Tag Archives: Mississippi

Politics, Pro-life

It isn’t just Gosnell

Leave a comment

The pro-abortion media, politicians and false teachers want to pretend that Kermit Gosnell, convicted baby-killer, was a rogue abortionist.  But as you might expect, people who kill babies for a living don’t mind breaking the laws surrounding how to kill babies for a living.  And the phonies who pretend that Gosnell is some lone monster are have blood on their hands.

Here’s one example of many from Abortion Doc After Baby Born Alive: “What could I do? I killed the baby.” 

Davis also reveals what Dr. Tucker told her about an event that happened at one of the clinics he ran, a different clinic from the one where he employed Davis.

According to her testimony:

Then one day, Dr. Tucker came back to Alabama, where I was. He had been working in Mississippi. He said, “I had a real hard time in Mississippi, we had a problem and you need to go out and try to calm down the employees.”

I said, “What happened?”

He said, “There was a girl who came in for an abortion. I thought she was eighteen weeks. She ended up being closer to term. I inserted the laminaria and she went into labor. She went into labor and delivered a live, healthy baby.”

I said, “What did you do?”

He said, “What could I do? I killed the baby. But all the employees are really upset, so you need to go and take care of this.”

Remember that technically speaking the crimes of these “doctors” are that they killed the babies a few seconds too late.  But all abortions, except the very rare occasions to save the life of the mother, are just as immoral as killing the baby outside the womb.  Don’t let people forget that.

And remind them about the media blackout on Gosnell and the rest of these killers.

Uncategorized

It isn’t just about Gosnell

Leave a comment

The pro-abortion media, politicians and false teachers want to pretend that Kermit Gosnell, convicted baby-killer, was a rogue abortionist.  But as you might expect, people who kill babies for a living don’t mind breaking the laws surrounding how to kill babies for a living.  And the phonies who pretend that Gosnell is some lone monster are have blood on their hands.

Here’s one example of many from Abortion Doc After Baby Born Alive: “What could I do? I killed the baby.” 

Davis also reveals what Dr. Tucker told her about an event that happened at one of the clinics he ran, a different clinic from the one where he employed Davis.

According to her testimony:

Then one day, Dr. Tucker came back to Alabama, where I was. He had been working in Mississippi. He said, “I had a real hard time in Mississippi, we had a problem and you need to go out and try to calm down the employees.”

I said, “What happened?”

He said, “There was a girl who came in for an abortion. I thought she was eighteen weeks. She ended up being closer to term. I inserted the laminaria and she went into labor. She went into labor and delivered a live, healthy baby.”

I said, “What did you do?”

He said, “What could I do? I killed the baby. But all the employees are really upset, so you need to go and take care of this.”

Remember that technically speaking the crimes of these “doctors” are that they killed the babies a few seconds too late.  But all abortions, except the very rare occasions to save the life of the mother, are just as immoral as killing the baby outside the womb.  Don’t let people forget that.

Christian worldview

The usual pro-life debate thread

41 Comments

pro-choice-baby.jpgI haven’t debated any pro-legalized abortionists online for a while, so I had enjoyed this exchange at an allegedly secular site. I say allegedly because they kept bringing religion into the debate even though I was using secular arguments, and as usual they ignored the fact that the “Christian” Left is wildly pro-legalized abortion, and even taxpayer-funded abortion (because we need to have more abortions so we can keep abortion safe, legal and . . . er . . . uh . . . rare). The topic was the Mississippi personhood proposal.

These are very typical arguments made by the pro-legalized abortionists.  Anyone can learn to refute them with a little practice.  No need to call names and use logical fallacies like they do.  Just be clear and firm.  Lather, rinse, repeat.

The thread went on even longer, so go to the link if you want it all.

