genetically determined…. If we say that [the fetus] is not human, e.g. a member of Homo sapiens, we must say it is a member of another species. But this cannot be. [1]

            Dictionaries define person as a “human being,” “human individual,” or “member of the human race.” What makes a dog a dog is that he came from dogs. His father was a dog and his mother was a dog, and therefore he is a dog. What makes a human a human is that he came from humans. His father was a human person and his mother was a human person, so he can be nothing other than a human person. [2]

            It is a scientific fact that there are thought processes at work in unborn babies.

            The Associated Press reported a study showing:

            Babies start learning about their language-to-be before they are born.

            University of North Carolina psychology professor Dr. Anthony DeCasper was quoted as saying: [8]

            Fetuses heard, perceived, listened and learned something about the acoustic structure of American English.

            Newsweek states: [9]

            Life in the womb represents the next frontier for studies of human development, and the early explorations of the frontier—through ultrasound, fiber-optic cameras, miniature microphones—have yielded startling discoveries.

            The same article says:

            With no hype at all, the fetus can rightly be called a marvel of cognition, consciousness and sentience.

            It also says that scientists have already detected sentience (self-awareness) in the second trimester. [10] Indeed, the extraordinary capacities and responses of preborn children have been well documented by scientific studies for years. [11]

            By early in the second trimester the baby moves his hands to shield his eyes to bright light coming in through his mother’s body. [12]

            The fetus also responds to sounds in frequencies so high or low that they cannot be heard by the human adult ear.

            If the unborn’s value can be compared to that of an animal, there is no reason not to also compare the value of born people to animals.

            In 1975 Australian scientist and bioethicist Peter Singer wrote a book with a title that was to become the banner of a new movement: Animal Liberation. Singer said: [15]

            It can no longer be maintained by anyone but a religious fanatic that man is the special darling of the universe, or that animals were created to provide us with food, or that we have divine authority over them, and divine permission to kill them.

            Singer, now a professor at Princeton University, denounces what he calls “speciesism”—valuing humans above animals. He defines speciesism as: [16]

            a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one’s own species and against those of members of other species.

            In his textbook, Practical Ethics, Singer says that speciesism is just as bad as sexism or racism: [17]

            It is speciesist to judge that the life of a normal adult member of our species is more valuable than the life of a normal adult mouse.

            Singer stretches the conventional definition of person beyond recognition by saying that not only can humans be nonpersons, but nonhumans can be persons: [18]

            We should reject the doctrine that places the lives of members of our species above the lives of members of other species. Some members of other species are persons; some members of our own species are not. No objective assessment can give greater value to the lives of members of our species….

            Singer has also said: [19]

            If we compare a severely defective human infant with a nonhuman animal, a dog or a pig, for example, we will often find the nonhuman to have superior capacities, both actual and potential, for rationality, self-consciousness, communication and anything else that can plausibly be considered morally significant.

            Once such logic is adopted, there is no stopping place. One nuclear physicist says: [20]

            It should be recognized that not all men are human…. It would seem to be more inhumane to kill an adult chimpanzee than a newborn baby, since the chimpanzee has greater mental awareness.

            Fact #3: Beginning at conception, every pregnancy involves two or more bodies.

            No matter how you spin it, women don’t have four arms and four legs when they’re pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them.

            The slogan, “My Body, My Choice,” betrays a tragic misunderstanding of what is taking place inside the womb. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother’s body.

            There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother’s body.

            Proof #1: Different genetic code.

            An individual’s body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother’s body, the unborn’s cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn’s body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother’s body.

            Proof #2: Different blood type.

            In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother’s blood.

            Proof #3: Different gender.

            In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.

            Proof #4: Different race.

            As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments: [1]

            A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides.

            Proof #5: Live/die & die/live.

            It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.

            Proof #6: Locally disabled immune system.

            When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman’s immune system within the uterus so that this tiny “foreign” body is not rejected by the woman’s body. Were this tiny embryo simply “part of the woman’s body” there would be no need to locally disable the woman’s immunities.

