Woman posts pictures of her abortion, claims to rebut “sensationalist” images

An abortion activist has created a website, This Is My Abortion, posting photos of her own abortion at six weeks. She claims that this is to somehow rebut what she calls “sensationalist” imagery that pro-lifers use.

Recently, I had an abortion.

Lining the street in front of the clinic were a dozen or so protesters. They held up large banners with anti-abortion slogans, religious iconography, and images of dead babies.

Just past the bulletproof security doors, the graphic nature of that imagery haunted me in the waiting room. What would my abortion look like? I decided to secretly document my abortion with my cell phone.

My intention in documenting and sharing my abortion is to demystify the sensationalist images propagated by the religious and political right on this matter. The perverse use of lifeless fetus photographs are a propaganda tool in the prolife/prochoice debate in which women and their bodies are used as pawns to push a cultural, political, and religious agenda in the United States.

At 6 weeks of pregnancy, my abortion looked very different than the images I saw when I entered the clinic that day.

This is my abortion.

She posts four pictures, which consist of nothing but two jars. The first two pictures show the jars empty; the next set show one of the jars with blood in it.

(I chose not to post all four pictures as they may be disturbing to some; you can view all four here.)

Currently, there are over 70 comments left on the page, and they are overwhelmingly supportive. She’s praised as if she had performed some kind of amazing, revolutionary act. Fellow pro-aborts laud her photos, claiming that she has somehow proved pro-lifers wrong, with their “sensationalist” imagery which, obviously are doctored.

Of course, it only takes about thirty seconds of critical thinking to spot the massive holes in this entire argument: that pro-lifers are lying and falsifying post-abortion photos, and that this is all an abortion at six week entails, and we can trust her because hey, she has pictures.

Never mind there are only four pictures. What happened before or after those four pictures were taken? Don’t worry about that. That jar may have filled up even more with blood, but don’t think about it.

She’s thanked for letting women know what to expect, but she never actually outlines what goes on during the abortion. All a woman would know by looking at her site is that there are jars and blood involved. And considering there are several different methods of abortion used in the first twelve weeks, her method of education is rather lacking. How on Earth would any woman know what to expect by merely looking at a few pictures of jars on a table? It tells her nothing whatsoever, but we’re supposed to believe that this is more realistic than what she might learn from a pro-lifer?

One commenter says that a woman should do what’s best for her and the baby, “even if it means not having it” – because sure, what’s best for the baby is being killed.

And hey, the jar only has blood in it, which apparently proves that there’s no baby there, right? Uh, wrong. At six weeks, the baby has a beating heart, and the brain, muscles, bones, and other organs are beginning to form. Little buds will eventually turn into arms and legs. The baby’s face is starting to take shape, too. The baby is also only about a quarter of an inch in size, which is probably why you can’t see it in the pool of blood. That doesn’t mean the baby isn’t there.

Using a six-week abortion to dispel other gruesome abortion images is also laughable. Saying that because she couldn’t see the baby at six weeks proves that stomach-churning photos from, say, a twelve-week abortion are somehow false is the most ridiculous argument one could possibly make.

What’s interesting (but mostly hypocritical) is how the use of post-abortion images is deemed perverse, sensationalist propaganda which serves no educational purpose whatsoever. But four rather meaningless photographs which explain absolutely nothing to a woman about what her baby looks like at six weeks, how he or she is developed, how the abortion will actually be performed, and what it will feel like is somehow praised as educational. Huh? How does that make any sense at all? Pro-abortion activists love to use the word “choice,” and they claim to be all for women making an informed choice. Why, then, do they have such a problem with actual images that show what an abortion is like? If it’s really not murder, and isn’t harmful to women, and isn’t emotionally traumatic, then who cares if women see what the baby looks like afterwards? The reality is that they don’t want the truth to come out or for women to be fully informed. Honesty and transparency hurt the abortion business.

The truth is, if most women knew what an abortion actually looked like, they’d be horrified. If women were given the truth about their babies – knew that their hearts were beating, saw their little fingers and toes, watched them yawn and move in the womb – they would be much less likely to support abortion. Images of a baby after an abortion are heart-wrenching and stomach-turning, for sure, and even this woman admitted that they had an effect on her. And this is exactly why pro-abortion advocates don’t want them seen — because if women see what an abortion actually consists of, they’re more likely to back out. Pro-abortion activists know this, and this woman’s website is a perfect example of how they claim to educate us with “the truth” while actually not telling us anything at all. They’re banking on people taking what they see at face value and refusing to dig any deeper. They know that if anyone did dig deeper, and learned what abortion really is, the abortion lobby loses.

Trying to convince women that abortion is OK by using half-truths and obfuscation won’t work in the long run. You can cover up the truth for only so long, and the truth is simple: abortion is murder. It’s the murder of those who don’t have anyone to speak for them or protect them, the murder of those whose lives are worth living but were never given a chance.

  • hayley

    Most abortions are performed at 5 weeks or less. It takes almost two weeks to impregnate an egg. And it takes 21 days for the fetus’s “heart to start beating” So mathematically most abortions are on non-living ‘fetuses’. And just for a fun fact, plan B does not stop pregnancies but rather block the sperm from the egg and block impregnation, because it has to be taken BEFORE the impregnation has occurred.
    I do not agree with abortions over 5 weeks either, but let’s be fair and separate those aborting “living fetuses” and “non-living fetuses”.

    • Chabe

      “Non-living fetuses” In first place, this is not a fetus, is an embryo, and in second place: it is alive! It has cells, DNA, reacts to external stimulus, has the ability to grow… It’s alive!

      • Detroiter327

        You know what else is alive? Yeast.

        • mad_scientiste

          Will yeast ever grow a human adult?

          • Detroiter327

            Im just saying that yeast also coincidentally fits all the criteria mentioned above. Also, if you are going to take the hard line that something must be saved because it could eventually grow into an adult I hope you are as hardcore as opposing stem cells.

    • AliceInWeirdoLand

      Five weeks depends on whether you’re counting from her last period, or the actual impregnation date.

    • Elise77

      I don’t know where you got the statistic that most abortions are performed at five weeks or less, but it is flat-out, almost laughably wrong. Even the Guttmacher Institute (the research arm of Planned Parenthood) doesn’t try to pass off something so improbable as a legitimate statistic. I don’t know that, in four pregnancies, I EVER knew I was pregnant before five weeks of pregnancy. That would generally make a woman only one week late for their period.

      Also, a sperm can only survive for about two days, so I’m not sure where you picked up the “two weeks to impregnate an egg” tidbit, either. If conception doesn’t happen in the first 48 hours post-coitus, it doesn’t happen. After that, it takes about a week, not two weeks, for implantation to occur. A pregnancy test administered prior to that would come back negative, even if the woman had actually conceived. In fact, it could come back negative for a couple of weeks post-conception.

      Furthermore, I think you’re confused on both the definition of “living” and the definition of “fetus.” Prior to its attaining identifiably human characteristics, an unborn child is still very much living. It’s not a rock, a pencil, or a piece of flatware. It’s a living organism. The only way to abort a “non-living fetus” would be if the fetus had actually died. I don’t even understand what you mean by distinguishing between “living” and “non-living fetuses.” Maybe you mean to distinguish between the embryonic stage of human development and the fetal stage of human development? Still, embryos and fetuses are both living human beings (unless they have died… They CAN die, and non-living things CAN’T die).

  • Guest

    All this fuss over something that’s 1/4″ long?

