The beauty - and humanity - that ultrasounds show us

8 scary statements said by abortion activists

Abortion SlaveEvery so often – if we’re listening – we can catch glimpses of what abortion activists really think.

Have you ever wondered what Planned Parenthood’s real agenda is? Have you ever considered the real goals behind abortion? Have you ever thought about what abortion really is, according to the people who do it every today?

Wonder no longer. Instead, consider – really ponder – these eight scary statements said by abortion activists. The people who said these things aren’t random humans pulled from an aisle in a grocery store; they’re people who are deeply involved with abortion. They know the truth; they know the facts; they know how tragic and cruel abortion is to real, living human beings.

So listen up.

1) “I don’t know that [when life begins] is really relevant to the, relevant to the conversation.” ~ Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood

Worthy of protection
Worthy of protection

How can it not be relevant? Whether abortion is right or wrong is entirely wrapped up in when life begins. The entire reason pro-lifers work to end abortion is because it cruelly – and often painfully – kills an innocent human being whose life has begun. If that weren’t the case, there would be no such thing as “pro-lifers.” Planned Parenthood attempts to evade the central question because they know the scientifically accurate answer (life begins at fertilization) makes abortion wrong, inhuman, and unthinkable.

2) “I’m pro-choice because I understand that a zygote is not a baby.” ~ retweeted by NARAL

Just like an adolescent isn’t a child and a senior citizen isn’t an adult, right? The stage of development a human being is in should never affect her status as a human being. At every developmental stage, our humanity is intact and should be fully respected.

3) “[A]bortion…is an essential measure to prevent the heartbreak of infant mortality…” ~ Terry O’Neill, President of NOW

Next, are we going to argue that school shootings are an essential measure to prevent the heartbreak of teen drunk driving? Seriously, O’Neill’s argument makes the same amount of sense as that outrageously wrong argument. Shooting a high school student to prevent his future death is insane and heartless. And ripping a baby apart limb from limb to prevent her from dying after birth is equally insane.

D & E diagram, abortion4) “The toughest part of a D&E abortion is extracting the baby’s head. The head of a baby that age is about the size of a plum and is now free-floating inside the uterine cavity. You can be pretty sure you have hold of it if the Sopher clamp is spread about as far as your fingers will allow. You will know you have it right when you crush down on the clamp and see a pure white gelatinous material issue from the cervix. That was the baby’s brains. You can then extract the skull pieces. If you have a really bad day like I often did, a little face may come out and stare back at you.” ~ Dr. Anthony Levatino, M.D. (performed abortions for eight years)

5)Growing up, Mom always told me, ‘The answer to life is yes.'” ~ Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood

This statement isn’t scary at all; actually, it’s completely awesome. The scary thing is that, despite this statement, Cecile Richards works for the exact opposite. Abortion is a resounding, horrific “no” to life – “no” that can never be taken back.

6) “In the state of Colorado [people] acquire those [basic] legal rights when they are living and breathing and walking around like you and I are.” ~ Fofi Mendez

If walking around is a requirement for basic legal rights – like the right to life – a whole lot of us are in trouble. This standard excludes paraplegics, quadriplegics, many veterans, victims of car wrecks, and plenty of our senior citizens. Oh yeah, infants, too.

7) “I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don’t know that abortion is killing.” ~ Faye Wattleton, longtime President of Planned Parenthood

8) “That’s what religious liberty is about. It’s about you getting to choose what would be right for you in that circumstance, but I don’t get to tell you what to do and you don’t get to tell me what to do.” ~ Ilyse Hogue, President of NARAL

Well, apply that standard to anything other than abortion, and we’d have a complete mess on our hands. Not to mention an entirely inhumane, uncivilized, and incredibly violent society. Reread Hogue’s statement, but this time, instead of thinking about abortion, think about rape. Robbery. Child molestation. Torture. Murder.

Pretty scary, huh?

  • Basset_Hound

    Incoming troll tirades in 3-2-1….

    • JDC

      Two hours and nothing…so far.

      • Basset_Hound

        Thank God. Every time in start to think they can’t get more obnoxious and vile a new one pops up to prove me wrong. Maybe we’ll have a real quiet discussion on this thread after all.

        • JDC

          Well, now you just might be jinxing it.

