Heroic Media

Major papers reject pro-life ad – image of baby “too controversial”

A national pro-life organization is outraged after three major American newspapers rejected a pro-life ad as “too controversial.”

The Chicago Tribune, USA Today, and the LA Times refused to run an advertisement created by Heroic Media.

The ad features a hand holding a 20- to 24-week-old baby with the quote, “This child has no voice, which is why it depends on yours. Speak Up.”

Heroic Media Executive Director Joe Young said he was shocked and angered that the media outlets were willing to talk about the issue but were unwilling to show the reality of life at 20 weeks.

“I am disturbed that these papers would run article after article promoting the notion that abortion is a victimless act without consequences,” Young said. “The fact remains, children who are unique individuals – never again to be duplicated – are being killed in the most violent way imaginable and they feel the excruciating pain of that death.”

The newspapers took issue with the image of the baby.

“It seems as though it is okay to talk about the issue in general, but when you actually put a face to the discussion, then it becomes controversial,” Young said.

Last week after the House passed the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, Heroic Media put out a statement requesting that the pro-life community contact their senators and encourage them to consider and support the Act.

“Americans deserve to know the truth about the children sentenced to die for no fault of their own and that we have a chance to spare some of them through this legislation,” Young said.

The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act prevents an abortionist from performing an abortion at or after 20 weeks, based on empirical scientific medical evidence that proves that unborn babies can feel pain. Science shows that at eight weeks after fertilization, the unborn child reacts to touch, and at 20 weeks, the unborn baby responds to what would be felt as pain.

The image shows a 20- to 24-week-old baby in a person’s hands. Heroic Media’s goal was to show what life looks like at 20 weeks. The non-profit organization has resubmitted the ad with a different image, now one of a 20-week-old baby in utero.

The Chicago Tribune has now agreed to run the ad with the second image as long as Heroic Media indicates that it is an advertisement.

“Our hope is that the American public begins to advance this debate with both the mother and child in mind,” Young said.

Heroic Media is a non-profit whose mission is to educate the public in general and reach women facing unplanned pregnancies with life-affirming alternatives through the use of mass media, such as television commercials, internet outreach, and billboards.

“This issue, the late-term killing of developing children, is one that should be addressed in the U.S. Senate, and we encourage our fellow citizens to let their Senators know our desire to see that happen,” Young said.

  • Pingback: Major papers reject pro-life ad – image of baby “too controversial” | Pro-Life News

  • Pingback: Major papers reject pro-life ad – image of baby “too controversial” | Foundation Life

  • PatrioticDissent

    This is free speech bias.

    • Detroiter327

      Actually it’s exactly the opposite. Newspapers invoke the 1st amendment when they refuse ads. http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/can-a-newspaper-refuse-to-run-a-letter-or-advertisement

      • James Graham

        Yeah. They invoke the 1st amendment in order to protect the non-existent right-to-not-be-offended.

    • Genoteleno

      It’s nothing more than out and out censorship.. The very thing that liberals have fought for years to get rid of. Now THEY are the first to utilize it when it fits their needs!

  • wayneinnh

    Kind of puts a damper on the “nonviable blob of tissue” argument, doesn’t it?

    • EvenTempered

      I sure the heck so!! To get corn, we plant corn. When a seed is planted in a female, it is another human. If anyone does remove that “blob”, it is a lack of respect for humanity and a human life that grows in another human. The photo above is not a blob of tissue. It has a heart, arms, legs and looks like a human. Give it a chance and it will have a voice. Blast!! I could go on longer.

    • DianaG2

      I think that’s why they are afraid to publish it. God bless.

    • Doc Hudson

      My beautiful daughter-in-law was a 29 week preemie at birth. Counter to the doctors predictions she is a lovely healthy adult and mother of two of my awesome grandsons. This and several other reasons is why I am staunchly Pro-Life for life.

  • Droidzilla

    On the bright side, no one reads the paper anymore. This article probably gets more play than the LA Times.

    • DianaG2

      :-) LOL, that’s true.

  • Snowpersonable

    Pro-choicers don’t want to see the results of their demands nor confuse them with the facts. What can we expect from those who shout “Hail Satan”? The ‘result’ is in the man’s hand.

    • Kelli Gibbs

      if the pro abortion group is right in their claims and beliefs then they should have nothing to fear from this ad.

      • asleepweare

        So can we put up pro abortion ads as well then?

        • johno

          With Satan?

        • empireindecline

          Could you explain to us how murdering a human being of any age differs from murdering a living infant in the womb? I challenge you to attempt such an explanation. When this infant is conceived, it is no longer the woman’s body, and no longer her “Choice”. Her choice ended when she admitted the male’s seed into her body to form a new living human being! May God have mercy on the souls of the murderers when they enter into eternity to face the souls of their slaughtered infants.

          • DianaG2

            The difference is that the human being of an older age might be able to fight back, or hold the attacker accountable.

            These little unborn guys and gals cannot tell on the attacker, because they cannot speak. They cannot get away or fight back, because they are too small.

            I think the pro-abort response would be, “Yes, that’s because they’re wholly dependent on the mom’s body,” — so the mom has the right to kill them — especially if they’re “unwanted”.

            What the heck is the definition of “unwanted” anyway? I mean, for the pro-aborts?

            I’m just putting these things out there so that I can get some good ideas for responses. I have many liberal friends, and they all think abortion is just wonderful.

          • aRareSaneOne

            Just because they’re wholly dependent on the mom’s body the mom has the RIGHT to kill them? Especially if they’re “unwanted”? How about 3 or 6 months after birth then, why is that wrong, the babies are still so very dependent on the mother and what if they are no longer ‘wanted’? Ask Pro-Choicers this question, try to get them to think!

          • DianaG2

            Yes, you are right.

            Unfortunately, the U. S. Supreme Court claims the mom does indeed have that “right”.

            Well, not really — The S.Ct. says she has the “right” to privacy, not to abortion. Nevertheless . . . that seems to be how it’s interpreted.

            I’ve always felt that pro-aborts were mostly people who hated kids. I’ve never seen much evidence otherwise.

            God bless. Keep up your great work.

          • just wondering

            how about all the parents & boyfierends/husbands that force threaten women /girls into having abortions by threatening ot leave them and take away their baby once it’s born. why should only the mothers face the souls of their unborn babies? what aobut hte fathers that abandoned so many women that they impregnated?

        • Maria

          You don’t really need those pro abortion ads although they do exist. The media and educational institutions do a fabulous job of spreading the Culture of Death. All those commercial ads and films and songs that say “Me, me, me…Sex without responsibility with a cherry on top!” are getting the message across. And then there are the sleazy guys, the friends and the family members who say “Just get an abortion,” so they will not be bothered, troubled or put out by worrying or spending anything of themselves on the woman they supposedly love and her unborn child. This pro-life ad could save a woman who unwisely chose a few minutes of dubious pleasure from a lifetime of regret and pain. It could also save thousands of tiny human persons from agony and a very cruel and painful death.

          • DianaG2

            Amen.

            I saw one movie at the Celtic Film Festival — about a young woman who had been living in London, but she had a son out of wedlock. She and her son returned to the Irish town where she had grown up.

            In the first scene, her dad says, “Oh, why didn’t you just get an abortion?” So, the audience assumes she had some kind of a fling, and got pregnant from that. Her dad is pretty insensitive.

            But, then, after the young woman dies, the son — now an adult — finds out that his “grandpa” is really his dad. He says, “No, you can’t be my dad. You’re Mummy’s dad. You raped Mummy.”

            The dad/granpa says, “I didn’t rape your mother. She was ‘coming on’ to me. Your mother was a sl**,” or some such. It’s so sad, it’s making me cry right now. The son had psych issues also. Nevertheless — he loved his mom, and he said, “Mummy was a lady.”

