Why Do Photos of Aborted Babies Upset Pro Choice Advocates?

A picture is worth a thousand words. 

This is a photo of a baby who was murdered in an abortion.

“It’s surprising how human they look.”

When I wrote the post Real Men Don’t kill Their Children, I decided to illustrate it with this photo.

I did this because it seemed to fit the brazen indifference to human life and suffering evidenced by Toure Neblett, the news commentator. Mr Neblett gave a commentary supporting Roe v Wade in which he discussed the abortion death of his first child. In it, he took narcissism and selfishness to new lows.

He made the statement that seeing his second child on an ultrasound had bothered him a little because “it’s surprising how human they look.”

I didn’t and I don’t think any other photo would do justice to this attitude.

It didn’t surprise me at all when pro abortion people clocked in with their usual anger over the photo. It was, they said, an attempt to “shock” people.

No. It was not.

It was a factual presentation of what babies look like after a late-term abortion. Of course, that is shocking to people who base their entire flimsy arguments in favor of this killing on the preposterous idea that these babies are “not human.”

Photos like this put that nonsense to the lie that it is.

I believe that the stripping away of the lie, not some misplaced sense of propriety, is why this photo makes them so angry.

Photos have a way of blasting right through carefully constructed lies and showing the truth of things in a way that anyone who looks at them can understand. I don’t enjoy making people uncomfortable, but there are truths we need to see because seeing them is the only thing that will blast through the carefully constructed facade of lies we use to shield ourselves from the reality of what we are doing.

For instance, this:

And this:

And this:

I don’t often put shocking photos on this blog, but there are times when I think they serve a purpose. The photo of that dead baby, juxtaposed against Mr Neblett’s words, said a lot.

The angry reaction of pro abortion and pro choice people told me quite plainly that for them, the photo said too much. There are truths we do not want to know, photos we do not want to see, because if we acknowledge what they are saying to us, we will have to change.

Photos like that one force us to make a choice. We will either have to give up our illusions about what we are doing to other people, or we will have to give up our illusions about ourselves as kind, loving and compassionate persons.

This is more than most people who define themselves and their morality by the lies our society tells us can handle. Of course those photos are shocking. But the fact that they are shocking is not the reason for posting them. The reason for putting them in the public eye is that they are true. In the words of Jack Nicholson’s character in A Few Good Men, some people “can’t handle the truth.”

YouTube Preview Image

  • Sus

    I can’t call myself a pro-choice advocate because it’s very complicated for me. I think the context depends on whether those kinds of photos should used. I don’t think they should be used in front of clinics. The ship has sailed if the woman has shown up for her appointment.

    These women need help long before they go to the clinic.

    The photos completely backfired with my 13 year old daughter. I took her into the city to see a show. She specifically requested that we park a few blocks away so we could walk around the city. I didn’t know there was clinic in our path. The protesters saw us coming and assumed I was taking my daughter in there. They surrounded us and invaded our space, shoving awful pictures in our faces, while screaming and praying at us.

    My daughter started crying. I’m trying to pull her out of the circle while telling them we weren’t going to the clinic. They either ignored me or didn’t hear me over the screaming and prayers. They think they won because we basically ran away. It really spoiled our day. I afraid to walk back to the car so we had to take a cab after the show.

    She came home and compared the pictures to pictures in my pregnancy books. Theses pictures were lies. That experience has made my daughter want to become a clinic escort! A complete backfire!

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      That’s a sad story Sus. No, I don’t think these photos are for innocent children. I also agree that women need help before they even get to the abortion clinic if we want to save the baby’s life. The way those protesters behaved was counter-productive and unnecessary. However, I hope your daughter stays away from the abortion movement — for her own sake. Her feelings are somewhat similar to what got me into it, and that is something I regret having done with all my heart.

      • Sus

        I hope she stays away from the abortion movement too – on either side. As much as I want abortions to not be necessary, I feel it’s not my business unless it’s my pregnancy or God forbid one of my kids’ pregnancy.

