Tag Archives: pro-choice

Alyssa Milano killed two of her children, so she’s a hero or something

I have great news for women who have had abortions: Forgiveness and healing is available if your repent and trust in the real Jesus.  But I will mock those who are proud of their child-killing.

I mentioned this in a Roundup but it was so ridiculous and fallacy-filled that it deserves a full post: Alyssa Milano opens up about having two abortions: ‘I knew I was not ready to be a parent’

Remember, we on the pro-science, pro-logic side always start with the irrefutable truth that a new human child is created at fertilization.  At least that’s what all those pesky mainstream embryology textbooks and the nice people at Dictionary.com say.

Actress and women’s rights activist Alyssa Milano opened up about having two abortions in 1993 because she was not “ready to be a parent” after becoming pregnant while taking birth control pills.

Alyssa killed two living children, so she was already a parent.  Whether she was “ready” or not is irrelevant.  If she didn’t feel equipped to parent them properly, then she could have given them up for adoption instead of killing them.  But that didn’t fit with her career goals.  The article doesn’t even hint that she considered adoption.

Milano spoke of her experience on the latest episode of her podcast entitled “Sorry Not Sorry” released Monday.

I’ve done prison ministry for 13 years and have met countless felons who are not sorry for their crimes.  But they are still guilty, just like she is guilty of killing her children. Her seared conscience is not evidence of her innocence — or, as she is trying to present it, her virtue of killing her children.

“I’m Alyssa Milano and I’ve had an abortion. I control my own body,” she said.

Only a Molech-worshiping Leftist can turn child-killing into a virtue.  Yeah, she controlled her body — and the bodies of her children — right into the trash.

“I still got pregnant,” she said. “It was devastating. I was raised Catholic and was suddenly put in conflict with my faith — a faith I was coming to realize empowered only men to make every single decision of what was allowed and what was not allowed,” Milano said.

Gee, what a strong and reasoned faith she had.  So it wasn’t that she had sex out of wedlock and logical consequences followed, it was that men are bad, her faith was false and she had to kill her children. [Yeah, her faith was false, but for 95 other reasons.]

The “Who’s the Boss” star said she wanted to focus on her budding film career.

Well in that case, of course she had to kill her children!

“I knew at that time I was not equipped to be a mother and so I chose to have an abortion. I chose,” Milano said, adding that she faced “crippling anxiety” during that time period. “It was my choice and it was absolutely the right choice for me. It was not an easy choice.”

Again, she was already a mother.  And yes, I can see how choosing to kill your children might make you anxious.  It was all about her, not her children.

“It was not something I wanted, but it was something that I needed, like most health care is.”

Now there is some extra-delusional rationalization.  As usual, Leftists put the wants of adults over the needs of children – including the need to live – but they frame their wants as needs.  No, Alyssa, you did not need to kill your children.

And abortion is the opposite of health care.  Health care is when humans don’t get crushed and dismembered.

After terminating her first pregnancy, Milano said on the podcast that she continued with her previous sexual relationship and use of birth control pills.

Slow learner.  But we should definitely do whatever she says anyway.

“A few months later, I found out I was pregnant again. I had done what I knew to do to prevent pregnancy and was still pregnant, so once again I made the right decision to end that pregnancy,” she said.

So instead of learning from her mistakes and telling people to only have sex in a one man / one woman marriage, she kills another child.  And of course it was the right decision, because she said it was.  She was having fun with the extramarital sex so killing her children was worth it.

Milano told her audience that she would not have her acting career or her activist platform had she not made the decision to get abortions.

Yep.  If she hadn’t killed her children she wouldn’t have time to tell other women how important it is to be able to kill their children.

“Fifteen years after that first love had fizzled, my life would be completely lacking all its great joys,” she said. “I would never had been free to be myself — and that’s what this fight is all about: freedom.”

More delusion.  Yeah, she’s some kind of super hero, fighting for freedom by slaughtering her own children.  But aren’t we all glad for her great joys?! Oddly, I’m not getting all choked up here.

She went on to say that she would not have been able to have her two “beautiful, perfect, loving, kind and inquisitive children” with husband David Bugliari.

Yeah, because she knew the two children she killed would have been ugly, imperfect, unkind and non inquisitive . . . or something.  They obviously deserved what they got.

What if this husband cheats on his child-killing wife and they get divorced? Does that mean these living children will be retroactive “mistakes?”

And I wonder how her living children really feel about this.  Of course they would publicly defend their mother, but deep down wouldn’t it bother them that she was a cold-blooded killer of their step-siblings?