            Speaking of saying, “Just get an abortion.” It doesn’t get much more irresponsible than that guy — the dad/g-pa

            Then, there was also an article a few days ago on LSN by a woman whose baby was premature, and she also had a very difficult pregnancy. She was chastising pro-lifers for saying, “Just have the baby.”

            But, nobody regrets having the baby. How many women do you see holding up signs that say, “I regret that my son or daughter was ever born?”

            Many regret having an abortion, and they DO hold up signs saying so.

  • Susan

    Love the ad, but wish the advertisers had written “he” or “she” instead of “it.”

    • Mary Lee

      That was my only problem, too.

    • EvenTempered

      If it was possible to determine the gender from a photo, sure thing. Otherwise I would find another word to use beside “it”. Very hard to do though.

      • chris

        I lost a baby boy at 16 weeks…..I held him in my hands….I could tell he was a boy…..

        • Joanne13

          Bless your heart Chris. I know that broke your heart. My daughter miscarried twice, my daughter in law miscarried once. They didn’t see those babies (for which I’m grateful) but we all still felt horrible pain and loss. I hope and pray that you have been able to heal and move on & hopefully even have children now. God Bless you.

        • Kimberly C

          I am so sorry for your loss.

        • DianaG2

          OMG, I’m so sorry. You will see him again. God bless.

        • ProLifeMommyof2

          Sending prayers for your loss, Chris…. :*( God Bless!!!

        • Ma Singleton

          I am so sorry for you and little boy ,I said a prayer for your family.God bless you until you see each other again.

      • gmg

        It is easy to determine gender from an ultrsound at 12 wks (if I could tell, then it was clear), so it is much easier to determine when out of the womb. If they have a penis, he is a boy. Unique and individual, and not part of the mother–just protected and growing inside his mother.

      • DianaG2

        Just “she or he” instead of “it”. That would have been good enough, I think?

      • Toni

        maybe “they”?

      • ProLifeMommyof2

        EHD.org has done a WONDERFUL job at showing the biology of human development. We need to get these in our public schools to educate the youth. GOD ONLY KNOWS the other side is doing EVERYTHING they can to indoctrinate our children with lies. Please: PASS IT ON!!! http://www.ehd.org/
        P.S. and THANK YOU, LIVE ACTION, for all you are doing to educate the public with the truth!!! You are doing a wonderful job!! Be assured of our family’s prayers for you!!!!

    • DianaG2

      Yes, I definitely agree with that.

    • Ma Singleton

      They could have used baby ,preemie ,fetus.I agree need a better term(pre birth child?)

  • blair miller

    That dosen’t look like a blob of motion less tissue to me.That looks like a human being,a human worthy of life. But on a side note , I never understand , why would anyone would wait so long to have an abortion? When he/she is almost fully developed anyway,and he/ she can feel pain?

    • James Graham

      Be careful. Common sense is the enemy of the liar.

      • Genoteleno

        common sense AND truth (if I might add) are the enemy of the liar!

    • DianaG2

      And is kicking and playing and rolling around inside the mom already?

    • COMALite J

      The most common reasons for abortions that late is in cases where the pregnancy is abnormal and would result in the death or devastating harm to the mother, and often the fetus would die anyway in the process; or if the fetus is hiorribly malformed or diagnosed with some truly devastating condition that would mean no quality of life, etc.

      Abortions just because one doesn’t want a baby are rare in that stage, since usually the point of an abortion is hiding the fact of the pregnancy from parents or other family or friend or some such who would disapprove, and by then the pregnancy would be showing.

  • Pingback: Major papers reject pro-life ad – image of baby “too controversial”

  • Pingback: Major papers reject pro-life ad – image of baby “too controversial” « THE BLACK KETTLE

  • Patty Kane

    Is this an actual picture of a 20 week old fetus?

    • Mello101

      20 week old human being.

      • Patty Kane

        No, it is not a 20 week old human being. That would be a 5 month old baby. I used the word fetus because it is the correct word. Changing the word does not make it more/less acceptable. I am not pro-abortion. I am asking if it is a “real” picture of a 20 week old fetus because if it is, then the newspapers should have shown it with no problem.

        • Drew Belsky

          Are you serious? A fetus is a human being.

          • Patty Kane

            Of course it is a human being. I did not say it wasn’t a human being. What I am saying is you cannot say it is a 20 week old human being because that is a 5 month old baby. I am sorry if you do not like the word fetus, but the unborn human being is not 20 weeks old. Before birth, a baby is called a fetus. I didn’t make up the word. I guess you could say after spending 20 weeks inside the mother. Maybe in my mind a fetus and a baby are the same thing. Just because some people consider a fetus a lump of tissue and not a baby does not mean I do.

          • Drew Belsky

            You’re nitpicking on semantics, but you’re also wrong.

            If anything, you’d be closer to having a point if we were calling a 20-week-old fetus as a 20-week-old infant. But “baby” does not have a specific gestational definition – think of all the women who DON’T invite people to their fetus showers, and who call their teenagers “my baby.”

            A human being is a human being from the moment he is conceived. So that human being, at 20 weeks’ gestation, is 20 weeks old. He’s a 20-week-old human. Your logic SHOULD guide you to admitting that a baby is truly nine months old when he’s born. Or do you want to suggest that a teenager is actually one year old when he turns fourteen, since a year and a second before that he was called something else?

            Personally, I wouldn’t mind changing the concept of human age to include the time people were in utero. But to say that a human being doesn’t start aging until birth is absurd.

          • Patty Kane

            I feel you are nitpicking much more than I am. lol However, yes, humans start to age at birth. I did not decide that one either. And I think you are being pretty silly considering we are agreeing on the main premise. I do see your points, but I still do not agree with them. I believe from the second a baby is made it is real; however, it is not. If you want to consider the time pre-birth as counted time, then you need to come up with a way to say it that is not confusing and to imply it is 5 months old when it is 20 weeks in the mother, does not make sense.

          • Patty Kane

            Just to clarify. I at no time said or implied that a fetus/baby/toddler/teenager/etc. was not a human being. I said it was not 20 weeks old. And it wasn’t.

          • johno

            I think the ad is trying to say is this “life” worth protecting not necessarily the exact age.

          • Patty Kane

            Agreed! All life is worth protecting.

          • Suzb

            “Gestation”…just add that word to clarify the age of the baby.

          • Patty Kane

            Good way to say it!

          • Joanne13

            The ad is to bolster the current attempt to make it illegal to abort a in utero child that is 20 wks in gestation and onward, because supposedly at that point they can feel pain (the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act). I personally feel that’s a hard one to call but that’s the argument. I think they can most likely feel pain much earlier.

          • DianaG2

            Yes, I also feel that way. Even a paramecium feels pain and “perceives” a threat to its life.

          • COMALite J

            There’s a difference between reacting to pain-inducing stimuli and actually feeling pain (as in realizing in one’s mind that one is hurting). For that to happen, one must have a mind.

            This is one reason why I place the onset of Natural Personhood at the moment that the brain switches on and begins emitting brain waves, which is about 7½ months (24 weeks).

            More importantly, though, is the concept of the Inherent and Unalienable Rights of Persons. This is the single most important foundational principle of the United States of America. The Declaration of Indendence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights are all based on it. The Declaration refers to it as a “self-evident” “Truth” and that makes it an axiom!

            If you know basic math or logic, you know what an axiom is: an assertion that is assumed to be true without evidence, because its truth is self-evident. Axioms are needed as the foundation of any system of mathematics, logic, or whatever, because any chain of logic cannot be sound unless all of its premises are true, and the only way to be sure of that is if each premise was the proven true conclusion from prior valid-and-sound logic, but of course that would be an infinite regression. You have to start somewhere, and axioms provide a starting point.