        In my younger days, I was absolutely pro-choice. I wasn’t “involved” but still have complicated feelings looking back on what I believed. My mind was changed via the Discovery Channel. It had nothing to do with abortion pictures or the Church. I firmly believe that if the technology available today was available when Roe v Wade was decided, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

    • Jim

      SO, your daughter wants to kill unborn babies because someone showed her a picture of an aborted fetus/baby?
      That’s like weird.
      However to only get involved because some protestors showed a picture is the wrong reason. Maybe take her to a different organization that doesn’t do that. Maybe she’ll be pro-life then.
      But if God is watching and punishment is coming, do you really want her on the “choice” side?

  • Bill S

    Here is the real truth.

    Natural selection makes babies cute so their mothers will nurture and protect them. It also gives women instincts that pro-lifers can manipulate to impose their own will on the most vulnerable.

    I hope your pro-life legislation is not designed to play on the emotions of young women seeking abortions. That would be more cruel and harmful than any abortion.

  • Steve

    The pictures represent the grisley reality of the so-called choice. You would think that “making the mother feel bad” is the moral equivelant to the horrific torture the baby suffered. The picture is truth and cold hard reality. The mother should in full conscience know what her decision will bring about. A viable life will be ended, you decided to do it, and here are the results. No more facades. No more talking in code. If someone is offended by seeing pictures at an abortion clinic it likens to the fence not being tall enough around the concentration camp and subjecting the community to those horrible images. The way some politicians celebrate “choice” heck why not abortion TV. We now live in an age where the mothers womb is the most dangerous place for human life to exist.

    • Sus

      In my opinion, attitudes like this cause more abortions. These women need love, not judgement and making them feel badly.

      Going after women that have abortions is not going to solve the issue. The cause of abortion happens long before the conception of the baby.

      • Oregon Catholic

        You are so right that the cause happens before the conception. It’s the other inconvenient truth that gets avoided like the plague. It is that the only choice pro-choicers seem determined to fight to exercise is the choice to abort. It’s never an insistence on exercising their very viable choice not to have sex with a man they are not ready and willing to raise a baby with.

        I also will never understand the notion that some people think abortion is wrong for them but not for other people. It is totally illogical and, like those who turn from the pictures, speaks of a person who refuses to acknowledge that the reason it is wrong is because it’s killing a baby. And if abortion is killing a baby then it’s wrong for everyone and should be stopped.

        • Oregon Catholic

          I should clarify that I’m not just referring to women but to men who have sex when they are not ready to be fathers as well, and to sex between married couples since many abortions are happening in marriages too.

        • Rebecca Hamilton

          FWIW, I agree with both of you — and to an extent disagree with both of you. Abortion is not caused by pro life people. Abortion is primarily a response to misogyny that penalizes women for being the life-bearers of the human race. The social attitudes that have placed all the shame, blame and hurt of misused human sexuality on women alone (I believe this is called the “double standard”) has been a great contributor, as well. Rather than deal directly with the evils of discrimination, violence and social approbation that made something as terrible as abortion seem like a good idea, we decided to make abortion the placebo for justice.
          The point I’m making — in a very round about way — is that evil begats evil. Misogyny, selfishness, cruelty led to legal abortion. Legal abortion has led to euthanasia, and an overall cheapening of human life as well as an increased and more virulent objectification of women.
          I am convinced that the only way to stop this cycle is to go back to the beginning: That every person is made in the image and likeness of God and we ALL are valuable in His sight.

          • Sus

            “The social attitudes that have placed all the shame, blame and hurt of misused human sexuality on women alone (I believe this is called the “double standard”) has been a great contributor, as well. ”

            I agree so much with this. My sons get/will get the talks about their responsibilities equally if not more than my daughters. Men seem to get a free pass.

            “Rather than deal directly with the evils of discrimination, violence and social approbation that made something as terrible as abortion seem like a good idea, we decided to make abortion the placebo for justice.”

            This is true.

          • Oregon Catholic

            I think that was a cause for abortion up until Roe v Wade. Since that time women are getting abortions primarily because they are demanding to exercise the same right to engage in the irresponsible, promiscuous, and consequence-free sexual behavior previously only allowed for men. Hardly liberating – more like just another form of slavery or stabbing themselves in the back imo. But then that pretty much describes radical feminism. It’s not freedom to be fully female – it’s a slavery to adopt the male model of behavior that led to the misogyny you described and in doing so to declare it superior to the feminine.