Milano has spearheaded efforts to push back against strict abortion bans passed by several Republican-majority state legislatures in recent months, including a bill that banned abortions once a fetus has a detectable heartbeat in Georgia.

How noble!  Who cares if the children have beating hearts?  If mommy wants them dead then they need to be killed – and you all should have to pay for it!

Milano also called for a sex strike in response to the Republican Party’s “undeniable war on women.” 

I love how she got roasted for noting that not having out-of-wedlock sex would reduce abortions.  Hey, we agree!  I don’t think Alyssa is playing 4-D chess here.

And one day some of these old, lonely, childless women will realize that the real “war on women” was waged by the Left.  They’ll regret buying the lie that having sex with lots of men and killing their offspring was such a bright idea, especially when no one wanted to wife them up once they hit the “wall.”

“I refuse to let anyone else’s bullshit morality force me into a life of premarital celibacy. I refuse to live in the narrative that sexual pleasure is for men and that women exist to deliver that pleasure,” she said on her abortions on the podcast. “Nobody will say that he was at fault for enjoying sex with me, but you can be damned sure that the men enacting these laws think less of me for deriving the same pleasure from him.”

Her straw-man arguments to excuse her sluttiness are pathetic.  I know a “few” Republicans and can’t think of one that wants to deny sexual pleasure to women.  But even if that wasn’t a lie, it is a silly non sequitur to pretend that anti-abortion laws aren’t really about saving the lives of children.

In summary, this professional Leftist insists that killing two of her children was noble but Republicans are mean.  Duly noted.

Pro-abort Rachel Held Evans uses (false) exceptions to make bad rules

As the saying goes, exceptions make bad rules.  But in the case of pro-abort “Christian” Racist Held Evans, she uses a false exception to make a horribly bad rule.

She plays  on the sympathies of those with children diagnosed in utero with health issues.  In her world, it is much better to kill the child right away because she might have serious health issues when born.  That ignores that doctors and diagnoses are sometimes wrong (I’ve personally met several people who are glad they didn’t heed the advice to kill their children). It also ignores that God doesn’t permit mercy killings (then again, since when did pro-LGBTQX Mrs. Evans care what Jesus said?).

But as bad as that is, faux-lifer Evans isn’t using that argument to make the case to ban all abortions except those in her example  She uses it to justify all abortions at any time, and to have taxpayers pay for abortions for those who can’t afford to kill their children.  She piles evil upon evil.  When pro-aborts make deceptive claims like that, ask them exactly which abortions they want to make illegal.  Answer: None.

And to make it worse, she virtue signals in her pro-abort Tweet.  You see, she is more righteous and caring than you because she would consider killing her child while you wouldn’t.

Source: Pro-LGBT Activist Who Thinks She’s A Christian Defends Abortion – Reformation Charlotte:

In an ultimate display of selfishness, Held Evans, a professing Christian (of course she isn’t a real Christian, but she has many Christian followers), asserts that she isn’t sure what she would do if she were told by a doctor that her unborn child may have a birth defect affecting the “quality” of the child’s life.

The problem here isn’t that Held Evans is concerned with the quality of the child’s life. Held Evans is concerned about the quality of her own life. She — and other abortion supporters just like her — see children not as a gift from God made in the image of God, but as a burden. Further, a child that may need special care and extra attention would, in Held Evans’ eyes, decrease her own “quality of life.”This is the sickness of the pro-choice movement. You can’t call yourself a Christian while holding to anti-Christ beliefs. The gospel calls us to lay our own lives down, pick up our cross, and follow Jesus. Held Evans and the many pro-choice (or undecided) people out there have failed to see the goodness of God and the gift of salvation in Christ. They are, regardless of their claims, unregenerate and need the forgiveness of Jesus Christ found only through repentance and faith.

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!

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.

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.

The lies, slander and fallacies of faux-life “Christian” Leftist Rachel Held Evans

Welcome to visitors!  Please feel free to look around and read more.

Update: She took down her Twitter post, first claiming that she wrestles with doubts on abortion (read her Tweets below and see how “doubt-filled” she really is) and then saying there were too many threats (I read most of the comments and didn’t see one threat).  But I saved her Tweets for you here!

Update 2: I figured out why she deleted the Tweet.  Steven Crowder and others outed her racism.  She claimed she was misunderstood.  No, Rachel, the problem is that you were completely understood.

  • Internet: Here’s a racist pro-abortion statement by Rachel Held Evans.
  • Rachel: [Deletes the context]
  • Also Rachel: You took it out of context!
  • Me: I saved the context, which makes it much worse.

