care net-300x190

Crisis Pregnancy Centers and pro-choice hypocrisy

According to pro-choicers, informed consent laws and ultrasound requirements are an insult women’s intelligence. Women who have abortions know exactly what they’re doing, thoroughly understand what the procedure entails, and don’t need any lessons on fetal development, thank you very much. We must always “trust women,” because they know exactly what they’re doing.

But when it comes to Crisis Pregnancy Centers, abortion backers say these poor little pregnant women get confused. They aren’t shrewd enough to figure out whether or not they’re in an abortion clinic – so the government has to spell it out for them.

“It’s not enough to tell a woman who enters a crisis pregnancy clinic in Baltimore City that she will not be able to have an abortion there,” writes Baltimore Sun columnist Marta H. Mossburg. “A center must post a sign to share the information — or at least that is what City Council members voted for in 2009. The law is on hold pending yet another court decision.”

Pro-choicers have been hysterical about Crisis Pregnancy Centers for a long time. (Which makes me wonder – have they ever been inside a CPC? Because I have, and not because I confused it with an abortion clinic.) While short on specifics, they throw out accusations that these “fake clinics” are “deceptive” and “a threat” to “women’s health.”

There are anecdotal accusations online from abortion supporters claiming that CPCs that have lied about the results of pregnancy tests or verbally abused patients. If this happened at any of the 2,000+ CPCs in America, then of course the center involved should be exposed and shut down if warranted. But in general, pro-choicers act like it’s some sort of crime to help women keep their babies.

Back in 2006, the National Abortion Federation issued a major report called “Crisis Pregnancy Centers: An Affront to Choice.” If you understand “choice” as a stand-in for “abortion,” the title tells you exactly what their problem with CPCs is. But they proceeded to press pro-choicers’ main argument: the poor women get confused.

The women are confused when CPCs hire medical professionals:

Although CPCs historically have not employed medical staff, there is an emerging trend on the part of CPCs to gain validity by hiring part-time anti-choice medical providers and purchasing ultrasound equipment.

Emphasis mine. (As someone who spent part of my pregnancy uninsured, I struggle to see something wrong with free medical care. At least the NAF is on record opposing free services for pregnant women.)

The women are confused when CPCs advertise using words an abortion clinic might use:

Women faced with an unplanned pregnancy were most likely to look in the Yellow Pages under the words ‘Pregnancy,’ ‘Medical,’ ‘Women’s Centers’ and ‘Clinics.’ Accordingly, CPCs often are advertised under these categories, as well as “Abortion Alternatives,” and ‘Women’s Organizations.’ CPCs also advertise through posters, signs, and billboards that contain messages like, ‘Free Pregnancy Test,’ or ‘Pregnant? Scared? We Can Help! Call 1-800 #.’

In other words, women can’t figure out that an organization advertising “abortion alternatives” helps you explore abortion alternatives.

Then there’s my favorite complaint: women get “confused” when CPCs “look like” abortion clinics:

CPCs’ deceptive tactics extend to their physical appearance as well. CPCs often design their facilities to look like actual health care facilities with a waiting room, a partitioned check-in desk, and an ultrasound machine. They typically locate themselves near clinics that offer abortions in a deliberate attempt to increase their legitimacy and lure potential patients away from receiving abortion care by capitalizing on patients’ confusion.

You can’t simultaneously oppose all “informed consent” laws on the grounds that women know exactly what they’re doing when they have an abortion – and then argue that they get disoriented when a CPC and an abortion clinic are located on the same block.

However, I suspect that the NAF’s real problem is not that CPCs have check-in desks and waiting rooms, but that they exist at all. While claiming to support “choice,” you get the distinct impression that they think there’s something sleazy about supporting women in the “choice” to continue a crisis pregnancy. That’s why they can’t admit the truth: most women enter CPCs willingly, looking for help, and they’re not confused about where they are.

For some, you can only be “pro-woman” if you encourage abortion.

  • Mary Lee

    “Choice” is a euphemism for abortion–they are not pro-“choice”…they are PRO-ABORTION. Their vitriol towards PRCs (Pregnancy Resource Centers) is ludicrous and hypocritical. Abortion is their sacrament.

    • Alex Hunter

      To be pro-choice is to leave the decision in the hands of the one who has to get their hands dirty, rather than making blanket claims and applying them to total strangers on the assumption that they all have the exact same reasons.

      • Mary Lee

        How much sense does your reply make? None. It makes NO sense. You’re just proving my point.

        As for “hands dirty”….do you mean with the blood of babies?

        And do you really know anything about PRCs? You don’t. They don’t just hand out blankets. Good grief almighty.

        • Alex Hunter

          First off, by “hands dirty” I mean making the hard decision.

          “You don’t know anything about them.” Do you really want to be using that statement over such a divisive topic?
          Finally, public hospitals have to endure all sorts of cutbacks because too many people rely on them for both childbirth, health failure and accidents. Adding more people to the population just means resources will be stretched further.

        • princessjasmine45

          Mary Lee, I”m not sure we’re dealing with a mature adult here…Alex seems to be continually contradicting himself (or herself) and seems to lack the ability to use reason and logic.

          Sounds more like someone who is perhaps a teen or pre-teen:
          in which case… it’s really quite unfair of us to keep debating him (or her) as he (or she) doesn’t have a real fighting chance.

          I’m not trying to be mean, just making an observation….if you’ve read most of his postings there’s a clear lack of structure and complete thought; Alex is simply repeating a plethora of anti-life propaganda.
          There’s no real thinking involved.