            Proof #7: Death row.

            It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).

            Proof #8: Scott Peterson sentencing.

            When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci, he was convicted on two counts of murder.

            Proof #9: Testimony of the “Father of Fetology”

            Sir Albert Liley (the “Father of Fetology”) made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, “The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?”: [2]

            Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy…. Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.

            Proof #10: Testimony of pro-abortion Christopher Hitchens.

            The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great: [3]

            As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.

            Hitchens had other reasons for supporting legal abortion that can’t stand up to the other facts presented on this site, but he did recognize the absurdity of claiming that unborn children are simply part of the mother’s body.

            The ovum and sperm are each a product of another’s body; unlike the conceptus, neither is an independent entity.

            On a televised panel Faye Wattleton, former president of Planned Parenthood, countered the argument that an unborn baby is a living being by saying to a pro-life congressman: [4]

            Your sperm are alive too.

            Similarly, in a widely read article in Parade magazine, the late Carl Sagan attacked the position that abortion kills children by asking: [5]

          • Ann Morgan

            **Every abortion kills an innocent human being.**

            Fact 1. Something with no mind is incapable of “innocence”. Or guilt.

            **Every new life begins at conception. This is an irrefutable fact of biology.**

            Show me exactly which biology textbooks claim that eggs and sperm are not alive.

            **Personhood is properly defined by membership in the human species, not by stage of development within that species**

            So. according to you, a mindless zygote is a ‘person’, a brain dead motorcycle accident victim is a ‘person’, but Mr. Spock would not be a ‘person’. Enlighten me here. Precisely what gives your definition of ‘person’ any value? Magical human DNA? Cuteness? Sad feelies?

            **Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.**

            Well, then, problem solved. If it’s not an appendage of the mother, it can be removed and no problem.

            **An individual’s body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother’s body, the unborn’s cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn’s body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother’s body.**

            So, according to you, genetic chimeras and people who have had organ transplants are now 2 people because ‘speshul DNA’. While siamese twins who have 2 heads and 2 brains are only 1 person.

            **The ovum and sperm are each a product of another’s body; unlike the conceptus, neither is an independent entity**

            Sperm aren’t an independent entity? So how do they fertilize the egg, when the man might be long gone when that happens? And if your contention is that the fetus is not a product of the mother’s body, then why the frantic insistence that it stay there? And where does the material to make it come from? The twilight zone?

  • WorldGoneCrazy

    “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.” – Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, 1939

    • gizmo23

      Sanger opposed abortion

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        So did Hitler, except for the Jews of course. You can be sure if she were alive today, Sanger would LOVE exterminating the “Negro population” through abortion. Here are seven of her famous quotes:

        http://liveactionnews .org/7-shocking-quotes-by-planned-parenthoods-founder/

        • gizmo23

          She still opposed abortion

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            So did Hitler. Will you be an apologist for Hitler like you are for Sanger, because, after all, Hitler was against abortion?

            I actually am having difficulty with the thought that you are defending a woman who wanted to “exterminate the Negro population.” Such a position would seem to come from a very dark place in you. Are you a member of the KKK, or is this just a way to rationalize in your mind the fact that Hillary Clinton accepted the Margaret Sanger Award and gushed over her?

          • gizmo23

            I’m in no way defending her, but she doesn’t deserve to be lied about considering many if not most churches at the time had eugenetics groups

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I’m not lying about her – I am using her own words, for Heaven’s sake. You, on the other hand, appear to be going out of your way to defend a woman who wanted to “exterminate the Negro population” and whose organization, Planned Parenthood, has gone a long way to accomplishing her goals. It makes me wonder what could motivate a person like yourself to defend such a position – what dark place exists in a person’s soul to do such a thing?

          • gizmo23

            Bye

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Bye bye.

          • https://www.facebook.com/doug.bristow3 Doug Bristow

            another lie.

          • gizmo23

            Believe what you wish

      • https://www.facebook.com/doug.bristow3 Doug Bristow

        That is an outright lie.

        • afchief

          That’s all he does is lie. It’s liberals defining characteristic.