            The concept that Persons have Rights, that these Rights are Inherent in us just because we’re Persons (what Jefferson meant by “… endowed by their Creator with …” — the question of Whoever or whatever that Creator may be is totally irrelevant to this — it’s remains just as true whether “their Creator” is the LORD God of Abraham, or Zeus, or Odin’s cow licking the first humans from a rock, or is the Big Bang followed by coalescing of the Milky Way, Solar System, and Earth, followed by abiogenesis followed by neo-Darwinian evolution, or whatever), and that those Rights are Inalienable, is the most important axiom of this nation. All else derives from this.

            So, a Natural Person (as opposed to Aggregate Person, e.g. corporations, unions, trusts, communities, etc.) is an entity that has Rights in and of itself (not granted nor bestowed by any human agency, including law, document, Bill of Rights, or whatever — since they are not granted by any human agency, they cannot be revoked by same).

            Therefore, to qualify as a Person, an entity must be capable of understanding the concept of Rights, or else be a member of a species or other type or kind whose members generally exhibit or come to exhibit such understanding. This ability is included in sapience, or the ability to think, reason, and be aware of one’s own existence as a separate entity (often confused with sentience, or the ability to react to sensory input — automatic door openers, smoke detectors, TVs responding to remote controls, etc. are sentient, but definitely not sapient!).

            In any given species, kind, or type that exhibits sapience and the capacity to understand Rights, that capacity must derive from some organ or structure. For human beings (and any other Earth animal that may perhaps qualify as sapient), that organ is the brain. I would hold that Personhood should be held to begin for any sapient kind when the organ or structure responsible for generating that ability to comprehend Rights first begins to fully function in a detectable manner.

            After all, we already use the converse of the same principle to mark the end of legal Natural Personhood: when your brain permanently and irrevocably ceases functioning and emitting brain waves, you.re legally dead and thus no longer a Person, even if the heart and lungs and other organs are still working fine!

            This proposed criterion for Personhood would include all human beings whose brains have begun functioning, as well as any other type or kind that we may eventually discover or create that demonstrates sapience sufficient to comprehend the concept of Rights of Personhood, be they other simians or cetaceans (either naturally evolved or genetically or otherwise enhanced to be truly sapient), or extraterrestrials, or angels or some such, true artificial intelligences, etc. Under the current legal definition of Natural Person (i.e. “a human
            being”), none of those would be considered Persons with Rights.

          • empireindecline

            Patty, regardless of your position, you simply don’t make good sense! AND while we’re speaking of good sense, I find NOTHING about abortion that warrants a “lol” as in your earlier comment! Seeing a murdered infant doesn’t not warrant a laugh out loud!

          • Patty Kane

            I do not care what you think of my “lol.” I tend to laugh a lot, during uncomfortable times as well as comfortable ones. And your opinion of me also does not matter. Using the correct term for anything does not “dehumanize” anyone/anything. Feeling the need to argue with ANYONE, even those who are agreeing with you is ridiculous. But if it makes you feel better, go ahead.

          • empireindecline

            Thank you, Drew, for setting this person straight! These arms length terms, like fetus, seem to be to be pro-abortionists attempt to dehumanize the child and make murder more acceptable!!

          • Joanne13

            Patty, I know what you’re saying. But you also understand what those offended by the term mean also, right? ‘Fetus’ is a medical term, as is Zygote… each referring to certain points in a baby’s gestation. My problem with using the medical term(s) when talking about the baby in utero is that it’s one of the (lets say) ‘tricks’ that pro-choicers and abortion zealots use to ‘dehumanize’ the unborn. They’ll use ANYTHING and EVERYTHING to make it seem like a child in utero isn’t really a baby. If they can disconnect people’s minds from the reality of the ‘fetus’ being an ACTUAL BABY they have an easier time of convincing women to allow their babies to be slaughtered (the SAME reason they fight so vigorously against those same women getting an ultra-sound before an abortion!).

            I confess that I personally prefer anyone pro-life not to refer to the developing child as a fetus because it plays right into the hands of those who have NO respect for the pre-born. I think that’s probably the objection most others feel about the term too. It’s such a sensitive subject and hard to express without coming off sounding angry (not surprising considering the subject matter). :o)

          • DianaG2

            Patty is just asking whether it’s a plastic doll or something?

            It is a correct model of a fetus/baby at that age, when it would normally be inside the mom.

    • Kyle Bradelle

      No, that is not an actual baby, but a life-size model of a 20 week (approximate) gestational age baby. That’s actually a little plump for a 20 week GA baby, imo. You can easily google actual images of a 20 week GA baby, if you’re interested.

    • ldwendy

      I think it could be an actual picture or close to it.

    • http://twitter.com/brazenqueer Anonymous Queer
  • Basset_Hound

    Sadly, this is nothing new. When Randy Alcorn was preparing the second edition of his book “Pro Life Answers to Pro Choice Arguments”, he offered to pay the going rate for scientific pictures of unborn children, he was refused. Chrysler and Volvo both refused him permission to print the text of their ads in which they point out that airbags in their vehicles saved the lives of unborn children. Why? Because his book took a position on “choice” that wasn’t “politically correct”. Also consider the fact that “Choose Life” vanity plates have been blocked in several states because those words are supposedly “codespeak” for “go out and bomb a clinic”.

    • DianaG2

      Sick! What happened to democracy? Free speech?

      • James Graham

        Nothing’s happened to “democracy” and “Free speech”. What’s happened and happening is that too many Americans have been taught/programmed by the public school system and universities. Unfortunately, teaching the subject/skillset of “critical thinking” is anathema to the pc-police. That’s why individualism is the subject of derision by the left and its “useful idiots”. Knowledge truly IS power. So, democracy and free speech still exists. Freedom of speech is an “unalienable” right. In other words, while it may be suppressed, it cannot be taken away. It is an inherent right endowed by a creator to ALL people. Folks are just not taught to TAKE and USE their “unalienable” rights anymore. But they can still do so. It just takes a bit more balls.

        • DianaG2

          I think you are right.

          But why would individualism be derided? That’s kind of scary.

          • James Graham

            Because those on the left who espouse the “herd” mentaility do not like it when those with whom they disagree are free-thinkers and shape their arguments critically and with care. It’s much harder to control someone who doesn’t follow the “herd”.

          • 2Texayn

            It is only individuals that are born with rights. NOT groups. But the left needs the prerogative to confer rights on groups in order to manipulate voting blocs and to minimize the Constitution’s validity, which was written for the preservation of the rights of every individual. (i.e. womens rights, Hispanic rights etc…)

  • framptn1972

    maybe take that image and go to vistaprint for some t shirts to wear out in public. See what kinda response you might get…. But it might offend someone, hohum :-(

    • Stephanie Ferguson Bell

      I really like that idea

    • Basset_Hound

      Some high schools might send the student home or tell him to turn the shirt inside out.

      • DianaG2

        They probably will do that. I’d be interested to see if there’s a brave teenager out there somewhere who would even try?? I’m not suggesting anybody SHOULD do that, because we know what kind of backlash might ensue.

    • Michelle

      I’d buy one and wear it proudly. Make the image as big as possible!

    • James Graham

      Hehe, especially wear them in public scrools…..everywhere. See how many students are threatened with suspension, nationwide. Would be an interesting and I suspect pathetic response.

      • DianaG2

        Actually, it would be very cool to have some sort of national day of protest like that. It would have to be coordinated extremely well, though.

    • Toni

      I’d wear it!

  • Pingback: Major papers reject pro-life ad - image of baby...

  • Suzb

    I would gladly donate to see these all over the country on billboards! Keep up the fight. Make sure to be as careful with semantics as the pro aborts, their successful twists on words has done so much damage. “it” is a child but to the intellectually dishonest “it” feeds into the subhuman dehumanization language. May God bless your efforts.

    • sleepweare

      aTwist of words describe?