  • Andrew Orlovsky

    This is defintely an issue of spiritual warfare. The enemy wants us to believe that no only that evil of abortion is good but also that good of crisis pregnancy resource centers is evil. It would have seemed ludicrous even 10 years ago for anyone to have a problem with them. Remember all the “personally pro-life” politicans. But times are apparently changing. We must pray for these CPC and those who work there.

  • princessjasmine45

    “You can’t simultaneously oppose all “informed consent” laws on the
    grounds that women know exactly what they’re doing when they have an
    abortion—and then argue that they get disoriented when a CPC and an
    abortion clinic are located on the same block.”

    Oh yes they can! They can also argue that the life of child is based on “feeling of the mother” and not science.

    But then, logic and reason has never been a Liberal strong point.

  • Alex Hunter

    The reason the pro-choice crowd considers the pro-life stance to be hypocritical is that the people who advocate it fail at – to put it bluntly – putting their money where their mouths are.
    How many pro-life people oppose hunting, war and the distribution of firearms? How many pro-life people adopt children or offer financial support for single mothers well into their children’s adult years? How many pro-life people give up eating meat in order to distance themselves from death?

    • princessjasmine45

      …”the people who advocate it fail at – to put it bluntly – putting their money where their mouths are.”
      How interesting…
      Exactly who are these people who “cannot -to put it bluntly-put their money where their mouths are?”
      Do you know them personally?
      Have you chatted with them online?
      Is it EVERY pro lifer that you’ve ever known?

      The reason that the pro-life crowd cannot take the “pro-choice” stance very seriously is because MOST of the people who advocate for the pro choice side are seeped in hypocrisy, false argument and crassness.

      As this article points out… when CPC are clearly trying to offer alternatives to abortion and support for these women, the Pro death camp pardon me, the “pro choice side” wants them shut down.

      How many of the pro choice/pro death camp are fine with killing a child in-utero but will not eat an animal?
      How many in the pro choice/pro death camp find killing a baby human perfectly normal but shudder at the thought of a baby whale dying?
      How many on the pro choice/pro death side are outraged by mass shootings but are ok with a child being ripped apart limb from limb and then vacuumed out from inside his/mother’s stomach?

      How many on the so called “pro choice” side are ok with banning smoking?
      How many on the so called “pro choice” side are ok with telling others what they can and cannot eat or drink? (I.E Bloomberg banning Big Gulps and the First Lady dictating school lunches)
      How many in the “pro-choice/pro death camp” support the slaughter of an innocent child but will protest the death penalty of a proven mass murderer?

      (personally I’m against the death penalty as well)

      How many pro lifers oppose war for unjust reasons? Most of us do.
      How many of us think that an inanimate object can kill someone? Not many of us.
      How many of us adopt? VERY many of us (including my husband and me).
      How many of us offer (and want to offer) more than just financial support to single mothers? Many of us.
      We give to charities,(forced charity thru taxation is no charity at all) we voluntarily feed the homeless, and we support unwed mothers.

      Perhaps there is hypocrisy/inconsistencies on both sides that need to addressed?

      One question, though? Why would we need to support people into their adulthood? Should not adults be able to support themselves?

      • Alex Hunter

        You’ve clearly thought long and hard about this and able able to back up your beliefs. Allow me to explain away the “inconsistencies”:
        -Some farmers neglect their livestock and leave them to suffer until they get paid to slaughter them.
        -Whales are being hunted to extinction and no-one knows how to breed more of them. Keeping the human race from going extinct is easy.
        -The death penalty is presented as a punishment and but in reality is just extermination. Its the denial, not the actual deed, that I find hypocritical
        -Mass shootings are an imposition on a fully sentient being that can feel fear and pain and have loved ones who want them to live.
        -Public smoking and distribution of unhealthy food over healthy food can affect asthmatics and diabetics.
        -Even adults struggle on their own. I’m in my 20s and have to live off my parents because the unemployment rates keep going up.

        • princessjasmine45

          clearly… as have you.

          “some farmers neglect their livestock, and leave them to suffer” that is the reason you would chose to not eat meat?

          -Some abortion doctors deliver the child alive and let them suffer until they die a long drawn out painful death. There have been about 490 babies left to die in Canada alone. There have been several hundred more here…..
          To date, Planned Parenthood cannot answer the question of what should happen to a child that survives a botched abortion. So many of them survive…
          Now would you consider being pro life?

          -What is the life of a whale compared to the life of a human child? A child who can feel pain, who will become sentient and have loved ones who would want them? Someone who could possibly contribute greatly to society? Someone who could have changed the world for the better?

          Since Roe V Wade 53 million children have died. That is more than than the ENTIRE population of Spain. Sounds like extinction to me. Some babies are murdered because they are the wrong sex. Some just because of a potential birth defect.

          -I’m against the death penalty… so that’s a moot point.

          -Mass shootings, I agree with you are horrible…

          unborn babies also feel pain

          new born babies are not sentient either… Indeed some of the people on the pro death side justify their murder up to age 4. (See Peter Singer, albeit it may be age 7, not 4; but he wants to save the animals!)

          -not everyone has asthma or diabetes; even still, should it not be left up to individual to choose? If pro choicers are so into choice, why can not allow others to choose these particular things?

          I have sever asthma btw, as does most of my family..

          -So, let me get this straight: because you cannot support yourself, as an adult, you expect others do to so?

          I don’t mind supporting a child, even one who does not belong to me, as they are not fully developed and cannot care for themselves… but adults? We can fend for ourselves..