    • It’s not just “something”. It’s a HUMAN BEING that happens to be 1/4 inch long, a size we ALL were at some point. I would hope that, if my mother had wanted to have me sliced and diced out of her womb, even at 1/4 inch long, someone would make a “fuss” over me!

    • Very “short-sighted” of you, don’t you think? The problem with half-truth is you always end up with the half that isn’t true. The truth you’re avoiding, and I think you know you are, is that 1/4″ was where all of us were at one time in our lives. We got a chance to live, they should, too. Use more than half your brain and you can make better choices; fail to use it all, and bring in as much information as you can into it, and others will be more than happy do it for you.

    • Theospeak1

      It’s so easy to write of another person’s life as long as you think of them as an object, an ‘it’, or a ‘something’. Think of the person you love the most in the universe. Think of them being dismembered alive and partially liquified. While they were breathing. And then think if the legal case was brought before a judge and the defense argument was, “All this fuss over something that’s 5′ 5” “? Don’t get me wrong. I don’t thik abortion is murder in the traditional sense as much as it’s involuntary manslaughter, because people have duped themselves into believing the chiild is just a ‘something’. However I do veiw abortion as being analogous to slavery. People who practed slavery before it was out-lawed weren’t tried or put it jail; it simply – and justly – became illegal and the practice was stopped.

      • Slavery was outlawed because a minority of people recognized it for what it was…EVIL…and courageously stood up and spoke out against it. The US Supreme Court had upheld the right of some people to “own” other people. The way they did this was to declare people with black skin to be “non-persons.” This same logic has been used by the same court to oppress another class of people…people too small to defend themselves. I speak, of course, of the pre-born. And the only way this injustice will be abolished is by good people standing up and speaking out against this evil. The perpetrators of this crime against humanity have a lot riding on keeping the public in the dark…uninformed and unaware of the truth of the matter. Even at 5 weeks gestation, the abortion personnel must count the body-parts of the pre-born PERSON to make sure that none of them are left inutero. This would cause a serious infection that might very well endanger the life of the 2nd victim of the “procedure.” It was illegal before and most women did not seek illegal and dangerous abortions. Most women decided to give life to their babies. I’d like to see us get back to that place!

        • CEK

          Please see my comment above about the slavery thing. Also please show me how exactly someone goes around and “counts” the body parts of a 5 week old because it would literally be impossible.

          • grdawg

            Ok, this is a photo of an unborn baby at just one week farther than you mentioned – 6 weeks – and it’s pretty clear that this baby has body parts.

          • Detroiter327

            There was a wonderful article written a few weeks back (on this site) discussing using accurate images. This is sadly not one of them. A six week old in utero looks like this
            That is the picture looks like that on every website that is objective and not pro-life. Also Considering the size of the 6 week old in utero is would be impossible to sort through and pick out “parts”.

          • grdawg

            Well, your link is a drawing, not a photo. Just because you don’t like the photo I linked to doesn’t make it inaccurate. In fact, a photo is pretty much always more realistic and accurate than a drawing.

  • I don’t know about others but my cell phone doesn’t give the best resolution when I use it to take pictures.

  • “Most abortions are performed at 5 weeks or less.” — this is false. If we want to maintain a civil, fact-based discussion, please provide a link? This website, using Alan Guttmacher Institute numbers, purports that “52% of all
    abortions occur before the 9th week of pregnancy, 25% happen between the
    9th & 10th week, 12% happen between the 11th and 12th week, 6%
    happen between the 13th & 15th week, 4% happen between the 16th
    & 20th week, and 1% of all abortions (16,450/yr.) happen after the
    20th week of pregnancy.”

    BUT the most salient issue here is that this woman and her abortion of her 6-week-old offspring (does she mention if that was 6 weeks gestation or 6 weeks LMP? 2 weeks is a big difference in this little life and his or her development) does not show us a photograph of the actual corpse, and there is one, albeit very small.

    That said, at the first-trimester abortion clinic where I worked for more than 5 years, after the jar is removed from the suction machine, the liquid blood is strained to catch the baby–parts. In a very early pregnancy, is this woman was 6 weeks LMP (from last menstrual period, 4 weeks from gestation) a gestational sac can sometimes be visualized, and what was inside, and routinely the doctor floats whatever didn’t fit through the strainer in water to look for the chorionic villi–this is what attaches the sac to the lining of the uterus before the placenta can be grown.

    This was her human, genetically-unique offspring/child/baby/fetus. And he/she was a blessing, now gone forever. Call that baby what you want, but a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet.

    • Really? “AbortionNo” is what you think is a valid and unbiased source?

      • Barb Yagley

        Sir – she based her statements on her 5 year experience in an abortion center. She quoted statistics provided by Guttmacher Institute that she found at Just because you don’t like the messenger doesn’t invalidate the message of factual information.

  • Mill Run

    Abortion is not murder. Since you are willing to lie about that, nothing else you say can be trusted.

    • Eli Draconis

      “Abortion is not murder.” Let’s hear some FACTS to back up that claim.

      • Mill Run

        Go read a law book. Any law book. Or, any state law. Or, any federal law. They all include a definition of murder. None include abortion in those definitions. Not my opinion, not my ‘claim’. It’s the LAW. Move to another country if you don’t like it.

        • grdawg

          Yeah, and the Nazis wouldn’t have legally defined gassing Jews as murder. Just because a killing isn’t legally defined as murder doesn’t mean it’s not murder. The law isn’t always the truth.

          • Eli Draconis

            You just refuted your own point.

          • Eli Draconis

            sorry, your comment was listed as Mill Run’s. Some sort of glitch I guess.

        • Eli Draconis

          I was thinking more along the lines of scientific facts since the law is not infallible. Or does “Dredd Scott” not ring any bells?

        • Does it bother anyone else that Planned Parenthood, the leading abortion-seller in the nation, and the largest tax-supported “family planning” organization in the world, was founded by a woman who was a leading proponent of the modern eugenics movement. She worked tirelessly to ensure that those citizens who were deemed “unworthy” to procreate were sterilized, by force, if necessary, to purify the human gene pool. According to her, it was the duty of every intelligent person to do all they could to make sure that no feeble-minded, brown-skinned, homosexual, or undesirable, was allowed to reproduce. LOOK IT UP! In fact, Adolph Hitler was a great fan of her work…and modeled his “final solution” after her programs. Why don’t some of you pro-death advocates defend Margaret Sanger’s work in eugenics? I can’t wait…

    • BonnieJ

      So, since laws state abortion is legal, that makes it okay with you? Do you realize how stupid that sounds? At what point does killing another person bother you, since you don’t mind supporting killing people who can’t see you coming and can’t defend themselves?

    • Murder: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

      Because you likely don’t believe a fetus is a human being (it is, read a biology book) then of course you draw the conclusion you draw. But, of course, I’m sure you’ll read a biology book and make even more interpretations that suit your pre-conceived opinions. That’s what people like you do before drawing flawed conclusions and patting yourself on the back like you discovered something irrefutable. In other words, go back and try again.

  • Inez

    Mill Run, read a biology book.

    • Won’t convince him. He reads law books the same way Al Qaeda reads the Koran. Selects what suits his pre-conceived beliefs and interprets the results as ‘proof’. People insist on running around with a bucket over their head.

  • Sarah

    To all the pro-choicers, dig deeper & you’ll know that no matter how small, that abortion took the life of your baby who had a soul, who had a purpose to live, a wonderful creation from God our father. It’s a big deal & you’ll know it at the judgment seat when you’ll need to take account of what good or evil you’ve done in this life. Killing your own children will be a hard one to explain. Jesus says, “Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.” We have a merciful God, turn away from your sins & go to him, before it’s too late.