  • Pingback: Clash DailyPictures Make A Point in the Fight for Life - Clash Daily

  • Pingback: Picture Make A Point in the Fight for Life | Info, Please

  • Mamabear

    One of my friends recently posted on facebook a picture of a preemie (my guess about 24 to 26 weeks) with a request for prayers. Since it was not someone she or I actually knew, but one of those pictures that get forwarded all over facebook for who knows how long, I tend to either skip over them. But, for some reason, I decided this time to look at the comments. It was unbelievable how many people were offended by the picture of a preemie and by the request for prayers. (Tended to be the same people.) I strongly suspect that what many people find offensive about pictures of preemies and unborn children is that these pictures are reminders that these are real little human beings. I never saw abortion mentioned, but I can think of no other reason why a picture of a diapered preemie being held next to an incubator would be offensive unless it was a reminder that babies are alive and human before 9 months. I suspect the newspapers rejected this picture for the same reason.

    • DianaG2

      Yes, I think you are right.

      It’s easier to dehumanize when you don’t see a face. We don’t see their faces, and they have no names — yet. Names and faces remind us of our and their humanity, but it’s easier for pro-aborts to pretend they have no humanity.

  • Bellz

    I think abortion should never happen unless its for a medical emergency for the mother, or if the fetus has died in the womb, or because there is no hope for it to live if gone to full term. 20 weeks! is WAY too late…that’s murder! It should be much lower at 10 -12 weeks if a woman is seeking an abortion because she fails to want to be a mother for her child, or what ever reason. They do feel pain in the earlier stages. If someone ripped your body parts apart and then crushed your head to get out through a tube wouldn’t you feel pain?

    • Shannon

      Bellz, not to be picky, but I should mention to you that if the baby has died in the womb then the D&C procedure to remove the child is not an abortion. Abortions only occur to live children. No pro-lifer expects a woman to continue to carry a child that has died of natural causes in her womb.

    • empireindecline

      Belz, no responsible physician would make the determination “no hope for it to live”. There are many examples where doctors told prospective parents that their child had little or no hope to survive, and that prediction proved to be false. EVERYTHING is in God’s almighty hands; ONLY God can justly make those kinds of decisions! You are on a slippery slope when you start to pick a deadline of weeks etc. to approve killing a living baby! Just face the fact that murder is murder, regardless of days, weeks, months after conception!

  • humans should be free.

    Quick question have any on you looked at the other side of the issue? how many unwanted children will go to bed tonight in a shelter or group home without a mother or father to tuck them in? How many kids will grow up without hearing the words I love u ? How many of those kids will make it to their 18th birthday? How many will be abused, molested, homeless. How many will end up in the prison system because they did not have the proper parent to teach them from right and wrong. How many of those kids are going to commit suicide because of not having anyone love them? Sentencing a child to the worst possible tortures is wrong to. We can work together on these issues if we will just all look at both sides of the issue. If god is the issue god never wanted human beings to suffer. That’s what your doing either way a child is going to suffer. Hey and guess what I’m the wife of a pastors son and we believe in god we just don’t think children should suffer as I grew up and saw first hand how bad these children suffer and guess what most of them I knew died from suicide all because they were unwanted from the very beginning.

    • Basset_Hound

      So the way to save these children from suffering is to kill them in the womb? To deny them the right to make their own choices and to turn their lives around? What should we do with children who are abandoned after birth because mom’s new stud muffin didn’t want to raise another man’s kid?

      • asleepweare

        If you paid attention mist of these children don’t turn their lives around 75% commit suicide or O.D. who are u to say if they should suffer or not it we. Let that person who had the abortion live with it. They and as for abandonment the responsiblething is to get an abortion for your sake well call it killing, but its a mercy on the child who is just going to suffer. Unlike most people I look at both sides of the argument and like I said before either way the child suffers.

        • Basset_Hound

          In response to your incoherent rant, we save them from “suffering” by mentoring them, and helping them, NOT by killing them.

          • EducateYourslevesLadies

            This is a great idea. I trust you will be mentoring all the unwanted children. I wish people cared about unwanted children as much as they do about unwanted fetuses.

          • Basset_Hound

            So unless you’re willing to take in EVERY stray dog and cat in your community, you shouldn’t encourage people to spay and neuter their pets.

            As for mentoring children, the short answer is they do. Religious conservatives are far more generous in contributing to charity and doing volunteer work than Wonderful Enlightened Libs.

        • Daniel P. Durham

          Ok, so 75% of those children will die early anyway. What about the other 25%, the ones who will live if abortion is made illegal?

        • DianaG2

          Well, why not just kill everyone, born and unborn? They will all suffer at some point.

    • TwinMommabyGrace

      The solution to ending abuse, molestation, homelessness and suicide is not murder. It’s to stop the perpetrators. Sparing children by pre-emptively killing them just takes their lives and choices away. It’s punishing the victims. Doesn’t it make sense to help people make wise choices about sex, rather than to erase their “mistakes” or “unwanted pregnancies” from the face of the earth? We need to come alongside these women and help them to care for their babies, or to encourage them to give them up for adoption. The choice shouldn’t be whether or not to end a life, it should be whether or not you are ready to raise a child. Don’t have sex unless you are ready, willing and able to take care of a child. THAT’s the responsible thing to do. It’s not all about you and your selfish wants. It’s about honor! Honoring God, honoring your body, the temple of the holy spirit, and honoring your significant other who is also God’s creation. Once we give in to the mentality that “people should have the right to do whatever they want” and we cease to honor God with our lives, we adopt a hedonistic mentality and believe we are gods. We can do no wrong. That is a lie. And it’s a lie that it’s hopeless to spare the lives of the unborn. You aren’t doing anyone a favor.

      • DianaG2

        There’s a difference between “freedom” and “license”.

    • Joanne13

      I can tell how sincere you are in your thinking and by what you wrote. But the question isn’t whether or not God ‘wanted’ human beings to suffer. God created human beings knowing they WOULD suffer. He knew that Adam would disobey Him and that sin would enter the world and that ALL human beings would be born into and under it’s curse. AND He knew that Jesus would be born to suffer in order to redeem mankind from the sin Adam unleashed upon us. Yet God still created Adam with the foreknowledge that many children would have much suffering in their lives. Scripture teaches that ONLY GOD GIVES and that ONLY GOD ‘takes away’. There are no accidents with God. When a child is conceived under what ever circumstances it was conceived because God ALLOWED it and gave life. The suffering of children that are unwanted, uncared for, mistreated (in horrendous ways), UN-LOVED, etc are NOT accidents… they were allowed to be conceived, for a reason.

      God makes no mistakes. We look at life through eyes of flesh and NOT the eyes of God, Who knows everything ‘before’ and ‘after’. Even though He allows children to be born that will suffer (that He KNOWS will suffer) we as HIS creation are NOT given permission to take that which HE GAVE because only He knows His intentions in ‘giving it’. Taking the life of a baby in utero is as much of an insult to the God Who gave that life as it would be to murder it after it was born. When a man (or woman) takes a babies life before it’s even born he’s placing HIMSELF ABOVE God…. which is the reason we’re in this mess in the first price, right? Abortion is adding more evil on TOP of all the evil in this world. Jesus wants us to OVER-COME evil THROUGH HIM and NOT by trying to take on the role of God ourselves.

    • Times Ed

      Not 56 million.

    • e

      First, there is an alternative to murder of defenseless babies – it’s called adoption. There are people that cannot conceive that would gladly adopt. Have you ever watched what the murderers do to babies??? Babies feel pain in the womb. Babies feel period. Babies have been shown to move away from the instruments of their death and pictures have been taken of their mouths opened in the form of a scream. Did you know that in some cases the murderers tear them limb by limb and decapitate their heads? In other cases, the mass murderers shove an instrument into the babies brain? They ARE human beings – just very small, defenseless human beings. Also, let me pose another scenario using your rational… A happy family (mom, dad and 2 yr old child) living a “happy”, content life. One day dad loses his job and can’t find another, mom gets sick – diagnosed with a terminal illness. Now the bills are piling up, things are looking pretty bleak…. Do you think the parents should take the child out in the backyard and dismember their little one because things are bad at that moment? One last question, what are the stats on suicides being the result of “unwanted” pregnancies?