          I lived at home with my parents well into my 20’s until I married, but I supported my parents.. not the other way around…

          • Alex Hunter

            -The treatment of livestock is a major point of discussion as many believe the patronising of farmers who care for their livestock keeps western countries from turning into the next China or Afghanistan.

            -If a whale dies, the entire species is that much closer to extinction. We have billions of humans today and our development has actually slowed down in recent years. Also, the people who are living now have that potential you speak of but are largely ignored because no-one takes risks anymore.

            -In the past 1000 years, billions of humans have died from war, famine and pestilence. If two world wars and the Black Death couldn’t wipe us out, abortion won’t either.

            -“unborn babies also feel pain”
            “new born babies are not sentient either”
            You’re contradicting yourself here. Both sentience and the ability to feel pain are dependant on memory and awareness. A new born baby is in a grey area as some babies develop sentience earlier than others, but an unborn baby spends up to 9 months in its mother’s womb and doesn’t remember a second of it.
            -Anybody can be asthmatic or diabetic. Rather than asking every single person on a smoke break if they’re affected by smoking, why not find a secluded area? Instead of taxing unhealthy food and keeping healthy food expensive, why not distribute healthy food more widely?
            – I’ve tried paying back my parents, but they’re too proud to accept help from the younger generation.

          • princessjasmine45

            Likewise, the treatment of children born alive (after an attempted abortion) is a major point of discussion as many believe it is murder to just leave them to die…which would makes us no better than China and their forced one child policy.

            That you surmise abortion will not wipe us out, doesn’t make the practice any less abhorrent.

            Of course striving to conserve wildlife in danger of extinction is good. Pro lifers would not object to it.
            Are you, however, under the impression that cows are facing extinction? Chickens, maybe? Pigs? Tilapia?

            “our development has actually slowed down in recent years”
            proof?

            “No-one takes risks anymore”
            No-one? Really?
            That’s a pretty absolute stance.

            You must know some very boring people to know for a fact that “no one takes risks anymore”

            Lots of people take risks everyday.
            Falling in love is a risk.
            Leaving an secure job to start your own business is a risk
            Leaving your parents house for the time is a risk
            Heck… driving a car can be a risk…

            -The ability to feel pain is based on the development of the nervous system.
            At 20-24 weeks in utero our nervous system is complete.
            There is much evidence to support that we feel pain as early as 20-24 weeks in utero.
            http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com/
            Newborns are not much more aware of their surroundings than a 24 week old child in utero. We start to see light and to hear our mother’s (and father’s) voice in the first half of the 2nd trimester.

            Anecdote time: (sorry)

            When I was pregnant with my 2nd child I had a 4d ultra sound at around 24-25 weeks.

            He was smiling in the picture (and sucking his thumb).
            It’s the same smile he has to this day.
            He’s 8 now.
            He also used to hiccup a lot before he was born…
            He still does that too. heh!

            my youngest started moving around week 17 weeks in the womb…she hasn’t stopped moving since.
            Same with my oldest.
            We used to be able to see the imprint of his foot and hand on my belly.
            Was I ready for him? for any of them? not in any way shape or form.
            I too was single mother.
            We were in fear with my youngest because the amnio came back with a very high risk factor that she would be born with down syndrome.
            But killing my offspring? How can anyone decide who gets to live and who gets to die?
            (The doctors were wrong about my youngest, she’s not only got the right number of chromosomes but she’s as gifted as her brothers)

            We’re adopting too.
            I’m trying to talk my husband into becoming foster parents since we can now afford it.

            -why take away the smoker’s “choice” to smoke in public at all? would not specific designated areas be better than the blanket bans they have in some cities.

            -distributing healthy food is a great idea… but banning what you feel is unhealthy? Where is your precious choice in that?

            Best way to pay your parents back is to move out and get a place of your own. :-)
            I thought the economy was supposed to be getting better?

        • Dani

          Pro life vegetarian/flexible vegan right here! I donate to causes that help support mothers and children in need. The death penalty comparison is not a valid argument. Comparing the the brutal killing of an innocent child in what should be the safest place in the world for said child is not the same as humanely injecting a convicted murderer with poison. Convicted murderers are given more dignity in death than unborn children.

          • princessjasmine45

            love it!

          • DianaG2

            I agree, but I also oppose the death penalty — for anyone, but especially unborn little gals and guys.

          • Timmehh

            Unfortunately Dani, the death penalty has killed people who we know now were most likely innocent.

    • Andrew Orlovsky

      I’m pro-life and I’m in the process of adopting a child now. My wife and I also support a crisis pregnancy center, which provides finacial supprt for single mothers much more effeicently that the government. And there are many others like us. Finally, to compare killing an animal for food to killing an unborn child for convienence is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard.

      • searcher0

        do not forget the war comment, like killing an enemy combatant is the same thing as killing an unborn baby. these people have no shame and refuse to put their money where their mouths are.

        • Timmehh

          Unfortunately, in war often the civilians are the ones who perish the most.

      • DianaG2

        Wow, thanks so much for the great pro-life work you guys do!!

        And, — I agree.

      • Alex Hunter

        Killing for food is a convenience. Anyone could get their iron and protein from other foods or failing that, supplements. Meat just happens to taste better and be more filling.

        • Rebekah

          This is a red herring. The pro-life cause does not claim to be universally against eating meat. What the pro-life cause does aim to do is stop the rampant killing of unborn children. Is eating meat convenient? Yes. Does that have any bearing on the discussion of whether or not people are pro-life? No.

          • Mehnow

            We are talking about HUMAN LIFE, not animals for food. These red herrings are tiring.