Does life begin at conception? The Mississippi Supreme Court ruled last week that Mississippi voters can decide in November.
You don’t need to vote to decide that. It is a firmly established scientific fact.
Kieres43p· Oh really? Then pray tell why does Judaism say otherwise?
Uh, because Judaism is wrong on a scientific fact? (Did I really have to type that?). It is amusing to see (bad) religious arguments made on a secular site. It is almost as if you really, really like abortion and will use any argument you can, even if faulty and religious.I hope people read the link and realize how explicitly clear science is on the topic. So sad to see all these anti-science people out there wondering when life begins, when the facts couldn’t be more clear.
Personhood USA, like most anti-choice organizations, doesn’t give much indication of their concern for women or children, just embryos. Nowhere on their site do they discuss how they are working to make abortion less desirable, or to help women to raise children they can’t afford to support.
Anti-choice” for what? Oh, the choice to crush and dismember innocent yet unwanted human beings? Yes, we are glad to be anti-choice.

So women who have been raped should be forced to carry the baby to term?

Said another way, so the daughter of a rapist can be destroyed because of his crime? Does the abortion un-do the rape?

Hey, if you want to give the death penalty to the rapist I’d consider your arguments. But don’t kill the innocent offspring.

What kind of embryos are those? Human, of course, as in “human beings, at a particular stage of development.”

At no point do they boast about how many of their members have selflessly adopted unwanted children, or advocate for support of Head Start or other programs to help young poor kids.
That is one of the all-time bad pro-abortion arguments. Do you realize that unless you are requiring poor people to have abortions that you would have the same obligations to adopt these children that you are placing on pro-lifers?

By “support Head Start,” do you mean you support it with your own money, or “support” asking the government to take taxes by force to fund it? There is a big difference.

Finally, what if the government was going to “solve” homelessness by killing all homeless people. Could you protest the immorality of that without being obligated to house the homeless yourself? Of course you could. In the same way, pro-lifers can object to the killing of the unborn all they like without being obligated to adopt all the children that they didn’t create.

Having said that, pro-lifers do many things with their own time and money to help those outside the womb. There are more pregnancy centers than abortion clinics, and the pregnancy centers are almost always funded by donations and mostly staffed with volunteers. They give all their services for free, while the abortionists make incredible amounts of money.

ANd yet those same “pro-lifers” kvetch and moan at the thought of having to pay higher taxes to take care of all those kids.Sorry, last time I checked, this is not a theocracy. Kindly treating it like one.
Wow, so you must really go nuts over the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice! It is a bunch of highly organized pro-abortion religious people trying to force their religious views on the unborn.So, are you consistent in blasting the pro-abortion religious left, who even want to force others to pay for abortions via taxpayer-funded killing? Or do you just play the religion card when against pro-lifers?
Conservatives donate more of their own time, money and blood than liberals —http://tinyurl.com/yzautg2 . What we don’t do is ask the gov’t to take from neighbor A by force to give to neighbor B and then claim it as generosity on our part.
So, Neil, you and the other pro-life crowd are willing to see your taxes jacked through the roof to pay for the children’s health care, their homes, their food, their education, right?After all..if you’re going to sit there and demand that women do what you tell them and give birth to those babies because you say so then you’re willing to pay for it, right?
That means you pay for prenatal care, their health care as kids, teens, up to adults. If the mother is working lots you’ll pay for the kids daycare right? And if the mother can’t afford to send the kids to a good school you’ll pay for that too? And you’ll also agree to pay for welfare where necessary, right?
Oh and college too..you’ll be ponying up the money for that too right?
Time for you and your fellow “pro-lifers” to actually prove that you give a damn about life after its born. So put up and pay up or shut up, Neil.
Since you keep repeating the same fallacy, how about answering my question first: Again, what if the government was going to “solve” homelessness by killing all homeless people. Could you protest the immorality of that without being obligated to house the homeless yourself? Of course you could. In the same way, pro-lifers can object to the killing of the unborn all they like without being obligated to adopt all the children that they didn’t create.

You see, your attempted logic is that if I don’t raise the children to adulthood then I can’t complain about the immorality of them being destroyed. But you have to live by your logic as well. Could you protest the destruction of toddlers without having to adopt them and raise them?

Cute attempt at adding college to the mix.

