Crazed Abortionist Wielding Surgical Scissors Confronts Preacher, Declares ‘Love’ for Killing Babies

Santella-compressedSAN DIEGO, Calif. — In an incident that some are calling “demonic,” a viral online video shows a California abortionist confronting a man last week wielding surgical scissors while declaring his love for killing babies and his refusal to turn to Christ.

The confrontation took place at Family Planning Associates in San Diego on Saturday as Zephaniah Mel stood outside of the facility preaching the gospel and calling those inside to repent.

“You’ve got to repent, sir, from murdering babies,” Mel states calmly as he sees abortionist Robert Santella, 72, step outside.

Santella quickly confronts Mel holding a cup of coffee in one hand and scissors in the other.

“Why?” Santella asks, getting close to Mel’s face.

“Because it’s a sin before God,” Mel replies.

Santella then begins making strange noises.

  • Connect with Christian News

“Why?” he repeats.

Santella breathes in Mel’s face, and declares, “Stinky breath!”

“That’s pretty evil of you, sir,” Mel states.

“Yeah, I am,” Santella replies, and makes another hacking noise as he raises the scissors close to Mel.

“That’s what you do to babies,” Mel remarks.

“Yeah, I love it,” Santella declares. “Yeah, I do.”

Mel then tells the abortionist that he hopes he comes to Christ.

“No, I don’t go to Christ,” Santella replies. “I don’t listen to Christ!”

“You have a darkened heart, sir,” Mel states.

“I do have a darkened heart,” Santella agrees, and then leans into Mel to state, “I do very, very much so.”

When Mel warns that the abortionist will stand before God in judgment for all the babies he has been tearing apart, Santella concurs.

“Yes, I will. Every day,” he says, adding in regard to murdering babies, “I love it. I love it.”

Santella has a longstanding disciplinary record with the California Board of Medical Quality Assurance. In 1983, his license was suspended for 60 days and placed on probation for five years for gross negligence after he injured three women, including botching a hysterectomy, which resulted in the patient nearly bleeding to death.

In 2000, Santella was again disciplined for unprofessional conduct after he failed to maintain adequate records for three women and neglected to perform necessary tests. He was placed on probation for four years, and was ordered to take classes, including an ethics course.

Last year, an ambulance was twice observed being called to the scene of Santella’s abortion facility.

“The man is definitely under the influence of Satan,” Mel wrote in sharing the encounter on Facebook. “It is also sobering because it is a reminder of who we once were (Ephesians 2:1-2). Please pray fervently for his soul. If he dies in his sin without Christ (Hebrews 9:27), he will be ushered into a terrifying judgment. We love this man. We don’t want his soul tossed into eternal Hell. Would you join us in prayer for him?”

He also urged Christians and gospel-centered churches to consider speaking out for life at their local abortion facility.

“If we can abolish the legalization of slavery, then by God’s grace we can abolish the legalization of human abortion,” Mel told Christian News Network.

The video has been viewed over 18,000 times since Monday.


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
  • TheBBP

    Well, that is certainly unnerving.

  • TheBottomline4This

    What a nasty, disgusting people they are who are killing babies and bragging about it and fairly content in their evil selves. It’s obvious they are in satan’s control.

    • Amos Moses

      Seared …………

      • ComeOnPeople!

        DIDO!!!

  • StanW

    For those that claim that no one is PRO abortion, here’s one right here!

  • Nidalap

    Well, he’s not stripped naked and living amidst gravestones but still…

    • Amos Moses

      Yet ………….

    • Emm Jane

      Correct. He is a high functioning, highly qualified, servant of satan.

  • TheBottomline4This

    Where are all the pro-choicers defending this “doctor”???
    Telling us he is a loving, kind man who is only doing his job???
    Telling us he is saving the lives of women who can’t be burdened with a baby???
    Cricket…cricket…cricket…..

  • Josey

    I wouldn’t want a doctor that crazed coming near me with a scalpel and the cop is laughing at the scene, so weird!

  • april

    Satan is the father of lies and murder

    • Heidi K.

      Santella actually contains the word satan…

  • LadyFreeBird♥BlessedBeTheLord

    The evil side of Abortion. If a so called doctor acts like that, I would not want him near me. But then he is a doctor of death.

  • TheBottomline4This

    Oh come on pro-choicers!!!
    Where are you???
    Why aren’t you on here defending this “doctor”???

  • Ronald Carter

    Pretty obvious what’s going on here. The abortion doctor is having fun with the crazed fundamentalist by agreeing with everything he says. It’s not an admission of guilt. It’s a man playing to the camera and mocking the man who accosts him.

    • Emm Jane

      Obvious to all but you, it appears.

      • Ambulance Chaser

        I agree with him. The doctor is just fooling around, probably out of frustration with the protesters.

        • Ronald Carter

          I probably would have done the same thing – I would have no patience for some self-righteous religious nut telling me I have to repent. This was the best possible way to respond.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I would have too.

          • B1jetmech

            I would have no patience for some self-righteous religious nut telling me I have to repent.

            I agree…anyone should have the right to go to hell.

          • Ronald Carter

            As if that’s anyone’s call to make.

          • B1jetmech

            It’s your call.

          • Ronald Carter

            Right, all I have to do is invert to hardcore right wing fundamentalist Christianity?

          • B1jetmech

            Well, there is no such thing as a left wing christian. So, either you are for Christ of against him.

            Those who Choose not to believe will have eternal separation from God.

            BTW, Hell isn’t open for business yet.

          • Ronald Carter

            There are many Christians, in fact most, who are not ultra-right wing. I would put Catholics and Episcopalians and Lutherans in that group. None of them, to my knowledge, go around condeming people to hell.

          • B1jetmech

            What is “ultra right wing”? A Christian who abides by the word of God? If so, then count me in.

            There are plenty of so called christians (by name only) who act as if they are, but not. What makes a person a christian…if they go to church? I don’t think so.

            When did I condemn somebody to hell??? I didn’t. I said if someone is an unbeliever and when the die as an unbeliever, then they sentence themselves to hell.

            Jesus himself, the Son of God, talked alot about hell and warned everyone about it.

          • Ronald Carter

            What is ultra right wing? I would characterize it is extremely angry and political Christians using a very rigid and literal Biblical understanding not open to outside interpretation and dismissive of criticism. This is where you see the “No True Scotsman” fallacy the most – “well, if that group believes THIS about this or that subject, then they are not true Christians”. Kiss of death right there. To be a Christian means to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, and that’s all it means. The second you start to tell people that they’re not Christians because they change the day of the sabbath or they baptize infants or whatever, you’re guilty of this.

            Because I think ALL Christians would tell you they are abiding by the word of God. You’re free to disagree with them but I don’t think it’s fair to make a statement like “they’re not true Christians”.

            And no one sentences themselves to hell, that’s silly. If you don’t believe hell exists, then you’re not sentencing yourself to it.

          • B1jetmech

            I would characterize it is extremely angry and political Christians…

            Okay.

            So what’s wrong with being angry? When law abiding citizens are witnessing their nation declining in every aspect of life…the highest concentration of this decline is the family. Should people just be complacent and move along?

            using a very rigid and literal Biblical understanding not open to outside interpretation and dismissive of criticism

            It’s not hard at all to study God’s supernatural, well engineered word and come to the conclusion there are no “grey area’s”. It does not take a theologian to read and study…God designed his word to be understand by all so it’s not left up to the elite.

            God’s word is not only designed to give answer verse by verse but through out the whole length of the bible.

            well, if that group believes THIS about this or that subject, then they are not true Christians”

            You need to bounce it off to what scripture says. Many times over, groups of people have been wrong. When they are wrong they fall away. What they fall away it gets real bad.

            In order to prevent this, God’s word has to use in the proper context. God empowers us to study and learn what we learn from someone else we test it and verify with scripture.

            To be a Christian means to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, and that’s all it means

            Agree and you will find that Christ quoted Genesis and other parts of the Old Testament to back up his teachings and his ministry.

            The second you start to tell people that they’re not Christians because they change the day of the sabbath or they baptize infants or whatever, you’re guilty of this.

            I agree because we should have a Sabbath or a day to set aside for God just as God rested on the 7th day. Doesn’t matter what day of the week it is but rest on one day, just as God did during creation. Baptizing infants is all good but when they grow they to must accept Christ as their savior because baptism isn’t going to save them.

            Because I think ALL Christians would tell you they are abiding by the word of God.

            Yeah, they will tell you but they don’t know much about the word of God. My church is a good example of this because a lot Christians don’t be proactive and study the Word. They rather go to church, listen to sermons, feel good emotionally and that’s about it. unfortunately, these are the ones who fall away when times get too tough.