            I do not love the death penalty, but even there you are typically talking about a murderer being executed, not a baby innocent…

          • Rebekah

            Exactly. The issue is not whether or not people should be vegetarian. The issue is whether or not it is morally justifiable to brutally murder an unborn child.

          • Alex Hunter

            So why not call yourselves “Pro-Human Life” instead?

    • DianaG2

      I get so tired of this argument. I’ve only heard it 50 million times.

      I was a vegetarian for many years, and I was a vegan for many (more) years. (You do know human beings are a different SPECIES, right?)

      My kids grew up in the projects, and we were very poor. Their dads left me. We lived on food stamps, WIC and welfare. Every time I got pregnant, social workers and hospital personnel kept reminding me, and actually coercing me, to have an abortion.

      Even though I’m homeless myself, I give $ to Food for the Poor, and to animal welfare groups. I also have pets of my own. Even though I’m homeless (and have been for two and a half years) my pets have a place to live.

      Why would I “oppose hunting”? Without hunting, many (more) would go hungry, and many food pantries would be empty. Also, there would not be proper stewardship of the resources in my state. Hunters are the most responsible stewards of our natural resources. Talk about cutting out the middle man!! And, hunters use the entire carcass. They don’t waste anything.

      Of course, I am opposed to UNJUST war. My dad’s generation fought Hitler in WWII, so how could I be opposed to a just war?

      I’m not sure what you mean by “distribution of firearms”?

      But, even if I didn’t do any of these things, I’d still be opposed to murdering unborn babies. I’d still be an American citizen, and I’d still have the right to speak out against oppression. When big people kill tiny people, it’s oppression.

      • Alex Hunter

        You’re not right-wing, are you?

        • Mehnow

          Being right wing is immaterial, in theory at least, to this debate.

          Why do you keep inserting non-sequitur in this?

          • Alex Hunter

            See my reply to musiciangirl591. I considered copying and pasting for you, but that would’ve looked like spamming to everyone else.

        • musiciangirl591

          why does that matter, honey?

          • Alex Hunter

            To be right-wing you’ve got to support a small government. A small government means lower taxes, which means less money for welfare.

            To be able to keep having children while under financial strain the way DianaG2 described would most definitely require keeping the left-leaning parties in government. If those smug money-grubbers stay in power for long enough, then the political right will eventually lose members and become obsolete. Once that happens, you’ve got oppression in its truest form.

          • musiciangirl591

            i’m right wing, which means in everyone’s opinion i’m heartless, even though i’m a 20 year old female college student who comes from a lower middle class family, i’m also a catholic, pro-life :P

          • princessjasmine45

            BULLSHIT
            look at Greece.
            that’ll tell you how great “big government” is
            heck.. just look to MI.. Lib policies of “big government” for more than 60 years has led to it’s downfall…
            Even Sweden is starting to turn things around…
            (admittedly, I have family and friends up there or I would not have know)
            Your logic is so flawed and so void of any truth..
            I cannot believe I’m even wasting my time answering…

    • princessjasmine45

      Here you go Alex

      http://www.pregnancy-gps.org

      I have a sneaking suspicion that you’ve never volunteered at a PCP… We evil hypocritical pro lifers volunteer our time and money here (as well as several other places).

      This is the PCP where I volunteer.
      All of us here are pro life, pro woman and pro baby.
      We give to the poor and support single mothers in every way we can.

      See! no hypocrisy…. just evil lies perpetuated and projected by the pro death camp to make themselves feel better about what they know to be murder.

      I actually read an article written by some crazy pro death camp chick that said “abortion ends a life…yes… so f*&^ing what?”

      Almost enough to make one lose hope in humanity.

      ALMOST.

      • Alex Hunter

        Humanity as a whole is pro-death.
        Every religious figure who was made a saint had to be dead first.
        Jesus was most fondly remembered for dying one of the most horrific deaths imaginable.
        Drug-addicted celebrities are hailed as tortured geniuses once they’ve overdosed.
        Vincent Van Gogh was considered a no-talent while he was alive.
        The doctors who killed their patients get more coverage than those who save lives.
        Prosperous countries have the highest suicide rates.
        Schools are more likely to become famous for allowing a gun-nut onto the grounds than for producing gifted students.
        Australia and America were colonised at the expense of the natives.
        Think about it.

        • princessjasmine45

          Again, you make sweeping blanket (and mostly erroneous) statements with no evidence to back it up…

          Your really need to do your research before answering back Alex, it’s getting very difficult for me to take you seriously.

          Just for starters, Norway is one the most successful country in the world and doesn’t even make the top 30 on the list of countries for the top suicide rate.

          most successful countries in the world:
          1 – Norway
          2 – Denmark
          3 – Sweden
          4 – Australia
          5 – New Zealand
          6 – Canada
          7 – Finland
          8 – Netherlands
          9 – Switzerland
          10 – Ireland

          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2227334/Scandinavian-countries-list-worlds-prosperous-nations–U-S-drops-time.html

          Country with the highest suicide rate:

          1 Greenland
          2 South Korea
          3 Lithuania
          4 Guyana
          5 Kazakhstan
          6 Belarus
          7 China
          8 Slovenia
          9 Hungary
          10 Japan

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

          It seems evident that people like you keep us from advancing into a more enlightened culture where death is no longer glorified. Way to evolve.

          • Alex Hunter

            China and Japan are actually doing pretty well. You haven’t even mentioned any African nations (though that’s probably because most people get killed before they can kill themselves).
            You also haven’t addressed any of my other “pro-death” examples.

          • princessjasmine45

            You’re losing focus here Alex.

