The North Dakota House of Representatives has passed the first personhood amendment in the United States, 57-35. Read more
Blog
Demeaning of women inherent in the pro-abortion view
Take a look at the cartoon to the left. How does the cartoon portray women? Does it portray them as willful, in control of their lives, strong, capable and decisive? Or does the cartoon portray women as without will or control, weak, incapable and without decision?
I'm sure the pro-abort who drew the picture didn't want to portray women in such a demeaning way. She had a message to convey and didn't think about what that message said about women. This is typical of pro-abortion propaganda. Pro-aborts virtually always convey the idea that women are mindless victims of circumstance.
Setting aside the drawing, consider the intended message behind the cartoon: Without legal abortion, women will be forced into dangerous illegal abortions. The idea that women will be "forced" is common in pro-abortion parlance, even in news reports. But you have to wonder, if abortion were illegal, who would be forcing women into the backalley? Are women no better than trained rats that simply react without thinking? Are they forced by their thyroids into killing their babies? Pro-aborts think that women are forced by their circumstances; that women have no will and no self-control. Women don't make decisions. They don't choose to endanger their own lives because they're not moral actors but mere objects.
This demeaning view of women has been symptomatic of pro-aborts since the beginning of the debate. Consider Judith Jarvis Thompson's famous "violinist" analogy in her 1970 paper A Defense of Abortion. Ms. Thompson compares normal pregnancy with getting kidnapped and forcefully connected to a violinist as a living dialysis machine. Women don't get pregnant because of their own willful acts but because of forces beyond their control.
Pro-aborts portray women in this demeaning way because it gives their assertions emotional appeal. Imagine if pro-aborts admitted that women were actually responsible for their own actions. They'd have to say something like "If abortion were illegal, some women would foolishly choose to endanger their own lives by having abortions". Where's the emotional power in stating the truth that women who choose to kill their own babies are choosing to endanger themselves?
No, it's much better to portray women as weak. Rosy the Riveter died too long ago.
In Abortion Protests, Which to Protect, Children or Speech?
That’s the title of Adam Liptak’s report, at the NY Times, which details Ken Scott’s appeal of
a Colorado court [ruling] barring Mr. Scott from engaging in various kinds of disruptive conduct near [a pro-abortion] church when services are under way.
Maybe, Mr. Liptak's title was intentionally ironic. Mr. Scott was attempting through his speech to protect children, both unborn children from getting butchered and minors from choosing to butcher their babies. Is there a better way to convey the horror of abortion and thus protect children from it than showing pictures of the horror?
According to Mr. Liptak:
On Palm Sunday in 2005, [Mr. Scott] and other protesters turned up near an Episcopal church in Denver. As the parishioners re-enacted Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem in an outdoor ceremony, Mr. Scott stood on a parked car on public property and addressed the procession from about 20 feet away.
Some observers said he was loud. Others said he was screaming. He showed large pictures of aborted fetuses. About 200 children were present, and some of them became upset.
Why are the pictures so upsetting? Instead of getting angry at Mr. Scott, people should get upset about the fact that it's legal to rip the legs and arms off of unborn babies.
Gosnell verdict in: GUILTY for three murders
Jdmullane reports that the jury has just returned a verdict. Abortionist Kermit Gosnell is found GUILTY on three counts of first degree murder.
Convicted murderer Gosnell has murdered thousands of babies over the decades he has been in business. The blood of these three victims are mere drops in vast river that's drowning our nation. At least, we may see some measure of justice for these three babies.
Here's the report from jdmullane's twitter feed:
Courtroom fell silent as #Gosnell found guilty of murdering babies A, C and D. He faces death in each case.
Baby A was photographed by #Gosnell employee Adrienne Moton, disgusted after Dr Gosnell joked "He's big enough to walk you to the bus stop."
Baby C, a little girl, was seen by clinic employees moving her arm before neck was snipped.
Baby D was born in a commode in the abortion clinic, and struggled to get out before A clinic employee snipped the child's neck.
#Gosnell was also found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the death of patient Karnamaya Mongar, who died of an overdose of sedatives.
The abortionist #Gosnell also guilty of infanticide in death of Baby A, and conspiracy in deaths of babies C and D.
#Gosnell found not guilty in death of Baby E, who was heard emitting a single baby sound before neck was cut.
International manipulation intends fully legalized abortion in El Salvador
International abortion proponents, who make their living pedaling death around the globe, are now manipulating a case in El Salvador in order to overturn the Latin American nation’s personhood protections for unborn children.
A 22-year-old Salvadoran woman known as “Beatriz” is awaiting a decision from the Supreme Court of El Salvador to determine whether the country’s laws will permit her to kill her unborn child who suffers from a severe disability. Her baby was diagnosed with anencephaly (an abnormality affecting the part of the brain and skull) and is not given a high probability of surviving long after birth.