            • Sus

              “Since that time women are getting abortions primarily because they are demanding to exercise the same right to engage in the irresponsible, promiscuous, and consequence-free sexual behavior previously only allowed for men. ”

              I think this may be true for some but not all women. I don’t know what the answer is but I don’t think forcing this irresponsible, promiscuous woman to carry a baby to term is the answer.

              It isn’t fair to say that all women who have abortions are irresponsible and promiscuous. You can’t know that.

              • Oregon Catholic

                Of course, there are always exceptions in everything. I don’t think you can force irresponsible women to carry a child to term either. What we can do is take away the option of legal abortion and a lot of irresponsible behavior will stop overnight. If it’s not easy to abort as a backup for failed contraception or no contraception at all, then maybe she and he will choose to exercise their first choice, not to have sex until ready and able to raise a child together if a child should be conceived. If abortion wasn’t legal we would be looking at 1000′s of abortions not the million we have today. To me, that is worth any amount of effort.

            • pagansister

              OC, I disagree with your statement that women just want to have the so-called right to engage in “irresponsible, promiscuous, and consequence-free sexual behavior previously only allowed for men”. That is a very large generalization of women, very much like grouping all those of a certain age or hair color or skin color together. Not true, IMO.

              • Oregon Catholic

                I don’t know any other way except sexual license to explain 55 million abortions in the US. Do you?

                • pagansister

                  So, it is your contention, OC, that all those 55 million abortions are caused by “irresponsible, promiscuous ” women? Really? Anyone who has an abortion is that “type” of woman? IMO, some were done for victims of rape, some for danger of mother’s life, some were children who shouldn’t be having children (rape, incest, back seat boyfriend encounter), some for financial reasons (low income who can’t possibly feed another mouth and the “husband”, boyfriend has flown the coop”, and many reasons beyond your comprehension and mine. Generalization, Oregon Catholic, generalization of women who find it necessary for reasons they find acceptable (as it is THEIR decision) to terminate a pregnancy. Guarantee not all those women were promiscuous, & irresponsible (takes 2 to tango).

                  • Oregon Catholic

                    You are making the same generalization, just in the other direction, when you try to make justification for so many abortions. The plain and simple fact is that there are an awful lot of men and women having irresponsible sex or there wouldn’t be so many unwanted pregnancies to abort. The calculus is obvious that 55 mil abortions adds up to a hell of a lot of irresponsible sexual behavior that you cannot explain away.

                    • pagansister

                      Am sticking with my statement that not all were caused by those “bad” women. (and men, as it takes 2).

      • Jim

        Yes, lets not judge someone who kills their kids. Maybe we should start allowing moms to kill babies AFTER they been born. JUST LET SUSAN SMITH out of jail. At what time does it become WRONG? 24 weeks gestation? 269 days? Day after birth?

  • Bill S

    My comment was deleted because I said that “evil” is not to strong a word for the protesters who assailed Sus and her daughter. I said it in the sense that what they did was based on ignorance and superstition. Ignorance in thinking that an aborted baby has any idea that something bad is happening to him/her and superstition in believing that the baby has a soul which used to go to Limbo but now goes to Heaven.

    If “evil” is to strong a word to keep my post from being deleted then let me call it “misguided”.

    • William T

      Can you think of a single instance when it would be immoral to leave an aborted infant on a table, as the picture shows?

      • pagansister

        My question is, why would someone find it necessary to take a picture of it?

        • Matt

          Because a lot of “pro-choicers” don’t know how grisly and dark abortions really are. the picture gets to the point, fast.

          It is sick, sad, disgusting, and horrific, that someone would “choose” to do something like this. Esssentially, pro-choicers are saying “I’m fine with killing my baby.” While at the same time, these people (liberals) call the death penalty “Inhumane”.

          Stupid really.

          • erica

            Who are you to judge the choices that people make? An abortion is a very personal, intimate decision that a woman has to make. This is her body. You’re being very judgmental of what other people do in their private lives. It’s more cruel when a child grows up being the unwanted baby… or being born addicted to drugs.

            • Jarnor23

              We judge things all the time. We judge that the poor can’t be slave labor for the rich, we judge that people can’t rob others, and we damn well should be able to judge that execution for the most innocent of all is wrong.