            There is a reason I did not mention China, Japan or any of the African countries
            I was addressing your inaccuracy: “Prosperous countries have the highest suicide rates.” So I gave you a list of the top 10 most prosperous countries in the world and then a list of the countries with the highest suicide rates in the world..

            None of the countries on the two different lists cross.

            I didn’t think that was too hard to pick up on…

            your other “pro death” examples aren’t really worthy of address… but…since you asked..

            “Every religious figure who was made a saint had to be dead first.”

            Almost every “saint” was celebrated while alive on earth first. Their “sainthood” is based on the premise that they are ALIVE with Christ in heaven and for the “miracles” that they have allegedly performed for the LIVING.

            “Jesus was most fondly remembered for dying one of the most horrific deaths imaginable.”

            Actually, Jesus is most fondly remembered for His exemplary life on earth, and His “Resurrection”

            “Drug-addicted celebrities are hailed as tortured geniuses once they’ve overdosed.”

            That they are celebrated geniuses has nothing to do with their death… only their accomplishments when they were alive.
            Celebrities who have not overdosed are also hailed for their genius.

            Vincent Van Gogh was considered a no-talent while he was alive.

            Don’t know too much about him…

            The doctors who killed their patients get more coverage than those who save lives.
            Actually, Gosnell got virtually NO coverage from the media..

            “Schools are more likely to become famous for allowing a gun-nut onto the grounds than for producing gifted students.”

            Some of the world’s most famous schools:
            Oxford, Harvard Yale, Cambridge et al… famous for a mass shootings or murder? Really? I’ve not heard… could you send me the links?

            “Australia and America were colonised at the expense of the natives.”

            Got me on that one.

            But with any luck, we can learn from our past, and embrace a much more enlightened and evolved future at the expense of no one’s innocent life.

          • Alex Hunter

            Okay, I guess you got me on that first point. But…

            “Almost every “saint” was celebrated while alive on earth first. ”

            Do a bit more research and you’ll see that most were considered fanatics even by their own churches. It was the following generations who were more open to new ideas that regarded them as saints.

            “Actually, Jesus is most fondly remembered for His exemplary life on earth, and His “Resurrection””

            So why is there no mention of him after his “Resurrection”?

            “Celebrities who have not overdosed are also hailed for their genius.”

            Those kinds of celebrity usually die of something else. The ones that are still alive get more criticism than the dead.

            “Actually, Gosnell got virtually NO coverage from the media.”

            Who says I was talking about Gosnell?

            “Some of the world’s most famous schools:
            Oxford, Harvard Yale, Cambridge et al.”
            Those are universities. To get into one you’ve already got to be something special and even then you can drop out if you don’t feel up to it. So for the students who stay on, there’s no place to go but up.
            In high school students are legally obligated to go to school. You could be the dux of the class and it will pale in comparison to the massacre that happened that same year.

          • princessjasmine45

            Dear Alex

            This is becoming tiring…
            Niether of us will convince the other..

            but…

            I’ve done extensive research on several religions (mostly while I was in their countries of origin) including pre and post Vatican II Catholicism.

            Very few of what are called saints now were ever though of as “fanatics” .

            They lived (according to the Church) exemplary lives or they would not have become saints. Perhaps you need to do more research in that area… or at the very least give one example…

            As for “no mention of Him after His “Resurrection”

            I’m going to give you a pass on that and allow you to “do a bit more research”

            You can start with the Acts of the Apostles in the Bible.

            Hope it doesn’t confuse you too much.

            I then, suggest you read the Qu’ran

            Start with —Quran, sura 19 Maryam, ayat 30-33 and go from there..

            Admittedly, it’s a heck of a lot easier to read the Qu’ran in Arabic much in the way reading the Bible was a lot easier in Greek and Latin.
            I DO NOT recommend reading the Book of Mormon.. it’s a bit boring..
            I DO recommend going to see the Broadway show… substandard music BUT hysterical!

            Dead celebrities, even those who overdosed are not free from criticism… They are good examples of how not to live one’s life.

            Your last point may have some merit.. but it doesn’t mean we celebrate the deaths that occurred. Those wasted lives are remembered and still loved.

            There are some famous high schools known for their academic prowess such the one my daughter will be attending and the school my boys attend.
            Just do a bit of research.

          • Jenn

            To counter another “pro-death” argument or two:

            – Jesus was most fondly remembered for dying one of the most horrific deaths imaginable.

            No. He is not fondly remembered for the type of death at all – he is remembered because he paid the price for our sins – we just have to choose to except that gift. How he died was important only because it was so unique and prophesied for years and years (many decades even) before it happened, and therefore a man to fit all the prophecies dying in such a unique manner (so that it was clear that he was fulfilling the prophecies) was important – but the manner of death is not what makes him special. The reason WHY he died is what makes him special.

            – Drug-addicted celebrities are hailed as tortured geniuses once they’ve overdosed.

            Usually the only people who actually believe this are the people who are trying to identify with the person in some way, or wants sympathy/attention, as in “I am suffering/so devastated/depressed because my hero/someone I loved is gone and he was such a genius and now he/she’s gone!” Ask almost anyone who is not all up in celebrities lives as if celebrities are the end-all, be-all – and they will not agree that the person was a tortured genius. Yes, there have been a few people in history that eventually become labeled “tortured geniuses” but the real geniuses were not labeled as such right away (took years and decades for people to realized their brilliance) and it wasn’t the fact that they died that made them the genius part of the label.
            So to say that we are pro-death because non-believing “lost” people worship people who kill themselves (or are killed) is a bit over the top. People who don’t know what to live for often invest themselves in drama in order to avoid the question that, if there is no God, why care about anything? Why try to be “good”? What is the point of life? Am I “good enough” to at least avoid a potential bad afterlife (because SOMETHING, whether “heaven” or not must happen)? Who decides the scale? I mean Tedd Bundy killed a few people (negative points) but everyone he knew was shocked because he was so nice and did so much “good” volunteer work (so did his good work points outweigh his bad work ones? Who gets to decide? etc.).