Abortion proponents insist that babies with anencephaly are “lives unworthy of life.” They ignore the precious time a child might live (even up to several years old!) and impose their subjective view that the baby would be better off dead. Of course, we know that Every Life Counts and that personhood must include all human beings, regardless of the state of their physical or mental development.
Beatriz has lupus and kidney difficulties, but medical experts report that there is no serious threat to the woman’s life. El Salvador’s Institute of Legal Medicine advised against abortion and testified to the Supreme Court that “At this time, [Beatriz] is clinically stable, which means that right now there is no imminent risk or danger of death.”
A medical symposium of world-renowned experts in obstetricians and gynecology reported in the Dublin Declaration last September that there direct abortion is never medically necessary to save the life of a mother. Indeed, while abortion is prohibited, the laws in El Salvador permit interventions which may risk the life of the baby to save the life of the mother.
Nevertheless, so-called “human rights experts” at the United Nations are calling for a national dialogue to legalize abortion in these situations. These same experts will in one breath opine that persons with disabilities need dignity, and with the next promote abortion to target disabled persons in the womb. International abortion advocates are pushing abortion in this case because they know it will lead to full legalization of abortion.
As the Archbishop of San Salvador warns, “I see the knife killing children tomorrow because the door is opened [today].” The international abortion movement doesn’t care about women’s health or safety in complex medical situations. They simply want to advance their agenda. El Salvador must stand up to these international bullies in order to protect women and their babies.
The pro-abortion case is collapsing
Inforum published North Dakota Senator Margaret Sitte's excellent letter defending the humanity of unborn babies. Great job, Senator Sitte. Here is the letter:
Forty years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that unborn human beings aren’t persons under the law and don’t have the right to life. In the Roe v. Wade decision, the court said that if the personhood of the unborn were ever established, their case would collapse. Their case is collapsing.
In the past 40 years, science has advanced in ways previously unimagined. Sonograms have opened a window to the womb, where parents can see their children suck their thumbs and kick their feet. Doctors perform surgery on the unborn, and premature babies are being saved at younger ages than ever before imagined. Thanks to DNA research, scientists have proved that life begins at conception when a unique DNA is formed. We now know that gender is determined at conception. Once the heart starts to beat a few weeks later, that heart will continue to beat until death, 60, 80 or 100 years later.
When a drunken driver kills a pregnant woman, states prosecute for two lives lost. If someone punches a woman, causing her to miscarry, he or she may face charges for murder.
The courts have repeatedly found that the states have a compelling interest to protect both life and potential life. We pass laws to protect bald eagle eggs because someday they will be bald eagles. We would be appalled at anyone who would smash dozens of bald eagle eggs. When animals are mistreated and left to die in the cold, the state prosecutes for animal cruelty. When a classroom of children is killed on the East Coast, we all recoil in horror. But each week in Fargo, 25 unborn children are aborted.
Does a person have a right to choose to smash eagle eggs? Does a person have a right to choose to mistreat animals? Does a person have a right to choose to open fire in a school? Does anyone have the right to choose to end another human being’s life? What about the rights of the unborn? When do they acquire rights? Only at birth? What about babies born months early? Who has the right to say, “This day you have the right to live and the day before you don’t”?
The current argument of the court says unborn people can’t be considered persons under the law. Let’s face it. When women find out they are pregnant, they don’t say, “I’m having a blob of tissue.” They say, “I’m pregnant; we’re having a baby.” Everyone knows an unborn child is a human life.
When it comes to medical conditions threatening the life and health of the mother, doctors have always treated the mother, realizing the baby can’t make it without her. For many favoring abortion, however, the choice is that the baby should be sacrificed so they can do what they want. Isn’t that a slippery slope?
The word “abortion” has come to be accepted in society, but the recent case of Dr. Kermit Gosnell in Philadelphia has pointed out the horrific conditions in which these lives are ended. The documentary “3801 Lancaster” tells the facts of the story.
Abortion not only kills children; it wounds women very deeply, even though they may not realize it for years. If society really cares about what’s best for women and children, we will love them both and support them when they need help.
Cleveland rapist/kidnapper/abortionist may be charged with murder
Edmund DeMarche reports at FoxNews.com that:
Ariel Castro, the Cleveland man police say kidnapped and held captive three women for a decade, could also face aggravated murder charges for allegedly terminating the pregnancies of his captives.
This story makes me boiling angry. A man kidnaps women and keeps them captive as sex toys for a decade. It’s difficult to imagine a punishment that fits the crime but I have few starter ideas that I won’t share here.
On top of kidnappings and perpetual rapes, he murdered several unborn children. Thankfully, Ohio allows prosecutors to bring charges for those murders. May justice come swiftly for all the victims, including the tiny nameless innocents.
Cheetah772 at RedState.com points out the inconsistency in charging Castro with murder while letting abortionists murder babies (and even supplying police protection to such murders) every day throughout America. He writes:
If a pro-unborn baby murder proponent insists that the thing inside a woman’s womb is…just a blob, a goo, or simply an extension of a woman’s body, then at this point, the provision in Ohio’s law did a great injustice to those who were charged with the count of aggravated murder…. So in Ariel Castro’s case, he shouldn’t be charged with the multiple counts of aggravated murder!