    • truth

      There is a 7 year LINE of married couples, and single parents WAITING for a child to adopt.. If these babies were born and matched up to loving homes/parents… MUCH of this would solve itself!!!

  • humans should be free.

    My point is its about the children and right now they loose either way.

    • Maria

      You are way off base. There are lots of chronically ill, mentally deficient, disabled and terminally ill people in the world who are loved and valued. They may suffer, but their lives are worth living. Many “wanted” children end up with the problems you described. The statistics for unplanned pregnancies are not as grim as you suggest. Perhaps you are overstating the case because of your own difficult personal experience, but you are alive, married and writing a comment. The great majority of children who are aborted would have been healthy and all of those unborn are as entitled to the right to life as anyone now alive. Abortion is not the solution to a crisis pregnancy. There is help, there is adoption, there is hope. You say these children loose whether they are aborted or born, but the point is really that a violent and selfish society has allowed abortion and is descending into more violence, cruelty and selfishness because of the inhuman attitudes that it promotes. Murder is not a value that will improve the character of our society. Mercy, generosity, responsibility and willingness to care for the needy is what we need to promote. We won’t become that kind of compassionate culture when we kill the most defenceless members of our human family.

  • ang9772

    The simple question is….is this baby alive in this photo.Can he/she survive this way?

    • Joanne13

      No, it is a medical model… if real it couldn’t survive at that stage outside of an incubator (which is simply a mechanical womb).

  • Pingback: Major Newspapers Turn Down Pro-Life Ad, Baby Image 'Too Controversial' | PolitiTalk

  • Amanda

    abortion existing is tragic, and it would be a step in the right direction but, just making sure its before 20 weeks isnt going to stop abortion. babies should not be killed at all!!!

    • empireindecline

      Amanda, you are so right! Failing to conceive is the point where termination of pregnancy is acceptable!

      • Joanne13

        Failure to conceive AND of course natural miscarriage.

    • Joanne13

      Yes Amanda, you are completely correct. But turning over Roe vs Wade probably is never going to happen (sadly). All legislators CAN do is to start doing away with it at as early a stage as possible. I believe that eventually abortion may once again be against the law in most states (hopefully ALL). Time will tell. But for right now we take what we can get..so to speak… in the hopes of someday providing protection for all unborn children in America.

      • DianaG2

        I hope and think it WILL be overturned eventually — just as the Dred Scott Decision of Justice Taney was.

        I agree with you about meantime, though.

  • dogluvr

    Can pro-choice individuals really be that uninformed about what abortion actually does to a unborn child? I find it interesting that these newspapers, along with other liberal papers, find an unborn child ;laying in a hand as “controversial”, what did they think a 20-24 week old child looked like? Jeez, are they peeing their pants cause this child might actually look like one of their own children, and not a mass of tissue? Freaking unreal idiots.

  • Joanne13

    I may be wrong here so someone correct me if I am… but I believe the ‘baby’ in the ad isn’t even real. I say that because there are ‘figurines’ out there (of a baby to me but a fetus to some) that look ASTOUNDINGLY REAL. If that ISN’T a real baby but rather a well made example (again, I don’t know one way or the other) then the news papers reasoning for not showing it is even MORE illogical and ridiculous (IF that’s possible). I wrote Heroic Media and asked them if it’s actually real or not but probably won’t hear back for a couple of days. If I find out that it is a ‘copy’ of a real baby I’ll post on there. But again, if someone already knows this please post it here. Thanks and God Bless!

  • dogluvr

    Can pro-choice individuals really be that uninformed about what abortion actually does to a unborn child? I find it interesting that these newspapers, along with other liberal papers, find an unborn child ;laying in a hand as “controversial”, what did they think a 20-24 week old child looked like? Jeez, are they peeing their pants cause this child might actually look like one of their own children, and not a mass of tissue? Freaking unreal idiots.

  • Daniel Delgado

    What’s so controversial about the truth? Oh wait…

  • lyn1524

    I remember once, I was very young and stupid .I had one baby already without being married and I got pregnancy again .I decide to have abortion ,so I when to a place call plan parenthood . There was a girl about my age there and she was big so I ask her, how far a long she was and she said 8 months. I thought she was there to see a doctor for her prenatal care. So, I ask her if they had prenatal doctors and she said no, that she was there for the same reason I was, I reply but your baby is almost here, its alive ,moving .And she said so is yours It stop me right in my tracks, and I said you are right, and thank you, because I’m not going to do this , I left . I had my baby, and had no more .

    • DianaG2

      Wow, bless your heart, dear.

      • lyn1524

        thank you, I never told anybody about this, why I’m saying it now, I don’t know. But it did change me ,the decision I made after that was for 2 reasons. My children and I know what everybody thinking ( welfare).

        NO, I went back home and ask my parents for forgiveness and help, but there was rules too. Ether work or school and I was mom. Was it easy no , but we did it. So if you are reading this, and you are thinking ,he has the blues eyes, and he promising you the sky , or the love word is being throw out .This your body, you take responsible for it, you buy the condoms
        you call the doctor about birth control. And if you think abortion is easy think again .Talk to someone know the facts.

  • Joanne13

    When I left my comment earlier today I said I’d find out whether or not the baby being held (in the ad) was real or not (I didn’t think it was). I emailed Heroic Media and they got back to me with this statement: “You are correct, the image shows a medically accurate fetal model.” But again this makes me even MORE curious as to why 3 outlets wouldn’t allow this ad to be in their publications. My ONLY conclusion is because it shows with OUT question that a 20 week old BABY in utero (fetus in medical terms) is a LEGITIMATE BABY…. an actual CHILD. That truth flies in the face of all the claims made by abortion proponents, those who argue that a ‘fetus’ ISN’T really a baby. The model PROVES otherwise! They don’t want the ‘connection’ made in the minds of those considering abortion. If the connection is made, if women are connected to their unborn children on an EMOTIONAL LEVEL they realize that most women would NOT choose abortion at that stage or perhaps at ANY stage. To me, that’s the ONLY logical explanation for not running the original ad. Face it people… there’s a LOT of BIG MONEY being made by killing the unborn.

    • DianaG2

      I’m glad you asked the question, because I was wondering also if it was a live baby or a doll? I didn’t think it could be alive and okay outside the mom at that age. So — good to know. And, your point is also well taken. They don’t want anyone to know it’s really a baby.

      Big money!

      Definitely — under the guise of “freedom” and “equality”.

  • Pingback: Major Newspapers Turn Down Pro-Life Ad, Baby Image 'Too Controversial' | Sharing Liberty

  • Pingback: Forbidden News » Major Newspapers Turn Down Pro-Life Ad, Baby Image ‘Too Controversial’

  • Miles Eggimann

    Controversial??? Have these clowns seen an Abercrombie & Fitch print ad lately?

    • DianaG2

      I just did a search. GROSS!!! Those are really really sick. But, that kind of filth is barely controversial these days — sadly.

      One had a cute St. Bernard, though. Or maybe Newfoundland?

  • Colorado_Patriot60

    Anyone and any Organization/Company that supports abortion is demonic and should be destroyed (figuratively). I don’t mean Boycott, I mean put out of business and exiled!

    • COMALite J

      So, you would destroy the God of the Bible?