            Yes, Japan and China are doing well. They have high suicide rates, NOT because they value or are pro-death – that is ridiculous – but because of high pressure to succeed – most of the suicides are pre-teens, teens, and young adults, who fear not being able to cut the standard. I mean, a lot of us go through this anxiety, but we don’t say, “my culture/family will love me more if I die because we are “pro-death.” No. In some cultures, “honor” and success are so hand-in-hand that not being successful seems worse than death. Of course, when a person commits suicide in those places, the entire family is shunned and they lose honor – so how can that be deemed “pro-death?”

            Many people say “pro-choice” but it has nothing to do with considering life or death. They avoid thinking about the death part and choice to use the “pro-choicers” deceptive language of “not a baby.” When did you “become” a “baby?” When did you become, well, you? At 6 weeks gestation? At 20 with viewable gender? At birth? Ever notice that when a baby is clearly wanted, it is a baby immediately and nobody argues (I mean, look at the recent “royal baby” who was a baby from the moment they found out they were pregnant. And people can be convicted of double-murder if they murder a pregnant women where they wanted the child) and then only people who don’t want the inconvenience of a disrupted life-style choice to be altered by a baby call the baby anything but a baby? Look at life-style choices. Most (certainly NOT ALL) people who are “pro-choice” meaning “pro-death” are very narcissistic and/or selfish in most areas of their lives (even the most selfish people have some areas of generosity, which is why I am saying “over-all life choices.” In attempt to protect their selfish desires they don’t want an inconvenience, so they they say a baby is not a baby so that they may kill it. So who is really deceptive when anyone can walk into a clinic, get a free pregnancy test (and an ultra sound ONLY if they consent – so they must WANT to see the baby) and then leave if they want and try another “clinic” when, from the moment you enter an abortion clinic they refuse to say “baby” or “human” (like some long-ago post referred to the fact that a baby isn’t a toddler, but will become one, a toddler isn’t a school-ager, but will become one – what do they all have in common – being human) and they “shield” you from the discomfort of seeing the “life-form” that somehow isn’t human although if it was “wanted” would be called a baby, on the ultrasound screen that they must use (and will ONLY use if you say you want an abortion) to determine weeks of gestation so they can best see how to kill it. When I was low-income and pregnant, I experimented a little. Abortion clinics and places like Planned Parenthood always asked me questions first to see where I “stood” (wanted or didn’t want the baby). If I wanted the baby, they began asking how “sure” I was because look at all these challenges I will face. If I stayed firm in wanting the baby, they would maybe do a pee-on-stick pregnancy test, but that was it – they would only refer me elsewhere no matter how much I asked for an ultra-sound just to make sure everything was o.k. since I have very high-risk pregnancies. If I pretended that I didn’t want the baby, they were happy to do ultrasounds and talk to me about lots of “resources” and maybe even help me do the paperwork to get financial aid for other areas of my life (like, do you know if you qualify for well-fare, we can help you apply). Did they offer this help when I wanted the baby? No. How is that not deceptive and manipulative?

    • Mehnow

      Not hypocritical at all if it were even true as you say, since we are not the ones who had sex and created life who decided they can just toss it.

      It’s also BS to argue those for limited gov are wrong (your single mom argument) as if they are obligated to retract that or dump their prolife claims.

      Those are all separate issues. And red herrings. They do not prove hypocrisy at all, though many prolifers in fact are adopters or work at CPC’s etc. But it’s not their obligation to do so to be right on the issue for legal purposes. If they were aborting themselves and saying do as I say not as I do, perhaps, but not in the manner often argued by choicists WRT supposed PL hypocrisy…

  • Gordon Duffy

    Well if you are so “pro-information” make these centres display a big “Pro Life” banner in the front so women can make an informed choice about whether to go in and be lied to.

    • searcher0

      agreed, but abortion clinics should be required to put up big pro-abortion banners displaying photos of what they do to the unborn baby.

      • Gordon Duffy

        Ok*, but for it to be accurate it should reflect the majority of abortions (ie early). The point is that your “clinics” have to lie and pretend to be real clinics. The real clinics have no reason to pretend.

        *ok does not denote acceptance of the misleading term “baby”

        • princessjasmine45

          Why is calling a baby in the womb, a baby, misleading?
          At what point do you think we are ever non-human?

          Or maybe you’re just being very literal?
          Like… a fetus isn’t a baby the way

          A baby isn’t a toddler,

          A toddler isn’t a pre-teen
          A pre-teen isn’t a teenager

          A teenager isn’t an adult.
          But at no point are we ever non-human

          • Gordon Duffy

            It’s shamelessly misleading and an attempt to win on emotion what you could never win on merit or facts. But then perhaps if my position had no merit I would stoop to such tactics too. I’ll never know because I live in reality.

          • princessjasmine45

            Exactly why is it “shamelessly misleading” as you put it? You haven’t given any sources or facts.. you merely said it’s misleading to call a developing human a baby. Care to explain what we are in utero?

            Would it be “shamelessly misleading” to call a teenager an adult? Or to call an adult a teenager?