  • Bill S

    “I also will never understand the notion that some people think abortion is wrong for them but not for other people.”

    Then you don’t understand that you should worry about your morality and let others worry about theirs.

    • Oregon Catholic

      I reject that moral code as should all Christians. We will all be held accountable for the times we aided and abetted the sin of others by doing nothing. We are expected to be part of the Body of Christ and as brothers and sisters in Christ we are to help keep the entire family/body spiritually healthy.

      It’s popular to express your code of behavior these days but very few people actually live by it consistently. Most people only hypocritically apply it in cases where they happen to agree with whatever the issue is and want others who disagree to butt out. If you truly believed it applied in all cases you wouldn’t care if I disagreed with you on SSM or abortion or etc. But I’m sure you do very much care if I were to try to overturn a law you happen to favor. Otherwise you’d simply butt out and support my right to do whatever my conscience tells me to do.

      • Bill S

        “We are expected to be part of the Body of Christ and as brothers and sisters in Christ we are to help keep the entire family/body spiritually healthy.”

        When you say “we”, I assume you mean faithfull Catholics, or even faithful Christians, but not all of humanity. There are 7 billion people in the world, and at least 5 billion of them are non-Christian. There are many of us that are counted as Catholics who are not really part of the Body of Christ. We do not want the same laws as you. Wherever possible, we want freedom to take precedence over dogma. Many of us do not accept the concept of a God who has prescribed his own moral law, separate from what we have developed ourselves. We don’t rely on the Bible or the Church to develop and understand morals and ethics that we follow. Thus our differences.

  • pagansister

    22 weeks is about 5 1/2 weeks pregnant. IMO a woman would have made up her mind way before that tine period to terminate. IMO, and I have said this before, the procedure should be done within the first 12 weeks and preferably before then. Pregnancy is able to be verified very early now, there is more than enough time to complete an abortion before the 22 weeks or even 8 weeks into a pregnancy. As to using pictures —I don’t see that that is a tactic necessary to try and change a pro-choice persons mind. Hasn’t mine. I never had to make that decision—but others I have known have. The right to a clean medical procedure should not be taken away from a woman who is faced with a very, very difficult decision as to whether to proceed with a pregnancy or not. Also with the availability of birth control, hopefully fewer women will have to even think about proceeding with an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy or not.

    • Oregon Catholic

      May I ask a few questions?
      Why the time limit at all? If it’s not a human life worthy of protection at 22 weeks or 12 weeks or 8 weeks then why worry about it at 39 weeks? What magical or biological event takes place that makes what was acceptable at 8 or 12 or 22 weeks not acceptable at 39?

      Why do you assume that so many abortions are difficult decisions? And if they are difficult, why is a blob of tissue or a life not worthy of protection something to get upset over?

      If birth control kept abortions low how do you explain such high numbers and the dramatic rise in abortion since the 70′s in direct relation to the rise in availability and ease of use of contraception during the same time? There are far too many abortions and contraception is far too easy to get and use to make that correlation, imo. I think the correct correlation is abortions have increased as sexual promiscuity has increased. The more sex people are having when they are not ready to be parents, the more unwanted pregnancies will naturally result. And easy access to contraception and abortion have had a direct correlation to an increase in promiscuous sexual behavior. Contraception will not prevent or even diminish abortions. Making abortion illegal will diminish abortions by diminishing promiscuous sexual behavior by taking away the easy fix for an unwanted pregnancy.