  • PJ4

    “We – in the states – have dealt heavily, up to now, in euphemism. I think one of the reasons why the “good guys” – the people in favor of abortion rights – lost a lot of ground is that we have been unwilling to talk to women about what it means to abort a baby. We don’t ever talk about babies, we don’t ever talk about what is being decided in abortion. We never talk about responsibility. The word “choice” is the biggest euphemism. Some use the phrases “products of conception” and “contents of the uterus,” or exchange the word “pregnancy” for the word “fetus.” I think this is a mistake tactically and strategically, and I think it’s wrong… It is morally and ethically wrong to do abortions without acknowledging what it means to do them. I performed abortions, I have had an abortion and I am in favor of women having abortions when we choose to do so. But we should never disregard the fact that being pregnant means there is a baby growing inside of a woman, a baby whose life is ended. We ought not to pretend this is not happening.”–Dr. Judith Arcana

    • Lilian Stoltzfus

      Candidness. Nice.

  • Rebekah

    I think everyone in America needs to read number four before they talk about the unborn not being people. It made me sick to my stomach to think that there are people who do that every day and don’t care.

    • Mistique

      This is the devastating effet of the teaching of Evolution theory. It plucks people’s common sense out of their heads. They are taught to believe that a “blob of tissues” can evolve into a baby.

      • MamaBear

        Not so much that. If we truly covered prenatal human development in biology classes, that would undo that myth of the “blob of tissues.”
        However, when evolution is taught in a way that man is seen as merely another animal, it devalues human life.

        • Mistique

          Inside the womb it is a BABY, a living human being and an individual different from the mother. No one can be turned from something that’s not human into a human. Mother is an honorable title, yet not acceptable to pro-choicers. They don’t like it, so they deny it. They just refuse to believe that a pregnant woman is a mother carrying a baby.

        • Sara

          I’m an agnostic, yet I see that humans are different from animals in some way, it’s hard to explain exactly what. But we have sort of moved on from the pure evolutionary stuff in,a way. And our capability to think seems much more advanced and different from any other animal. Despite our similarities our consciousness and thinking seems to be different and unique. And our compassion, even though many pets etc. Seems to have it to some degree it isn’t the same. Our spectrum of feelings seem different.

          And the funny thing about humans being reduced to just another animal is that no one is given as much shit for standing up for animal life as human life. So actual animals are still cared for more than the unborn…

          • MamaBear

            My son (who reads ANYTHING – he asked one year for Calvin’s Institutes of Christian Religion) loaned me a book by an atheist, don’t remember the name of the book or author, but he was refuting Darwin, insofar as it applied to modern humans.
            He had several distinctions unique to humans. But one of the big ones was that unlike animals, who depending on species, will sacrifice their lives for the survival of their family or group; humans can and do extend that to strangers, and to metaphysical causes such as religious beliefs and loyalty to country.
            Darwin has no explanation for people hiding Jews from Nazis, for Christians facing Roman lions, or for those leave their families defenseless to fight for their country, nor for the doctor or nurse who voluntarily sacrifices time caring for their own family to bring a stranger’s baby safely into the world or stay with a dying patient, long after their shift was over.
            He came close to, but not quite all the way, to the idea that we humans have souls. He seemed to think there was something, besides mere intellect, that made us distinct from animals.

          • Sara

            That is something similar as to what I was thinking, the whole compassion thing. That we have it to a different degree. Didn’t manage to put it in quite so nice words, bur what I was thinking was something up that alley

          • Cauchy

            Indeed, our sense of moral duties distinguishes us from the animals. No animal has any sense of duty or responsibility.

          • MamaBear

            They can on a smaller scale than humans. Wild animals may give their lives for their pack or their young, a pet for it’s master, showing a certain sense of duty. But, that duty is very limited in scope.

          • Cauchy

            Well, let’s be careful of anthropomorphizing the animals. It appears that they are showing a sense of duty but to the animal it could be another thing.

          • Cauchy

            One of the ways that distinguishes us from the animals is the mind. No animal can do reasoning processes, or think about questions of existence, metaphysics, epistemology, aesthetics, etc. Animals don’t have any sense of morality just look at lions they commit incest or bonobos that use sex as a way to loose tension. The same thing can be said with predators hunting their prey and ripping them apart, while the prey are alive.
            Animals don’t have language even though they do have some form to communicate. Indeed, words are unique.
            The list is endless when it comes to differences between us and the animals.

          • katielyn0916

            I would like to add that humans are by definition animals. We are and have always been part of the animal kingdom. This is a fact that can’t be refuted.

          • Oliver Rabie

            Why would you want to add this. No one said we weren’t animals. Just that we are very distinguished. It’s like if this discussion was about apple’s and someone argued that apple’s are amoung the more healthy fruits and you said you’d just like to add that its a fact that apple’s are a fruit. Plus, the animal kingdom is a system of animal catagories that humans made. It’s only a fact that a human is an animal to a person who believes that the animal kingdom is all fact.