            You want merit or fact? Just open up a book on embryology.

            No emotion.. just biology.

            “[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being.”Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.

            What kind of reality do you live in which one can deny obvious biology and science?

            Also, can you site your proof and references that CPC’s are engaging in deceptive practices? (not a Salon or Mother Jones article, as these are not sources of reality).

            It’s the abortion industry that uses deceptive words and practices. That is out of the mouths of former industry workers and abortionists themselves.
            Why have the pro death camp fought tooth and nail to keep mothers from seeing sonograms of the human growing inside them?
            Why else do they not inform women of the psychological trauma that comes with abortion?

            An abortionist would never say “vacuum out the remaining parts” he would say “empty the uterus”.

            Even some pro-choice activists have admitted that counseling at abortion clinics leaves something to be desired. Jennifer Baumgardner, who started the t-shirt campaign “I Had An Abortion” told the story of an abortion patient in her book “Abortion & Life.” She quotes the young woman saying:

            “I went with my boyfriend and friend to Planned Parenthood. I think I was headed into my eighth week at that point. I went into a room for pre-abortion counseling- five quick, terse questions. I had assumed that I was going to get a half-hour and I would finally be able to tell someone or talk to someone about how freaked out I was, but I didn’t get to.”

            In an article in the Christian Herald, former clinic worker Kathy Sparks said the following about her response when abortion patients asked questions about the developing baby:

            “Sometimes we lied. A girl might ask what her baby was like at a certain point in the pregnancy: Was it a baby yet? Even as early as 12 weeks a baby is totally formed, he has fingerprints, turns his head, fans his toes, feels pain. But we would say ‘It’s not a baby yet. It’s just tissue, like a clot.’”

            Why do they need to stoop to such tactics?

            I’ll never know, because at the CPC we have no reason to engage in such deceptiveness.

          • Gordon Duffy

            All these CPCs do is decieve. You’re putting a labcoat on your religious doctrine to fool women into thinking you’ll give factual impartial advice.

            Why not be honest? Put up a big stained glass window and come out in church robes?

          • princessjasmine45

            You still have not shown me any proof or answered any of my questions.

            How do they deceive? At the very least, can you tell me what part of the text book quote is religious?

            I don’t think you can really…

            Which is why all you can do is throw out false accusations with no proven facts to back up your agenda.

            And let’s be honest… why would I, as agnostic put up a big stain glass window and come out in church robes?

            http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

          • Mehnow

            There are prolife agnostics, and atheists, and prolifers of all religions. It’s about objective science and basic rights to own one’s own life to not be discarded by the will of another on a whim.

            We all should be prolife, it’s not complicated really…

          • princessjasmine45

            Also, I would appreciate if you would refrain from brining religion into this conversation… There’s just no place for it… so please, if you wish to continue this discourse, Gordon, leave your beliefs and religious practices at the door.
            I don’t want to hear about it.

            Much appreciated.
            Thanks

          • Mehnow

            Not all CPC’s are cloaked in endless religion, believe it or not.

            I’ve seen some where it’s not even addressed, Christianity or otherwise in direct terms. Once again, while several persons in the prolife circle ARE religious the question about when life starts is science, not religion.

            Also, the help to a woman in difficult straights revolves around showing her alternatives and possible resources, that does not mean a pulpit as you imply.

            This is a red herring…

        • searcher0

          fine, show them exactly what is done in a dilation and curettage. how the developing fetus is chopped up and then sucked out of the mother’s womb, as well as how the developing fetus attempts to escape from the intrusion with it’s face in a rictus as if screaming.

          • Gordon Duffy

            Oh, you mean that for “accuracy” you should be allowed to misrepresent a vanishingly small percentage of abortions (usually done only for medical reasons) as representative of the whole? Stay classy anti-choicers.

          • princessjasmine45

            when you say “stay classy”
            Are you referring to wearing coat hanger or tampon earrings?
            Or dressing up as giant vaginas?

          • Basset_Hound

            Don’t forget the obscene signs they gave to their kids to carry. Cute, wasn’t it?

          • Mehnow

            The best one was the one where a choicist used her preteen daughter (?) to make a sexual reference to a senator in some very sick way, which they thought was perfectly ok…

          • Basset_Hound

            A close second was the “choicist” who used his preteen daughter to hold up a sign about keeping Jesus out of her….oh well, never mind,

          • princessjasmine45

            very classy. …

          • searcher0

            sorry my mistake here is the procedure used most often in the first 12 weeks-

            Suction Aspiration:This is the most common method of abortion during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. General or local
            anaesthesia is given to the mother and her cervix is quickly dilated. A suction curette (hollow tube with a knife-edged tip) is inserted into the womb. This instrument is then connected to a vacuum machine by a transparent tube. The vacuum suction, 29 times more powerful than a household vacuum cleaner, tears the fetus and placenta into small pieces which are sucked through the tube into a bottle and discarded.
            still pretty disgusting and yes they should have to show this procedure.

          • Mehnow

            Keep in mind the ability to feel pain does not have anything to do with human life worthiness. I can give you drugs to take away feeling in your body or you can lose it in certain ways, but that does not mean your worthiness to live or right to it is whim based via another who is not you…

          • searcher0

            if you are so into abortion put your money where your mouth is retroactively abort your self? you want life for yourself now that you are alive but like all liberal hypocrites you have no problem denying the choice to live from the only people that cannot voice their opinion. it is so true what Reagan said about all the people that are for abortion, they have already been born.

    • princessjasmine45

      I’m sure you know first hand what these alleged “lies” are, right?