      • pagansister

        Of course you may ask a few questions, OC, but whether there are always answers is another story. Let’s see. When did people start counting how many abortions have occurred? I don’t know, do you? Is abortion new? No. Women have always had the knowledge since time began of how to prevent a pregnancy from continuing—-and many did die trying to do it themselves or finding help from inexperienced “doctors”.(in more “modern times”). Those women who lived through their self induced abortions or that of the “doctors” certainly weren’t announcing it. As to the statement that by making abortion illegal again will just send women either overseas again (if they can afford it) or back to the butchers. It will not stop them. You continue to say that ease of birth control is the reason for more sexual behavior—sure it does and it also makes for fewer abortions. Just think how many might take place without the use of birth control? Used properly, condoms and the pill etc. are very effective. (at least they were for me). Obviously, some fail. Sex, again, is not a new thing outside of marriage—folks just “went away” and had either an illegal abortion, did it themselves, or perhaps had the baby and gave it away, or the shot gun wedding took place. My statement about the decision to have an abortion being difficult? The women I know who had one didn’t just say “Gee I’m pregnant and don’t want to continue so I think I’ll just go in for surgery! ” It was an very hard decision for them. Many factors should be taken into consideration It was NOT an easy decision, and it shouldn’t be. If it is—then some women just like to have pain! IMO, there is no “baby” before 3 months—-after that there is movement, etc. Mother Nature figured that out—thus miscarriages usually take place in that time frame. I don’t think I need explain after that time frame—carry to term if you can’t make up your mind before 3 months. Simple in my mind. But then, I’m not contemplating an abortion. Again, I disagree with your last sentence—making abortion illegal will diminish abortions y diminishing promiscuous sexual behavior by taking away the “easy” (?) fix for an unwanted pregnancy. It is NOT an easy fix. And it won’t stop that much “promiscuous” behavior—folks will continue to have sex—-

        • Oregon Catholic

          I believe the 55 mil figure is since RvW in 1973. And regarding your 3 month figure for the limit on abortion – that sounds pretty arbitrary. Babies are moving around in the womb long before that so I can’t agree with that rationale. Most pregnancies don’t end in a miscarriage so I can’t get behind that reason either. It may be simple to you but it obviously isn’t is it? You’ve always struck me as a pretty reasonable and thoughtful person on these threads but I have to say on this issue I think you have simply settled on 3 months because it makes you comfortable and allows your conscience to accept early abortion. But I think if you were willing to put your opinion aside and honestly think it through you’d realize you have no sound basis to back it up. And I think with something as serious as the ending of a human life we ought to have more than personal opinion to go on.

          • pagansister

            OC, According to what I have read, 25% of women will experience a miscarriage in their lifetime. Up to 50% of pregnancies will end in a miscarriage, with many happening before a woman knows she is pregnant, and most will be before the 12th week—-thus my reasoning of the 3 month time line if a woman wishes to end her pregnancy. Perhaps that seems arbitrary, as you say, but it works for me. When Mother Nature terminates, does that mean She has ended a human life? There is no chance of survival outside the womb at that time. Having said all that, I would wish that all babies would be wanted and all raised in a loving environment, with plenty of food, shelter and clothing. That unfortunately, isn’t reality. All I am saying is that it is not up to me to tell other women to not have an abortion, but I would hope they would listen to alternatives. I continue to remain “pro-choice” which IMO isn’t the same as many “pro-lifers” like to call us–pro-abortion. Big difference. One question I have, and it isn’t new, are those that are “pro-lifers” also against war, that brings lots of death and the death penalty (probably)? Thanks for this discussion—-:-)

  • Steve

    First and foremost, the issue is not about a womans feelings. Of course we should be compasionate, supportive and loving. But this is a life and death issue. The right to have an abortion is a machieveian bad law and the more we advance in science the more the we now that it is the taking of an innocent life.
    I just want the lie that they have terminated a “mass of cells” to end. Let us end that deception. That is my point, it has nothing to do with “feelings’. The photos make us recoil, but they should. Who can forget the images of the holocaust with emaciated bodies bulldozed into mass graves. Had those images been shown on newsreels when the holocaust first started perhaps a few more million jews would be around. This is the truth of what is happening when you consent to the doctor violating your body. We know that 53 million americans have been aborted. The more this is hidden does not change the horror. A society reaps what it sows. Their are very real spiritual consequences to this. Had this been an image of a puppy why I suspect someone would be going to jail. Imagine the irony.

    • erica

      You are a man saying this about abortions, which are performed on a *woman*. Imagine the irony.

  • Bill S

    “What we can do is take away the option of legal abortion and a lot of irresponsible behavior will stop overnight.”

    I’m really glad that we have well educated, well respected and dedicated Supreme Court justices to make these decisions, as closely disputed as they are. I have faith that these judges can make the right decisions when the facts are competently presented.