        • gizmo23

          Nope. Read her history

    • Nidalap

      That quote IS cut out of a larger context, I’m afraid. Man, I’ve been taken in by the same kind of thing myself. So annoying!
      She WAS into eugenics though. Gave a speech to the KKK too. (An offence from the consequences of which only liberals are offered immunity.) 🙂

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        That’s because democrats started the KKK.

        • Nidalap

          Good point! 🙂

  • WorldGoneCrazy

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

    • Ann Morgan

      I notice that everyone who is for abstinence only, has already been conceived.

      I further notice that everyone who wants to enjoy oral sex or masturbation, like you do, has also been conceived.

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        Completely missing Reagan’s point, which is that pro-abort ghouls like you deny a human being to see the light of day after you have been granted that right.

        Ann thinks that sperm is a human being everyone. This is what passes for “science” from a radical pro-abort.

        Nice stalking of me over from LAN, Ann. Now, let’s remind everyone that I had you watch an abortion video and it set you off. You have been having nightmares ever since – good for you, BTW – and have been making strange claims like “babies don’t have a life,” “sperm and snot are human beings,” and all sorts of other strange “science-y” things. Were you the pro-abort who denied that we had landed on the moon too?

        Don’t think about that abortion video before you got to sleep, Ann – it will give you nightmares. Sweet dreams!

        • Ann Morgan

          **Completely missing Reagan’s point, which is that pro-abort ghouls like you deny a human being to see the light of day after you have been granted that right.**

          It isn’t a ‘right’. But you completely miss MY point, which is that forced birther hypocrites ALSO deny a (sob) ‘human being’ to see the light of day, by advocating that it not be conceived, after you have had the privelege of being conceived.

          However, I have a little thought experiment, to see exactly how ‘precious’ you think those ‘very lives’ are. Perhaps you are familiar with the ‘Saw’ series of movies. In case you aren’t, it features an evil villian, the ‘Jigsaw Killer’ who creates complicated devices designed to kill or mutilate people, sometimes giving one or more of the victims (or a 3rd party) a choice about where to direct the machine in question.

          Anyway, here’s my scenario. The Jigsaw killer had created a machine with a large blow torch attached. He has given you the choice of where to point the blow torch – which will go off in exactly 60 seconds.

          Choice A is – you point the blow torch towards the face of a 1 year old child. Now – this will not actually kill the 1 year old. However, it will permanently blind and severely disfigure them. Something forced birthers consider to be ‘mere inconvenience’.

          Choice B is – you point the blow torch towards a cooler full of 1000 precious little frozen week old embryoes, whose parents are just waiting to implant them. Now, as the blow torch will evaporate the coolant, if you choose this, it will kill all the precious little ‘innocent baby’ embryoes.

          Which do you choose? ‘Mere inconvenience’ of blinding and disfigurement for life for the 1 year old? Or do you destroy the ‘very lives’ of 1000 ‘precious innocent baby’ frozen week old embryoes?

          There is no handwaving your way out of this, such as by miracle surgery for the 1 year old, or you somehow disabling the machine or the bomb squad suddenly showing up. You MUST choose one or the other.

          Which do you choose?

          • Nidalap

            Ah, the utilization of a movie plot as if it were reality. Whoopsie! I just rewrote the script and can now use any plot device I wish to solve the puzzle!
            Whew! That was close! (^_^)

          • Ann Morgan

            **Ah, the utilization of a movie plot as if it were reality**

            Ah, the usual forced birth excuses to evade actually answering a hard question.

            Isn’t it interesting how people who don’t actually believe what they say, always find such excuses?

          • Nidalap

            Not quite as interesting as the fact you feel compelled to take on the tactics of a movie psychopath to attempt to make your point! 🙂

          • Ann Morgan

            If my “point” is so automatically inherently evil, then why not simply prove your innate moral superiority by giving your answer to the scenario? Those who actually believe what they say are not afraid to answer hard questions about their beliefs. It is only liars and hyporites who shed crocodile tears, then frantically find excuses to evade when asked hard questions.