            You’re free to disagree with them but I don’t think it’s fair to make a statement like “they’re not true Christians”

            Let me tell you this, we are in a time that more then ever there are those who are out to deceive intentionally or not and twist the word of God into something that is isn’t and will lead a whole lot of people damnation. This is where one has to discern if they are for real or not. It talks about this in 2 timothy, 1 & 2nd Peter, James, Jude and Jesus even talked about it in Matthew 24.

            And no one sentences themselves to hell, that’s silly. If you don’t believe hell exists, then you’re not sentencing yourself to it.

            It really doesn’t matter if someone thinks hell exist or not because in the end, we will face God. Our lives will be played through again for everyone to see and the one thing that will determine where we spend eternity is repenting of our sins and accepting Christ as our savior.

            I tell you ahead of time, most people won’t do this.

          • Ronald Carter

            What’s wrong with being angry? Nothing, but there’s angry and there’s perpetually angry. I look at the headlines on this site – every one of them seems to focus on some injustice going on. Do I ever see a headline about something good happening in the Christian world? There MUST be, somewhere. All the headlines here focus on either homosexuals or some anti-Catholic thing usually involving the pope, or transgenders, or abortion. There are things worth celebrating too. Aren’t there?

            There are of course gray areas in the world, so there must be gray areas in the Bible as well. We know from science that certain things literally could not have happened, such as Noah’s Ark and talking snakes. So there must be some room for allegory.

            “You need to bounce it off to what scripture says.”

            But that’s what I AM talking about, your group verses their group, arguing with each other, both you claiming to be right, and both of you using the Bible for your justification but understanding it differently.

            “Doesn’t matter what day of the week it is”

            Couldn’t agree more, but have you ever talked to an SDA about that?

            “Baptizing infants is all good but when they grow they to must accept Christ as their savior because baptism isn’t going to save them.”

            This is one of those things where there are two understandings. One is believer’s baptism (your group). The other is baptism for the removal of the stain of original sin. That’s the other group. Who’s right? Both are using the Bible for their justification.

          • B1jetmech

            Nothing, but there’s angry and there’s perpetually angry. I look at the headlines on this site

            With all due respect, why do you dwell here then?

            All the headlines here focus on either homosexuals or some anti-Catholic thing usually involving the pope, or transgenders, or abortion.

            Well, some of those issues is reshaping a nation in decline, from the TOP down.

            There are things worth celebrating too. Aren’t there?

            That’s an issue you need to take up with the site administrators.

            so there must be gray areas in the Bible as well

            As far what’s detestable to God hasn’t change…no tolerance of sin hasn’t change. What’s change is we are under grace through Christ so were no longer under the “law”. Because the law only identifies and punishes, where as under Christ, we have the ability to repent and be saved.

            We know from science that certain things literally could not have happened, such as Noah’s Ark and talking snakes

            Wanna bet? I’ll be happy to debate about Noah and the Global flood…that’s one of my favorite topics.

            Talking snakes? You mean “singular” serpent. That is something you should study up on. I’ll give a little here.

            Lucifer was God’s created being who led the worship of the Universe to God…until he fell from pride.

            Even though he fell, he didn’t lose his glory as a being of light and beauty. Hence the “Shining one” who is identified in Genesis 3. The writers didn’t want to portray him as someone as wonderful in appearance so he was written as a serpent..because a serpent represents a crafty, slick person who can easily deceive other’s.

            Now did he really take the form of a serpent or did he remain as a being of light?

            But that’s what I AM talking about, your group verses their group, arguing with each other

            This is an easy one…find out which group doesn’t believe in certain parts of the bible and through the process of elimination, scratch off the group that does so. Then with the removing groups, find out which group beliefs won’t reflect through out the whole length of the bible and remove them. You will left with the group that believes the whole bible entirely and intent.

            Couldn’t agree more, but have you ever talked to an SDA about that?

            I don’t know who SDA is.

            The other is baptism for the removal of the stain of original sin.

            That’s easy. baptism doesn’t remove sin. it’s an obedience gesture because Jesus did so. Down in the water of the old sinful self and up from the water a new creation. Now you might mean the the same thing so it might be an understanding of different words used.

            Again, all found in scripture.

          • Ronald Carter

            “With all due respect, why do you dwell here then?”

            Because the subject matter interests me, largely because there are a lot of people calling themselves Christians but so many of you have contrary views from one another.

            “Well, some of those issues is reshaping a nation in decline, from the TOP down.”

            I can think of a lot more serious things bringing the nation down, such as poverty and disease and hunger, things that seem to me to matter a lot more than whether someone’s worshiping God correctly or if someone is a homosexual.

            “As far what’s detestable to God hasn’t change…no tolerance of sin hasn’t change.”

            But DEFINITION of sin is where you disagree. Not just with me, but with each other. You know as well as I do that you can take a passage of scripture to make it agree with your position no matter what that position is. How do you explain that there are entire Christian congregations which are welcoming to homosexuals? Is that where you’re going to invoke the No True Scotsman fallacy and tell me they’re not “true Christians”? Even though they believe in the same God and same Bible as you?

            “Now did he really take the form of a serpent or did he remain as a being of light?”

            Well, if he took the form of a serpent, it would have been physically impossible for him to speak.

            As for Noah’s flood, it’s been proven to have been a physical impossibility.

            “find out which group doesn’t believe in certain parts of the bible and through the process of elimination, scratch off the group that does so.”

            You BOTH believe those parts of the Bible but have different understandings of them. That’s where you’re in a stalemate, because you’re both using the same book but having different understandings, but both sides are too arrogant to admit that they might be incorrect.

            “I don’t know who SDA is.”

            Seventh Day Adventist.

            “That’s easy. baptism doesn’t remove sin.”

            The bulk of the world’s Christians would disagree with you.

          • B1jetmech

            Because the subject matter interests me, largely because there are a lot of people calling themselves Christians but so many of you have contrary views from one another.

            There are denomination differences, but even that, many denominations nowadays have strayed from scripture…God’s commands. It’s a falling away taking place that scripture predicted back in the 1st century AD.

            I can think of a lot more serious things bringing the nation down, such as poverty and disease and hunger, things that seem to me to matter a lot more than whether someone’s worshiping God correctly or if someone is a homosexual.

            If one is poor are in poverty does not mean they turn out bad. My mother in law grew up in the great depression. Yet she turned out good because she was raised with biblical beliefs and morals.

            Homosexual, abortion,poverty, disease and hunger ect. are just the symptoms of the real problem of a dying society is the church. If the church is in decline then the rest of society will follow.

            How do you explain that there are entire Christian congregations which are welcoming to homosexuals?

            Yeah, they are wrong because they are letting their feeling getting in the way of biblical truths.

            Many believers will fall away unfortunately. Remember when Jesus said about sowing seeds? After sowing seeds in four examples, 3 of them fell away. So figure 3 out of 4 so called believers will fall away and they either won’t know it or just lose interest.

            Well, if he took the form of a serpent, it would have been physically impossible for him to speak.

            We’re talking God’s greatest creation and imagine the powers he has. He was crafty enough to deceive a third of angels IN THE PRESENCE OF GOD. So if powerful mighty beings can be left astray in the presence of God, imagine what Satan can do when we aren’t in the presence of God.

            God spoke through a mule and that is physically possible too you know. We are not intelligent enough nor have super natural enough to understand and manipulate matter.

            As for Noah’s flood, it’s been proven to have been a physical impossibility

            No it has not been proven. In reality it can’t be dis proven because there are too many geological evidences of a global flood.

            You BOTH believe those parts of the Bible but have different understandings of them.

            No, I believe in every part of the Bible.

            The bulk of the world’s Christians would disagree with you.

            What does scripture say in regards to salvation?

          • Ronald Carter

            “There are denomination differences, but even that, many denominations
            nowadays have strayed from scripture…God’s commands. It’s a falling
            away taking place that scripture predicted back in the 1st century AD.”

            Which sounds awfully convenient, wouldn’t you say? I would bet you any amount of money that many of those same denominations you speak of would say the same thing about YOUR denomination, that you’ve strayed from scripture and that you’re falling away. There is NO single Christian group that can claim they are correct and that everyone else is wrong and be, well, correct about it. This is the No True Scotsman fallacy, and boy oh boy, it’s more evident in right-wing Christians than anywhere else. Growing up Catholic, my mom always told me that everyone was Christian and they they just all did things slightly differently. But she never told me the others were wrong. So why can’t you have a little bit of humility and say yes, I MIGHT be wrong about certain things? I can say it. I’m wrong about MANY things. There – I said it, and it didn’t hurt.

            “If one is poor are in poverty does not mean they turn out bad.”

            You missed my point. Instead of squabbling about trivial matters like who uses what restroom, you could instead use that energy for a common good like battling against poverty.

            “Homosexual, abortion,poverty, disease and hunger ect. are just the
            symptoms of the real problem of a dying society is the church. ”

            All those things have always existed – not all of them are problems (homosexuality). Some Christians like to talk about these problems as testament that we are living in the end times. Think about how much more it would have felt like the “end times” when the bubonic plague was going on. So no, things are not getting worse.