  • daveveselenak

    It couldn’t be more clear and lucid: We have an EVIL, tyrannical regime occupying “Moscow West” and things will continue to get worse until the sheeple start waking up and start uniting and taking action; such as, shutting down the country for a national “Freedom From Tyranny” work stoppage; states start manning militias; national tax revolt is implemented. They, the EVIL despots in Moscow West have been waging a war against “US” for far too long and we must start retaliating as they are not listening to us and even worse, they have nothing but utter contempt towards “US”! The EVIL will continue to accelerate as is evidenced by Rep. Alcee Hasting and the “Dem-O-Coms” defending pedophelia. These reprobates have no problem killing those in the womb, those nearing the tomb and who knows who are next! WAKE UP, WISE UP, RISE UP!

  • Genoteleno

    TRASH ALL THE “MAJOR PAPERS” we don’t need them anymore, especially since they are obviously censoring content based upon their own liberal bias.

  • govtrumbull

    The reason why pro-abortion advocates are fighting this ad is that it refutes the fact that a fetus is not a “fetus,” a blob of soft, formless tissue, that it is a live human being. This refutes the lie that abortion advocates have to maintain to keep abortion legal.

  • govtrumbull

    My Daughter and her family are visiting with our Granddaughter who hasn’t turned three yet. I just put her on my lap and asked her, “What is that in the picture?” She answered: “A Baby.”
    If a non-quite three year old, can Identify the difference between a “fetus” and a “Baby,” why is it so difficult for abortion advocates to do so?

  • shrgngatlas

    “I didn’t see no tissue. I just saw the face of a child.”
    The pro-death crowd hates that fact, so they call it “controversial.” Like ‘a=a’ is controversial. Yeah, right.

  • Pingback: 3 Major Newspapers Refuse Pro-Life Ad: Baby Pictures Are “Too Controversial” | Christian Pro-Life News

  • Pingback: Photo 20 Week Baby “Too Controversial” | wyandotcountyrightolife

  • jenniferk

    Why cant couplesadopt these precious babies

    • Petercha0001

      Many do. The wait time for adoptions can be years, there are MANY people who want to adopt. I speak from personal experience – my wife and I adopted a son.

      • Ch0sen1

        Will you adopt me? Im homeless :(

  • ProLifeMommyof2

    Sadly, This advertisement sends the message from US, the prolife community, that it’s OK to discard human lives who cannot feel pain. I think that’s the wrong message.
    A human being who DOESN”T feel pain has a right to life just as much as those who do feel pain. This is the legitimate problem those who were conceived in rape— like Rebecca Kiessling– have with such proposed advertisements. Some in the prolife community argue that “we have work with what we can.” Either we are 100% prolife—for ALL LIFE—no matter if they can feel pain or not—OR, we are not!! Babies who cannot feel pain at 8 weeks are JUST as precious!!!!!

  • Phyllis H. Buckman

    I am not surprised that the liberal/humanist/secular media refuses to print anything that is pro-life. That said, I’m also surprised at the number of pro-life supporters here that do not recognize that the “baby” in the ad is actually a sculpted model. (See this link: http://www.onetinylife.org/menu.htm ). This, of course, makes the refusal of the mentioned newspapers that much more telling of their level of intelligence and knowledge.

    Keep standing up for life.

    Jeremiah 1:5: Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

    Psalm 139:13-16: For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from You when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in Your book before one of them came to be.

    • COMALite J

      Jeremiah 1:5 is referring to God’s foreknowledge, not any pre-birth Personhood on Jeremiah’s part. Note that it says “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you….” That means before conception or even fertilization, not just before birth. The LDS actually use that verse as a “proof text” for their belief in the concept of a pre-mortal spirit existence of all humans.

      Psalm 139 likewise refers to God’s foreknowledge (or even predestination — read that last sentence you quoted therefrom carefully). It also implies a pre-mortal existence of some sort, since it refers to the Psalmist as having been “nade ub tge secret place” and “woven together in the depths of the earth,” not his mother’s womb.

      See my post above (a Reply to debtom with lots of Bible passages in which the LORD God Himself speaks as a matter of Law or commandment on the question of whether the unborn (or even newborns) count as full persons, and what He actually says regarding abortion.

      Now, can you show me a single Bible passage in which the LORD God Himself, or any of His duly authorized representatives (prophets, apostles, angels, or the Lord Jesus Christ), speaking as a matter of Law or commandment (not, for instance, the LORD having a chit-chat with a prophet, a la Jeremiah 1:5) in which He or they forbid or condemn the killing of specifically unborn human beings, or states unambiguously that such are considered full persons?

      I’ve been making this challenge in various online forums for decades, including ones frequented by certified Bible scholars. Nobody has yet been able to meet it. But, you’re welcome to try.

  • Phyllis H. Buckman

    P.S. The model of the baby in the ad is a 12-fetus, not 20-24 week fetus which would, of course, be much larger.

  • Pingback: Major papers reject pro-life ad – image of baby “too controversial” | Jester's mace

  • Sarah Conner

    I am gonna to tell something here that only my husband knew and his parents knew…I knew the night I got pregnant,I knew the sex of our baby,I also knew he was going to be born on a Friday…my husband thought it was a control thing…but our son was born on a Friday and we never,ever picked out a girl’s name…God’s will…

  • Pingback: Chicago Trib runs alternate ad showing fetal image after first deemed too controversial

  • ESDLs

    Fact– Abortion is Premeditated MURDER of a Living Baby !

  • Pingback: 'Too Controversial': Major Newspapers Reject Pro-Life Ad

  • Mike

    People, don’t question the reason behind all the natural disasters we are going through after reading this. We have turned our back on God, our creator and He has lifted His protective hand from our country. Until we recognize that a baby is one of God’s creations we are going to see worse calamities AND WE WILL BE DESERVING THEM! As the bible says plainly, repent and turn back to God.

    • Justin Curtright

      I am so sick of seeing this hateful, depraved, imbecilic, idiotic, moronic, stupified DRIVEL being spewed by you religious social-terrorists! Fuck you, fuck your reiligion, and especially fuck your homophobic, racist, unthinking, asinine, psychotic fabrication you call a god! Adults with imaginary friends make me sick. Go get some fucking medication for those voices in your head.

      • ProLifeMommyof2

        Feel better, Mr. Curtright? Now…. go and get yourself an exorcism.

      • blair miller

        There atheist in the pro life movement, this isn’t a religiouse issue . This is a moral issue.You know what I don’t like,when hateful people like you, go to threads , to purposely bash on other peoples beliefs.

    • COMALite J

      What about all the disasters that we had before Roe v. Wade? You know, like the Great Chicago Fire, the Galveston Hurricane (unnamed because we hadn’t started naming hurricanes yet) which killed anywhere from 2× to 4× 9/11s worth of people and remains the single worst (by body count) short-term natural disaster in our history, the two Dust Bowls (the worst natural disasters period), the Spanish Flu (granted, that one was worldwide), etc. etc. etc.?

  • Pingback: Cartoon County MN- The lunacy of it all. » Blog Archive » Apparently the left doesn’t want you to know what a 20 week old baby looks like. Well, next time you see a pregnant woman, ask her how her “fetus” is. If you’re

  • Heather

    Where did the fetus in the photograph come from?

    • COMALite J

      Good question.

  • Pingback: ‘Too Controversial’: Major Newspapers Reject Pro-Life Ad 131 2 107 Email ArticlePrint | as Wayne Sees It

  • Pingback: Who is the Lord? | GOD LOVES YOU

  • paul chaisson,

    Replace “it”, with “they” which includes all sexes.

  • Pingback: 3 Major Newspapers Refuse Pro-Life Ad: Baby Pictures Are “Too Controversial” - ZIONICA.com - ZIONICA.com

  • debtom

    Until conception, there is no life. Life begins at conception. Maybe if we fought to end abortions in total, we would have greater victory. I say that because God Himself would not agree to the terms of abortion laid out presently. People are calling for the end of late term abortions when in fact, we should be calling for the end of abortions completely. The compromise people are seeking is still murder!

    A woman has a choice. She can keep her pants on. I still haven’t found in the Constitution where it says it’s legal for women only to commit murder nor where it says doctors can legally assist her in doing so. Have any of you?