            I’m not afraid to answer the question. I would torch the cooler and spare the one year old. Say what you like about my supposed psychosis, but at least I am willing to stand behind my beliefs.

          • Nidalap

            Your “hard question” doesn’t correspond with reality. That’s why you had to create it with aid from a movie plot. There’s always another way. Just ask James Tiberius Kirk! 🙂

          • Ann Morgan

            **Your “hard question” doesn’t correspond with reality**

            And that would be tripling down on excuse #5 from the forced birther handbooks of excuses to weasel out of actually answering hard questions: “(whine) that’s a fictional/hypothetical scenario, so I don’t have to answer it.”

            As for ‘corresponding with reality’, unless you can tell me what aspect of the scenario actually violates the laws of physics, you have proven that you are nothing but a forced birth liar.

            **There’s always another way. Just ask James Tiberius Kirk! :)**

            Really? Well, then, problem solved. If “there’s always another way”, then there is no need for your frantic insistence that the embryo/fetus stay inside the mother for 9 months. By your own admission, there is ‘another way’ to keep it alive, so the only possible reason to keep it inside the mother is to punish her.

          • Nidalap

            Oh dear…is that what the problem is? Did your mother used to tell you that you were a punishment of some kind to her? Sorry you had to go through that…

          • Ann Morgan

            And that would be forced birther evasion tactic #3, engage in insults rather than answering hard questions.

            Oh, and as an addendum to ‘corresponding to reality’, perhaps you would like to explain exactly how ‘World Gone Crazy’s’ self proclaimed magical powers by which he can tell from a sad picture whether an aborted fetus has lungs, and the state of health of the mother ‘corresponds to reality’.

            My proposed scenario at least adheres to the known laws of science, and there are engineers capable of building such a device. There is nobody I know of who can magically derive medical information from sad pictures as ‘World Gone Crazy’ claims to be able to do.

          • Nidalap

            What insult? You’re the one who said a baby staying in a woman’s womb for 9 months is a “punishment”. Since you appear to inhabit this world, that would mean your mother must logically qualify.
            A “sad” picture? What, pray tell, made it sad? If that’s NOT a baby, why the sentiment? If that photo shows proof that a woman was spared “punishment” why is it not a happy picture?
            Your scenario is just an attempt to make an unnatural choice between two unethical outcomes. None too difficult for someone who subscribes to a relative morality outlook. (You had no trouble, as I recall)

          • Ann Morgan

            ** You’re the one who said a baby staying in a woman’s womb for 9 months is a “punishment”. Since you appear to inhabit this world, that would mean your mother must logically qualify.**

            So, basically you are making play#2 from the forced birther handbook of evasion. ‘Pretend to be stupid’. As anyone of normal intelligence would comprehend that what is meant is not the pregnancy itself is ‘punishment’, but that forcing a woman who does not want to be pregnant to remain pregnant, is what constitutes ‘punishment’. In fact this is true for anything, however much some people might want it. Forcing someone to eat ice cream against their will would be punishment, no matter how nice ice cream is or how much other people want it.

            **A “sad” picture? What, pray tell, made it sad? If that’s NOT a baby, why the sentiment? If that photo shows proof that a woman was spared “punishment” why is it not a happy picture?**

            So, play #2 again. Pretend to be stupid. I recognize an attempt to manipulate my emotions, and the way in which the people who put up the pictures want it manipulated. And, btw, if it’s a perfect, gerber baby fetus aborted just for evil funsies at 6 months, then why the frantic evasion every time I ask for mere medical documentation of that fact?

            **Your scenario is just an attempt to make an unnatural choice between two unethical outcomes. None too difficult for someone who subscribes to a relative morality outlook.**

            And what’s your ‘morality’? That women don’t own their own bodies? And it is not an ‘unnatural’ choice. People are often forced to make such choices in life.