            “Yeah, they are wrong because they are letting their feeling getting in the way of biblical truths.”

            I would say that they are realizing what science has been screaming at them for so long is true, that there are homosexuals in this world, that they are attracted to the same sex but otherwise they fall in love just like everyone else and there’s nothing wicked or evil or bad or sinful about it and they have just as much right to worship God as anyone else.

            “God spoke through a mule and that is physically possible too you know.”

            No, it’s not possible. All we have is an ancient book that says these things happened, anyway. I could write a book that said I saw a talking horse but it was really Satan. What would be the difference?

            “No it has not been proven”

            Here’s a rational website’s entry on why a global flood was/is impossible. What’s most interesting to me is that it states clearly that the majority of modern biblical scholars interpret the flood story allegorically – which is the only safe way to interpret it:

            http://rationalwiki. org/wiki/Global_flood

          • B1jetmech

            Which sounds awfully convenient, wouldn’t you say? I would bet you any amount of money that many of those same denominations you speak of would say the same thing about YOUR denomination, that you’ve strayed from scripture and that you’re falling away.

            Well, if you think I’m just being convenient then show me the scripture where I am wrong. Scripture is suppose to be used for correction you know.

            Show me, I’m waiting…

            BTW, I don’t belong to a denomination so what do you think about that?

            You missed my point. Instead of squabbling about trivial matters like who uses what restroom, you could instead use that energy for a common good like battling against poverty.

            Mental illness isn’t a trivial matter. What do think, should people change their “genders” on a whim so they can use a different restroom?

            We’ve spent trillions of dollars of our hard earn money to fight poverty, and what happens? MORE people get on poverty. So what’s your solution?

            All those things have always existed – not all of them are problems (homosexuality)

            Yes, it’s because of sin.

            Think about how much more it would have felt like the “end times” when the bubonic plague was going on. So no, things are not getting worse.

            Not compared to a world ruled by an evil world leader.

            there’s nothing wicked or evil or bad or sinful about it and they have just as much right to worship God as anyone else.

            A thief can fall in love, a murderer can fall in love so what’s your point? Think God will give them the time of day when they attempt to worship? He’s no where to be found in that kind of presence.

            No, it’s not possible. All we have is an ancient book that says these things happened, anyway. I could write a book that said I saw a talking horse but it was really Satan. What would be the difference?

            Considering you sound like a non believer, it is just foolishness to you anyway. However, I don’t need the consensus of people who try to be scientifically minded to justify the supernatural recorded in scripture.

            It’s not the fact that a donkey spoke is what’s revealing it’s the fact that someone was doing something so bad God used a donkey to get their attention. Hello! What are you doing!…

            Here’s a rational website’s entry on why a global flood was/is impossible.

            Allow me to pick apart that website.

            Physical scale

            Since the volume of land is small compared to the total volume of water that would be required for such a flood (oceans cover 71% of the Earth’s surface and the average height of land is only about 800 metres), an easy calculation shows the amount of water needed to achieve this would be at least 4.5 billion cubic kilometres.

            This is explainable.

            As the ocean floors subjected into the mantel. tens of thousands of square miles of magma was exposed, being less dense caused the ocean waters to rise 3,500 feet to a mile. While the ocean floors were going down in the mantle they dragged the continents down hundreds of feet. Once the exposed magma where the original ocean floors were cooled… the ocean waters receded back into the ocean basins.

            Precipitation

            The conventional flood story states that the flood waters came from rain that lasted 40 days and 40 nights.

            Let’s read Genesis 7:11

            In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

            So what that verses is telling us is the “fountains of the great deep broken up” Hence, the Catastrophic Plate Tectonics taking place of the tectonic plates braking up all over the world, exposing hot magma to ice cold ocean waters cause supersonic steam jets shooting up into space forming dense clouds to cover the earth and super sonic tsunamis.

            Here’s an example, the delicateness of our surviving hinges on the fact if there is a slight uplift on the ocean floor somewhere, it could cause our continents to be over run by the oceans. Sea what tsunamis are created by underground earthquakes?

            So it wasn’t just rain that caused the global flood it primary the uplift of the ocean waters by CPT.

            Gathering the animals

            God brought the animals to Noah. Noah didn’t have to travel and the Continents were different prior to the flood.

            Caring for the animals

            The Ark had auto refill water systems using bamboo as pluming to carry the water. Not too hard to design.

            It is possible the some or the majority of animals were hibernating too. There was waste collection done by gravity. An estimated 12,000 lbs of waste a day was captured and expelled. This is if the animals were all awake an not hibernating.

            Integrity of Noah’s Ark

            if not all, ships in the height of the wooden saily thing era) in size, would not have been able to survive for long at sea, certainly not for 40 days, or perhaps even 4, as the timbers would have warped, water leaked in, and sunk the damn thing, saving us a lot of trouble.

            This is the assumption based off ship building just a couple of hundred years ago. That is not he case.

            The Ark is supposedly built by “Mortise and Tenon” construction. WE discovered this from how the ancient Greeks and Chinese constructed their ships. It is a very complex process and expensive to construct, which is why ship builders a couple of hundred years ago didn’t construct them that way.

            Every plank had joints bonded in and secured with dowels and multiple layers of planks were used. Very robust and allowed for load spreading and flexing.

            So you see, ther are answers as to how the global flood happened even how the ark was constructed and survived.

          • B1jetmech

            Here’s a verse that Jesus quoted?

            “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

            John 3:18

            Does this make Jesus ultra right wing?

          • Ronald Carter

            That really comes down to whether you choose to believe or not. But it says nothing about hell.

          • B1jetmech

            Right about choice because God created us with free will. Hell isn’t mentioned in that verse but is mentioned many places including by Jesus himself.

            Did you know God created Hell? He created a place for those to spend eternity who choose no not to believe in Christ.

          • Ronald Carter

            How barbaric.

          • B1jetmech

            How so?

      • Ronald Carter

        You can speak on behalf of yourself. No one else.

    • TheKingOfRhye

      And just look how many people (a lot of those commenting here, for example) totally bought it.

      • Ronald Carter

        This is a real-life example of why you shouldn’t feed the trolls.

    • Guest

      Why would anyone in their right mind mock anyone regarding the slaughter of babies?!? Some ppl will make an excuse for anything. What about the Satanists who came out to support planned parenthood? Are they just a misunderstood bunch as this doctor?.

      • Ronald Carter

        The doctor does what he does for a reason. You might not like his reason, but he provides a service and people go to him for it, he doesn’t go to them. He is accosted by a religious zealot and sees a camera rolling and plays to it to make the zealot look like a fool. And it worked.

        • Guest

          I disagree. He just made abortionists appear crazy. I hope that not the image they are trying to project but it’s clear after watching the video that doctor needs a mental evaluation. He was hissing.

          • Ronald Carter

            He was hissing to be dramatic.

          • Guest

            Yeah, that seems like a sane reason.

          • Ronald Carter

            He was playing to the crowd. He was having a good time. It’s obvious.

          • Guest

            So he would bark like a dog if necessary to prove a point? Still is insane to me. What happened to ignore and walk away? In this video the doctor walked toward the protester. The security guard had to make him disengage from the protester. Obviously, that doctor wanted to behave insanely. That’s the only point he proved.

          • Ronald Carter

            I think it was a brilliant way to shut down the protesting religious zealot. I laughed when I watched him being over the top. I laughed when he hissed. He was exaggerating everything…and doing so on purpose.

          • Guest

            Insanity is not entertainment for me.

          • Ronald Carter

            It’s feigned insanity…quite obviously so.

          • Guest

            If one justifies insanity……. Was the doctor always insane or was he influenced over the years into insanity??? Your previous point would confirm the first conclusion.

          • Ronald Carter

            Neither. The doctor was never insane. He’s playing, acting, hamming it up, enjoying himself, diffusing the tension from the situation, winding up the zealots.

          • Guest

            I was taught to never reduce myself to the lowest common denominator.

  • Slidellman4life

    If someone came at me with a pair of scissors the way that man did, they would be on the ground. End of story.

  • WorldGoneCrazy

    Demonic things like this happen quite frequently in front of abortuaries. Satan LOVES abortion, because that is how he kills the Image of God at its earliest stage. For more examples of unnerving behavior by pro-aborts, deathscorts, and Doktor Deaths, see:

    http://www .peopleofchoice .com/

  • gogo0

    obvious satire, but even if it were real, it’s still preferable to a “pro-life” bombing or shooting

    • B1jetmech

      I never understood why a human who is inches away from the world has no right to live compare to the human outside, in the world?

      • Jalapeno

        Start with trying to figure out why living inside another persons body is a little bit more than a 12 inch shift.