    • Anonymous

      Um, not all pro-choicers have actually had abortions, just FYI. Some of us would actually never have an abortion ourselves (I’m not necessarily in that category myself, but I know plenty of people who are)–we just don’t feel that it’s right to force someone else to do something she doesn’t want to do just because we might think it’s a good idea or our religion says we have to.

      Oh, and Jesus also said “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” (John 8:7).

      • Trish

        Why would you not have an abortion yourself?

        • Anonymous

          I didn’t say I wouldn’t; I said I knew people who wouldn’t but don’t want to take away the rights of other women. I’ve never been pregnant and I can’t say for certainty about myself either way since it largely depends on the circumstances.

      • Annie

        The rest of the verse says….Go away and from this moment sin no more. When we speak the truth through Christs words, we are evangelising not judging. There is a huge difference. Using bible verses out of context to justify the killing of a developing human child is as much of a sin as the act itself.

      • freancia

        “we just don’t feel that it’s right to force someone else to do something she doesn’t want to do just because we might think it’s a good idea or our religion says we have to.”

        What about the baby? What about her idea? What about her religion? Wasnt she FORCED to die?

        • Anonymous

          The fetus at the time of most abortions has no ideas, no religion, and no concept of life or death.

          • Bee

            But the fetus is a being. A living being, a helpless being, who only needs one thing to be birthed into a world where he/she can have the opportunity learn to live independantly and develop intellectually, and hopefully one day have his/her own idea’s : a mother. All the baby fetus needs is its mother to to come into the world. Unfortunately some women who are ignorant deny their child life. It is a totally selfish act. You were once a fetus. We were all once fetuses. EVERYONE deserves the opportunity to live.

          • Anonymous

            Yes, and if I had been aborted or miscarried as a fetus I wouldn’t have known or cared.

            It’s also worth noting that you make it sound like pregnancy is a quick, simple process (“All the baby fetus needs is its mother to to [sic] come into the world”), when in fact it requires quite a lot of that woman. Pregnancy can be physically and mentally detrimental to a woman and it lasts for three-quarters of a year (with some permanent damage possible).

            And as far as selfishness causing the deaths of others, well, you’d better get used to that. It’s everywhere in our society. Every time you buy something you don’t absolutely need while others go without food, water, medicine, and shelter? Selfish. Not donating blood every 56 days? Selfish. Keeping both kidneys when patients are dying on the waiting list? Selfish. All of those selfish actions lead to someone else’s death, in those cases someone who’s alive and aware of their suffering and impending death. Sounds worse than aborting a fetus to me, and don’t those people deserve the opportunity to live as well?

          • Bee

            You are right. Had you been aborted as a fetus you wouldn’t have known or cared BECAUSE of the fact that you had not been given the opportunity to develop. You would have been robbed of your fundamental right to life. I care. I would have cared that you had not been born and given the chance to offer what you have to the world. You are wonderful, and, in your humanity, perfect. Without you the world would be different, because every single person born offers something good to the world whether they know it or not.
            Pregnancy is no easy process, but, to the child in gestation, the mother is what he/she needs to survive until birth. I never said pregnancy was all the mother needed, I said it was all the baby needed. Motherhood requires constant Selflessness.
            I agree with you completely! It is selfish not to donate, and give to others the things you have mentioned, in the same way killing ones own child is selfish. They are all selfish things. Once again, everyone deserves the opportunity to live.

          • Detroiter327

            Many women who have abortions want to have children one day it is just not the right time. In my opinion it would have been more selfish bringing a child into the world when you are diminishing its chances at a successful life. Its an odd choice that you say “ignorant” when many women are actually well informed of their decision, and stand by it.

          • Bee

            Just because a mother finds her child inconvenient, because it hasn’t come into the world at the “right time”, does not mean that her baby deserves to be killed!
            Many people who have come into the world in terrible situations have gone on to be successful, and brought wonderful change to the world because, from their hardships, they have learned to be empathetic. All life is valuable and beautiful no matter what.
            If a mother really doesn’t want her baby, she should give it up for adoption…..not kill it.

          • Kristiburtonbrown

            So because it’s not the “right time” for me, I should kill another person? I know of people who weren’t planning on having a baby, and it wasn’t the most convenient time for them, but they made it the right time. Pretty much anyone can do that. If they can’t, they can give their baby to a couple who can raise that child with love. Many girls today don’t realize that they can handpick a couple to adopt their child. That’s a truly unselfish choice – not abortion.

      • AliceInWeirdoLand

        So… Excluding cases of rape, who forced her to have sex in the first place?

    • Leah

      Embryos don’t have souls. Once an egg is fertilized, the odds are against it ever actually becoming a baby. The most conservative estimate to be found in any serious biological study of human reproduction is that 30% of all zygotes never implant. Most studies put that figure around 40-60%. Once the egg implants, there is still a 15-30% chance of a miscarriage. So if you believe that we get our souls right at the moment of fertilization, then you have two choices: You must either believe that all those souls are being recycled and reincarnated into the next zygote (in which case, why would God not do the same for an abortion that he does for an implantation failure or a miscarriage?), or you must believe that Heaven is more than half full of souls that were never even born.

      • Your assertion that mortality rates determine whether a given group has souls is entirely speculative – in fact, it’s actually more speculative and less reasonable than our belief that fertilization is the most likely point for ensoulment because that’s when a live individual human comes into existence.

        • Leah

          A live individual human can certainly trace their existence back to fertilization, and to egg and sperm before that. But your assertion that all fertilizations are immediately live individual humans is erroneous. A hydatidiform mole or an unimplanted zygote are no more individual humans than a tumor or a toenail. There may be human cells or human DNA, but there will never be any of the cellular differentiation to create all the separate organs and systems that make up a human individual.

          It’s true that all argument about souls is speculative. I believe in ensoulment during childbirth, you believe in ensoulment at fertilization, and we are probably not going to change each other’s minds. There can be no objective or empirical measurement of a metaphysical concept. And since there is no proof of either side, the only fair thing we can do is allow each woman to make that judgment based on her own beliefs. I myself have never had, and expect that I never will have an abortion. I would love to have a child, but I find it horrific to imagine a world in which I discovered that my fetus had severe, painful, and deadly defects, but that my only option was to give birth and condemn some poor soul to a life consisting of mere hours of misery. This is my biggest fear if anti-abortion laws are passed…that even more children will be born into bodies that will offer them nothing but pain, and never give them time or opportunity to experience anything good in life.

          But even though I feel very strongly about this, I would never stop another woman from continuing an ill-fated pregnancy. If her views were the same as yours, the alternative would be horrific to her, and she is the only one who should be making that decision.

          • First, I think you need to review the embryology:

            “There can be no objective or empirical measurement of a metaphysical
            concept. And since there is no proof of either side, the only fair
            thing we can do is allow each woman to make that judgment based on her
            own beliefs.”

            Translation: we can’t prove who’s right, so I should just assume you’re right. Uh-uh. That’s not how logic or morality work. Given the possibility that fertilization is the ensoulment point (and rationally speaking, that’s overwhelmingly more likely than any other point), morality dictates that we err on the side of caution – of life.

          • Kristiburtonbrown

            Leah, you might want to check out embryology, biology, genetics, etc. textbooks. It is factually and medically accurate that, at the moment of fertilization, a new human being has been created. Even the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed that modern medical science proves this in Rounds v. Planned Parenthood (a 2008 case, I believe). For the facts, check this out:

      • AliceInWeirdoLand

        Technically, the existence of a soul cannot be fully proven one way or another…

    • peach

      Yeah, that argument doesn’t work if you don’t believe in God.