          • Nidalap

            Heh. That “manipulation of emotions” you’re experiencing is what used to be known as “conscience”. You saw the picture and, surprise-surprise, it was a baby. You make arguments that it’s not, but that’s just for the ease of your cause. The truth is: you’ll throw the switch on your machine to kill a human being just to save another from being “inconvenienced”…

          • Ann Morgan

            **That “manipulation of emotions” you’re experiencing is what used to be known as “conscience”**

            No, dear. What I’m experiencing is manipulation of emotions. Which I recognize, because I’m a writer, so I engage in it purposely myself. Plus I know a lot about how movies are made. Case in point, the first people to watch ‘Halloween’ thought it was crap. After the music was added, the next people to watch it were terrified.

            My ‘conscience’ does not respond to sad pictures and music. It responds to facts, and I have had so much frantic evasion every time I ask for facts, that I am now convinced that there is actually no ‘brutal baby killing’ in the video. There are either only early abortions, or the few late term ones shown undoubtedly had a good medical reason, since there is so much frantic evasion about the actual facts.

            **You saw the picture and, surprise-surprise, it was a baby.**

            Wow. Surprise surprise. I can look at pictures by Heironymous Bosch, and they are torture victims. To ask me to feel sad and have pangs of conscience about a mere photograph of a dead fetus with no medical facts to prove your claim of a late term perfect gerber baby fetus aborted merely for evil funsies (at a cost of at least $20,000) is as ludicrous as asking me to feel pangs of conscience about PAINTINGS of torture victims that existed only in the imagination of the artist. Not going to happen. The element of actual proof is missing, and the frantic evasions I get every time I ask for medical proof have simply convinced me that there were good medical reasons for the late abortions shown in the video.

            As for my emotions, I will suspend my disbelief to enjoy art and movies. I’m not interested in suspending my disbelief in order to believe your lies.

          • Nidalap

            Uh-huh. Well, what about the SURVIVORS of abortion then? Oh, it’s a very small group I’ll grant you. Every so often it DOES occur though. Interesting how, in the millisecond after they actually live through it, they make that transition from fetus to baby.
            There’s a lady who went through it who goes about making the case for the pro-life movement. It appears she has at least SOME value to society, like many attempted-murder survivors before her.
            You seem to be fond of hard questions so here’s one for you: Are you glad these people survived, or is it your fervent wish they had died? If it’s good that these survived, might it also be good if others were to survive too? 🙂

          • Ann Morgan

            ** Interesting how, in the millisecond after they actually live through it, they make that transition from fetus to baby.**

            Yes. Almost as interesting as the fact that forced birthers don’t care what happens to them after that ‘millisecond’, and for the same reason. Specifically, that they are no longer affecting another person or being kept alive by their organs.

            ** Are you glad these people survived, or is it your fervent wish they had died? If it’s good that these survived, might it also be good if others were to survive too? :)**

            I don’t have enough information to answer that question. I do not actively wish she had died, but neither is she entitled to live at the unwilling expense of others. There is no right to the body, money, or time of others, no matter how cute you are or how much you ‘need’ it for your ‘very life’.

            I would also say that since she seems functional -assuming she is telling the truth about being an ‘abortion survivor’, I would need more information about WHY the abortion was attempted, but my requests for hard medical information have been met with frantic evasions and insults by forced birthers. If she’s that functional, I doubt there was a problem with the fetus. Was there a medical problem with the mother that called for ending the pregnancy? Did the doctors misdiagnose the situation?

            The problem here is that you live in a fantasy world, where if only the ‘pwecious baybee’ can manage to be born, angels will drop money and nannies from heaven, and the baybees will dance around in feilds of flowers forever. Whereas in the real world, it might take $2 million to keep someone with severe health problems alive, and a LOT of care. Where is that money going to come from? Are you Bill Gates and plan to donate $2 million per infant? Are you willing to care for a disabled and possibly violent adult in their 40’s when you are in your 70’s? Are you willing to have a cell phone with you constantly for your entire life and leave in the middle of a date or sex if there is a problem with a disabled sibling? Or are the sacrifices for the taxpayers and the unlucky siblings, because reasons, while you enjoy your party life and your fetal fantasies?