Now, are you going to keep repeating your fallacy or are you going to answer my question?

There is another fallacy in your argument, namely that the children will always be poor. That isn’t the case. Oh, and I already pay lots of taxes — probably far more than you — for the 40+ million people on food stamps and such.And also answer whether you going to require poor people to have abortions (like the forced abortions due to China’s one-child policy). If you won’t require that, then you have the exact same obligation to fulfill your hypothetical example of raising the kids to adulthood.
Sorry, last time I checked, this is not a theocracy. Kindly treating it like one.
Please point out which religious argument I made that you are objecting to. Or do you not realize that your anti-religious bigotry and prejudices caused you to reflexively play your “theocracy” card even though my arguments were purely secular?

My premise is simple: Abortion kills an innocent human being. It is wrong to kill innocent human beings for 99% of the reasons given for abortions. Therefore, those abortions are wrong.

I’ll be glad to discuss Jesus’ views on the topic if you like, but I typically save those for those claiming to be Christians.

And even if my religious views align with my secular views, that doesn’t discount them in any way. Or do you think that stealing, murder, perjury, etc. have to be made legal because laws against them currently agree with the Bible?

Personhood USA and many other religiously-motivated anti-choice activists want to control women’s reproductive health decisions
Sorry to be repetitive, but I must point back to scientific facts here. Abortion isn’t about “reproductive health.” The mother and father have already reproduced! If they hadn’t, there would be no abortion to consider.
Neil asks: who even want to force others to pay for abortions via taxpayer-funded killing?Which would be a valid point if I didn’t have to pay for stupid wars and the death penalty. Point? We all pay for stuff we don’t like, Neil.
I don’t follow. If you oppose wars and the death penalty, then you are free to protest those. My point is simply that pro-legalized abortionists don’t want abortions to be safe (they support the substandard conditions allowed by law) or rare (they want to force taxpayers to pay for abortions, which will only increase the number of abortions).You aren’t pro-choice, you are pro-abortion. You want there to be more abortions, and you want others to pay for them. Why not just donate your own money to Planned Parenthood so you can sponsor more abortions?
Oh and by the way….no federal funding goes to any abortion.
Oh, they find ways to sneak it in — http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/201… . And the reason it isn’t more rampant is that we have fought the pro-abortionists all the way on this.You might want to bother to realize that Planned Parenthood, which is the federal funding you’re bitching about, does other things then just provide abortions.Money is fungible. Just because they do other things doesn’t mean the funds do help these abortionists do abortions. Planned Parenthood has been caught lying many times on many topics (they hide statutory rape, they don’t do mammograms, etc.) —http://tinyurl.com/6krdj4p .

 

The above is being said by the person who is conveniently ignoring the fact that he doesn’t get to force others how to live.

Yes, and that was said by someone who has conveniently ignored it when I asked if you think it should be illegal to steal and murder.  So I’ll ask again: Do you think it should be illegal to steal and murder?  If so, are you forcing others how to live?  Are you forcing your religion on them because the Bible says not to steal and murder?

Here’s a challenge: Answer the questions without changing the subject again.

I appreciate you playing along.  Having a pro-abort make all these bad arguments on a secular site is like gold to me.  I just hope lots of authentically middle ground people read the thread and realize how you have dodged all my simple questions and just responded with hypocritical personal attacks.

But since you’re so interested, Neil, in science and science fact…you might want to look up this term in science: Parasite.
Ah, the parasite argument.  Right on queue!  I just wrote about that this week:http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2011/11/02/are-unb… />
I actually like when pro-aborts use the “parasite” argument. It may get virtual high-five’s from other pro-aborts, but it is so transparently bad that it reveals to the middle-ground folks just how perverse the pro-abort thinking is. It is like a concession speech.

Of course those who use this argument ignore pure scientific facts about the unborn being unique human beings so they can take an overly broad definition of the term “parasite” to dehumanize the unborn.  It smacks of desperation.