        • B1jetmech

          Yeah and???

          Am I suppose to dehumanize the unborn child in the name of what?

          • Jalapeno

            So..you DO know that it’s not just a simple difference of twelve inches?

          • B1jetmech

            12 inches sounds to much more like 7-8 through the birth canal and 2 inches thorough the entire epidermis.

            When did you learn to humanize an unborn child?

          • Jalapeno

            I’m not the one who came up with the 12 inches figure.

            Do you think it’s simply a matter of distance, or do you think that the fact that they’re living inside someones body, off of their nutrients might have something to do with it?

          • B1jetmech

            I’m not the one who came up with the 12 inches figure.

            Neither did I.

            Do you think it’s simply a matter of distance

            Apparently your side does. So as long as that baby is in the womb then it’s okay to murder.

            they’re living inside someones body, off of their nutrients might have something to do with it?

            So yo are saying the baby should be put to death because they are living off the nutrients of the “someone’s” body?

            At least you didn’t identify someone as “mother” because a mother wouldn’t kill her child.

          • Jalapeno

            “Neither did I.”

            Never said you did.

            “So as long as that baby is in the womb then it’s okay to murder”

            Okay..so you think that the difference between living inside someones body and not is nothing more than a matter of distance?

            Do you think it’s the same as moving a kid from one side of the room to another?

          • B1jetmech

            Never said you did.

            just wondering where you got that exact unit of measure.

            nothing more than a matter of distance?

            Are they mutually exclusive are something? you know…living inside someone’s body(gee, how did they get in there) and distance.

            You know, you use to live inside someone’s body…I bet your glad that someone was pro life.

            Do you think it’s the same as moving a kid from one side of the room to another?

            Well if having a kid is too difficult then what…kill it off?

          • Jalapeno

            “I bet your glad that someone was pro life

            She wasn’t.

            I’ll just give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you know that pregnancy is more than a simple matter of location.

            So..that begs the question of why you’d try to reduce it to that. Trying to minimize and cover up what is actually going on?

          • B1jetmech

            She wasn’t.

            Obviously she was, because you’re here.

            I’ll just give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you know that pregnancy is more than a simple matter of location.

            Absolutely.

            Trying to minimize and cover up what is actually going on?

            Cover what up?

            If someone is going to be too inconvenienced in life to have a kid then they can legally murder their own kid. Because it’s really about convenience isn’t it?

          • Jalapeno

            “Obviously she was, because you’re here.”

            People can be pro-choice and still have kids. It happens all the time.

            “I never understood why a human who is inches away from the world has no right to live compare to the human outside, in the world?”

            You’re acting like the fact that they’re inches away from the outside world is the relevant bit, not the fact that they’re living inside of another human being.

          • B1jetmech

            People can be pro-choice and still have kids. It happens all the time.

            Yeah…it’s a good excuse.

            You’re acting like the fact that they’re inches away from the outside world is the relevant bit, not the fact that they’re living inside of another human being.

            Then after their born, they still can’t survive with out the parents and they are not developed till their late teens.

            But as long s they are sucking the life out of the host they are not human, right?

          • Jalapeno

            “Yeah…it’s a good excuse.”

            ..Just a fact.

            Were you under the impression that every single pro-choice person chose to have an abortion every time they got pregnant or something?

            “But as long s they are sucking the life out of the host they are not human, right?”

            Sure, if that’s the only way you can make sense of things.

          • B1jetmech

            Were you under the impression that every single pro-choice person chose to have an abortion every time they got pregnant or something?

            Why are they pro-choice in the first place? Afraid to peak their mind? Take a stand?

            Sure, if that’s the only way you can make sense of things.

            That’s what you stated, you don’t have a burden for the most innocent among us…so what does this make you?

            An accessory? A monster? champion for some phony right?

          • Jalapeno

            “Why are they pro-choice in the first place? Afraid to peak their mind? Take a stand?”

            Maybe because they think abortion should be legal.

            Were you under the impression that every pro-choice person had an abortion every time they got pregnant?

            “That’s what you stated”

            No, it’s not.

          • B1jetmech

            Maybe because they think abortion should be legal.

            Just say murder, just because you can’t hear the baby scream doesn’t mean murder is taking place.

            No, it’s not

            Here you go:

            Jalapeno :

            or do you think that the fact that they’re living inside someones body, off of their nutrients might have something to do with it?

          • Jalapeno

            Nowhere in there did I say they weren’t human.

            Why aren’t you answering the question? Did you think pro-choice people never give birth?

          • B1jetmech

            Nowhere in there did I say they weren’t human.

            Your political persuasion speaks otherwise.

            Why aren’t you answering the question?

            I did.

          • Jalapeno

            “Your political persuasion speaks otherwise”

            Apparently not, since it’s not true.

            ” I did.”

            No, you didn’t.

            Do you think pro choice people ever choose to have kids?

          • B1jetmech

            Apparently not, since it’s not true.

            Easier said then done right?

            Do you think pro choice people ever choose to have kids?

            No, you didn’t

            Guess I didn’t give you that answer to tickle yours with.

            It’s easy to believe one thing yet not do it. Because many pro choice believers outwardly claim to be so but don’t have the inhumanity to execute their children.

          • Jalapeno

            “Easier said then done right?”

            No, you’re just incorrect.

            I’m thinking you also don’t know what it means to be pro choice.

            It doesn’t mean you like abortion, and it doesn’t mean you don’t want kids. Heck, some pro choice people think abortion is appalling and fight to keep it from happening through sex education, stronger welfare and other things that reduce the abortion rate.

            It simply means that you think it should be legal.

          • B1jetmech

            “No, you’re just incorrect.”

            Actions, speak louder then words.

            It simply means that you think it should be legal.

            Correct. Since it’s been legal…the number of abortions in the US is approaching the number of murders in Mao’s China which is just over 60 million.

            So what benefit does abortion have on this country?

          • Jalapeno

            “Actions, speak louder then words.”

            Since you’re struggling with this, I’ll point out that some people are pro choice without claiming that the fetus isn’t human.

            So you understand that someone can believe abortion can be legal but still not want one themselves?

            Then… Why would you assume that every mother is pro life?

          • B1jetmech

            Since you’re struggling with this, I’ll point out that some people are pro choice without claiming that the fetus isn’t human.

            Like I say, actions speak louder then words. In order to justify abortion, one who do so, feels that unborn human is “less” of a human or dehumanizing, then us who are in the world.

            Then… Why would you assume that every mother is pro life?

            I never assumed…it’s a grey area.

          • Jalapeno

            “In order to justify abortion, one who do so, feels that unborn human is “less” of a human or dehumanizing, then us who are in the world.”

            Incorrect.

            “I never assumed”

            Yes, you did. You claimed my mother was pro life.

            Some people who are pro choice would never get an abortion. Some would.

            Most people who are pro life would never get an abortion. Some would. (typically because they think their abortion is a special circumstance).

            It’s not a grey area, just what the words mean.

          • B1jetmech

            Incorrect.

            You can deny all you want.

            Yes, you did. You claimed my mother was pro life.

            Some people who are pro choice would never get an abortion. Some would.

            You cannot categorize this in absolutes. If someone who truly is pro choice would carry out abortion on her own children. If she doesn’t then she’s pro life. But when she votes as pro choice, she’s encouraging some other mother to be, to have an abortion.

            It is a grey area.

          • Jalapeno

            “You can deny all you want.”

            And..you’re still wrong. Some people, for instance, think that a person simply isn’t entitled to the use of anothers body. Some people think that, no matter how wrong it is, abortion is simply too important to society.

            “If someone who truly is pro choice would carry out abortion on her own children”

            Absolutely incorrect.

            Pro-choice means that you think abortion should be legal. Period.

            You’re extremely ignorant of other peoples viewpoints.

          • B1jetmech

            Some people, for instance, think that a person simply isn’t entitled to the use of anothers body

            Yeah, like who?

            Some people think that, no matter how wrong it is, abortion is simply too important to society.

            Lucky for you, you’re alive to conjure up such statement. These dead babies will never have a chance like you will.

            Pro-choice means that you think abortion should be legal. Period.

            …and then some. Obviously, they cannot defend the most innocent among us.

            You’re extremely ignorant of other peoples viewpoints.

            Nothing ignorant in understanding in the dehumanizing of unborn babies. Make any excuse you want but your side supports infanticide for what?

          • Jalapeno

            “Yeah, like who?”

            What kind of question is that? Are you asserting that no one believes that?
            ” Lucky for you, you’re alive to conjure up such statement. These dead babies will never have a chance like you will.”

            Maybe if someone in my mother’s generation hadn’t gotten an abortion, someone would have been born to kill my mother and I wouldn’t have been here.

            “Make any excuse you want but your side supports infanticide for what?”
            You should look up what infanticide is.