          • Ann Morgan

            Oh, and another thing about your ‘hard question’:

            **You seem to be fond of hard questions so here’s one for you: Are you glad these people survived, or is it your fervent wish they had died? **

            The real big problem here is also that the question is not hard enough. Because, like all spoilt, self entitled fetal fantasizers, you are waving away the COST of the survival of this woman and other ‘miracle preemies’.

            Here’s the real question – you have 1000 micropreemies. In order to get one fairly functional survivor, your waved around ‘miracle preemie’, is it worth it to painfully torture to death 990 of the ‘precious preemies’, and to also torture the remaining 10, out of which 9 of them will basically be mindless peices of quivering meat ‘living’ on the end of a feeding tube for a few months or years, in order so that ONE of the victims of this torture will survive to be a fairly functional ‘miracle preemie’?

            Or would it be morally preferable to let such preemies die as painlessly as possible? Because quite honestly, given the cost and the odds, I think parents who try to keep such micropreemies alive at all costs, and laws that dictate that micropreemie ‘abortion survivors’ must thereafter be kept alive at all costs are more interested in the sad feelies of spoilt adults than what is actually in the best interests of the preemie.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            She is nuts. She has been stalking me on LAN – she finds me hot (which I cannot blame her for – I am) – and I made her watch an abortion video, and it was so horrific that she is now denying the Apollo Lunar Landings and making up silly thought experiments that deny free will and assume omniscience on the part of pro-deathers. The “logic” is this:

            “If we pro-deathers can find a moral dilemma in a movie or preferably Star Trek (Original Series only, of course) for you pro-lifers then we get to kill 3000 babies a day, including 9 month old babies because we won’t fit into our wedding dresses or because we want a nose job.”

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “It
            isn’t a ‘right’.”

            It isn’t a right to not be given the death penalty when one has not committed any crime?!? Have you been drinking again, Annie?

            As for your false dichotomy, all of the pro-deather experiments assume that pro-deathers are omniscient, which they are not. Obviously, I do not point the machine at either, silly. Pretty silly stuff.

            Are you still having nightmares over those videos I made you watch.? Those feelings of guilt are real, Ann – embrace them.

          • Ann Morgan

            **It isn’t a right to not be given the death penalty when one has not committed any crime?!? Have you been drinking again, Annie?**

            Sorry, no, but it is not a ‘right’. Nor is it the ‘death penalty’.

            Try to get this through your spoilt, entitled head. There is no ‘right’ to another person’s body or organs. If there were, organ donation would be mandatory, if a kidney patient needed your kidney for their ‘very life’.

            The reason why is, rights are not determined by the matter of physical possession or occupation. If another person has a ‘right’ to your organs for their ‘very life’, then the matter of whether they happen to already have them or not is irrelevent. If they have a ‘right’ to them and don’t have them, then your organs can and should be taken by force, and given to them.

            If they do not have a ‘right’ to your organs, then the matter of their happening to have them is irrelevent. They can and will be removed from them. And this is not the ‘death penalty’ no matter what sort of sobs you make. The fact that someone dies due to their inability to sustain their own life is not your problem, and you do not have an obligation to act as a life support system for them.

            **Are you still having nightmares over those videos I made you watch.? Those feelings of guilt are real, Ann – embrace them.**

            Get this through your spoilt. entitled head as well: I don’t think with my eyes. The fact that you are a useful idiot who is led around by the nose so easily that you disregard a complete absence of medical facts is not my problem. Understand this: I am not sad about your pictures. I am not sad about dead embryos for the same reason I’m not sad about autopsies, or brain dead accident victims having the plug pulled, or about the fact that the survivors of a 1972 plane crash ate the bodies of the dead.

            And you do not know what I think, so your statements regarding my supposed guilt and dreams are definite lies on your part. Who is the father of lies?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            It sounds like that was your usual long-winded way of saying that you DO support the death penalty for 3000 innocent babies in the womb each day – do I have you right?

            Is your meltdown and stalking a result of watching that video I sent you? Since you are commenting on this page, have you watched the video at the end of the article above to see if it was done with “movie props” like you claim the one I sent you was done with? Have you even watched the video?!?

