Classy Pro-Choicers Show True Colors

Did you guys follow all the abortion talk in Texas?

Imagine how outraged PETA members would be if people protested to go ahead and torture animals. I don’t understand the double standard. Why do people protest against human life? And why do they do it in the most vulgar way possible?

Read more on the Faith and Family Channel, fan me on Facebook and follow this blog on Twitter!

"Charges ? ? ? That's Funny.... Bottom Feeder Down ..."

How Else Was ‘He Gonna Get ..."
"Thank God they are getting help and being saved now.Thank you, President Obama!"

The Massacre of Christians in Iraq: ..."
"Paying for praying - only hypocritical, greedy, materialistic Pharisees would whine that the restaurant gave ..."

Restaurant Stops “Prayer Discounts” after Atheists ..."
"Her "belief" in this discount goes against our laws. That is why she was threatened ..."

Restaurant Stops “Prayer Discounts” after Atheists ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Mike Tara McMillan

    that is just disgusting– a new low!

  • calvin


  • Stevie sad for these children being raised by these morally depraved creeps..

    • Michelle

      Notice that 2 of the signs in the group say “Every child a wanted child”. I think these are Pro-lifers pictured…

  • Megan

    Okay, the fact that the little girl is holding that sign makes me want to call CPS but I have to say, I’m a bit confused about that picture. The offensive signs are for pro-choice, correct? Am I missing something with the other sign? It says “Every child a wanted child” or “Every child is a wanted child”, right? That’s a pro-life slogan. What the heck?

    • Stevie

      I think they are saying that every child born should be “wanted”..meaning kill off the “unwanted”

      • Megan

        Oh, my! That’s terrible! Thanks for the polite response, Stevie! (Isn’t it sad that I expected rude responses from the uncivilized society we are becoming?)

    • Michelle

      I am confused about that too. I think these are pro lifers. The other slogan can go that way too… pro-lifers don’t want anyone in their wombs…

    • Michelle

      Also, pro-choicers don’t tend to bring children along to promote abortion, this makes it even more confusing.

      • Megan

        I’m just going to go with my gut reaction on this. The woman in this picture is clearly a moron, who shouldn’t have children under her care at all. If any of those children are hers, God bless them! Poor kids.

  • Kat Lee

    This is probably the worst I have ever seen……Disgusting…..Glad my Mom didn’t buy into that motto. She would have been short three of her beautiful children that became sucessful adults and were all at her bedside as she left this world love and respect on both sides. We all may not have been planned, but we were never made to feel that way and were a blessing not only to her and my father, but to every child that my sister teaches and every patient that my sister the nurse takes care of and to every Young girl my brother works with that deals with anerxia and bulimia……So glad Mom kept us as I’m sure every person they have helped are also….Don’t tell me about animal rights and men on death row when you support abortion……Sorry you lose the argument right away.

  • CricketBug

    That mother needs a visit from DFCS if her 8 year old is f****** anyone.

    • MikeTX62

      @CricketBug:disqus – in TX, it would be Children’s Protective Services (CPS), and they would probably let it slide since it’s the mother doing it. If a FATHER let his little girl hold up a sigh like that, he would’ve been in jail before the picture hit the Web.

    • Patriot

      So did Sarah when she let her 15 year old daughter crawl into that tent. Think about it.

  • KT

    I like your comparison to PETA.. so true and still it blows my mind how killing a baby is okay? I don’t understand how people don’t see that as murder. My mom and I were getting our nails done and the lady was telling us about her family and life. About how she had 3 kids, well she would have had four but in her words ” My husband and i didn’t want another baby, so I had an abortion” So casually. Like that is no big deal! I mean ZERO attempt at any REAL justification. Needless to say we stopped going to her.

    • PETA has a slogan: a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. That is, they collapse the spectrum from vermin to livestock to pet to person.

      Most of us aren’t OK with that. No, there actually is a valid spectrum there. And there is also a spectrum from single cell to newborn. If equating the two ends of the spectrum works for you, that’s great. I simply request that you don’t impose this on the rest of the country by law. Argue your point, but let others make their own decision.

  • isabel matos

    Good job, Bristol! Very wise comparison.

  • CapitalG

    Why do they hate the Declaration of Indepedence?