      Please share…

      Can’t wait to hear this one…

  • WhoHasMyChange

    Too bad the hypocrites in Baltimore’s city council don’t pass a similar law regarding death centers – they should have to put big signs in their windows proclaiming “We kill babies for money”. (And, yes, they are in business for profit, not for the benefit of the woman or child, as opposed to most PRC’s are non-profits providing free services.)

    • DianaG2

      You know — That is a really amazing insight! They should be required to do that.

      Of course they do it for profit. They don’t care about “equality” or “freedom.”

    • Alex Hunter

      That’s like a restaurant having a menu that describes how their animals were killed.

      • Rebekah

        Not quite. People (including myself) who are just fine with eating animals are neither related to the animals or even members of the same species. A mother should care just a bit more about the fate of the child in her womb than the fate of the cow in her steak.

  • DianaG2

    I mean, you know, the CPC might be in a brick building —- perhaps the abortion clinic is also in a brick building.

    Those poor, dear pregnant moms. Can you blame them for getting confused? Therefore, we should criminalize brick buildings. Well, the brick manufacturing companies might not like that.

    Hey!! I have an even better idea. Why not just criminalize CPC’s.

    (Sarcasm.)

    That is what the pro-aborts really want — to silence all pro-life speech and to shut down all pro-life centers.

    Yes, there was a whole series of articles in my area, about how these CPC’s “have an agenda” (unlike abortion clinics, right?) and how they put pressure on pregnant moms, and try to “trick” them.

    As far as evidence for such “trickery”?

    The CPC staff actually gave the mom —- gasp! …. a BABY BLANKET!!!

    Ummmm, . . . yes, you can’t sink much lower than THAT.

  • Me

    As to “what are pro-lifers doing to help women in need?” why can’t we ask “what are YOU doing to help women get abortions easier, and/or make sure abortion stays legal if that’s what you want?” I know NOW and Planned Parenthood have volunteer programs, for example. Or do many of them think they don’t have to do that kind of stuff because left-wing politicians (quite a few of them old white men by the way) and “doctors”* are taking care of that for them?
    *Yes, I know most of them are technically doctors, but I personally don’t have any respect for the ones who do abortions under most circumstances, so I used the quotes.

  • blair miller

    The real reason why abortion advacats , complain about ultrasounds, isn’t because they feel like its an insult to women intelligence. Its because they don/t want women the to change her mind.

    • Mehnow

      Which proves them not to be prochoice. Which is the right to decided either direction, not just aborting.

      Merely providing info/tools to decide, should be agreed by everyone, from prolife to pro legalized abortion folks.

      Quite sad…

  • Mehnow

    Merely providing info, which such laws do, should not find objection among choicists, if they do not in any way connect to limiting abortion specifically.

    But, we know the aborts do object, which is not surprising…

  • Mamabear

    I remember just a few years ago the pro-abortion movement was criticizing pro-lifers for not helping pregnant women enough. (Some still do.) Well, now there are a number of crisis pregnancy centers (Catholic, Protestant, secular) all over the country. I don’t know the national statistics, but I know in every Evangelical, Mormon, or Catholic church in my community I see a lot of families that have adopted or are foster care providers. It seems to me the pro-life community has stepped forward and is doing something to actively help and the pro-abortion folks don’t like it!

  • ldwendy

    “There are anecdotal accusations online from abortion supporters claiming that CPCs that have lied about the results of pregnancy tests or verbally abused patients. If this happened at any of the 2,000+ CPCs in America, then of course the center involved should be exposed and shut down if warranted. But in general, pro-choicers act like it’s some sort of crime to help women keep their babies.”

    CPCs are not regulated closely in many states. As a result, there are CPCs that will

    – falsely advertise as offering abortion services when they do not

    – falsely say they are a medical facility when there are no medical personnel staffing the clinic 24/7

    – abuse the ultrasound laws

    – emotionally pressure low-income women into giving up their baby for adoption without admitting open adoption is not legally enforceable in many states.

    http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2009/06/16/crisis-pregnancy-centers-nothing-but-false-promises-and-misinformation/

    http://www.thenation.com/article/shotgun-adoption#axzz2afr5omYI

    • Me

      No, no one should be pressured to place their baby for adoption. However, IMHO it would make sense to ask the woman if she’s thought about it and/or would like to explore that option, and if it isn’t what she wants (at least not then) then they can discuss parenting only. Also, a birthmother can still have a closed adoption process, even when they choose the adoptive parents. I personally know of two families that were chosen by their daughters’ birthmothers but did not meet them.

  • Anastasie

    I feel forcing a woman to have an ultrasound before she can have an abortion is a little intrusive. I went to a crisis pregnancy center where the woman taking my urine for the pregnancy test asked what I would do if I was pregnant. I told her I’d probably have an abortion because I couldn’t afford a child nor could I trust my family to aid in raising a child. I was 16. The woman completely freaked & told me that her daughter was not able to have children & it would absolutely kill her to know a able-bodied woman was choosing to end a pregnancy. It’s like, I get that & all but it’s not my responsibility to pop a child out because your daughter can’t. She then started urging me to adoption before the test had even turned out a result! Thankfully the test was negative but emergency clinics do use emotional appeal to get to women in situations such as mine. A woman is capable of making her own decisions & should be as informed as possible. But forcing ultrasounds, making her listen to a heartbeat, waiting a day or three excluding weekends & holidays is a bit much. That leads people to believe that with more time to think or pulling at the heart strings is going to persuade her to change her mind which is manipulating a woman & her state to fit your agenda. It’s wrong.