—–

False teacher Rachel Held Evans, who mocks the word of God for a living, had an Internet tantrum when she found out that Justice Kennedy was retiring.  It was one fallacious pro-abortion argument after another.  SJWs lie and project, and that’s what she did here, making numerous false statements and projecting her racism on others.  Here are the Tweets she deleted.

Thread: I’m pro-life by conviction, though my views on the legalities of abortion are complex, ever-evolving, & detailed elsewhere.

She starts off with a big lie.  It would have been a bad enough lie if she had stopped there, because her rabid support for Obama and Hillary and all things Leftist already demonstrate how pro-abortion she is.  But she goes on to make her views more clear.

That said, today I’ve been wondering if most pro-lifers have considered what overturning Roe v. Wade would look like in actuality…  First, it wouldn’t end abortion, which would likely remain legal in several states.

Yep, we’ve known that since 1973.  That should be consolation to the Leftists freaking out en masse yesterday who didn’t know it.  Don’t worry, you’ll still be able to kill your children up to their first breath and without anesthetic in most states.  Because love is love.

Just like in the past, wealthy women would travel for abortions & poor women would resort to deadly Gosnell-style “back alley” clinics & home procedures….

Harsh truth: You are under no obligation to make it easier or safer for people to murder their children.  Of course I don’t want to see women harmed during abortions.  But I really don’t want to see the children slaughtered.

And note how this self-proclaimed “pro-lifer” views abortion as a luxury that only the rich will have.  She views child-killing as a necessity.

At least she acknowledged “Christian” Leftist Kermit Gosnell.  No, wait, she only did so in pretending that he was a “back-alley” abortionist.  Big lie.  He was as mainstream as could be and was protected by politically correct state officials.  They knew he ran a filthy clinic.  His crimes were killing children 60 seconds after the law allowed.  Fact: If he had killed them before they were out of the mother Mrs. Evans would have fully supported him.

…In addition, it’s important to understand that the abortion rate is highest in poor communities of color. The rate among black women is almost 5x that of white women and the rate among Hispanic women more than double…

That was her most laughable line.  I’ve written about the disproportionate rate of minority abortions so many times that I feared I would get carpal tunnel syndrome.  I usually note it as three times the rate of whites to be conservative, but she says it is five, so let’s go with that.  Black children being killed at five times the rate of whites via abortion and Hispanics at twice the rate is the only demonstrable and meaningful example of racism there is, yet it’s the one that the “woke” and “non-racist” Left — including the “Christian” Left — aggressively fight for 24×7.  

These ghouls know that it kills minority children in a wildly disproportionate way, yet they want higher rates with taxpayer funding and they focus their anti-racism efforts on things like “micro-aggressions.”  It is a deadly self-parody.

…(Racism, income inequality, lack of access to affordable healthcare & contraception all contribute to the disproportionate rates. Most women who get abortions are already mothers who do so because they feel they cannot afford more children)…

Note how the “pro-lifer” believes that thinking you can’t afford more children is a good reason to have them killed.

…So when I see conservatives celebrating the “millions of lives” that will be saved if Roe is overturned I wonder if they realize a significant percentage of these lives would be in poor communities of color—communities this administration has actively oppressed…

Actively oppressed?  How?  By giving them jobs?  By increasing their wages? By giving them school choice?  By reducing their taxes?  By fighting for their rights to defend themselves?

Mrs. Evans, we know that we are saving minority lives.  Those of us who volunteer at and financially support pregnancy centers know exactly who our clients are.  We would review demographic data at board meetings!  We made special attempts to reach minorities!  You are the one fighting to kill these children.

“Christian” Leftists usually navel gaze and virtue signal about racial reconciliation while Christians are out doing more for race relations than they could ever dream of — just as a byproduct of spreading the Gospel.  If you really want to help race relations, do pregnancy center or prison ministry, where it is mostly whites serving mostly non-whites — sharing the Gospel and serving in love.  But Evans et al would rather sit behind their keyboards and call us racists.

…(If you think Donald Trump actually wants to see a population boom in poor communities of color you haven’t been paying attention! These are the people Trump describes as “infestations” & “breeders.” Just the mention of Hispanics at a rally elicited boos from his audience)…

I’m 99.99% sure that’s a lie.  I’ll bet that he said illegals, not Hispanics.   And it is a fact of history and basic common sense that illegals take jobs and suppress wages for low-income blacks.  You know, the ones you take for granted when pushing your open borders scheme to get more votes.  Side question: Why do Leftists like illegals more than black children?

…Meanwhile, congress is working to defund safety net programs that help mothers provide food, healthcare, and education to their kids.