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
    that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable RIGHTS,
    that among these are LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

    Whether they believe the Creator is divine or just two teens in the back of a mini-van the CREATED have a RIGHT to LIFE. This was clearly stated in the Declaration if Independence.

    The Founding Fathers also realized that the Constitution needed to establish the laws and government that would ensure the rights laid out in the Declaration of Independence. The RIGHT to LIFE is the first right our Founders sought to secure for our nation.

    • 1MiddleRoader

      I completely respect someone opposing abortion on religious, moral, personal, or scientific grounds, but saying it’s in the Declaration of Independence is a bridge too far. I think it’s pretty clear that “all men” not only did not include fetuses, it also didn’t include women, blacks, and children. Plus, those rights may be unalienable, but they are not absolute. Most of the founding fathers did not oppose capital punishment; therefore right to life is not absolute. If Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness were absolute, there would be no need for the Constitution to establish laws. Anti-drug laws would be unconstitutional, because they would interfere with pursuit of Happiness. And even today, children don’t (and shouldn’t) have absolute Liberty and the right to pursue Happiness. Even Justice Scalia, who is very anti-abortion and anti-Roe v Wade, said the Constitution says nothing about abortion (and therefore should be left to the States.)

  • Meghan Heasley

    Wonder how how many of the protesters were planned pregnancies?

  • “Why do people protest against human life?”

    Because pro-lifers lump a single cell (at one end of the spectrum) with a newborn baby (at the other) and call that “a human life.” Sure, that’s a fine definition, but just keep in mind the enormous range that you’re covering.

    • Lisa M.

      It’s fine until you start saying the rights of a single cell — potential life, which nature itself aborts in anywhere from 50 to 75% of cases — take precedence over the fully realized human being that carries it. (Here’s the link to some totally non-political stats: )

      • I agree. As for those miscarriage stats, it’s been said that God is the biggest abortionist. Apparently, he doesn’t much care about fetuses that are only weeks old. Why then should society worry more about them than the mother?

        • otlset

          Is it possible that such spontaneous abortions occur because either the fetus is somehow defective or its surrounding pre-natal environment is not right, conditions beyond the ability of medical science to detect?

          Also, some babies even after birth don’t survive, even with the best medical care on hand. Others born very prematurely and given little chance of survival hang on somehow and turn out well. We just don’t know other than to reverence any life, even unborn life as best we can, and the power underlining existence takes care of the rest, as it always has.

          • If someone wants to declare that human life even at the single-cell stage must be protected, that’s fine. It’s when that person wants to impose that view on everyone else that it becomes a problem.

            I suggest an alternate view, that there is a spectrum of personhood (and hence, value), with the single cell having lots of potential but not much inherent value.

          • otlset

            By the same token, the Supreme Court has imposed the view that the unborn can be aborted, which is a problem for those who think otherwise.

            Is the value of a human life then commensurate with the amount of cells that constitute it? The more cells the more potential and thus value? Even babies already born thus would have less value than adults, based on that ‘spectrum of personhood’.

          • I’m not seeing the symmetry. Being forbidden from imposing your views on others (what the pro-lifers complain about) isn’t quite the same burden as being imposed upon yourself (what the pro-choicers are worried about).

            The difference in the number of cells (1 vs. 1,000,000,000,000) only begins to describe the difference between the newborn and the single cell. Remember all the body parts that the newborn has–arms, legs, eyes, ears, heart, stomach, and on and on. The single cell doesn’t have smaller versions of these; it doesn’t have these at all.

            Compare the newborn against an adult like you–not much difference. I don’t know how old you are, but you’re probably sexually mature. That’s the biggest physical difference between you and the newborn (who, like you, has arms, legs, eyes, ears, and all the rest).

          • otlset

            But it’s all on the ‘spectrum’, right? Where do you draw the line, make the demarcation of what makes up a person, which by implication decides how far it can develop before it becomes killing a human rather than merely scraping a glob of cells from the uterine wall? The DNA structure in the single cell itself contains the entire pattern for the entire organism throughout its life, and is contained in all subsequent cells even as they specialize during development.