          • B1jetmech

            Yeah, like who

            What kind of statment was this:

            Some people, for instance, think that a person simply isn’t entitled to the use of anothers body

            So who thinks they are entitled to another’s body?

            Maybe if someone in my mother’s generation hadn’t gotten an abortion, someone would have been born to kill my mother and I wouldn’t have been here.

            Seems lame to use that statement for justification of abortion.

            You should look up what infanticide is

            You should have a heart to support the most innocent among us definitions and phrases.

          • Jalapeno

            Some people. Learn to read. Make your point.

            ” Seems lame to use that statement for justification of abortion”

            Just as lame as justifying taking away rights by saying you might not exist without them.

            Thank you for admitting that definitions are irrelevant to you though. Much easier.

          • B1jetmech

            Some people. Learn to read. Make your point

            Okay, so who is entitled to another person’s body?

            I’m just curious because it seems like another phony made up, poor, down trodden victimhood statement…so who’s the victim who is being forced to provide their body to someone else?

            Just as lame as justifying taking away rights by saying you might not exist without them.

            Who’s rights is being taken away? It’s not the unborn because they never had a chance to live for them.

            Thank you for admitting that definitions are irrelevant to you though. Much easier.

            Not admitting anything. Just highlighting your screwed priorities. It’s more important for you to get definitions and phrases somehow correct in political discussion…but damn the unborn.

          • Jalapeno

            Are you suggesting that no one feels that way or are you asking politely for an explanation?

            Are you acknowledging that the reasoning is lame?

            Are you acknowledging that words mean things?

          • B1jetmech

            Does your statement “Entitled to one’s body” morally justifies abortion?

            Are you acknowledging that the reasoning is lame?

            Reasoning of what?

            Are you acknowledging that words mean things?

            Actions mean more.

          • Jalapeno

            “Does your statement “Entitled to one’s body” morally justifies abortion?”
            I’m not trying to.

            You tried to validate being pro life by saying I might not be alive if more people had an abortion, so I pointed out the opposite was also true.

            “Actions mean more.”

            Do you know what infanticide means?

          • B1jetmech

            I’m not trying to.

            Then what does your statement mean? Who is entitled to someone else’s body?

            You tried to validate being pro life by saying I might not be alive if more people had an abortion, so I pointed out the opposite was also true.

            Pro life is defending the unborn and define them as humans like you and I.

            secularism seems to take the meaning of life away through an evolution world view.

            Do you know what infanticide means?

            Yes.

          • Jalapeno

            Do you not pay any attention to context?

            You said that people are pro choice for one reason. I pointed out other reasons.

            If you know what infanticide means, why do you use it incorrectly?

            ” secularism seems to take the meaning of life away through an evolution world view.”

            Youre also using the word “secular” wrong.

          • B1jetmech

            Do you not pay any attention to context?

            I didn’t ask for a definition to pro choice or pro life…I’m digging at your reasoning to support the killing of unborn children. So far, you given none.

            If you know what infanticide means, why do you use it incorrectly?

            The word describing killing a baby within a year of birth or killing your own baby? What difference it’s makes if it’s inside or outside the womb?

            Youre also using the word “secular” wrong

            How so?

          • Jalapeno

            I understand that.

            So you understand that some people believe that abortion should be legal without dehumanizing a fetus?

            “What difference it’s makes if it’s inside or outside the womb?”

            … In one case it’s infanticide, in one it’s not.

            What do you think the word secular means?

          • B1jetmech

            So you understand that some people believe that abortion should be legal without dehumanizing a fetus?

            I’m beyond the distinctions of pro choice…what makes YOU believe abortion is morally justified?

            In one case it’s infanticide, in one it’s not.

            Does killing inside the womb keep guilt from setting in?

            What do you think the word secular means?

            You tell me since you are making an issue out of definitions.

          • Jalapeno

            “I’m beyond the distinctions of pro choice”

            I’m not talking about MY opinions..I’m talking about the assumption that anyone who is pro-choice is simply dehumanizing a fetus.

            “You tell me since you are making an issue out of definitions.”

            You used the word. What do you think it means?

          • B1jetmech

            I’m not talking about MY opinions..I’m talking about the assumption that anyone who is pro-choice is simply dehumanizing a fetus.

            Okay…so what makes you pro choice?

            You used the word. What do you think it means?

            You split hairs when it comes to words. Is it because of secular views, abortion is okay?

          • Jalapeno

            It’s not even “splitting hairs”.

            You’re literally using words incorrectly. Not just a little bit incorrect..it’s a word that doesn’t apply.

            Doesn’t that bother you? Do you not care what words mean? Do you not care when you’re making faulty assumptions about other peoples views?

          • B1jetmech

            You’re literally using words incorrectly. Not just a little bit incorrect..it’s a word that doesn’t apply.

            Some like to argue grammar, some spelling, you split hairs over precise meaning of words.

            Meaning of words change over time, what they mean today isn’t as so 100 years ago and there is in between.

            SO, I am waiting for you to produce some form of substance about your beliefs…because you just linger aside about definitions, how everyone is wrong and your right.

            Doesn’t that bother you? Do you not care what words mean? Do you not care when you’re making faulty assumptions about other peoples views?

            No, because I don’t except the premise of your criticism. You claim one can be pro choice and have children and what does that accomplish? A few more children getting a chance to live life verses the tens of millions who won’t?

          • Jalapeno

            “Some like to argue grammar, some spelling, you split hairs over precise meaning of words.”

            Why are you trying to pretend that using a word incorrectly is just being imprecise?

            Look up the definition of infanticide. It’s very clear that it doesn’t apply to abortion. You’re trying to apply it to abortion.

            “SO, I am waiting for you to produce some form of substance about your beliefs”

            Good luck with that. Has me repeatedly ignoring your questions about MY OWN BELIEFS not been clear enough for you? I’m not here to defend my beliefs, I was pointing out where you were mistaken about other peoples beliefs.

            “You claim one can be pro choice and have children and what does that accomplish?”

            It means that you can’t assume that a person who has kids is pro-life.

          • B1jetmech

            Why are you trying to pretend that using a word incorrectly is just being imprecise?

            Because that is all you talk about, you can’t articulate your ideology.

            Look up the definition of infanticide. It’s very clear that it doesn’t apply to abortion. You’re trying to apply it to abortion.

            So killing a baby out side the womb… or at least every part of it except it’s head still in the birthcanal…what about killing a baby when full term in side the womb?

            Good luck with that. Has me repeatedly ignoring your questions about MY OWN BELIEFS not been clear enough for you? I’m not here to defend my beliefs, I was pointing out where you were mistaken about other peoples beliefs.

            So your just trolling…Not difficult to do.

            It means that you can’t assume that a person who has kids is pro-life.

            Action speak louder then words.

          • Jalapeno

            “Because that is all you talk about, you can’t articulate your ideology.”

            No, I can..when I choose to.

            Do you understand that abortion is not infanticide?

            “So your just trolling…Not difficult to do.”

            You’re*

            And..no. That’s not what trolling is, no matter how imprecisely you try to use the word.

            You are mistaken about what “pro-choice” is.

            “Action speak louder then words.”

            They CHOSE to have a child.

            They made a CHOICE. That was the action.

          • B1jetmech

            No, I can..when I choose to

            You haven’t done such a good job so far here and evolution.

            You’re*

            Hey, I can point your spelling too like the few you have done so far.

            And..no. That’s not what trolling is, no matter how imprecisely you try to use the word.

            You can’t provide substance, you’re a lot of talk, I’ll give you that.

            You are mistaken about what “pro-choice” is.

            Of course I’m mistaken…your arrogance declares it as such.

            They CHOSE to have a child.

            They made a CHOICE. That was the action.

            So pro choice has duel meanings now?

          • Jalapeno

            I was very specific about the points I was making.

            “So pro choice has duel meanings now?

            Nope, just the one. That’s the word choice.. And they did make a choice to carry a pregnancy to term.

            “your arrogance declares it as such.”

            No.. The meaning of the term does. Do you struggle with the idea that terms mean things?

          • B1jetmech

            I was very specific about the points I was making.

            Not in a substantive way, what was your point after all? You got distracted with interpretations of words.

            Nope, just the one. That’s the word choice.. And they did make a choice to carry a pregnancy to term.

            So is that pro life moral or pro choice position? Where does pro life fit in…in all of this?

            No.. The meaning of the term does. Do you struggle with the idea that terms mean things?

            The media uses these terms so it’s good enough for them, good enough for us, right?

            So when are you going to explain what “secularism” means?

          • Jalapeno

            “what was your point after all?”

            A) You cannot assume that someone is pro-life because they had children.

            B) Abortion is not infanticide.

            “So is that pro life moral or pro choice position? ”

            Neither..that’s the ‘choosing to carry a pregnancy to term’ position.

            “So when are you going to explain what “secularism” means?”