  • Julia

    Hey Mill!

    In a lot of countries it IS murder and in ALL of them it was up to the late 1900s. Care to explain, legally, what happened in the 70s to make a child cease to be a child? How about biologically or ethically?  Isn’t it weird that every doctor and every ethicist agrees that life begins at conception but legally we managed  devoid that life of its fundamental right? If you are willing to buy into this kind of inconsistent logic than of course reason and facts bear no weight for you and the whole argument is useless because YOU, along with millions of others, WANT your right to get rid of “inconveniences” regardless if those happen to be your own children. Also, are you shallow enough to say that a life only has value if it’s a certain length? If so,pray, do tell, what length should a baby have in order for YOU to consider them worthy of their right to life (be very mindful of course, that every pro-choices will have a different opinion on this, which, of course, makes the whole pro-choice rhetoric very “logical”

    Do you not realize how INSANE it is for some people to say it’s ok to kill my baby if he is less than 12 weeks, others to say, no wait, let’s allow the killing until 16 weeks, others think it’s ok any time you want it! In Holland, post-birth abortion is legal. In the end there is only ONE truth and no middle-ground. You are either killing or you are not. Life is either life or it is not. 

  • Angel Marie

    Abortion is murder, your taking a life of an innocent child who hasnt had a chance at life.
    Everyone deserves a chance at life, babys dont pick their parents or their living situations.
    They dont control how their parents concieved them. Accidently, rape..
    They were put on this earth without any ability to help themselves live, they rely on their parents to take care of them and love them.
    And who are we to take their one and only chance at life aaway from them?
    And if you cant take care f your child, put it up for adoption, if you cant provide love for your child… there are plenty of people who would gladly do it for you.
    Take responsibality for your actions.

  • Stating my option

    God choses your parents and your life so maybe he wanted this woman to have a abortion. Maybe this is just a leason in life she needed. Im not saying its right but Im not in there shoes I dont know why some chose abortion but im not going to judge because only god can judge only he can chose only he can control. So unless you are god dont be judging. Be understanding and remeber everyone has a right to there option so respect that.

    • Mrgrt

      God gives you free will. God gave Adam and Eve free will. They sinned. This woman did a horrific thing in having her baby killed. God did not want her to have the abortion. He’s our loving Father. He forbids us to sin and He’s not a hypocrit. He knew she was going to do this but He did not make the choice, she did.
      God will judge. He did not forbid us judging an action as wrong. He wants us to know that we too will be judged under the same standard. In other words, His judgement takes into account each person’s culpability (our knowledge of it being wrong and our willingness to do it). Of course God forgives the repentent sinner. God has forgiven a lot of us many times. Don’t avoid making a judgement of someones actions for fear of being judgemental. They need help getting things right.

    • Elise77

      “…everyone has a right to there (sp) option…”
      Except for unborn children, apparently. Is that right? My “option” is more important that my baby’s life?

      Some lady recently went to prison for taking her baby son and swinging him into a wall, killing him. But I’m not in her shoes, so I won’t judge… Only (G)od can judge/cho(o)se/control, right? She shouldn’t even be in prison right now! Maybe bashing her baby’s brains in was just a “leason (sp) in life she needed”!

      Killing someone isn’t wrong only when that someone is “wanted” or important to someone else. It isn’t wrong only when it’s done with a gun or knife. It isn’t wrong only when someone decides it’s illegal. It isn’t wrong only when it happens on the street or in the home. It’s inherently wrong. It’s wrong even when it’s done to a nameless person in anonymity. It’s wrong even when it’s carried out with a vacuum, a curette, and forceps. It’s wrong even when the highest court in the land defends it. It’s wrong even in the dark secrecy of the womb.

      Am I judging? No. I’m only repeating the judgment of the One Who has already decided such things, not to mention the secret conviction of every human heart.

    • Anonymous

      I really like what you said here. A lot of people don’t know anything
      of empathy, it’s becoming a lost trait. There are plenty of people who find abortion immoral but do not think it should be
      illegal, for they do not know what the woman’s other choices were. I
      applaud you for realizing this.

      • grdawg

        We definitely need empathy. And we should not condemn women. We should be there for them. But none of this justifies abortion as a choice. Just as we would not justify a mother killing her 3 year old, 5 year old, or 6 month old. Mothers are not justified in killing their children.

  • Andrea

    I am an advanced practice registered nurse, working in a city emergency room. I would best identify myself as a realist.
    We treat society’s outcasts who live in whatever way that their lives play out. I don’t have to agree or disagree with how they end up in my care.
    Abortion is legal.
    To those that it is not easily available, or not easily enough available, abortions still occur.
    And those home or back room abortions, typically result in septic, severely anemic half-dead women. And aborted fetuses.
    If abortion were illegal, instead of having four or five cases a month, we would be treating thirty or forty.
    Making abortion illegal would not stop people from having abortions. If a person wants to abort, they will. And As far as prosecuting the aborters–that would be damn near impossible.
    This is all coming from someone who works in the thick of it all, not a bystander thinking hypothetically or optimistically.

    • guest

      that’s such great logic, we should also take down all the traffic lights because people are going to run the red ones anyway. or maybe we should remove all laws about child molestation, people obviously do that anyway too. what about rape? people do that anyway, why should that be against the law? my three year old daughter often breaks the rules, maybe i just shouldn’t have any rules regarding behavior, that would solve everything!

      • Andrea

        No, i believe the laws should remain in place because they are constitutional.
        I was simply stating what would happen in my medical opinion.
        Nothing would be “solved” by it. Thats was hardly my point.

        • gues

          “the laws should remain in place because they are constitutional”, then we’re only supposed to use your logic when debating new laws?

        • Elise77

          Slavery was once considered “constitutional.” Food for thought.
          I checked the Constitution today. I didn’t read anything about a right to butcher your unborn offspring. I guess it must be in the fine print or something, since the Supreme Court found it, but I sure didn’t.

    • Theospeak1

      Andrea, what you are saying is exactly analagous to saying that because to this day the slave trade happens in the U.S., and slaves have less access to health care, let’s legalize and expand sex slavery, etc. in the U.S. This will not only will allow slavery to be a profitable industry, but slaves will have access to medical treatment despite the fact that modern slaves, apart from being freed by state protection (which would be impossible if slavery was legal) have an almost a 100% mortality rate. BY THE WAY, the logic for the Dred Scott decision was that the Supreme Court “felt” in 1856 that individuals descended from Aficans who were imported as slaves were simply not people. It’s decision text reads, “…The question before us is whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not…” This logic is exactly the same as the logic applied by the Sumpreme Court in 1973 in it’s Roe v. Wade decision, whose text reads, “All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word “person,” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.”

      • CEK

        Actually you completely misread that. The Dred Scott v. Sanford decision was based around the fact that slaves were not deemed CITIZENS (as opposed to people), and also that slaves could not sue. Unless you are saying the logic of Roe v. Wade was about property rights, a fetus not being able to sue, and a fetus not being able to be classified a citizen then you have picked a very revisionist view of history.

        • grdawg

          Actually, you miss a major point of Dred Scott. Yes, the case did say that slaves were not citizens. However, it also said that a slave was the legal property of his master. If you think that’s equating a slave to a person, you have a funny definition of person. Whenever you say that a human being is property, you are denying his or her personhood.