          • 1MiddleRoader

            It is very arbitrary, and there’s the rub. But I would argue that many things in life are on a spectrum, and we find arbitrary and sometimes variable ways of dealing with that. When does a child become an adult? When does an adult become a old person (as the old joke goes, it’s one year older than whatever age you are.) Yet individuals, society, countries and states make decisions on that all the time, and they change or make exceptions to them also. A 14-year-old, say, is generally considered a child, yet he might be tried as an adult for certain crimes. I agree with Bob that a single cell is not a human being. But the number of cells is not the only difference. The main difference, IMO, is the lack of a functioning brain. Someone who has been declared brain dead is still a human being, still has trillions of functioning cells, still has unique DNA in those cell and is still alive. But that person’s parent or guardian (or that person, if he made his wishes known in a will) can decide to “pull the plug” and it is not considered murder or suicide (at least not legally). My personal opinion is that when the fetus shows some brain function and can feel pain or sensations (and exactly when that occurs is also a subject of debate), then it is a human being, or at least close enough to one, that abortion can not be justified.

          • Where do you draw the line

            Good question, but that’s step 2. First, let’s agree that there’s a spectrum of personhood.

            The DNA structure in the single cell itself contains the entire pattern for the entire organism throughout its life

            That’s true, but surely you’re not saying that all that’s meaningful about humans is their DNA. If you had to choose between saving a 5-year-old and a dish full of frozen embryos, which would you save?

          • Bill589

            Bob is a hating liar. He should get help.

          • If you have no rebuttal, you could just be a man and admit it. Or, if you have found flaws in my argument, you’d help us all out by making those clear.

          • 1MiddleRoader

            I completely agree with your spectrum view, but I would also argue that there is a competing spectrum of potentiality, which IMO explains why we feel sadder when a young person dies “with his whole life ahead of him,” as opposed to an older person “who led a full life.” The potentiality spectrum does start at conception. (You could even argue that it starts before. When a woman starts IVF, or donates her eggs, there is potential child in the works, even before fertilization.) But it competes with the personhood spectrum, which explains your comparison of saving a child over a plateful of embryos. It also, I think, explains why some pro-lifers make an exception for the life of the mother (although the mother herself may have a different view.). Once a child is born, however, and is a person, most people would opt to save the child over his mother, because personhood is no longer an issue, and potential takes over. (although I hope I NEVER have to make such a choice.)

        • Carol Cantell Moorby

          God is NOT responsible for miscarriages. Why is it that people blame God for every negative thing that happens????Satan comes to steal, kill and destroy..God comes that we might have life more abundantly..No matter what the cause, God is saddened when babies die no matter what the cause is…Many people do not have knowledge about The Lord because they haven’t studied about him. There are prayers which can stop miscarriages but you have to have gods wisdom to know how to do it…God gives many supernatural miracles but we have to ask for them. To date, I have had four and am so grateful for them. All four were life involved prayers where doctors gave up and said no hope, but God said There is always hope in me….Thank goodness. Keep seeking……you will find!

          • Here’s why we blame God for negative things:

            “I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.” (Isaiah

            “Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come?” (Lamentations 3:38)

            “When disaster comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it?” (Amos 3:6)

            If God is saddened with every miscarriage, why doesn’t he do something about it? It’s almost like he doesn’t exist at all …

          • Dzenana

            Oh please give me a break

          • Lisa M.

            You’re welcome to your views, you’re just not welcome to impose them on me (or my body). If nothing else, look at it as a pragmatic decision — abortions happened before Roe vs. Wade. That makes it a pretty good bet that even if abortion were made illegal in the entire country, they would continue to happen. Given that, the only real choice is whether to permit them to happen in unsanitary, unsafe conditions (coat hanger, anybody?) or to at least try to preserve the life of the woman (no matter what you think of the morals of her choice).

          • 1MiddleRoader

            I tried to let this pass, because people’s religious views are personal, and too hard to debate on a blog, but I really feel the need to respond. If I understand you correctly, miscarriages are caused by Satan but can be prevented by prayer. Women who go through a miscarriage have enough sorrow and guilt; they don’t need to hear that they didn’t pray properly. If you believe that God is omnipotent and involved in everyone’s lives, than I think you also have to believe that a miscarriage not caused by your own negligence, is “God’s will.” If you are a person of faith, you accept that and believe that we don’t know His reasons for doing things. You can pray to not have a miscarriage, but you also have to accept that your prayers may not be answered. But if Satan is causing all these miscarriages, then either he is more powerful than God, or the parents are not praying properly. I’m old enough to remember when kids were born handicapped, and some of older folks would say it was the devil who caused it. Others would say it was a form of punishment (“sins of the father…” ) I refuse to believe either of those, and I also refuse to believe that Satan or impious parents are responsible for miscarriages.