          • katielyn0916

            I was adding it because some people in this world seem to forget or don’t want to acknowledge that we are animals and that no matter how civilized we become we are animals to the core. A lot of time when I talk with someone that is a creationist or someone that has not been taught that fact they continue to say “we are not animals, we can’t be animals because…” and they give reasons which give contradict what they just said. I wasn’t disagreeing with anyone here and I truly understand that the people in this argument were saying that we are more distinguished animals. But you can’t account for the people that are just reading the comments and might not understand what we are saying. There are people out their that don’t understand or don’t want to believe that humans are animals. I was adding it as a clarification for those that don’t understand that.

          • Sara

            No one said we weren’t, but there are also a few things that distinguish us from other animals

        • katielyn0916

          Excuse me I am a believer in God and Evolution; its called Evolution with Intelligent Design! First, it seems to me that you don’t truly understand evolution and evolutionary theory. It is possible to have both in fact I wrote a paper on how it is possible to have both; creationism and evolutionary theory. Evolution and the way it is taught is not taught they way you seem to think it is taught. In fact evolution by definition simply means “to change”, we as humans evolve from the time we are conceived to the time we die. You can’t refute evolution and evolutionary theory. Is is perfect, no, but that is why it is called a theory and not evolutionary law. Also, evolution does have evidence to back it up, we can see this in fossils, skeletons, etc.. In the other hand science has come out to say that not all aspects of the world can be explained and that is when the concept of Intelligent Design comes in. Essentially intelligent design says that with everything there is a creator (I personally believe that creator is God, some believe otherwise). Second, there is no need to turn this into a religious vs. atheist debate. When you start to divide the people of the pro-life movement into religious, atheist, secular, homosexual, heterosexual, etc. you stop focusing on the point of the pro-life movement. Lincoln was right when he said “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” When you start debating against other pro-lifers because they might not agree with your religious views or your morals or your values then the pro-life movement will fail. The point is to end abortion and focus on the sanctity of life. Third, I will openly admit that there are very few things in this world that I believe solely on the bases of faith and those things that I believe solely by faith alone are my religious beliefs (this does not include where I stand on abortion). I personally am pro-life but I came to that conclusion with a combination of irrefutable facts that are not founded in my religious views but rather founded by science. I was taught biology and evolution and it is actually through those teachings that I came to an understanding that abortion was wrong. I did not come to this conclusion solely on my religious beliefs. As I am not atheist, agnostic, or secular I can only assume that those same people use the same scientific facts that I use to back up their “pro-life” views. For example, that fact that science has come in to say time and time again that a unique human being life begins at conception. In conclusion you don’t need to be religious and you don’t need to believe in creationism to be pro-life. For me being pro-life is the most logical choice. You can be religious, atheist, agnostic, heterosexual, homosexual, democrat, republican, independent, socialist, capitalist, famous, or unknown, and be pro-life.

          • MamaBear

            I was speaking of when evolution is taught in a way as to present humans as just

          • katielyn0916

            I don’t know where you were taught evolution but where I was taught evolution that is not what I was taught I was taught about the concept of a soul through a discussion that our teacher opened between the students and it was the soul that made is smarter animals. The people that are teaching evolution the way you are talking doesn’t truly understand evolution. Evolution doesn’t even touch on whether or not we have a soul; it is up to the teacher to open that conversation between students and nothing in the standards of education say you can’t open a conversation between students about why we are smarter animals. Essentially our teacher started the conversation with the question; “why do you believe we are different from animals, beyond the physical and mental explanation?” Again I can’t speak for the school system in which you live, but, I can speak for the school system I live in.
            I believed that I understood your comment, but, I could always be wrong. But, based on what I understood your comment to mean is that those that are taught evolution without intelligent design are only going to see humans as “blobs of tissue” or just as “smarter animals” and I wanted to point out that I was taught evolution and that is not what I was taught at all because that is not what science tells us. So yes, as someone that believes in evolution I was offended by your comment, at least the way your comment came off as. And again as someone that is pro-life based on science and not based on my religious beliefs I was trying to answer your question as to how an atheist can be pro-life and how an atheist can see the uniqueness of us as humans. They can see that simply based on science.

          • MamaBear

            Your school system is either an exception r it has been awhile since you were in the public schools.

      • Cauchy

        Actually, Evolutionary Theory does not teach that babies are “blobs of tissue.” Rather that’s a naturalist reductionist worldview. What’s interesting is that some pro-choicers apply that worldview to babies but not themselves or every human. Why apply it to babies? Aren’t we all “blobs of tissues”? Just bigger ones?

  • Ingrid Heimark

    This comment By NARAL that they are pro-choice because the Zygote is not a Baby was interesting. No abortion kills a Zygote, the human life at the stage of abortion is far more developed than a Zygote, not that that mean the Zygote is not a very small child.