This doesn’t always work, but I typically point out that their view would mean that the baby could be fully delivered but still be attached via the umbilical cord and she would still be a “parasite.” Therefore, you could kill her any way you liked. Or even kill the child as she is breast feeding, since that would fit their loose definition of parasite.  They have usually painted themselves in a corner by that point and may actually agree that they’d be OK with that. Again, I’m glad to let the middle ground see that kind of immoral thinking.  People who advance that argument are extremely unlikely to be moved from their position, but they aren’t the target audience of most pro-life reasoning.

Most pro-legalized abortion arguments — and especially ones like the “parasite” argument — are based on emotions and ignore the humanity of the unborn (human zygote, human fetus, etc.). They trade on sentiments how the woman (or child) will be impacted in the areas of poverty, education, love life, etc.

When doing pro-life reasoning training I always start by distinguishing between the psychological complexity of the abortion issue (financial, educational, family pressures, etc. issues are real and powerful and need to be addressed) and the moral simplicity of it (you shouldn’t kill innocent human beings for any of those reasons, regardless of how intense they are).

Christian worldview, Politics, Pro-life

Personhood, religion and science

3 Comments

While it is a scientific fact that the unborn are unique, living human beings from conception, many pro-legalized abortion advocates try to deny that fact and pretend that it is a religious question.  Mississippi has a “personhood” initiative on the Nov. 8 ballot that even many Democrats in the state are supporting.  This has the pro-abort crowd very, very nervous.  It has the chances of challenging Roe v Wade.

Fake Christians who support the the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice are parroting the Planned Parenthood agenda:

People throughout the country are taking action to defeat Mississippi Initiative 26, the “personhood” initiative. If passed November 8, it will have far-reaching consequences not only for women and men in Mississippi but for individuals throughout the country. It could be the start of a larger “personhood” agenda. We already know that Nevada, Tennessee, and Florida will have a similar measure on their ballots in 2012.

Yea!

By legally defining a human being from the moment of fertilization, MS 26 criminalizes abortion without exempting cases of rape, incest, or life of the pregnant woman.

But it is a scientific fact that a unique human being is created at the moment of conception.  And the scare tactics aren’t working.  People know that women will get treated for ectopic pregnancies.  The former doctor for our Care Net Pregnancy Center even performed those, and he was more than just a little pro-life. Abortions to save the life of the mother are consistent with the pro-life ethic.

RCRC is working with the coalition of physicians, infertility advocates and reproductive health organizations that has mobilized to challenge the measure and to spread the word about unforeseen consequences of the anti-choice movement’s overreach. Mississippians for Healthy Families, the political committee formed in response to MS 26, says that the amendment “puts politics above the health and safety of women.”

That’s just a series of lies.  Even the name of the RCRC is a lie: Abortion isn’t about “reproductive choice” because a new human being has already been reproduced.  And it ignores the lives of the unborn.  What about their health and safety?

The “personhood” initiative raises troubling moral issues, regardless of a person’s view of abortion. Whil religions across the spectrum respect and value life and many have an official pro-choice position, RCRC has identified these issues as of deep concern:

The initiative is one-sided and narrow – it concentrates solely on the fetus and ignores the woman’s life entirely.

It concentrates on the human being who would otherwise be crushed and dismembered because she is unwanted.

Endowing a fetus with legal rights independent of the pregnant woman could set up a conflict that could place the health and dignity of the woman on a lower level.

That’s just gibberish.

People of faith are also concerned that this initiative would enact into law specific religious views about “personhood” and in doing so, violate the foundational principle of religious freedom.

That’s simply false.  All they need to do is point to scientific facts.  Ironically, they are taking what should be a non-religious argument, turning it into a religious argument, and then trying to force their religious views on the rest of us.

They also trot out the rape and incest arguments, but they are wildly inconsistent on those.  They approve of death for the innocent daughter or son of the rapist, but typically oppose capital punishment for the rapist himself.  And abortions for incest typically hide the crime and kill the innocent in the process.

As always, if it isn’t a human being, then she’s not pregnant.  Don’t be fooled by the arguments of phony “religious” people.