    • Joanne13

      The final ‘goal’ IS to finally end all legal abortion. Sadly, attempting to do that outright would cause so much of a national uproar it couldn’t go anywhere but to the back of legislators issues. I’d like to see them all banned right now like they used to be but it’s like Pandora’s Box… once opened (made legal) it’s nearly impossible to end legally (to put the evil back). As far as the ’20 week’ limit I think it should have been at 12 weeks instead. WHAT difference does the degree of pain a developing baby can sense ‘or feel’ does it make?? Pain is PAIN.

      And as far as women keeping their ‘pants on’ I have to remind you that MANY unplanned pregnancies are the result of rape and incest and HARDLY the fault of the one pregnant.

      • debtom

        in comparison, rape and incest pregnancies are rare. we still need to outlaw abortion. our current laws do nothing to stop women from getting pregnant over and over again only to abort their babies. the issue is so sad and such a statement about the condition of our society.

        • COMALite J

          in comparison, rape and incest pregnancies are rare.

          You got a citation for that assertion?

    • COMALite J

      You’re right that God Himself would not agree to the terms of abortion laid out presently, but not for the reason you think.

      The LORD God of the Old Testament and especially the Mosaic Law did not consider the unborn at any stage, or even newborns for that matter, to be fully Persons! For Him, as a matter of Law or commandment, the demarcation was age one month after birth!! Prior to that, they were not to be numbered nor counted as Persons (seven times His Law says this, and twice He Himself commands it, in Numbers Chapter 3 alone, and still more times elsewhere in the Law!), nor were they assigned any monetary value whatsoever, unlike all other age groups (Leviticus Chapter 27, Numbers Chapter 18).

      In Exodus 21:22–25, there is a law about what to do if a man causes a pregnant woman to lose her child(ren): if the woman herself is not seriously harmed, then the man has to pay a fine to the husband. That’s it. A fine. This, mind you, in the very same chapter and just eight verses after a passage that states that for a child to curse either parent is a capital offense! Only if the mother is harmed is there a worse penalty, and that based on the harm done to her (eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life, etc.)

      Note that the KJV and some other translations are ambiguous on the point as to whether “harm” or “mischief” refers to harm to the mother, the prematurely born child, or both, but many other versions make it quite plain that the harm must be done to the mother to warrant worse than a fine, and that the infant is miscarried — and no translation that I’ve ever seen [and I’ve seen dozens] unambiguously says that the harm would be to the child or both or even either! Not. One.

      There’s also the simple reality that back then they didn’t know about “trimesters” and such, nor did they have neonatal ICUs and incubators and such nor even the primitive herbal medications available in Egypt [remember, they had Exodused and were wandering in the desert wilderness when these commandments were given — the air of a desert is pretty much the 180° diametric opposite of that of NICUs and incubators!] — premature babies always died, every single time, without exception! That’s how they knew that it was even premature! That’s how they defined the term back then: if the baby survived, then it wasn’t premature, by definition!

      Moving right along, next up is Numbers Chapter 5. Ah, Numbers Chapter 5. Is your wife acting suspicious? Maybe throwing up in the morning, or has skipped a period, yet you know you haven’t “known” her in that time? Take her to the Tabernacle (later replaced with the Temple), to the priests! They’ll brew up a special herbal tea made from dust from the Tabernacle floor (which would contain remnants of dried plants that grow in the desert, including herbs known to be abortifacients). This tea is “the bitter water that bringeth the curse.” When she drinks it, if she’s pregnant (presumably with another man’s baby), it will cause a miscarriage (the symptoms described are that of miscarriage: “the belly [womb] to swell and the thigh [female genitalia] to rot”).

      And there you have it: the LORD God Himself outright commanding induced abortion as a test of marital fidelity!!

  • caskinner

    People that support abortion don’t want to see the truth.

  • 1peevedbob

    I don’t know about the other two papers, but the Chicago Tribune doesn’t have time to run these ads, as they are too busy covering all the GUN CRIME murders that happen each weekend in the ‘windy city’. Apparently, murdering unborn baby humans isn’t as big a headline grabber as criminals using guns to kill each other. Some people could call these murders as a form of ‘extreme late term abortion’.

  • hammar22

    The media is not worth the paper its printed on. That’s why it is suffering and losing ground if it is not already dead. They deny the truth and substitute lie after lie. They only print their agenda. The whole world is suffering from this lie. Pray everyday!

  • Pingback: The “Too Controversial” Ad | Intellectual Imperialism

  • Ma Singleton

    Most of the traditional 5th estate is not pro life ,They have been perverting every thing and hiding anything that threatens the pro choice culture .Look at how long it took for the main stream to even bring out any info on Gosnell .ABC shocked me last week ,did any one catch 20/20 teenage confidential?When it was over my teenager wanted to know why all the media adults in the Pam Stenzel portion were absent of frontal lobes by dubbing the senior high student a hero in particular TEEN magazine,for making her teenager of the month .My son thinks Pam Stenzel is the only speaker that doesn’t pull punches and just really tells guys how and why sex is not just a momentary conquest choice but a lifetime decision. We watched the piece the editing was so brazenly slanted and unfair.For those of you who are unfamiliar, Pam Stenzels talks are under the premise that once you have heard it you can never again say”I didn’t know”Hence her talks have names like SEX HAS A PRICE TAG and THE HIGH COST OF FREE LOVE . Free speech is only protected if it is pro choice and does not promote responsibility They even showed kids smoking alcohol and snorting condoms .In all fairness they did one story about kids speeding and the dangers of that (I am old fashioned I thought sex could be dangerous ,I must have missed the memo on the cure for all the STD and STI’s,

    • COMALite J

      Look at how long it took for the main stream to even bring out any info on Gosnell.

      Contrary to what you’ve been told, the mainstream media has indeed followed the Gosnell case since the raid on his facilities, through his arrest and indictment, as well as his trial and conviction.

      I did a Google News search on “Kermit Gosnell” and told Google News to only show results from various date ranges, so that I could see who reported it first in its various stages.

      Turns out that United Press International (UPI) broke the story of the raid on his clinic on February 22, 2010 (the day of the raid, and about a year before his arrest and another two years or so before his trial). The Associated Press (AP) also covered it. Fox News did publish the AP story the next day. CBS News had a much more extensive article the next day after that, and not just parroting the AP article as Fox News did (they actually worked for that article). They weren’t the only ones. Newsday and USA Today also reported on it within a day or two of the raid, among several others.

      When Dr. Gosnell was officially charged and arrested in mid-January of 2011, the earliest one that came up was CBS News on January 19, 2011 (at 11:57 AM, to be precise), about two years before the trial. For that time period, among the results on the first page were two from ABC News, plus CNN, Salon, USA Today, numerous newspapers both major and minor, and even Canada Free Press. But no Fox News!!

      As for the trial itself:

      ABC News
      More ABC News
      CBS News
      CNN (Anderson Cooper 360°, no less!)
      Time Magazine
      Even HuffPo!
      • And many more. Those were just a few on just the first page of Google results from back during the trial itself..

      • Ma Singleton

        I agree CBS did the best job ,many mentioned it but most did not really follow it or give it the prominence it deserved.When the trial came most of the info,I found on line ,CBS and Fox.The other stations in my area the mentions were more like “Trial started in Gosnell case today.,Trial continued to day in Gosnell trial .They did not get in to the weeds ,The last week or so it finally blew up and was everywhere.During the whole time I was really amazed at how many people and friends had no knowledge and /or had only learned about it on line.

        • COMALite J

          Did you actually click those links?

    • Joanne13

      ‘Snorting condoms’?? What’s that? I don’t watch 20/20 or most MSM. I prefer decorating shows, crafty shows, science fiction, etc. Most of the rest of broadcast and cable TV is overtly liberal and so corrupt I couldn’t stomach it!