    • Bill589

      It’s not the woman’s body. Different DNA. There is a new human being. Do some research before you comment about something so important.

      • I feel bathed in Christian love! I agree: it’s not the woman’s body. I’m pretty sure that I never said otherwise.

  • Patriot

    Rather hypocritical of Bristol to post this considering she was just a “child” when she had sex and got pregnant. Where was her mother again during all this? Parental supervision not her strong suit I guess.

    • Bill589

      Your ‘point’ has nothing to do with abortion. You just hate. Go to the country that you’re a patriot of, and then hate there if you must.

      • Patriot

        Actually it has everything to do with this post. Bristol is complaining about the “classiness” of the parents who would let their children hold up signs. I’d say her mother did just about as poor job parenting as these women in the picture. Actually worse…these children don’t really know what they are doing. Sarah Palin on the other hand doesn’t know how to parent as 2 of her children have had kids of their own before they were married. She might want to think about that next time she decides to play the abortion card. Isn’t funny how she never posts about “abstinence”?

    • Dzenana

      Bashing Bistol for being a young mom has nothing to do with abortion.

    • melory3

      Oh shut up ishi, and read! (Btw, Oblamer was also born out of wedlock – I am sure you have choice words for his grandma and the Clintons..).

      “Speaking at the recent Women Deliver conference, which should have
      been called the Women Please Don’t Deliver conference, abortion advocate
      Chelsea Clinton was pontificating on the tragedy of her great
      grandmother Della Murray delivering her maternal grandmother Dorothy
      Howell Rodham out of wedlock.

      Chelsea told her rapt audience of equally intellectually-challenged
      liberals, who probably applauded wildly at her deep insights on
      disposing of unborn babies, that her great grandparents Edwin and Della
      “did not have access to services that are so crucial that Planned
      Parenthood helps provide.”

      In other words, two generations later, Chelsea Clinton regrets that
      in 1919 Great Grandma Howell didn’t have access to a clinic that would
      have eliminated little Dorothy. Apparently Chelsea is upset that the
      late Dorothy was born, grew up and eventually gave birth to Chelsea’s
      beloved mother Hillary who then, in turn, gave birth to Chelsea.”

      • Patriot

        Oh mel you just don’t get it do you? its the HYPOCRISY stupid!

        • melory3

          It is your hypocrisy that I pointed out. And the lunacy of the pro-abortion advocates.

          Remember what I taught you, a liberal calling someone else a hypocrite is like Bill Clinton and John Edwards calling Billy Graham an adulturer. Laughable.

          • Patriot

            Actually you didn’t point out anything….let me explain it very slowly for you. Bill and John don’t run around lecturing America about the “sanctity” of marriage. If they did..then certainly they would be HYPOCRITES. Your side however does….and then they don’t practice what they preach…see David Vitter and Mark Sanford. And even more hypocritical is all you good, holier-than thou types RE-ELECT them. Thats the hypocrisy I am referring too. Do you understand or do you need some more examples?

          • melory3

            If you want to understand what I said, ishy, go read up on figures of speech. Perhaps it will help.

          • Patriot

            It must be frustrating to lose the argument all the time. Hugs.

          • melory3

            Let me try and say it in a manner so simple, even a liberal troll can understand it:

            All the hypocrisy in the world heaped together is small and insignificant, almost non-existent, in comparison to liberal hypocrisy.

          • Ishy

            I’m not surprised you feel that way. Religion has destroyed your mind. I’d pity you but the stench between your legs makes me want to run away.

          • melory3

            Hi to my favorite bigot!

            You have lost the argument and it is clear you are not taking it well, ill-bred! You must be used to that by now, but liberals never learn.

            You can take the liberal out of the gutter, but you can’t take the gutter out of the liberal.

