Category Archives: Pro-life

I saw the Gosnell movie. You should too.

I hadn’t been to a movie in at least a year.  I can’t even remember what the last one was. But I saw Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer tonight.  I hope you do as well.

You know how it ends, so I can’t spoil that. But these comments might tell you more than you want to know ahead of time, so you’ve been warned.

The acting and production values were good, and much better than expected. The guy who played Gosnell was amazing.

They obviously used some poetic license to move the plot along, but to their credit they didn’t appear to exaggerate any of the key facts.  The guy was so over-the-top it seemed like overkill just to describe it.

There were a couple unnecessary things that detracted in a minor way (I’m pretty sure that real coroners don’t hand scalpels to District Attorneys and let them cut up cadavers at all, let alone without gloves and masks).  But you get those in any movie.

While the trial and key players kept making the point that Gosnell was on trial for murder, not abortion, they did make a lot of good pro-life statements.  The “good” abortionist, there to make Gosnell look like a “bad” one,  described a 2nd term abortion in detail, including injecting a needle in the child’s heart to kill her, evacuating the “gray matter” (i.e., brains) to make her skull collapse, etc.  That’s more than most voters have probably ever heard.

Never forget that according to the Left — including the “Christian” Left — Gosnell’s only problem was killing the children a little too late.  They support unrestricted abortions to the child’s first breath and want more of them with taxpayer funding.  And despite their “safe, legal and rare” lies, the government really did prevent inspections from being done at Gosnell’s clinic.

Kudos to everyone involved with the production.  Hope you go see it!

Advertisements

Are you going to see the Gosnell movie? Please spread the word!

I’m so glad to see they made this.  The trailer looks great.  I haven’t been to a movie in over a year, but I may make an exception for this one.

Initially, the government deliberately ignored the greatest serial killer in American history.  Fortunately, someone finally took him on.  But unfortunately, the media did a choreographed embargo on the trial.  I remember searching MSNBC and the LA Times, among other Leftist sites, and getting zero hits for his name.  Zero.  That is active suppression.

When I would teach pro-life reasoning training to new Care Net Pregnancy Center volunteers I’d ask if they had heard of Kermit Gosnell.  Usually only about 25% had — and this was from a group of very committed pro-lifers!  The media was very effective at hiding it.

Not surprisingly, Facebook is choking ads for the film.  You can only imagine what other suppression Twitter and the rest of Big Tech are engaged in.

Make no mistake: Those Molech-worshiping ghouls love abortion.

Please share the word on this movie!  Even if it just gets people to search on the topic it will be worth it.

Are you ready to respond to pro-abortion arguments?

With the impending confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh as a Supreme Court Justice there is more talk than usual about abortion, and that will only increase from here.  Are you you ready to respond to people graciously when they make bad pro-abortion arguments?

The arguments are varied, but the most common ones are easy to refute.  For example, they love to play on people’s  emotions and pretend that we are hostile to rape victims if we don’t let them kill their children.  But just turn it around on them and ask, “So are you saying that you’d support making all abortions illegal except in the cases of rape?”  I guarantee you that the response will be “no.”  Then you simply say, “Then why are you exploiting rape victims to make your case for unrestricted abortions, and why do you support the Democrats’ policies of increasing abortions with taxpayer funding?”  it is just that easy.  Bonus points for reminding them how Planned Parenthood and other abortionists protect rapists and sex traffickers.

And when you get the inevitable “pro-lifers don’t care about children after they are born argument,” share these points.

This is a video where I teach about pro-life reasoning.  I used to give this content to Care Net Pregnancy Center volunteers.

Faux-lifers and loving your neighbor

One of the easiest ways to out faux-lifers (that is, pro-abortion people who pretend to be pro-life) is to keep them talking.  They often claim the name of Christ and that they love their neighbors.  They ever-so-briefly concede the humanity of the child and say how they would never have an abortion and wish they didn’t have to happen.

But they quickly forget about their neighbor in the womb and launch into tortured rationalizations about why they vote for politicians and support groups like Planned Parenthood that fight for unrestricted abortions to the child’s first breath.  They use every sound bite that the professional pro-aborts use.