          • Detroiter327

            I had a really interesting discussion about Dred v. Scott yesterday with a friend who is an attorney. He said something very insightful, “Those are the semantics they used to defend something everyone knew was wrong” I think everyone can agree with that. When you are framing things in a LEGAL context (as people do with the slavery analogy) the actual ruling, specifics, and context of it do matter. You cannot say that this specific decision is related to Roe V. Wade LEGALLY, because it is not. If you want to relate it morally, I have no qualms with that. It can also be used to defend the LGBT community. But if you want to dig through history and say this is a legal example of something pertaining to abortion, then you are wrong.

          • Detroiter327

            I had a really interesting discussion about Scott v Sanford yesterday with a friend who is an attorney. He said something very insightful, “Those are the semantics they used to defend something everyone knew was wrong” I think everyone can agree with that. When you are framing things in a LEGAL context (saying the semantics behind the two are the same) the actual ruling, specifics, and context of it do matter. You cannot say that this specific decision is related to Roe V. Wade LEGALLY, because it is not. If you want to relate it morally, I have no qualms with that. It can also be used to defend the LGBT community as well. But if you want to dig through history and say this is a legal example of something pertaining to abortion, then you are wrong.

      • Andrea

        I didn’t post what I did because I thought that anyone floating around this site would agree. I posted it is a harsh reality and that most do not consider.

    • First, your comment doesn’t address the central deciding issue of the abortion debate: whether fetuses are living people with rights of their own. If they are, that supersedes everything else you said.

      Second, are you seriously suggesting that criminalizing abortion wouldn’t have a serious impact on abortion rates? On what evidence?

      • peach

        First, there are people who would argue that even if fetuses are living people with rights of their own, it still doesn’t place them above the woman. Because that woman is definitely a living person with rights of her own, plus bodily autonomy.

        Second, look at Chile. Abortion is illegal there but abortions – many abortions – continue to happen. Some of of women can afford to go to another country for their abortion and others obtain illegal/back-alley abortions, some of which result in maternal death. Since it’s illegal there, it’s impossible to have 100% accurate data on abortions but estimates put it at between 40 000 and 160 000 a year which makes it the country in Latin America with the highest abortion rate.

        • Babylover

          I think the fact that Chile is a third world country invalidates your argument. The US is completely different from Chile, so you can’t use the example of Chile as a precedent.

          • peach

            Chile is not a third world country. But if you think it is, then look at Ireland. Abortion is illegal there, but a lot of women are still getting them. They have to leave their country to do so, but they’re getting abortions.

        • Kristiburtonbrown

          So, if the baby is indeed a living person with rights of their own, why should the right to convenience, happiness, liberty, or “bodily autonomy” be above the right to life?

    • AliceInWeirdoLand

      I understand your point, however I disagree. Just because people break the rules doesn’t mean that we should say, “Oh, no one will listen anyways, we should just get rid of them.
      It’s the principle of the matter. We have to try to do what we can, and there are some people who won’t do it because it’s illegal.
      We can’t just say, ‘Oh, there will always be murderers, so we may as well get rid of the laws against murder,’ because, while it would be nice if people made ethical decisions, they don’t always.
      And laws are made for the protection of all people, no matter how long they’ve been alive. Even if the law is broken, it’s better than there being no law.
      It sucks about the consequences for the women, but if they get illegal abortions, they are commiting a crime, and if fetuses count as people, it’s technically murder. I’m very sorry for them, because it must be so awful to be in such a dark place that you’d kill your own child, but at the same time, they shouldn’t have done it in the first place.

    • Elise77

      You know what else people will continue to do, even though it is outlawed? Female genital mutilation. “If (American doctors) say no (to performing female genital mutilation surgery), the young patient may become one of tens of thousands of
      young girls taken back to their home countries, in a process known as
      ‘vacation-cutting.’ Once there, the girls are often cut using a broken
      glass or unsterilized razor blades, and, more often than not, without
      anesthesia. While FGC may be banned in the U.S., there is no law
      protecting girls from being taken overseas to have the procedure in
      another country.”

      So to prevent girls and women from having their clitorises hacked out with rusty box cutters and having their labia stitched together on some tribal witch doctor’s kitchen table, we should make female genital mutilation safe and legal here in the United States. Clearly, the answer to brutality is to make sure it can be carried out legally in a sterile environment by a well-trained and licensed butcher.

      • LiveForLogic

        Except that genital mutilation isn’t usually a choice of the person whose health is at stake

    • grdawg

      I think we all know that some people are going to break the law. That doesn’t mean we need to keep things legal just so people can do them. Plus, if you read Dr. Bernard Nathanson’s book (founder of NARAL), you’ll find out how he says that the number of illegal/back alley abortions was a made-up number, designed just to get people on their side.

  • Kimberly Wedel

    Last night I posted a response on the website. I was very respectful and polite but stated that I thought the pictures didn’t prove anything because if one examined the contents of the jar they would see exactly what was on those posters. I did say that I felt they were being dishonest in the very way they claim prolifers are. Well surprise surprise my comment was gone this morning. I wouldn’t expect them to keep rude or threatening comments but mine was very polite. The reason the page seems to have so many positive responses is because they remove those that disagree. They have a handful of comments claiming to be by prolife people but the comments are all either completely neutral or actually praising her choice as being “honest” as to what abortion looks like.

  • McFadden

    Women & Men need to take responsibility for having sex and the baby which can result from such actions. I think in America, we have a bunch of immature adults and teenagers, who don’t want to obey rules or grow up and take on responsibility. Grow up, get married, and have your babies. God designed the family unit. When we don’t follow His design, babies are valued the equivalent to trash. Stop thinking only of your next orgasim Americans and Grow Up! If you choose to have sex, you better be mature enough to deal with the consequences.

    • CEK

      So single parents and gay family units view their babies as “trash”? You are also saying that every person who gets married suddenly values their children? Abuse/neglect can just as easily go on in the family unit that “God designed”. And FYI Just because you decide to have your child at 16 dosent make you “mature enough to deal with the consequences”. I will cite the show 16 and pregnant as my example.

      • AliceInWeirdoLand

        I think his/her point was that if someone is having sex, they should be ready to deal with the consequences.
        I do, however, disagree with his/her statements about the family unit. I’ve been mostly raised by my mother, and I turned out fine, and I know several people who have been raised by gay parents and also turned out fine.
        But it’s true, a lot of people are having sex without thinking about the consequences of pregnancy or STD’s, and if people waited until they were able to care for children before having sex, there would be many fewer abortions.

        • Anonymous

          You do realize the only one required to “deal with the consequences” is the female, right?

          • AliceInWeirdoLand

            Yes, unfortunately. While I think that men should step up and take responsibility, and think these things over first, however, I think that it’s ESPECIALLY important that women consider all these things very carefully before having sex, since they’re the ones who have to deal with it.

            It sucks, in a perfect world every guy would stick around if he got a girl pregnant, but unfortunately, it’s not, and women need to think about that, too. Because if she gets pregnant, she will have to deal with the consequences, and while it’s a double standard, you can’t put a woman’s comfort ahead of a human life.

      • grdawg

        Well, let me just say that I’m not sure a reality TV show is the best source for a claim. There are plenty of 16 years old who really can and do raise their kids. Obviously, if they prefer adoption, that’s a great choice. But we shouldn’t act like 16 year olds don’t have the maturity to raise their own child if that’s what they choose to do.

        • Detroiter327

          Any slight amount of research will show that women who have their children at a younger age (for the most part) are not as prepared and their children run into major problems down the road. While this is not a golden rule, and there are many wonderful people who have their children at a young age, according to many statistics they are in the minority. And Im confused are you being facetious about if they prefer abortion its a great choice?