          • Ishy

            Spoken in your most sincere Christian voice. Hypocrite.

          • melory3

            Old trick of the anti-Christian bigots on the left to use our religtion to attack us. As you can see it is not working on me, I don’t have to baby you up, if you want to act like a low-breed, I’ll call you out on it, the truth will set you free.

            When I tried the polite approach, you and TB were the main people here to mock me for that. We are doomed if we do and doomed if you don’t. So shut-up ishy, and go take a shower, and get rid of that stench from your body that you were talking about.

          • Patriot

            Its your fault you are a hypocrite. The bible told you have to behave and yet you choose to DISOBEY its teachings. That’s your problem not mine. But its a lot of fun pointing it out.

          • melory3

            I am not a liberal, therefor I cannot be a hypocrite.

          • melinda

            melory, that is just ridiculous. Of course conservatives can be hypocrites, just as liberals can be.

          • melory3

            Oh go away, clueless.

          • melinda

            oh melory, now you are just being silly.And I don’t think you want to be seen that way now, do you?

          • melory3

            Conservatives believe cleanliness is next to godliness, so we are big on personal hygiene. I smell fresh and clean with hints of Estee Lauder (white linen and sometimes pleasures.) all the time.

            Now old feminazis like yourself who believe that promiscuity is cool are at extremely high risk for the kind of stench you were talking about, just saying.

            You may also want to go to the women’s clinic and PP – I believe we give them money to help you people with those kind of problems.

          • Patriot

            LOL for admitting you like to smell cheap. Its a shame people on the right have no taste and are mostly rednecks. I’m sure Sarah wears the same crap.

          • melory3

            LOL, for pretending ishy the lowest class troll with a life so miserable that she spend her days on the internet trashing beautiful young Bristol – for pretending such an ill-bred person like yourself know anything about taste!
            You probably buy your perfume with your food stamps from Wallmart or wherever it is that you wards of the state shop with the money that the government steal from their fellow citizens to give to lazy liberals.
            Btw, my husband brought me Clive Christian No1 from London – that I wear on special occasions.

          • melory3

            You just hate that I so accurately describe the Palin haters. It is your fault that you are seen that way – clean up your language, behavior and attittude if you want people to respect you. Don’t display your depravity for all the world to see and then turn around and play the victim when people say you are rotten.

          • melory3

            Since you so appreciate my Christianity, ishy, here is something for you:

            Your friends will tell you the truth even when it hurts. As Proverbs 27:5-6 says, “Better is open rebuke than hidden love. Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful”

            I am a better friend to you than your fellow-liberals who don’t rebuke your vile behavior but rather kiss you by coming to your defense and liking your postts. They are your real enemies.

          • melory3

            Pathetic kindergarten mean-girl reponse from an old feminazi.. what is new.

  • Hallie

    My heart aches for these people who are so angry. A human life is precious from the very beginning; at conception. Thank you for posting this, Bristol. Please continue to write about what you stand for and what you believe. God Bless.

  • bellagrazi

    So repulsive. These people are deranged.

  • Jose

    It’s difficult to understand. But I can undrestand why John Paul II spoke of culture of death.

  • Michelle

    If that’s a picture of pro-choice people, why do the signs say “every child a wanted child”? I think those are pro-lifers pictured…

    • otlset

      Maybe they were being sarcastic, heh.

    • Bill589

      Make every child a ‘wanted child’. As opposed to those ‘unwanted’ children.

  • David

    Since it is her body … the woman should be the one who makes the choice … no one else … especially not the Federal Government.

    • Bill589

      It’s not the woman’s body. Different DNA. There is a new human being. Get with the program.

      • David

        The woman has to carry it for 9 months plus give birth to it … it is the woman who has to go through all of that … so the choice should be hers. That is my opinion … it you don’t like it … tough s**t.

      • Lisa M.

        Actually, it is the seed that can, given the appropriate circumstances, -possibly- develop into a human being. Living inside the body of a fully realized human being. There’s a BIG difference between the two.

  • Bill589

    “I’ve noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born.” – Ronald Reagan

    • TrueBlue

      And ones who were never born don’t know that they’re not here.

      • melory3

        Cold response of a pro-abortionist.