            You used the word…why would you need me to explain it to you?

          • B1jetmech

            A) You cannot assume that someone is pro-life because they had children.

            Yes I can assume, because if they had enough morals to have their own kids, then they are not far off being pro life.

            People by the millions go in and out of this position over time. They start off pro choice and over time become pro life…unless one is a democrat.

            B) Abortion is not infanticide.

            If the head is in the womb while the body is out and killed so is that…what? Infanticide sounds too derogatory?

            Neither..that’s the ‘choosing to carry a pregnancy to term’ position.

            BTW, what was your point for stating this?

            You used the word…why would you need me to explain it to you?

            You stated, I didn’t know what secularism was..so tell me where I’m wrong.

          • Jalapeno

            “Yes I can assume, because if they had enough morals to have their own kids, then they are not far off being pro life.”

            That’s not a reason. Many people die pro-choice. Many of those same people have kids. Trya gain.

            “If the head is in the womb while the body is out and killed so is that…what? Infanticide sounds too derogatory?”

            Do you understand that abortion and infanticide are different things?

            “You stated, I didn’t know what secularism was..so tell me where I’m wrong.

            How can I tell you where you’re wrong if you can’t even say what you think it means? I know…I know..you don’t think words actually mean things, but give it a try.

          • B1jetmech

            That’s not a reason. Many people die pro-choice. Many of those same people have kids. Trya gain.

            Try again*

            Did you read when I said people go in and out of this position by the millions?

            Do you understand that abortion and infanticide are different things?

            What about keep the head in the womb while the baby is murdered is that abortion or infanticide?

            How can I tell you where you’re wrong if you can’t even say what you think it means? I know…I know..you don’t think words actually mean things, but give it a try.

            What a cop out.

            Are you part of some liberal group that trolls Christian sights? How much do you get paid per message?

          • Jalapeno

            “Did you read when I said people go in and out of this position by the millions?”

            Yes. Some people die pro-choice though, so you cannot just pretend like they were just waiting to suddenly become pro-life.

            And..it’s referring to the position that they CURRENTLY HOLD.

            So..your logic does not hold, not even a little bit.

            “What about keep the head in the womb while the baby is murdered is that abortion or infanticide?”

            Okay..so you don’t understand? Do you know what the concept of “birth” is?

            “What a cop out.”

            YOU used the word “secular”. I’m asking what YOU think it means.

            Why is that so difficult for you?

          • B1jetmech

            Yes. Some people die pro-choice though, so you cannot just pretend like they were just waiting to suddenly become pro-life.

            And..it’s referring to the position that they CURRENTLY HOLD.

            So..your logic does not hold, not even a little bit.

            Logic? Didn’t know there were absolutes to this.

            …I don’t pretend pro choice people are pro life…don’t know where you got that from.

            Okay..so you don’t understand? Do you know what the concept of “birth” is?

            I do..how many kids do you have?

            YOU used the word “secular”. I’m asking what YOU think it means.

            Why is that so difficult for you?

            You told me I was wrong so tell me where I was wrong in either context or meaning? You’re the only one on the internet who’s complaining about these meanings…so let’s hear it.

          • Jalapeno

            “…I don’t pretend pro choice people are pro life…don’t know where you got that from.”

            Yeah, you are. You’re pretending that every single pro-choice person out there that chose to have kids is REALLY pro-life..seemingly because that’s the only way you can make sense of it? Either that, or you just don’t know what the words mean.

            “I do..how many kids do you have?”

            Then..why are you confused about the difference between abortion and infanticide?

            “You told me I was wrong so tell me where I was wrong in either context or meaning? You’re the only one on the internet who’s complaining about these meanings…so let’s hear it.”

            Okay. You can’t even define words that you use. Can’t say I’m surprised.

          • B1jetmech

            Yeah, you are. You’re pretending that every single pro-choice person out there that chose to have kids is REALLY pro-life..seemingly because that’s the only way you can make sense of it?

            How pro choice are they if they have their own kids? You define pro choice as keeping abortion legal where did you get that definition? I look at pro choice as an act they carry out by their own/lack of convictions. So you believe one thing, I believe another.

            Then..why are you confused about the difference between abortion and infanticide?

            Ill ask again, what is it called when the the body of the baby is born except the head? Is the full term baby technically outside the womb or still inside when the so called doctor kills it? I think you are confused and you keep deflecting with your words.

            Okay. You can’t even define words that you use. Can’t say I’m surprised.

            I’m surprised you didn’t define it for me since you told me I was wrong.

          • Jalapeno

            “How pro choice are they if they have their own kids? You define pro choice as keeping abortion legal where did you get that definition?”

            That’s THE definition. That’s what the phrase actually means…

            Go to Google. Type in ‘What does pro choice mean’. A definition comes up.. “advocating legalized abortion.”

            “what is it called when the the body of the baby is born except the head”

            Try thinking this through.

            What’s the difference between infanticide and abortion? Maybe..something to do with whether they are born in the eyes of the law or not?

            When is a baby considered legally born? If a babies head is still inside the woman, has it been legally born?

            “I’m surprised you didn’t define it for me since you told me I was wrong.”

            I didn’t ask what the definition was. I asked what *you thought it meant*.

          • B1jetmech

            That’s THE definition. That’s what the phrase actually means…

            Okay that’s what the definition says according to google. I’m not quoting definitions from google. I’m going from personalities as such you made it an issue about definition, my conversation was never about the definition that brought forth.

            What’s the difference between infanticide and abortion? Maybe..something to do with whether they are born in the eyes of the law or not?

            Wow…we got you to come out of your comfort zone a little and now talking a little about a law. We’re making progress.

            So is it infanticide or abortion?

            I didn’t ask what the definition was. I asked what *you thought it meant*

            I’m still waiting since you told me I was wrong.

          • Jalapeno

            “. I’m going from personalities as such you made it an issue about definition, my conversation was never about the definition that brought forth.”

            That’s not really how it works.

            If a word means something, it continues to mean it. In this case, it means that a person thinks that abortion should be legalized.

            “So is it infanticide or abortion?”

            That depends..are they born in the eyes of the law?

            “I’m still waiting since you told me I was wrong.”

            Okay..so you used a word when you had no idea what it meant.

          • B1jetmech

            That’s not really how it works.

            Yeah…

            That depends..are they born in the eyes of the law?

            So a law can grant you the ability to murder without recourse? You probably can sleep well at night, knowing full term baby’s can be legally murdered…if it were lawful of course.

            Okay..so you used a word when you had no idea what it meant.

            I’m still waiting for your oh-so correction…

          • Jalapeno

            “Yeah…”

            It’s true. Definitions are the objective measure of what a word actually means.

            In this case, you’ve decided that “pro-choice” means something different than the definition.

            “So a law can grant you the ability to murder without recourse? ”

            That’s not what I said, nor is that an answer to the question.

            You asked a question, I pointed out that it’s really just a process of thinking about it for two seconds. What you SHOULD have asked is whether or not a baby is legally born when it’s head is still in the vaginal canal.

            “I’m still waiting for your oh-so correction…”

            Nah, you admitted that you used a word when you don’t know what it means. Kind of proved my point.

          • B1jetmech

            It’s true. Definitions are the objective measure of what a word actually means.

            In this case, you’ve decided that “pro-choice” means something different than the definition.

            The whole time I wasn’t arguing definitions, more substance. You can’t argue substance only words. You can argue words but you can’t articulate your position.

            You asked a question, I pointed out that it’s really just a process of thinking about it for two seconds. What you SHOULD have asked is whether or not a baby is legally born when it’s head is still in the vaginal canal.

            I’m not asking it that way and the world doesn’t revolve around you. So You need to learn to respond to peoples ideals and questions with out being critical.

            Nah, you admitted that you used a word when you don’t know what it means. Kind of proved my point.

            I don’t know why you would cower over such an easy topic…

          • Jalapeno

            You need to be able to have an objective definition in order to make a substantive point.

            So far..your ONLY backing is the fact that you don’t like the definition of the word…saying that they aren’t REALLY pro-choice because they don’t fit YOUR definition.

            How do you expect anyone to ever be able to make a point that you can understand if you can’t even start from the middle where words mean actual things?

            “I’m not asking it that way and the world doesn’t revolve around you. ”

            That SHOULD be your question. That’s the key point.

            Infanticide has a certain meaning.

            Abortion has a certain meaning.

            “I don’t know why you would cower over such an easy topic…”

            I’m not “cowering”. You can’t answer a question…problem solved.

          • B1jetmech

            How do you expect anyone to ever be able to make a point that you can understand if you can’t even start from the middle where words mean actual things?

            Look, I don’t need a lecture from you when it comes to definitions. maybe you should go lecture Obama instead because he can’t put the word terrorist and Islam together in a negative terms.

            Besides, you are the only who’s ever complained in the thousands comments I participated in.