          • grdawg

            I said that adoption was a great choice, not abortion. =) And regardless of whether or not the majority of 16 year olds are mature enough to raise a child – no one should kill their child or be encouraged to kill their child because they are not mature enough to be a parent. Plenty of people are waiting to adopt babies in the U.S., and if a 16 year old can’t care for her baby, she can choose a couple who will love her baby. That’s the mature thing to do if parenting isn’t an option – not abortion.

  • Mrgrt

    Thank you Cassy. This will help a lot of people. You’re observations are right on. God bless you and your dear family.

  • Katie

    The pictures look like they’re stills from a horror film. I suppose the individual provided a place for those who can’t admit their guilt and shame to bond together and try to make it right.

    • Do you not have periods? I guess I have a horror film in my drawers for a couple of days every month.

      • Katie

        If you have THAT much blood, you should most likely seek help, hon.

  • AliceInWeirdoLand

    The second a sperm cell joins with an egg cell, and the new cell is formed, it has its own gentic code. It is not a cell of the mother’s body, it is a unique creature. A single cell can complete homeostasis, which, scientifically speaking, defines it as an organism, refuting the argument that, ‘It’s part of my body, I can do what I want to it. It’s like if I remove a tumor, it’s just a lump of cells’. Problem is, it’s not a lump of HER cells, she has no right to remove it.
    People say that women should have the right to decide whether or not it lives in her body, since she’ll be the one taking care of it, and after it’s born, sure, if she wants to put her baby up for adoption, she has every right to do so. But it’s like the law about saving a dying person, if you don’t get involved, legally you aren’t responsible, but once you start, you have to do everything in your power to keep the person alive. If you don’t get pregnant, you don’t have to, but if you do, you need to do what you can to keep it alive.

    • Anonymous

      “Problem is, it’s not a lump of HER cells, she has no right to remove it.” I’m sorry, doesn’t that actually strengthen her right to remove it? If there’s something foreign in your body and you don’t want it there, don’t you have every right to remove it, especially if it’s causing you harm?

      Also, I’m glad to see that you fight for the rights of every single-celled organism with an individual “gentic code”. How is the fight for amoebas’ rights these days?

      • AliceInWeirdoLand

        Generally, I believe that women have the right to do with their bodies what they wish, but when you factor another human into the equation, it’s different. Plus, unless it’s a high-risk pregnancy, I don’t see how it causes her harm. And I don’t fight for the right of EVERY single-celled organism, only the ones that are people. I’ll count as just as much of a person as I do now in nine months, I don’t see how it’s different for an embryo and an infant.

        • Anonymous

          You don’t see how it causes her harm? Check out this list:
 . And those are just the physical side effects–don’t forget other aspects such as significant interruptions to or loss of career or education (and many other opportunities) and change in demeanor due to raging hormones, possibly having a very detrimental effect on one’s relationships. Now of course, if a woman wants to have a child she may be happy to deal with all of this, or a pregnancy could be relatively easy and have few side effects, but I think it’s important for both sides to acknowledge that while pregnancy can be a time of great joy, it also puts a woman under great mental and physical strain (with the possibility of lasting side effects as well).

          And I thought you might say that you only fight for single-celled organisms if they have human DNA. But may I ask why? I know it sounds weird, but honestly, what makes humans special? Especially those who have no feelings, thoughts, or self-awareness?

          • Katie

            Your argument is that pregnancy is rough, therefore women shouldn’t have to go through it… Seriously? Are women so weak they can’t handle pregnancy now? A pregnant woman cannot pursue a career or education?

            You think that because a woman is put under great mental and physical strain with lasting side effects as well there should be a way out? Goodness, the argument a hundred years ago was that the great mental and physical strain of voting would be too much for women. Women are strong, and need to be encouraged that they are. Not pushed and forced into this society of death.

          • Detroiter327

            Thanks for cueing up the talking points! If you read that analytically that is not what was said at all. Regurgitating the talking points of the moment about abortion making women weaker does not make for a good argument.

          • Katie

            Okay, if abortion does not encourage women to be weak and fall down when facing a rough time period (that now the argument is that women can accurately predict the future and know what will happen to their child), then what is the argument? What has been the argument?

            It’s our society. If you make a mistake, oh no worries, there’s a way out. Abortion falls into the same category. The argument is about women and strength, not “Oh, it’s my body, I do what I like. Oh I know they won’t have a good future. Oh, goodness, I’m not financially or mentally ready.”

            Okay, you’re pregnant, be strong, look at your actual options, don’t walk into a ridiculous clinic and have a disgusting procedure, then try to defend it. If it wasn’t so wrong, you wouldn’t see all the lies used to cover it up (Oh, just tell them you had a miscarriage…). You wouldn’t see these desperate sites full of women trying to defend what is nagging at their hearts as wrong. You wouldn’t just call it “abortion.” You’d call baby-killing as it is. If you disagree with that, revisit the procedures used for the process. If you’re confused about how they end a life, you might try signing up for a biology course.

          • Detroiter327

            Actually for many women it IS about if they are financially or mentally ready, being a realist does not make you weak. Dont trivialize it with an “Oh goodness”, for many women this decision revolved around a lot of introspection. Realizing that at this point in your life you would not be the best mother does not mean you lack strength. I feel that taking a good hard look at yourself and asking if you are mature enough, mentally prepared enough, and financially ready and then making an informed decision is being a strong and intelligent woman. Even if the answer you choose is abortion. I find it interesting you classify strength as having a baby at a point in your life when you are least prepared. I can look at many unfit mothers and tell you they are anything but strong. And FYI Im not confused about the biological process behind abortion, and I will continue calling it that… so will the medical community at large. Please feel free to go up to an OB/GYN and tell him/her that if they dont call it baby killing instead of abortion they should take a biology course.

          • Katie

            I was at the point in my life. Pregnant, not sure what kind of mother I would make, financially struggling. If I had chosen abortion, erased my beautiful son’s entire life because I somehow think I can predict the future, then I would be weak. Any woman who stands up to the plate, has the child, and pushes through the tough times, is strong. In all reality, who the heck is 100% prepared for a child? Children are full of surprises, change your life, and no one has any right to erase a child’s life.

          • AliceInWeirdoLand

            What you say is true, however, I believe that an embryo is a person, and a person’s life is more important than discomfort a woman goes through. If she’s not able to cope with the consequences, she shouldn’t be having sex. (Excluding cases of rape.)

            And you ask why I fight for cells with human DNA… The same reason most of society are fine with eating animal meat, but at the suggestion of murder, they’re horrified. Humans are different from animals because humans have brains that function in a way that allows them to learn, and make decisions. You’d probably say, “Well, a single cell doesn’t have that,” but a single cell has the strands of DNA that give it the capability to become that. Infants don’t have distinct thought processes, does that mean it’s okay to say, ‘Oh, I don’t want this infant, I’m going to kill it!’? Also, because an infant is just as much of a person as an adult, even though adults are larger than infants, and therefore, made of more cells. So I don’t see how the amount of cells a person has affects their standing as people.

          • Anonymous

            I do see your point, but I just don’t think it’s fair (nor is it remotely realistic) to expect women who don’t want a child–and may never want a child–to miss out on an important aspect of life and never to have an intimate relationship. But I have to ask, would you make an exception for rape cases?