So just ask them this: If you were in the womb, would you want someone to protect you from being crushed and dismembered?  And if you were going to be destroyed that way, would you at least want to be given anesthetic first?  After all, the faux-lifers fight to keep abortion legal to the child’s first breath and without anesthetic (they know that laws requiring anesthetics would remind people that the children do suffer when being killed, and they must prop up the lie that the children aren’t “really” living until their first breath).

The pro-aborts will squirm and go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to rationalize their inconsistency.  They’ll realize their reasoning is poor, so they’ll resort to attacking you instead. But just keep pointing back to their neighbor in the womb.  If they truly love their neighbors, how can they not try to protect their lives?

I also keep this jpg file handy to share with those who repeat the pro-abortion canard that pro-lifers don’t care about children after they are born.  I find that to be the #1 pro-abortion argument on the Internet.  It lets the pro-aborts pretend to kinda-sorta oppose abortion while attacking the character of pro-lifers.  There are nine things wrong with their sound bite.  Actually more, but the font was getting too small.  Feel free to use without attribution!

Refer to the pre-born as children, not babies

I realize that it is reasonable to call the pre-born babies, and even Planned Parenthood employees have been caught using that term and in an old advertisement they noted that “abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun.”

But I prefer to use the term children when explaining what abortion does — i.e., it kills children.  Why?  Because it is more precise and it baits the pro-aborts into denying what the dictionary clearly says (even if they don’t realize it yet).  Pro-aborts — especially those from the “Christian” Left — usually balk at that term.  Those ghouls are far more extreme than the average “pro-choice” person, as the former insist that life begins at the first breath and concludes that you can kill a child at any time until she is 100% out of her mother.  So they hate it when you refer to the unborn as children and they pretend that the word is being misused.

But what do the nice folks at Dictionary.com have to say about the term children?  Is it legitimate to use that to describe the unborn?  Yep.  Just because it isn’t the first use of the word doesn’t mean it isn’t accurate.

child

4. a human fetus.
Idioms

11. with child, pregnant:

She’s with child.
Examples from the web for child:
British Dictionary definitions for child
3. an unborn baby related prefix paedo-
4. with child, another term for pregnant
Word Origin and History for child
Old English cild “fetus, infant, unborn or newly born person,” from Proto-Germanic *kiltham (cf. Gothic kilþei “womb,” inkilþo “pregnant;” Danishkuld “children of the same marriage;” Old Swedish kulder “litter;” Old English cildhama “womb,” lit. “child-home”); no certain cognates outside Germanic. “App[arently] originally always used in relation to the mother as the ‘fruit of the womb'” [Buck]. Also in late Old English, “a youth of gentle birth” (archaic, usually written childe). In 16c.-17c. especially “girl child.”

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper

2. An unborn infant; a fetus.

I’ve always noted the scientific fact that the unborn are human beings from fertilization. Check out any mainstream embryology textbook.  When pro-aborts say it is “just” a fetus (or embryo, etc.) I note that the fetus in question is a human being at a particular stage of development: Human embryo ==> human fetus ==> human baby ==> human toddler ==> etc.  Always human and always worthy of protection.  But going straight to calling them children is both accurate and effective.

So please use children as often as possible when describing what abortion does.  It has great rhetorical force, it baits pro-aborts into having to agree with the term or showing how they have to disagree with the dictionary to make their case, and it helps demolish the anti-science, anti-God “just a fetus” arguments.

A dialog with a professional child-killer

I’ve taught pro-life reasoning for over 10 years and debated countless people online, but had never dialogued directly with an abortionist until now.  Professional child-killer Willie Parker is not just an abortionist, which would be bad enough, but he claims to be a Christian and that his work is for the Lord.  As an introduction, this Newsweek interview with him has the usual pro-abort rationalizations.