            I think it’s your only way for to argue because you cannot argue substance.

            Infanticide has a certain meaning.

            Abortion has a certain meaning.

            So which one does the head in the womb fall under?

            I’m not “cowering”. You can’t answer a question…problem solved.

            You certainly are cowering because it’s the only reason you argue..only definitions and meanings. Which can be argued from an absolute standpoint when pushed (and you’re the only) but when it comes to substance that is more fluid.

            So tell me what secularism is.

          • Jalapeno

            “I think it’s your only way for to argue because you cannot argue substance.”

            Literally your only argument is that pro-choice doesn’t ACTUALLY MEAN what the definition is.

            That’s all you have.

            “So which one does the head in the womb fall under?”

            Are you unable to think this through?

            “only definitions and meanings”

            No..you just can’t agree on any meanings so theres no way to get past it.

          • B1jetmech

            Literally your only argument is that pro-choice doesn’t ACTUALLY MEAN what the definition is.

            That’s all you have.

            Because you make it about definitions and not substance.

            Are you unable to think this through?

            If the the full term baby’s head is still in the womb and body is out what does that fall under?

            No..you just can’t agree on any meanings so theres no way to get past it.

            Again, you are the only one arguing this worthless point without telling me how I’m wrong so I’m still waiting as to why.

          • Jalapeno

            “Because you make it about definitions and not substance.

            You can’t have substance unless you move beyond a refusal to acknowledge the objective middle ground. That’s what the definitions do. Why in the world would you refuse that? How are you okay with pretending like you have substance when your entire argument is based around refusing to use words like they’re defined?

            The only way your argument makes sense is if you refuse to meet on the same level and use the same meanings.

          • B1jetmech

            You can’t have substance unless you move beyond a refusal to acknowledge the objective middle ground.

            That hasn’t been an issue until you came along. I’ve debated the likes of you for years and the debate was very substantive. Yet with you, you will go days about so called true meanings while you lose the substance argument.

            Again, you are the first to perpetuate on the ongoing meaning of words where no one else boldly went before.

            SO, How am I wrong about secularism?

          • Jalapeno

            “That hasn’t been an issue until you came along. I’ve debated the likes of you for years and the debate was very substantive.”

            Yeah, that’s sure going to negate the whole concept of your argument being based on a refusal to acknowledge a definition.

            The term ‘pro-choice’ has an actual, objective meaning.

            Your argument is based around ignoring that meaning.

            Which part of that do you not grasp? (Or..were you just hoping that the fact that it’s never come up before means that I’m wrong even though you can’t explain why? Were you hoping that telling me repeatedly that it’s not based on “substance” will mean that your argument adds up”?

          • B1jetmech

            Yeah, that’s sure going to negate the whole concept of your argument being based on a refusal to acknowledge a definition.

            The term ‘pro-choice’ has an actual, objective meaning.

            Yeah, keep running from substance. you did terrible with your evolution support because you kept asking a formulated question. You couldn’t bring up any facts about evolution and why you believe it.

            So when it comes to abortion and why you support it… it’s anyone’s guess as to why maybe because you like to keep people in the dark about it…it may gives you sense of superiority.

            Which part of that do you not grasp?

            I’m still waiting for you to tell me how I was wrong about secularism.

          • Jalapeno

            “Yeah, keep running from substance”

            I don’t.

            How can you possibly expect to deal with anything of substance if you can’t get beyond dealing with an objective idea of what words mean?

            Your argument is based on saying that “pro-choice” means something OTHER than what it actually means.

          • B1jetmech

            I don’t.

            With the days you have dedicated to this, you haven’t produced anything except arguing definitions. I’m sure we will be arguing this for quite some time to come. How ever, I have family obligations and work where as you have all the free time in the world to post on christian websites as unproductive troll. I don’t envy you but one cannot overlook the wasted time one dedicated to useless causes you invest in.

            How can you possibly expect to deal with anything of substance if you can’t get beyond dealing with an objective idea of what words mean?

            Since you won’t tell me as to how I’m wrong about secularism I guess you can ask yourself the same question. Your quick to point out I have it wrong about words and definitions but very non-substantive…clouds without water you know,

            You couldn’t even defend your belief in evolution the ideology that pretty much shapes your worldview.

            You poor thing.

          • Jalapeno

            “With the days you have dedicated to this” ” you have all the free time in the world”

            Don’t flatter yourself.

            I’m still not sure how you’re failing to grasp such a simple concept.

            Words have actual meanings.

            If you don’t agree on those actual meanings, there’s no where else to go. There’s no substance, there’s no anything. There’s a person effectively sticking their fingers in their ears and refusing to deal with reality.

          • B1jetmech

            Don’t flatter yourself.

            Just pointing it out is all.

            I’m still not sure how you’re failing to grasp such a simple concept.

            Words have actual meanings

            I think you said that 100 messages ago and I got it but you need to be more substantive (there’s that world again).

            I mean look at the time you wasted, must be getting so much per post I imagine. Sure explains your dedication to the cause…

            So when are you going to tell me that I’m wrong about secularism, tonight? tomorrow? next week?

          • Jalapeno

            “I think you said that 100 messages ago and I got it but you need to be more substantive (there’s that world again).”

            And..I’ve repeatedly pointed out that you can’t even pretend to get to the ‘substance’ part if you can’t comprehend objective definitions.

            Are you still pretending that “pro-choice” doesn’t have an actual meaning? Are you still pretending that people that believe that abortion shouldn’t be legal aren’t ACTUALLY pro-choice because it doesn’t fit YOUR made up ideas?

          • B1jetmech

            And..I’ve repeatedly pointed out that you can’t even pretend to get to the ‘substance’ part if you can’t comprehend objective definitions.

            You certainly have to the point you have tourettes or a broken record….

            “Are you still pretending that “pro-choice” doesn’t have an actual meaning?” click*

            “Are you still pretending that “pro-choice” doesn’t have an actual meaning?” click*

            ” Are you still pretending that “pro-choice” doesn’t have an actual meaning?” click*

            I get your absolute definition approach, however, can you argue your positions? I guess that’s too much to ask like asking you where I was wrong regarding secularism.

            Is it because it could end the conversation and you won’t get the pay per post revenue?

          • Jalapeno

            “I get your absolute definition approach, however, can you argue your positions?”

            It starts with having meanings for words..then you can talk about the positions.

            Do you acknowledge that “pro-choice” has an actual definition? Do you understand that it simply refers to someone who thinks that abortion should be legal?

          • B1jetmech

            It starts with having meanings for words..then you can talk about the positions.

            Do you acknowledge that “pro-choice” has an actual definition? Do you understand that it simply refers to someone who thinks that abortion should be legal?

            Yeah, I know you said that.

            So when are you going to tell me how I was wrong regarding secularism?

          • Jalapeno

            “Yeah, I know you said that.”

            I’m asking if you acknowledge the fact, not if you acknowledge that I said it.

          • B1jetmech

            With all the time you wasted…you receive no acknowledgement.

            If you were more substantive then it would have been a different course.

            And now…are you going to tell me how I was wrong regarding secularism?

          • Jalapeno

            Okay, cool.

            Someone complaining about not getting substantive arguments but they can’t even understand what words mean. New low.

          • B1jetmech

            Like I say, you’re the only one who ever complained.

            Really, nobody cares about your extreme definition usage. A few tweaks here n’ there but taking as long as you did…you might win some free government cheese.

          • Jalapeno

            “Really, nobody cares about your extreme definition usage.”

            Okay…not only are you okay with basing entire arguments over the concept that words don’t actually have meanings, but you’re under the impression everyone else is okay with making stuff up too?

          • B1jetmech

            It’s not making stuff up it’s your extreme overuse of definitions instead of arguing the about the subject.

            At least everyone else argued their positions.

          • Jalapeno

            See..sometimes, occasionally, a logical discussion boils down to a difference in how two people are using a term.

            Say, for instance, that someone says that a person falls into a group A because of trait B.

            Someone else comes in and says that there are many people with trait B that are not part of group A.

            It turns out that one person thinks that group A refers to one thing, and another person thinks that group A refers to something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

            So..what do you do? Do you keep arguing about trait B and how it applies to group A, or do you look in a neutral, objective source for what the group A actually entails?

          • B1jetmech

            So..what do you do? Do you keep arguing about trait B and how it applies to group A, or do you look in a neutral, objective source for what the group A actually entails?

            You would have gone further had you argued substance…look at all the time you wasted.

          • Jalapeno

            How can you argue about substance when you can’t even agree on what group A is?

            There is no moving past that. There is nothing except acknowledging that the other person is astonishingly intellectually dishonest and completely change the subject just to validate them.

            Is that what you want me to do? Pat you on the head, tell you it’s okay to make up your own meanings and explain some more things for you? Go copy-paste another definition because you can’t seem to figure out how to figure them out?