Which is, of course, why pro-aborts oppose recognizing unborn babies as victims of crime, even when such proposed laws are abortion neutral. When we recognize the victims of forced miscarriage, it causes any thinking individual to question the run-of-the-abortion-mill daily baby-killings down at Planned Parenthood.
Pro-aborts hoping Salvadoran Supreme Court will ok baby-killing
Pro-aborts take advantage of any heart-wrenching situation to push their baby-killing agenda. We see this in Ireland where pro-aborts are using a woman’s tragic death to institute suicide-excuse-abortion on the way to abortion-on-demand.
Now, as Adam Cassandra reports at Human Life International, pro-aborts are playing the same deadly game in El Salvador. As in Ireland:
It is illegal to obtain an abortion under any circumstances in El Salvador, though it is not illegal to save the life of the mother.
A woman, with serious health issues, wants to kill her kid but because her life isn’t in danger she can’t. Because the child has been diagnosed with anencephaly, pro-aborts are salivating over the chance to kill her. So, they’re hoping the Salvadoran Supreme Court will green light the execution.
In Canada and Italy thousands march against abortion
CBS News reports that on May 9, in Ottowa Canada, thousands of pro-lifers marched against abortion. The Religion News Service reports that on May 12, in Rome Italy, thousands will march against abortion.
The Religion News Service points to the annual US march in D.C. against abortion as an example for pro-lifers worldwide. Regretfully, the RNS mistakenly says the march “celebrated its 40th anniversary in January”. I marched in D.C. and I can attest that it isn’t a “celebration” but more like a funeral procession.
Your baby has some serious problems, you better kill her.
Claire Murphy at Independent.ie tells how doctors suggested to Jennifer and John Kehoe that they kill their unborn baby Louise because Louise had some severe health defects.
I always remember the very last thing that was said to us by the obstetrician on the last day, ‘50pc mortality by age five, John.'
Because the kid has only a 50% chance of survival to age 5, it’s better to kill the kid now. That way, the baby gets to die and the parents get to spend the rest of their lives knowing that they killed their baby instead of loving her.
Why can’t pro-aborts see how sick that is?
I suggest you read the entire article.
Claire Murphy at Independent.ie tells how doctors suggested to Jennifer and John Kehoe that they kill their unborn baby Louise because Louise had some severe health defects.
“I always remember the very last thing that was said to us by the obstetrician on the last day, ‘50pc mortality by age five, John.'“
Because the kid has only a 50% chance of survival to age 5, it’s better to kill the kid now. That way, the baby gets to die and the parents get to spend the rest of their lives knowing that they killed their baby instead of loving her. Why can’t pro-aborts see how sick that is?
I suggest you read the entire article.
<!--[if gte mso 9]> Claire Murphy at Independent.ie tells how doctors suggested to Jennifer and John Kehoe that they kill their unborn baby Louise because Louise had some severe health defects. “I always remember the very last thing that was said to us by the obstetrician on the last day, ‘50pc mortality by age five, John.'“ Because the kid has only a 50% chance of survival to age 5, it’s better to kill the kid now. That way, the baby gets to die and the parents get to spend the rest of their lives knowing that they killed their baby instead of loving her. Why can’t pro-aborts see how sick that is? I suggest you read the entire article. <!--[endif] -->
Personhood would criminalize miscarriages. Wrong.
Pro-lifers have recently begun getting signatures for the Personhood initiative in Mississippi which reads:
The right to life begins at conception. All human beings, at every stage of development, are unique, created in God’s image and shall have an inalienable right to life.
Pro-aborts assert that this proposal, like other Personhood measures, will mean that distraught mothers will be investigated for miscarriages. Why? Because a miscarriage might be an intentional abortion. This seems plausible to people who are ignorant about law and history. Pro-aborts prey on ignorance, so this scare tactic can be effective.
We have two pieces of evidence, based in legal procedure and history, to show that the “investigate miscarriage” claim is false. First, sadly, miscarriages are far too common to provide probable cause or even reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Nothing in the Personhood Amendment says otherwise. Police have no desire to, neither will they, waste their time harassing women for non-crimes. Without reasonable suspicion, the police will leave families alone to grieve for the deaths of their children.
Second, when abortion was illegal, were mothers investigated for miscarriages? In Mississippi? In North Dakota? In countries, such as Ireland, where abortion is currently illegal, are mothers investigated for miscarriage? No, of course not. History shows that mothers who tragically lost their babies suffered no such persecution.
Despicably, pro-aborts hide behind the tragedy of miscarriage to push their baby-killing agenda. When someone supports killing babies, taking cover behind maternal anguish isn’t much of a stoop.
Recent Press Releases
Recent Blog Posts
Personhood in the News
