Blog

Pro-aborts are having a cow because Republican Representative Gohmert suggests that a mother shouldn’t have killed her unborn baby who was diagnosed with anencephaly and therefore probably wouldn’t survive long after birth. One pro-abort, Jessica Wakeman, calls his comment “disgusting” and says he is “shaming” the woman. Another pro-abort, Robyn Pennacchia, suggests that Rep. “Gohmert would feel a kinship with a brain-dead entity.” Many pro-aborts state that he wants to “force” her to carry the disabled baby to term.

Ms. Pennacchia describes what happened:

Telling a story about how when his wife gave birth to his perfectly healthy daughter, another mother gave birth to a child without a spine, and with no detectable brain activity.:

"Ms. Zink, having my great sympathy and empathy both. I still come back wondering, shouldn’t we wait, like that couple did, and see if the child can survive before we decide to rip him apart?"

Oh the horror! Someone actually has the audacity to suggest that killing an innocent human being isn’t a proper solution to a non-problem.

You can tell from the title of David Badash's post that he would rather engage in asininity than intellectual argument.  Here's the title:

Look: Every Lawmaker At House Hearing On Nationwide 20-Week Abortion Ban Is A Man

Because, don't you know, men are entirely incapable of recognizing that abortion is murder. Without having a uterus, how could anyone determine whether or not it's ok to rip the arms and legs off an innocent baby?

See also Ever Experience Abortion?

Pete Kasperowicz posts at The Hill blog that:

Democrats in the House and Senate are looking to stop what they say are deceptive advertising practices by anti-abortion health clinics that imply they offer abortion services, but instead encourage birth and promote adoption.

Supposedly, Pregnancy Resource Centers misrepresent themselves as baby-murderers in order to entice women seeking abortion to reconsider. Of course, such misrepresentations are completely justified when done to save the life of an innocent human being. When the Nazis ask if there are Jews hiding in my basement, I've never seen a Jew and I don't have a basement.

You'll quickly notice if you read the post and the proposed bill, that the pro-aborts offer no evidence that PRCs actually misrepresent anything. Bills often have "whereas" clauses that detail the evidence that makes it clear why the bill is necessary. Not this bill. Not a peep of evidence.

To be liberal is to be liberated from the need for evidence. Pro-aborts are blind-faith based.

This is just the latest slimy attempt to malign PRCs who work to help mothers, their unborn and newborn babies.

The Blaze's Billy Hallowell, in reference to the Gosnell trial, asks, "When is it no longer a woman’s right to choose?" He doesn't answer the question but he points to something that everyone should have learned from the trial. He writes:

On April 16, as I sat in the courtroom at the Criminal Justice Center in Philadelphia, an important revelation was delivered from an unexpected source. The moment came when Gosnell’s attorney, Jack McMahon, publicly echoed what pro-life advocates have long argued: That abortion is a violent (or “rough,” as he termed it) act, particularly when the unborn are further along in their development.

As I reported on TheBlaze at the time, in defending his client in front of the judge and jury, McMahon said of abortion, “The process itself is kind of rough. You go in with forcepsﾅ[you may go in and pull out an arm, a leg].”

The quote, alone, dealt a stinging blow to my conscience, as I fought off the mental images that the attorney’s stunning admission conjured. Of the handful of days that I spent in the courtroom, this was the most jarring, thought-provoking and pivotal moment I encountered.

I left the courtroom that day considering the cognitive dissonance that some in the pro-choice lobby regularly tout and that our society willingly tolerates. Consider that it’s difficult to condemn, on moral grounds, terminating a viable baby outside of the mother’s womb if one supports the right to do so in utero. This is more rooted in logic than it is opinion.

After all, the difference between the two is merely the tactic used to ensure death, isn’t it?

Mr. Hallowell is hung up on late term baby-killing but it's all the same violence. Whether you rip arms off the child in the third trimester or the first, it's the same.

Let's answer the question that Mr. Hallowell poses but refuses to answer: When is it no longer a woman’s right to choose?

When a new human being comes into existence, her parents' choice is past. They chose to create a new vulnerable human being and by so choosing obligated themselves to care for that human being.  What pro-aborts call "the right to choose" is nothing but the license to kill.