  • He thinks of himself as heroic by aborting the child of an incest victim, as if killing her child solved her problems.  The abortion industry routinely protects sex traffickers, rapists and those who commit incest.  Not only does killing the child not undo the crimes, these abortionists send the victims back to their abusers!
  • He refers to “reproductive justice,” but that’s when you don’t kill the child who has already been reproduced.
  • He says he won’t do abortions for those who express race or gender differences, yet he simultaneous claims that those he kills aren’t people yet.
  • He claims to be a Christian yet says the Bible supports sexism – i.e., he admits to disagreeing with the Bible.
  • He spouts gibberish like this, which of course would justify anything anyone would ever do: “If God is in everything, and everyone, then God is as much in the woman making a decision to terminate a pregnancy as in her Bible.”
  • He says women will do unsafe abortions if he doesn’t do them, ignoring that many women do unsafe abortions even when legal, that making them legal increases abortion rates, and that one is never obligated to make it safer for someone to have her child killed.
  • He gladly performs abortions like these: “women in poverty and women of color. He has seen patients from a recently divorced mother of three, with a 1-year-old at home, to a 21-year-old middle-distance runner trying to trim seconds off her 800-meter time to qualify for the Rio Olympics.”
  • In the Newsweek article he denied that life began at conception, but he admitted it during the Twitter exchange.

So that’s a little about Willie.  Someone reTweeted him so I commented and he actually responded.  A few of the comments and my replies (multiple Tweets sometimes combined into one):

Dr. Willie Parker‏ — As someone who provides abortions and who witnesses the relief and gratitude of women who obtain them safely, I could say, TOLD YOU SO!, but gloating is overrated. Abortion doesn’t cause depression, but pro-birth zealots sure do. [There was a link to an article alleging that many women don’t feel guilty about having abortions.]

Note how he calls us zealots, yet later whines about alleged name-calling on my part for my precision in calling him a child-killer.  I choose my words carefully.  Some call the unborn babies, and I know why.  But it lets pro-aborts say that isn’t the correct term.  They still try that when I say children, but then I point them to the dictionary.  Same thing when they deny personhood.

eMatters‏ — Whether your conscience is so thoroughly seared that you don’t regret killing your children is irrelevant. It will always be morally wrong.

My reply was actually about whether the mothers felt guilty, but he took it personally.

Dr. Willie Parker‏ — My critics are many. Occasionally, I reply to make a point, like fetuses aren’t people, women are. My reply: If the world were as simple as you think it is, you’d be right. But since it isn’t & since I’ve never killed a child, you didn’t make a point, you stated the obvious.

eMatters‏ — You are wildly ignorant of science. Check any embryology textbook: A new human being is created at fertilization. Must have been too busy learning to kill at school What else would two humans create?! http://www.abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony/   And see http://dictionary.com . You kill CHILDREN.  Oh, and the seared conscience comment applies to the MOTHERS as well. They should feel guilty for paying you to kill their children, but whether their consciences are seared is irrelevant. I meet lots of unrepentant murderers doing prison ministry. They were still wrong.

Dr. Willie Parker‏ –Insults don’t make your point. Fetuses are human beings, because women don’t give birth to puppies, but to be a human being is not the same as being a person. In my “scientific ignorance” I know the difference between a frog & a tadpole, and an acorn & an oak tree. Do you?

eMatters‏ –Yes, you are ignorant of science. And vocabulary. Once again, the nice folks at http://dictionary.com  can help you out: Person: a human being, whether an adult or child: a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.  So your anti-science word games fail you again. You kill human children for a living. That’s sick.  Surely you know the logical fallacies with your acorn / oak tree illustration, right?  https://apologiabyhendrikvanderbreggen.blogspot.com/2008/10/acorns-and-oak-treesand-abortion.html

Dr. Willie Parker‏ — Women die during childbirth, but we don’t outlaw childbirth. Check any person who delivers babies.

eMatters‏ — Gracious of you, as a professional child killer, to put these fallacious sound bites out there for all to see. You’re the pro and that’s all you’ve got? Willie says women can die during childbirth, therefore it is OK to kill children to their 1st breath. Non sequitur much?  Conflating death by natural causes vs. actively killing them? Such great pro-abort logic. Most people can see the difference: A. Human being dies of natural causes (inside or outside the womb) B. Human being is deliberately killed by a 3rd party (inside or outside the womb)  The fetus in question is a human being at a particular stage of development: Human embryo ==> human fetus ==> human baby ==> human toddler ==> etc. Always human and always worthy of protection.