          • Ann Morgan

            Do you feel that people should be strapped down and have their kidney’s removed against their will, if a dialysis patient needs it for their ‘very life’?

            If not, then why do you support the ‘death penalty’ for dialysis patients? Are their lives less precious than a fetus’s?

            Oh, and btw, the abilities you claim, including the ability to magically know medical information from sad pictures, the ability to know what I personally (supposedly) think and dream about, the ability to know what God thinks, and the ability to know what people in Hell think and do, would all fall under the biblical category of ‘prophecy’.

            You have repeatedly engaged in babbling rather than prove your abilities by identifying my extra body part and 4 missing parts from my picture. This would mean that you are what is referred to in the bible as a ‘false prophet’.

            What does the bible say to do with ‘false prophets’?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Do you feel that people should be strapped down and have their kidney’s removed against their will”

            We are not talking about kidneys, dearest Ann, we are talking about human beings. According to that “science-y” thing you are so afraid of.

            “If not, then why do you support the ‘death penalty’ for dialysis patients?”

            Ann, you got this silly argument stomped on over at LAN. No one is running around killing dialysis patients – but you and your ilk are doing that to pre-born babies.

            “You have repeatedly engaged in babbling rather than prove your abilities by identifying my extra body part and 4 missing parts from my picture.”

            Ann, you are diverting from the topic. I do not look at your picture any more than I have to, because, as PJ4 puts it, “Progressive Feminism was created as a way to make ugly chicks feel better about themselves.” The fact that I do not play your game bears no warrant whatsoever on what you saw on that video – and the one above too. And you have to deny what you saw – the victims of your ideology – in order to not change your view. De Nile ain’t just a river.

          • Ginger

            Being Biblically illiterate is no sin, but it is a sin to stay that way!! We will live to see Almighty YHVH judgment come down on us.

  • WorldGoneCrazy

    “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

    “I prayed for twenty years but received no answer until I prayed with my legs.” — Frederick Douglass

  • Becky

    “Blackmun stated that the Constitution does not include the unborn as being persons, and therefore, they may not receive equal protection.”

    Completely baseless! Two human beings created the “unborn”! If not considered a person (created by persons), what on earth do they think an “unborn” could possibly become?? A pencil?? I mean, is there some case somewhere about a woman giving birth to a pencil, or something other than another a person??

    Good grief!!

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      Amen, Becky! That immoral SCOTUS ruling reversed the burden of proof on personhood. Denying personhood and humanity to certain humans has a long and distasteful history in our country and others. (see slavery) Totally depraved.

      • Ann Morgan

        Yes, sort of like you denying personhood and humanity to the millions of tiny little haploid humans in your testicles. Amazing how the precious innocent babies morph into ‘snot’ when they might be inconvenient to you.

        And I notice you still are handwaving rather than actually listing the ‘human’ qualities that you feel that embryoes posses and are being wrongfully denied. It is easy to babble the word ‘human’ to get sad feelies, but the moment you are asked to list the human qualities of the things you feel sad about, you start evading. Why is that? Don’t you care about the ‘precious baybees’ enough to list their ‘human’ qualities. It would only take a few minutes. Can’t you even spare a few minutes of your time to defend the ‘precious baybees’?!

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          Ann, that abortion video I had you watch has made your stalking even more deranged and unhinged than normal. Now you are calling sperm a human being?!? Science-phobic, much? 🙂

      • Becky

        It’s so terribly frustrating, but I’m grateful that more people are realizing the injustice and horrific crimes that are being committed against the most defenseless and innocent of all people. I pray it quickens us to act in their defense.

    • afchief

      Well said Becky! That’s liberal logic at it’s best!!!

      • Becky

        Thanks afchief!

        God Almighty has warned us, this world belongs to Satan, hence the liberal loons are advocating the atrocity of abortion.

  • Ginger

    The first nation to ever allow legalized abortion on demand for any reason was Russia in 1920. Why are we following the Edomites?