Logical fallacy: Begging the question – that is, assuming what you should be proving.  Leftist giveaways have been the catalyst for broken families and destroying the black community.  The Left is responsible for separating children from parents with the easily predictable consequences of providing incentives for single motherhood.  The impact to society has been terrible: Generational poverty, crime, drugs, prisons, etc.

So when pro-lifers join Trump in showing disdain or indifference to the poor, to immigrants, & to people of color, no one’s going to believe they are interested in saving anything but hypothetical babies…

Liar.  Again, we know exactly who we are saving and who they are killing.  It is creepy how Evans gets more and more unhinged in wanting to see dead minority children and in projecting her dislike of them onto us.

…Indeed, much of the pro-life literature depicts white, blue-eyed, motherless babies against empty, pristine backgrounds precisely because it is easier to advocate for hypothetical, idealized “babies” than actual people…

Aaaand another lie she uses to justify killing actual minority people.  There are entire campaigns trying to reduce abortions in minority communities.  And does she mean common literature like this?  People have paid for billboards with these messages then pro-aborts protest over them.  Note the white skin and blue eyes.

black abortion

…My point is: I’m not sure pro-lifers realize that overturning Roe will not create the utopia they imagine. In fact, by aligning with Trump & the GOP, they are creating conditions infinitely worse for the mothers & children who would be most affected……So instead of celebrating, I hope pro-lifers will reject Trump’s racism and partner with progressives to create a “culture of life” by addressing healthcare, income inequality, racial justice, criminal justice reform, family leave policies, etc. We can find comm ground here…

Her foundational lie: “I’ll totally oppose abortion once we achieve utopia and there is zero demand for it.”  Uh, sure, so why don’t we legalize murder, theft, etc. until all the societal factors causing those things are fixed?  Let’s just keep ignoring original sin!

…All your big plans for “millions of saved lives” mean nothing when you show no interest in the actual life of a mom of three, living in an abusive relationship & unable to pay the rent, who can’t miss another day of work and has just seen a positive on a pregnancy test.

Once again, pro-abort Evans tips her hand in grand fashion.  If you have a challenging life, the solution is to kill your child.  That’ll fix everything!  And of course we do show interest in those women with our own time and money – though we aren’t obligated to just because we oppose child-killing.

Also, it’s great when crisis pregnancy centers give out free diapers, but please don’t cite this as holistic care for mother & child when it’s the systemic stuff that makes the difference. CPCs can’t address rising rent, unaffordable healthcare, poor family leave policies, etc.

That is one of her greatest slanders.  Pregnancy centers do much more than just give out diapers — though that is more than Evans does!  Remember that Evans is forever “giving” your money away like a good little “Christian” Left Marxist.  And centers always share the Gospel with anyone interested, which Evans doesn’t care about.

And there is no obligation for pregnancy centers to fix every problem in society.  Follow her reasoning: If pregnancy centers don’t completely fix all of your problems, they don’t have value and you need to be able to kill your child for any reason up to her first breath and without anesthetic.  That’s what Evans votes for and fights for.

But most centers are funded by donors (the center where I volunteered for 12 years and was on the board for 6 years refused government assistance, and for good reasons) and mostly staffed by volunteers.  Why don’t faux-lifers like Evans start their own pregnancy centers to do all the things they criticize the real centers for?  I know why.  (I admit that she couldn’t have volunteered at Care Net, because you must be an authentic pro-life Christian to do that).

—–

Mrs. Evans boo-hoo’d after deleting her Tweets and expressed her shock that anyone would say that she supports eugenics or racism.  But the Left – including the “Christian” Left – advocates for abortion for many reasons, and one of their core arguments is the “better dead than poor” motif. Their brand of eugenics is slightly softer than Margaret Sanger’s (founder of Planned Parenthood – look her up), but it is just as deadly for the children who get killed.

Being poor wouldn’t justify killing toddlers, so it also doesn’t justify killing children who haven’t had their first breath. And the pro-aborts know that abortion disproportionately kills minorities, so their actions are racist.  To make things worse, most poor today live better than royalty did 200 years ago.  The pro-aborts’ worldview implies that 90% of the world would be better off dead.  But just listen to them tell you how Christian and kind they are.

—–

So once again the faux-lifers out themselves with their own rhetoric.  The number one priority for the Left — including the “Christian” Left —  is ensuring that we continue to slaughter thousands of children per day up to their first breath and without anesthetic – and in their own words and proposals, the more minorities, the better.  And they want more abortions with taxpayer funding.

And they insist that their “Jesus” approves of it.