Dr. Willie Parker‏ — Developmentally your argument is that human conceptions are persons throughout: fetuses are babies are toddlers are college graduates. Embryo and fetus are scientific terms, baby and toddler are not. How deftly you switch from science to culture, key for embracing pseudoscience.

eMatters‏ — That’s completely false. Why do you feel the need to deceive like that? I couldn’t have been more clear. It is a human fetus. Human embryo ==> human fetus ==> human baby ==> human toddler ==> etc. Same human being at different stages of development.

Dr. Willie Parker‏ — Given that your thinking is linear, your arguments circular and legalistic, and your reference materials are Webster’s dictionary and live action news, you get to have the last word, insults and all. I’ll keep honoring women’s decisions, and you can judge them and call me names.

eMatters‏ — Yeah, referring to dictionary definitions and medical textbook citations for the specific words being debated is legalistic. 🙂 Pretty lame dodge, Willie. Live Action was just quoting PP. Your attack is an example of the genetic fallacy.  If I call you a professional child killer, I am being very precise. You get paid, and by medical and standard dictionary definitions, you kill human children. Killing the children when mothers pay you is a peculiar way to honor them.  And you never demonstrated any circular logic. I just pointed to scientific facts: Every fetus you have killed was a human being at a particular stage of development. You tried to weasel word you way out by calling them [non-] persons, then I showed how you were wrong.  I hope you repent and believe someday – and soon, before you kill too many more children. We are all sinners in need of a Savior. If you don’t, you’ll have eternity to be punished for your countless crimes against God.

And it was just as creepy seeing all his fans calling him a hero and such for being so caring.

P.S. And of course, I got the usual pro-aborts chiming in with fallacies about how we don’t help the poor after they are born.  I usually post this when I get those comments.  

 

 

 

 

Leftists — including “Christian” Leftists — are pro-abortion, not pro-choice

The Molech-worshiping ghouls of the Left — including the “Christian” Left — are busy celebrating the “free” (read: tax-funded or government coercion-funded) abortions that will just happen to kill minorities at a disproportionate rate: Governor of Oregon Holds Ceremony to Celebrate Law Making Abortion Free in State.  And note the skin color of those celebrating . . .

When you use the force of government to increase abortions you can no longer pretend to be pro-choice.

This came with the usual pro-abortion fallacy-fest.

To lead productive and thriving lives, Oregonians must have the ability to control their bodies and make informed decisions about their health care,” she said in a statement. “I am proud to sign legislation that expands access to basic reproductive health services for all Oregonians regardless of where they live, where they come from, or how they identify as a person.

So to improve your life you need to be able to kill your children to their 1st breath and to have someone else pay for it.  Check.

The “how they identify as a person” is comical.  Apparently they had to ensure the bill covered women who pretend to be men yet still want to kill their children.

And as always,  “Reproductive health services” is a false, Orwellian, anti-scientific term. It applies to birth control, not abortion, because abortion destroys a human being who has already been reproduced. That is a scientific fact confirmed by any mainstream embryology textbook and basic logic. It is a deadly and evil phrase. Yes, they have a right to reproduce, but no, they shouldn’t have the right to kill human beings who have already been reproduced.  Never let pro-aborts get away with using that phrase.

According to the Washington Times, those in attendance “regularly broke into rousing cheers and applause.”

That’s just creepy.  Predicable, but creepy.

It allows an exemption for religious businesses and nonprofits . . .

That will last about 15 minutes, because if killing your children to their 1st breath for “free” is really a right then how dare anyone limit that right?!  But don’t worry, because the state will make your neighbors pay for the murder:

Employees can still obtain the desired contraceptives and abortions . . .

They falsely claim that women have to be able to murder their children to be able to work outside the home and that even if it was true then it would justify child-killing.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton similarly said that she believes legalizing abortion has helped to keep women in the workplace, and thus has aided the economy.

Well, OK, then, continue the slaughter.  And they say Republicans are greedy?!