  • adrianwalker51@att.net

    an intelligent woman should know if she is late with her period get it done in the first month. The thing is that women want to know the gender of the baby and that is not possible until the 20 week as well as deformations and so on…if the baby is not perfect then terminate……my husband wants a boy not a girl…..get rid of it , oh it has a cleft palate? ……get rid of it……oh it will be mentally challenged? …….get rid of it…..designer is what is wanted now…..there are so many ways to tell now if the baby is or is not normal and if it isn’t………get rid of it. I am for pro choice but this far along is insane and disgusting to consider getting rid of. Damn !!!!!!

    • EducateYourslevesLadies

      You can not have an abortion at the beginning of the month. (And what if you get pregnant at the end of the month, not everyone’s cycle is the same) You have to wait between 8 and 12 weeks. http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/ate/birthcontrolandcontraception/202753.html

      Please know things before you post them.

      • adrianwalker51@att.net

        not just for gender….for listed other reasons too. My point being is to not wait so long have it done as soon as it is possible…..you are just nit picking….so you tell me why a woman would wait that long to have the baby develop into a baby and the terminate? Irresponsibility? negligence?
        mentally ill? stupidity? spite? none are good reasons to wiat so long to have an abortion at 5 months or over….NONE!!

        • COMALite J

          Not even if the continued pregnancy would kill the mother (this happens more often than you might think)?

          Not even if the baby would be born to live just long enough to scream in agony for some hours or days?

          I agree for not aborting past that stage for things like cleft palate or mild mental impairment, but something like anencephaly (total absence of brain, or only a brain stem) is another matter entirely. Sometimes such things aren’t known until then.

          Here’s a hypothetical scenario for you: suppose a test were invented that could tell, with high yet imperfect accuracy, but only after week 24 or so, that a fetus would grow up to be a child molester or serial killer or mass murderer like Adam Lanza, and that nothing could prevent that short of the death of the fetus: no amount of love nor proper raising nor discipline nor religion nor psychiatric medication nor any other such thing. Would you accept late-term abortion in such cases?

  • Basset_Hound

    I wonder if any group could cover THIS song….

    It was the title track of an album, complete with a fetus on the cover. Back in 1974, you heard this song every time you turned on the radio. Now, thank God you can still find it on YouTube.

  • EducateYourslevesLadies

    HI ladies, with much respect to your views I wanted to point out a couple of things to you.

    1. The majority of women getting abortions after week 20 is very low.

    http://old.usccb.org/prolife/issues/abortion/currentstats.shtml

    2. After researching when fetuses actually feel pain I ran across this article:

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/06/science-house-abortion-ban-fetal-pain

    Research is good for all in this debate. Please take a look at all sides.

    • e

      EYL…Proverbs 3:7

      Be not wise in your own eyes; fear the Lord, and turn away from evil.

      1) It doesn’t matter whether a “majority” of abortions (MURDERS) are done after 20 weeks…it’s that they ARE being done!

      2) Babies in utero and out DO feel pain! The even hear noises! It’s amazing – they also react to certain foods that us moms eat. They are human beings created by God in His image.

      Deuteronomy 27:25a
      Cursed be anyone who takes a bribe to shed innocent blood.

      • COMALite J

        Now read Numbers Chapters 3 (the whole chapter, so no claiming “out of context”) on when the LORD God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob wants people to be counted (numbers) as Persons, Leviticus 27 and Numbers 18 on the monetary value the LORD God assigns to Persons based on age group and gender (and specifically what value is assigned to unborns, or even to newborns prior to age one month after birth!), plus Exodus 21:22–25 on the actual Mosaic Law penalty for violently causing a pregnant woman to abort or miscarry, and Numbers Chapter 5 in which the LORD God Himself outright commands induced abortion (by drinking a bitter herbal tea containing herbal dust known to be abortifacient, and the symptoms described are that of miscarriage) as a test of marital fidelity.

        Deuteronomy 27:25 is condemning hired killers, a la Mob hitmen. Killing the unborn would only qualify as murder or shedding innocent blood if they are considered Persons, but those passages I just cited say that they aren’t. I know of no passages in which God Himself (or any of His duly authorized representatives), as a matter of Law or commandment, says or even implies otherwise.

        According to your God in His Law, Personhood begins at age one month after birth!

  • Acts238toBsaved

    I just love this baby, every time I see her I just want to hold and hug her, who could harm such a beautiful little child is beyond me. I hope everyone gets to see how beautiful she is.

  • Acts238toBsaved

    Rev 11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

    12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

    13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

    14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

    15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

    5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

    6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I
    will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.

    7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

    8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
    (kjv) (pls see entire text)

  • Pingback: Legalize Jesus | Spread The Gospel | End Christophobia | Rise Up – LIBERAL NEWS PAPERS REJECT PRO-LIFE ADD — NOT SHOCKING

  • Peg

    I really don’t understand the name calling……aren’t any of you adult enough to state your opininion without calling names?!!! I am not “pro-abortion”, as some of you like to twist the term “pro-choice” into. I would never have an abortion, but I certainly don’t think it’s my call to make for another woman. There are many reasons that are legitimate for abortion….the funniest thing about this is that the majority of people who want the gov’t to outlaw abortions are the ones screaming “less gov’t in our lives”.

  • hammar22

    The stain of abortion remains with the mother who aborted and the doctor who committed and the father who is not present. That’s just the beginning…the baby in heaven, the families not realizing what happen whether they care or not and remember God who gives life. One day we will all stand before our Lord and Savior. How will He feel about the charge?

  • LiarLiarPantsOnFIRE

    Yeah, name-calling sucks. But, the pro-“choice”-to-kill-unborn-HUMAN-BEINGS crowd vehemently insists on it! The immaturity level just oozes out of them, not to mention(but, for their sake, I will)the way pro-aborts claim to be “for choice,” when they withhold the WHOLE truth from the moms! The pro-aborts refuse to state the SCIENTIFIC FACTS about the unborn human being. The pro-aborts refuse to show the ultrasound. The pro-aborts refuse to give the moms ALL OF THE FACTUAL, SCIENTIFIC FACTS. Why? Because a MAJORITY of women, CHOOSE LIFE for their unborn child, when they are presented with the WHOLE TRUTH. And the pro-aborts KNOW this, and REFUSE it.

  • SickemBoy

    BTW, the racist, slave masters also said,” I do not own a slave myself, but I would NEVER think of telling my neighbor to own one himself.” Sound familiar, pro-aborts?

  • SickemBoy

    BTW, the racist, slave masters also said,” I do not own a slave myself, but I would NEVER think of telling my neighbor to not own one himself.” Sound familiar, pro-aborts?

    • COMALite J

      You do realize that you can edit your own posts here on Disqus forums, right? There was no need to post again just to insert the word “not” where it was needed.

  • Roni Lord Sorkin

    Abortion at any time is killing a Baby Boy or Girl. The heart is beating before the woman knows she is pregnant. A Baby is a human being Make all Abortion illegal.

  • Pingback: Major Newspapers Turn Down Pro-Life Ad, Baby Image ‘Too Controversial’

  • Pingback: Image of a baby is ‘too controversial’

  • Pingback: They stand on the throat of truth with das boot - A CROOKED PATH

  • Bridget

    They won’t publish because the burden of proof is shown. Damn science.

  • EvenTempered

    How about retroactive abortions? Where should the line really be drawn? If a woman is determined to have an abortion, I’d rather she faces the results after using more sterile methods. How about an education for these people? Grow up and do not just have sex without thinking about the logical consequence!

  • Pingback: Google

  • Pingback: Publicaţii importante din America refuză publicarea unei reclame pro-viaţă: "Prea controversată!" | Știri pentru viațăȘtiri pentru viață

  • Pingback: Abortion Ad "Too Controversial" | TTC