        • TrueBlue

          Would certainly hate to hurt the feelings of people who were never born! Better to vilify existing people whose shoes you’ve never bothered to walk in. Damn right, I’m pro-keeping early-stage abortions safe and legal.

          • melory3

            Cold. They were never born because people like you murdered them in the womb. How noble of you to want to keep baby-killing “safe” and legal.

          • Lisa M.

            Please look up the actual definition of a baby. What we’re discussing is actually “clump-of-cells-killing.” By the way… aren’t you supposed to leave the judging up to God?

          • melory3

            Definition of a baby as in the definition according to the baby-killing left? I am not judging I am speaking the truth.

          • Lisa M.

            The definition of a baby according to the dictionary, actually: “A very young child, esp. one newly or recently born.”

            Depending on exactly which stage of development we’re talking about, people abort zygotes, blastomeres, morulas, blastocysts, embryos or fetuses. Not babies. It doesn’t become a fetus until 2 months, so I’d say “embryo-killing left” is probably the most appropriate appellation for people who are in favor of a woman’s right to decide what happens inside her own body.

            When you say “baby-killing,” you are blatantly mischaracterizing the pro-choice view (which is very different from pro-abortion, by the way).

            If your argument is so weak that you have to depend on that sort of highly emotional, sensationalized statement, or if you have to assume that your “truth” is the only viable one out there, then you’ve pretty much invalidated your own stance from the get-go.

          • TrueBlue

            I feel your Christian love, Mel! What is it you like to say, “you shall know them by their fruits”?

            Melory’s fruit:

            “Liberal hypocrite!”
            “Ignorant liberal!”
            “Lying lib!”

            Your fruits stink to high heaven. I’d rather offend a hypothetical human than to make enemies of the living as easily as you do.

          • melory3

            Well, all I have to work with is what they present of themselves here and as you can see it is not beautiful!

            With those names I accurately summarised and named the behavior and characteristics of the Palin haters – that they display here 24/7.

            That is what they look like, how they choose to present themselves to the world with the filth they spew here 24/7. How come that doesn’t bother you? If they clean up their act they may enable me to describe them as polite, honest, tolerant, respectful, etc. It is up to y’all. Change your behavior, yes we can!

            Don’t you read their posts, yours included? Really, you defend the vermin – have you read ishy and dumpy’s posts. If those are the people you defend instead of rebuking them, then you have no credibility hypocrit to get on your high horse and lecture me.

          • melory3

            Old trick of the anti-Christian bigots on the left to use our religtion to attack us. As you can see it is not working on me, I don’t have to baby you up, if you want to act like a low-breed, I’ll call you out on it, the truth will set you free. When I tried the soft approach, you were one of the main people here to mock me for that also. We are doomed if we do and doomed if you don’t. Bottom-line who cares what an anti-Christian bigot says.

  • Bill589

    To the pro-killing trolls infesting the comments:

    “It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s that they know so many things that aren’t so.” – Ronald Reagan

  • 1MiddleRoader

    I think it’s bad parenting to let a child hold a vulgar sign like that. But most kids that age know the word (Remember Tripp on Bristol’s reality show?). And although I don’t think there’s anything wrong with parents encouraging their children to be socially involved, abortion is an adult topic, so I personally wouldn’t take my kids to any abortion protest, pro or con. (And you can Google images of kids holding pro-life signs too.) And I really don’t get the “Hail Satan” chants at all. What’s that about? But in response to Bristol’s question about why they protest against human life, it’s because they don’t believe that it is human life.

  • Kelly Hoerter

    Regardless of our views on abortion, I think that we can all agree that a child holding a poster like the one on the far left in that photo is inappropriate. Not because of the pro-choice view, but because of the profanity and sexual reference. I personally try not to involve my children in “hot-button” issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc. They are children, and do not need to be caught up in debates, arguments, etc. Leave that to the grown-ups who are better able to understand what the issues are about.

  • TrueBlue

    Bristol, your own child used the f-word on television, and his behavior horrified Melissa Rivers on Celebrity Wife Swap. So if you want to understand vulgarity and children, look in the mirror.