            For me, I’ve actually been an ethical vegetarian for many years because I’m NOT fine with eating animals. Humans are certainly the most harmful species on the planet, but as we learn more and more about other species, it’s clear that they can learn and make decisions as well. Regardless though, to quote the philosopher Jeremy Bentham: “The question is not, ‘Can they reason?’ nor ‘Can they talk?’, but rather ‘Can they suffer?’ ”

            An early-term fetus can’t suffer; the nervous system just isn’t developed to that point yet. It’s not so much the number of cells as the type and complexity of them. Having the potential to become someone that could think and feel isn’t something that should be ignored, but for me, the woman’s life and choices come first.

          • AliceInWeirdoLand

            Like I said, for the women who didn’t want children, they shouldn’t have been having sex in the first place. And why would that stop them from EVER having an intimate relationship? If a woman put her baby that she didn’t want up for adoption, then it’s out of sight, out of mind.

            My personal opinion about rape cases is that punishing the most innocent party is not the way to deal with a crime, but I understand why there should be specific laws protecting rape victims, since they did nothing to cause the pregnancy, they shouldn’t be held responsible, but I still think that they need to be aware of how many services there are for pregnant rape victims. However, women who willingly have sex need to be prepared for the repercussions of their actions.

            I myself was a vegetarian for five years, and I began eating meat again because there has been research to support that plants can feel pain. If there’s nothing we can eat that won’t suffer from it, why not? Humans are different. Like it or not, society has dictated that human life is valued higher than animal, and I, personally, would save a human baby over an animal any day.

            There is actually inconclusive research about when a fetus begins to feel pain, and even so, when someone has multiple sclerosis, and their nerve cells begin to die, taking away their ability to feel, that doesn’t mean that because they can’t feel pain in a certain place, it’s okay to stab them there, since they won’t feel it.

            I think that, like I said, before a woman has sex, she should know that pregnancy is a possible outcome, and be willing to deal with what could happen, because it will happen to her body. Her choice was whether or not to have sex, not whether or not to kill her baby.

          • Anonymous

            First of all–I’m not saying you can stab someone in the foot if they’re a paraplegic, because they’re still able to suffer from it even if they don’t directly feel the pain. That’s kind of a ridiculous analogy.

            And, um, what credible research have you seen that claims plants feel pain? They don’t have a nervous system, and even if they did, what would be the evolutionary advantage for that? Animals have evolved to feel pain because the pain sensation tells us what to avoid because it’s doing us harm; a plant can’t move to avoid anything anyway. Also, if you really believed or cared about plants feeling pain, you could become a fruitarian.

            Also, just because our society says something doesn’t make it right. It’d be easy for you to have said in 1815, “Like it or not, society has dictated that white people are valued higher than black people.” People always bring up the whole “if you were in a burning building, would you save a cat or a human?” etc thing all the time, and that’s quite stupid since it’s purely hypothetical and I’d have to be in the situation to know what I’d do. It would largely depend on whether I had an established relationship with either the non-human animal or the person.

            I suppose all of that is off-topic, but what it comes down to for me is that a pregnant woman has thoughts, feelings, hopes, and desires, while a fetus doesn’t (at least not until later in the pregnancy). Not to mention the issue that really makes it for me: bodily autonomy. Trying to tell someone else what to do with her own body simply isn’t an option for me. I’d say that the minimal possible harm should be inflicted on the fetus in separating it from a woman’s body, but at the early stages, there’s no way it can survive. If it’s all about potential to you, do you get upset every time a woman menstruates or a man masturbates? There go many potential future humans.

          • Kristiburtonbrown

            It’s not all about potential; it’s about what IS. There’s a huge difference in killing a life that is already in existence and not helping to create one in the first place. I’m sure you can agree with that.

            Can you explain why “bodily autonomy” should be a higher right than the basic right to actually live in the first place? Should we have the universal standard that what a person wants to do with his or her own body is more important and overrides another person’s right to stay alive?

          • Anonymous

            The thing is, ova and sperm are already alive as well–the reason we treat an actual human differently than a zygote is because it has consciousness and, as I said above, the ability to think for itself and feel pain.

            Bodily autonomy is a critical right, and an integral part of any free society. If you really want to argue that bodily autonomy is less important than the right to life, then I hope you’re okay with forcing organ and tissue donations as well. After all, at least in the case of bone marrow and blood donation, there is far less risk and disruption to one’s life than that associated with pregnancy and childbirth and they can save someone else’s life.

          • AliceInWeirdoLand

            Ignoring the fact that you don’t seem to value human life, which greatly concerns me, like I said, what it comes down to for me is that I see every human with its own DNA as an individual. Letting someone make a life-or-death decision about someone else simply isn’t an option for me. And the whole thing about, ‘Is menstruation and masturbation abortion’, no, it’s not, because the ova and sperm cells don’t have individual DNA, they aren’t people, they’re just a part of their person of origin, however, once an ova and a sperm join, they create a new cell, with its own DNA, who is a person, not just a piece of its parents.

  • Alyssa

    Honestly , most GIRLS who get abortions are not very smart anyway so if we made abortion illegal then I think the rate would go down because they most likely do not have the knowledge to do a back room abortion. Yes sadly, abortion would still happen BUT it definitely would not be anywhere near as much.

    • Guest

      Wow. That’s an incredibly offensive generalization. And what’s your IQ?

    • Anonymous

      The women getting abortions are thinking about the future they and their child would have and realizing faults, I wouldn’t be so quick to write them off as unintelligent.

      • AliceInWeirdoLand

        Have you talked to every woman who’s gotten an abortion? There are many women who say that they panicked, and made a decision that they regret.

  • Anonymous

    The pro-life defend a fetus and pro-choice defend a woman. Which do you
    think should have protected rights? You can only choose one.

    Here’s another context in which to view it: it’s the 21st century,
    people no longer have sex for the sole purpose of baby-making. Take of
    it what you will, but everyone pretty much agrees with this and can own
    up to subscribing to these thoughts.

    So, I am a female, and I want to have sex just as much as a
    corresponding male, both for the same interest of pleasure. So should
    an unexpected pregnancy occur, should I not have the same choice to
    reject the responsibilities of childbirth and parenthood as my male
    counterpart does?

    • Cassy Fiano

      No, you don’t. It’s unfair, I know, but tough luck. It’s biology, not an evil conspiracy on the part of men to keep women down. Women carry the babies. It’s the way it is. When you choose to have sex, you choose to take on the risk of an unwanted pregnancy, plain and simple. If you don’t want to get pregnant, then don’t have sex. It is literally THAT easy. I know, it’s like the worst thing in the world to contain yourself, but you are a human being, yes? I assume you’re not an animal completely enslaved to your physical urges and can control yourself. It cracks me up that abortion advocates act as if pregnancy is this mysterious disease that just spontaneously happens. Come on now — we all know how it happens and it’s not a random act of fate. If you seriously can’t control yourself then one, that’s sad, and two, there’s always adoption if you don’t want the baby. There are far, far more couples waiting to adopt than there are babies who need to be adopted. My own mother was adopted, in fact. Adoption is the option that never, ever gets brought up.

      And by the way, people having sex for pleasure and not just for procreation is hardly a novel concept. People have ALWAYS had sex for pleasure as well. They just didn’t kill the baby that might have accidentally resulted from it.

    • renee

      yes,you should have the same responsibility as men. (as men now caught with prostitutes are arrested and rehabilitated just as the woman involved.) men who have sex and make a baby need to have the full pressure from all of society to take responsibility for the child they created just as the woman has. taking away responsibility from either does not make a better world! everyone valuing all life does. life is not as easy on anyone as we wish but it is always worthwhile.