          • B1jetmech

            Like I say, you are like clouds without water.

            You can argue about meanings but you don’t seem to know much about anything else…you demonstrated this with your lack of defense for evolution.

            So when are you going to tell me how I was wrong about secularism? You seem to have a alot of time on your hands to do so.

          • Jalapeno

            No…I just can’t discuss anything else with you because you can’t understand the basics.

            It’s like a little child sitting down at a table and demanding to be taught algebra when they don’t know how to add things together. They can whine all they want about how the adults are too stupid to teach them math, but they just can’t see that they need to work from the ground up.

            First, you understand what pro-choice actually means. Then..you can work on understanding why people who are pro-choice would still choose to have kids, whether it’s because they are actually horrified by the idea of abortion or just because they’re selfish and want to carry on their genes.

            Next..you can work on understanding why people might think abortion needs to be kept legal…it could be because they don’t think fetuses are humans worth any protection, or they could think that bodily autonomy overrides the rights of the fetus.

            But..first.

            You need to understand what it means for someone to think that abortion needs to be legal. Baby steps. In your case…tiny, tiny steps that are usually backwards and filled with dishonesty..but..still steps.

          • B1jetmech

            Nobody is asking you to lecture them. Your obsession for definitions has clouded your ability to articulate your positions.

            If you weren’t so critical about it probably what have received better conversation. Since you pound away at your extreme position of definitions, you cannot be taken seriously.

          • Jalapeno

            So..how do you expect to deal with anything if you can’t even understand what the concept means?

            How can somebody defend their position in group A if you don’t know what group A is?

            How can someone explain something to you logically if you can’t even pretend to have a shred of intellectual honesty?

            And..to take a play from your book, I’ve had plenty of decent conversations. Of course, none of them have been with people who prefer to just make crap up. That may be where your issue is.

          • B1jetmech

            You are the one who plays word games. I don’t make stuff up… I argue from a different perspective. You try to keep the conversation Limited with just a few words…any more words then that steps out of your realm which why you can’t argue substance.

            Still waiting as to how I misuse the word secularism?

          • Jalapeno

            The..perspective where things like “pro-choice” mean whatever you want them to mean? The perspective where dictionaries are just pointless and reality is merely a suggestion?

          • B1jetmech

            I know, you said that already.

            I wasn’t debating what the dictionary states.

            So when will you provide that secularism correction?

          • Jalapeno

            I asked you what you meant by “perspective”, because as far as I can tell, the only “perspective” you provide is the one where there is no such thing as objectivity.

            “Secularism is a belief system that rejects religion, or the belief that religion should not be part of the affairs of the state or part of public education. The principles of separation of church and state and of keeping religion out of the public school system are an example of secularism.”

            There you go. Now you know what a word means.

            So..what was this “perspective” that you think you provide?

          • B1jetmech

            you provide is the one where there is no such thing as objectivity.

            The way you tried to defend evolution?

            I didn’t ask for the definition of secularism. I wanted to know how I was wrong in regards to the use of word secularism…

            This perspective is how I perceive the ideology of people who either hold certain views on a matter and/or carry out their lives believing these views. Hence the actions they live out believing these views.

            So, if a woman who declares she’s pro choice, but she won’t use that position when it comes to her unborn shildren and carry’s out the pregnancy then she is more pro life then choice.

            There are different degrees to this and it cannot be identified because social forces from within and outside effect a person’s beliefs on these certain positions. Social forces such as her friends are very pro choice so she goes along to get along to raising children, realizing life has meaning.

            Another example in variables is some if not most pro choice people would be against partial birth abortion, the more it’s described, the more it effects people’s view’s in a negative way against it.

            There is just many, variables to factor in that a lone definition cannot cover…which why I had issue of using a definition to define in exact meaning of a person’s stance on abortion.

            So I don’t look at it as a pro choice person may have their own kids but believe it should remain legal. I believe there is more to it that complicates defining it.

          • Jalapeno

            “This perspective is how I perceive the ideology of people who either hold certain views on a matter and/or carry out their lives believing these views. ”

            So..your perpsective is that you think that your perceptions of the ideology overrides the actual meaning of the words?

            “So, if a woman who declares she’s pro choice, but she won’t use that position when it comes to her unborn shildren and carry’s out the pregnancy then she is more pro life then choice.”

            No..because pro-choice refers to whether or not you think it should be LEGAL. Do you know the difference between thinking that something should be legal and actually liking that thing?

            “Another example in variables is some if not most pro choice people would be against partial birth abortion, the more it’s described, the more it effects people’s view’s in a negative way against it.”

            Yes..that’s an actual valid aspect of how a pro-choice view can vary.

          • HardCorePress

            Just remember moron you were once a parasite living off your mother before she spit you out.

          • Jalapeno

            Weird.. I don’t think a fetus is a parasite. Do you?

          • HardCorePress

            In all truth it is a parasite for it feeds of a host until mature. However we both know it is a child in the process of fetal development within his/her mother’s womb.

      • http://www.TrustChristOrGoToHell.org VINDICATOR

        Because the WOMAN says so! #feminists r #Witches

    • Emm Jane

      Both are evil. Neither have any merit, or redeeming feature. And. I say that as a woman that had an abortion 21 years ago. I came broken, and repentant to Jesus Christ, and God, in His mercy forgave me.

    • Candy Dandy

      Not satire, I know the man who was there that day preaching. This is true !

      • Ronald Carter

        Even the cop is laughing.

        • Candy Dandy

          She’s no cop you idiot, she is a rent a hag.

  • Patricia Schurz

    Wow, that dr. is nuts and totally demonically controlled. What woman in her right mind would even allow him to come near her, let alone with surgical instruments?

  • Heidi K.

    This doctor is demon possessed, he is actually HISSING ! Please take his licence away!

    • Ambulance Chaser

      Is “being demon possessed” a recognized grounds for removing a medical license?

      • Bob Johnson

        It hasn’t been part of the DSM and has generally been replaced by Germ Theory as the cause for other malaise.

    • Ronald Carter

      For maximum effect. Looks like it worked.

  • Candy Dandy

    He is not only the Doctor of death, but a practicing gynecologist . Who would let this Un godly man deliver a baby with the same hands that murdered so many babies ? He needs to be run out on a rail ! And so does that so called Christian security cop there who claims to be Christian yet proclaims abortion is ok !

    • Heidi K.

      We have to distinguish between Christians-in-name-only and born again Christians.

  • HardCorePress

    One big reason why people don’t turn to Christ is they DO NOT fear HIM. Sin goes unpunished in this country! Without punishment and harsh punishment at that, people who sin will never feel the need to turn away from their wickedness and seek out Christ for forgiveness of their sins. Justice is the Hand of God smacking an individual for committing their wrongful deeds, for without Justice people will not desire God’s Mercy and Grace.

    Just remember brothers and sisters those who are like this Abortionist choose Evil. They love it, they are part of this world, the world loves its own. Just as you choose to do Good, they choose to do Evil.

  • ort

    That was absolutely demonic. His voice changed along with his personality. After the Security Officer tells him he has a phone call, his demeanor and voice changes in a millisecond. Very demonic.

  • David Collins

    More evidence of the reality of the devil and therefore the reality and Truth of Jesus Christ. Jesus is God, He is alive and He is real. This man will not get away with this.

  • chthompson

    The abortionist sounds possessed and like he’s liable to start killing post-birth people any minute too… Pray for his soul and for America.

  • http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/ Terry Hurlbut

    Actually, I’d say the chances are even this man will break down and realize his errors in a few years. One who protests as he did, half the time is trying to cover up his own doubts.

  • hillaryLiedAmericansDied

    Why on God’s green earth are Americans being forced to fund this pro-abort killing of

    unborn Americans with their hard-earned tax dollars!??‼

    Defund the misogynist&racist planned”parent” in the white hoods—now!!

    Quit forcing American taxpayers to fund the killing of unborn human beings!

    Reparations—now!!!!

    Take all the multi-billions of dollars of pro-abort bloodmoney and return it to the millions of American families struggling to make ends meet.

    Women deserve better than abortion. abortion kills an unborn human being and emotionally mauls his/her mother.

    Break the chains of abortion!

    Prosecute the baby-butchering planned”parent”hood!!!

    The racist&misogynist, baby-butchering planned”parent”hood has been beaten to a

    bloody pulp by the courageous American Hero, David Daleiden &ProLife Warriors&

    Americans must strike a ‘crunching&crushing’ death-blow at the

    despicable planned”parent”hood—now!!!!

  • Gena B

    Perhaps those who are closet serial killers seek out these type of jobs for the thrill. Satan loves to send his minions to any willing participants and the darkness just keeps growing. Hope he doesn’t have children.

  • Amos Moses

    Hospital Drops Abortionist After Demonic Rant Saying He Loves Killing Babies

    LifeNews …………………….