    As for the pro-choice platform, many of us believe that abortion should be safe and legal in the early stages of a pregnancy, especially for women who were raped or choose to terminate for health reasons or because of severe fetal abnormalities. We would not chant “Hail Satan” and are not defined by “Doctor” Gosnell, who murdered babies born alive.

    I’m happy that you have the continued support of a wealthy family to raise your child out of wedlock, but if you’ve ever visited desperate women who live in a homeless shelter (as I have), who have no income, have children to feed, have no healthcare, and who where abandoned by sole-breadwinner husbands who developed crippling drug habits, then you’d perhaps have some sympathy for women who feel that an abortion might be an option and would seek one in her most desperate hour.

    • melory3

      All that tax-payer money that is spent on murdering babies, can be used to help these babies find safe homes. On one hand feminazis tell us women are strong and can do anything, on the other hand they tell us women are helpless victims, who have no choice but to murder their babies. What about personal responsibility. If you have sex, you should be ready for the consequences. Most abortions are done because of lifestyle choices and not because of rape, incest and health of the mother. Liberals already told us that abortion is like getting a hair-do.

      • Lisa M.

        How very interesting it is that only the woman is expected to bear the consequences of having had sex. If folks were as interested in legislating the “consequences of having had sex” for a man as they are for a woman, that MIGHT start to be a valid line of reasoning.

        As it is, I’m fascinated by the way that the rights of the woman become immediately invisible/irrelevant when compared to the “rights” of a clump of cells that might or might not actually develop into a human being. I’m sorry — the actual definition of a baby is a “very young child, esp. one newly or recently born.” That clump of cells is not a baby.

        • melory3

          The woman knew when she had sex that she is the one that may fall pregnant and not the man, so what are you whining about. Surely, in most of the cases the man did not force the woman to have sex. And no-one is ” legislating the consequenses of having had sex”. You can legally kill your unborn, so what are you complaining about.

          Abortion is legalized murder, immorality (murder in this case) legislated. You are not the victim, the unborn baby is the victim, it is not all about you, when did women become so selfish and cold that they justify killing their own, as if it is a battle between the woman and the defenseless baby and pro-lifers are so evil to take the side of the defenseless baby. Really, who can understand the twisted liberal mind.

          • Lisa M.

            Sorry, I’m not whining — I’m disagreeing. The man also knows when he has sex that the woman may fall pregnant. Unless you’re trying to say that every single man out there is a complete moron who doesn’t understand how his penis works?

            The man shares in the creation of the pregnancy, so why shouldn’t he share in its consequences — especially when, as most pro-lifers are so keen to say, they’re such a wondrous miracle?

            The problems with the rest of your post here (and pretty much all of your posts, actually) are that you:

            1) Are projecting your own emotions, motivations and judgments onto others;

            2) Appear unable to recognize any valid worldview beyond your own;

            3) Refer to a zygote/blastomere/morula/blastocyst/embryo as an “unborn baby,” which is either innocent ignorance on your part or sensationalized, manipulative misuse of language.

            I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt, so I’m assuming you use that sort of language out of innocent ignorance … however if you’re doing it deliberately as a means of manipulation, feel free to set me straight.

        • melory3

          “a clump of cells that might or might not actually develop into a human being.” I hate what the leftist indoctrinators have done to women!

          So what may that “clump of cells” develop into, a dog?

          • Lisa M.

            Sorry… I didn’t realize that you struggled with reading comprehension. That means that the zygote/blastomere/morula/blastocyst/embryo — whichever stage of development we’re discussing — might develop into a human being, or it might not continue developing at all.

            I posted a link to some non-politicized stats elsewhere in the comments for this post — here it is again:

            Of particular note: “Studies reveal that anywhere from 10-25% of all clinically recognized pregnancies will end in miscarriage. Chemical pregnancies may account for 50-75% of all miscarriages.” …of course, ‘miscarriage’ is just another name for ‘spontaneous abortion.’

      • TrueBlue

        Even if most abortions are “lifestyle choices,” there are some that are because a woman was raped or the mother’s health is in jeopardy. These abortions should be safe and legal, as should, IMO, abortions that are chosen (for personal reasons) by healthy women who are in the early stages of pregnancy.

        • melory3

          Yes you care for people more than anybody else, you always remind us of that, unlike those pro-lifers who side with defenseless babies, they are the real problem.