    • grdawg

      Well, first, while plenty of men run away from their responsibilities, the whole purpose of child support is so that they help with the children they help to create. So it’s not really fair to say men don’t have responsibility – some of them just don’t take it. Plus, I know of PLENTY of men who would LOVE to care for their child, but their girlfriend or wife goes and has an abortion behind their back. Where’s the pro-choice outcry against that? There should be one!

      And actually, you don’t have to choose between the baby and the woman. It’s not about separate rights…it’s about equal rights. Pro-lifers stand for the principle that life is the highest right, and each person should be equally entitled to that right. No other person’s happiness or convenience, or even freedom should outweigh another person’s right to life.

  • Andy Moore made a response to this This is my Abortion (Crossed out) Dead baby

  • audi

    thank you Cassy .I waited for 10 years to have my little girl and life is so precious , I agree I feel sorry for these women who have been misinformed or don’t have the support and love to show them there are other options . I know women who suffered terrible guilt and depression after having abortions especially when they decided to start their own families later on in life . Keep up the good work !!

  • JJ

    Wow, this crap makes me laugh. So, we should all just have the unwanted babies that were forced upon us somehow via rape, incest, or some other instance that’s beyond our control and raise it up with love and care because God says it’s the right thing to do. YYYEEEEEAAAH riiiiiiiight.
    What about these children that are born due to psychological guilt tripping and harrasment like what you ignorant people do, doomed to be raised and possibly abused because a mother who verbally, physically abuses them b/c they were never wanted in the first place? Look up Charles Mason’s bio, his mother really didn’t want him and look what THAT abuse created? Ted Bundy? Really? C’mon peeps, you’ve gotta have better sense than that.

    So, by this logic, it’s better to have the chance of someone neglecting her child to possibly become one of these kind of monsters? Never to know true compassion, love, true happiness? I’m sorry, but when put in that perspective, thinking that putting children into that madness is heartless and sick. I don’t think it’s a good method, but abortion can be another child that would of never known love.

    But, I guess that never happens, right? We all live in happy Care Bear land, where everything has a happy ending, and all babies are adopted with loving homes, right? As if.

    • Lisa

      Knowing you are not able to be, or don’t want to be, the mother a child needs is incredibly wise and insightful. In my own experience there is nothing worse than being born to a mother who has you for selfish reasons and then resents you for existing.
      I’ve always been bothered by the pro-birth argument (only Jains are truly pro-life) that every recipient will regret her abortion. I know my mother doesn’t. She’s suffered from severe mental illness ever since she was a teenager. She regrets having me more than any of the abortions she had. Not because she doesn’t love me, mind you, but because she feels endlessly guilty for bringing me into such a terrible situation. Her illness meant I was born into a home marred by alcoholism, drug use, fatherlessness and abuse. I love my mom and I forgave her long ago but I can honestly say that abortion would have been the better choice for BOTH of us. Never existing means never suffering, or having to live with the inescapable baggage of a miserable childhood. Adoption is not a perfect solution either. It carries it’s own internal conflict and unresolved issues.
      To answer the oft-repeated question of the pro-birthers: How would I feel if my mother aborted me? I would feel nothing, since I wouldn’t exist. Even if I did feel the brief pain of being aborted, it would be nothing compared to the YEARS of agony I endured to get where I am today. If you know you can’t provide a loving, stable home for a baby you should be merciful and not have that baby. You may regret the decision but at least your child won’t.

      • JJ

        Exactly, I abhor that you had to go through something like that, Lisa, but it is a realistic occurence that needs to be factored in when “choosing sides” on this abortion war. It’s hard to swallow and really difficult to talk about, but it DOES happen: children are born because mommy has been told that if she aborts, she rots in a fiery pit of hell for the rest of eternity. But where are these people who make these outstanding claims once the child in question is born?……….nowhere. This mother has to deal with raising this child; feeding, clothing, everything to subsist rests on this mother (quite possibly by herself as the show Maury portrays frequently). So people that have a theist agenda to push and are sososososo quick to pass judgement upon someone does NOT have to deal with the consequences that mommy has to, and that’s the truth. As I stated before, if you think an abortion is more horrendous than possibly subjecting a child to such abuse and neglect as this soul above me has endured, then you are a MONSTER. With that being said, people who meet the monster criteria described: go jump in that fiery pit I mentioned and STFU ;)

        • Katie

          So, since you’re not a monster, what are you doing to help those mommies? What are you doing to reach out to single mothers, to provide better lives, or help them through the tough times?

          • Kristiburtonbrown

            Katie, plenty of pro-lifers take action to help single mothers. Look at Teen Mother Choice International, Babies of Juarez, Embrace Grace, and the Colorado Family Life Center as just a few examples.

          • Katie

            I fully know that we pro-lifers do that. I’m tired of arguments claiming that those who are anti-abortion do not care about the mother. That somehow the mother is not fit to be a mother or will fail, so they claim that’s enough of a case for an abortion. I’ve had enough of it, do not throw those arguments at me and call those of us who are against abortion monsters, when we’re not the ones ending innocent lives.

          • JJ

            You’re tired of these arguments because….drum roll please… you have no defensive tact against them! Lol, sweetie please, you can admit it, it’s big of people when they can admit they’re wrong ;) I NEVER said it was a awesome, easy-way-out way for an abortion, I know that this kind of abuse and neglect happens everyday and for someone to turn a blind eye to the FACT that these abuse situations are a reality is horrendous! It’s kinda like that whole “elephant in the room” idiom: you choose to believe that you’re saving a child’s life, but instead your putting a child in a potentially dangerous situation just to satisfy your theist ego. And YOUR not ending innocent lives, you say? HAhahahaaaaa! How ab out bombing abortion clinics? Those people in there are innocent workers, women getting preventative care, etc. so how do you explain that, MONSTER? ;)
            It’s great that people try to help single, desperate mothers and all, but you CAN’T save everybody. I know this may go against your beliefs and all, but take a Biology course: not every organism makes it to adulthood, or even out of the womb! Fetal sharks kill and dismember the other fetuses in their mother’s womb for competition, you gonna explain THAT abortion to me? Comparatively speaking, the procedures that clinics do seem pretty tame and humane, lol. Face it, many people believe that we humans are above nature, but we aren’t. So with that being said, all our widdle babies shouldn’t and won’t make it, and abortion is an aid to that fact.

            So, instead of this “don’t throw those arguments at me” blah, blah, blah talk, how about you give me an actual defense instead of cowering behind that “my hands are clean because I wuv babies”.

            I’m waiting…

          • Katie

            JJ, I sincerely hope you get the help you need. When you are unable to look at a human being and see life, then what is left for you?

            You might think you’re hopping on a site, putting your agenda out there, pushing this viewpoint, but you forget that it’s about life. Actual lives, whether in the womb, entering college, or enjoying a summer with grandchildren. It’s life.

          • JJ

            And I’m sure ALL these clinics/awareness groups help all these women right? There is only sooo many handouts that can these people can give, what about all these countless mothers that end up overseen in this broken system of “let’s save all the cute widdle puppies in da world” kinda places? FAIL.

          • Kristiburtonbrown

            So what’s your solution JJ? Kill all the babies whose mothers we can’t help out? That’s pretty coldhearted… How about save the babies and find ways to help more mothers? That’s what I support.

          • JJ

            Yeeeaaaaah, good luck with that ;) Too bad realism isn’t something everyone can comprehend.

          • JJ

            I could ask you the same thing ;) What I do is I don’t try to guilt trip them into making a decision that is not going to affect me whatsoever. So ,tell me sweetheart, what do YOUUUUU do? Huh? HUH? You j-u-d-g-e, lol!