    The idea that religious people know better than Supreme Court justices who are not influenced so much by emotional responses to photographs of dead babies or ultrasounds or heartbeats just doesn’t make sense. They would see so called “irresponsible behavior” as a fact of life and not look at depriving women of their rights as a way of addressing it.

    So when OC says “What WE can do…”, I am glad that that is not the “WE” running this country.

    • Steve

      From a legal perspective the supreme court needs to decide what is a human being and then begin the discusion. We can leave religion out of the issue, although all law is based on a moral code. Is this “mass of cells” genetically human, yes. Does it have a heartbeat? Yes. Does it have brainwaves? yes. Not much different from you when you are sleeping, is it?

      • Bill S

        “From a legal perspective the supreme court needs to decide what is a human being and then begin the discusion.”

        The supreme court can acknowledge the humanity of the fetus and still prohibit the states from making abortion illegal. Most of the world allows abortion. The only argument seems to be that if women were exposed to photos of aborted babies would they decide differently. What I said from the beginning is that natural selection has caused babies to be cute and loveable because they need to be so to survive long enough to grow into adults and pass on their genes. But we are under no moral obligation to pass on our genes. We can do whatever we want as long as it is legal. It is wrong to prey on a woman’s natural instincts in order to impose one’s will on her and force her to pass on her genes. Period.

        • Bill S

          One more thing. When I said we CAN do whatever we want, I wasn’t implying that we SHOULD do whatever we want. Actually, we even CAN do something illegal if we are willing to pay the consequences.

  • http://www.thoughtsfromanamericanwoman.wordpress.com Patty

    We need to see this – we need to know it is human life that is being murdered. We need to be aware of the truth and I pray one day this madness stops. I for one do not have faith in the mere judges of the Supreme Court – I have faith in God alone and what He teaches us and that is not to murder. The “we” in government has destroyed this Godly nation and we as Christians allowed it to happen by being afraid to speak up.

    • pagansister

      Am so glad we do have a Supreme Court in the USA . It is not perfect, but I’d hate to think that decisions would be made by faith based organizations, as this government is supposed to be secular—not a Christian nation, though there are a lot of Christians living here, as well as many others of other faiths and no faiths. Also, Patty, the “WE” in the government is US—those that elected the men and women in our congress–so don’t blame government —as you probably helped elect some of them.

  • Bill S

    ” I for one do not have faith in the mere judges of the Supreme Court – I have faith in God alone and what He teaches us and that is not to murder.”

    In this country, the rulings of the Supreme Court are the final word on the constitutionality of all laws, regulations, decisions, etc. which we are all obliged to obey. The judges are appointed by a democratically elected president and approved by a democratically elected congress. They do not need everyone to have faith in them.

  • pagansister

    Amen, Bill S, Amen!

  • Kristen inDallas

    To be fair, I think it should be noted that these types of photos upset plenty of people in the pro-life bleachers as well. They are especially troubling for mothers with premature or low weight infants, for women who have miscarried, and for women and men who have suffered from an abortion in the past. We should never forget that some of our friends are people who know the truth of a dead baby all too well already. That’s not to say that people shouldn’t see these images at some point, but there is a right way and a wrong way. The right way will remember that this is an image of a real person, someone’s child, and someone’s tragedy. It should be used as discretely, respectfully and as sparingly as any other graphically violent image of a deceased family member. The more moving images have for me always been the sonogram videos, or those of a loving mother holding her 25-week primi. There is plenty of truth in those kinds of images as well, and it is the kind of truth that I’ve found many more people are capable of embracing.

    • erica

      great post!

  • Bill S

    ” They are especially troubling for mothers with premature or low weight infants, for women who have miscarried, and for women and men who have suffered from an abortion in the past.”

    What hurts most is the trauma on young women who have made a mistake and who are taking the appropriate action for their specific circumstances. Just because pro-lifers think abortion is the worst thing since the holocaust and the atom bomb, that doesn’t mean that it is not the preferred alternative for a woman. In my own personal case, it was the right decision and absolutely no one else’s business.

    • desire

      Just like it’s your choice it’s also their choice to show those pics they are not breaking the law by doing so if you don’t like the pics turn away. also there are women that have been lied to when they ask about the size and development of the fetus so it is important to show the truth. I eat meat if an animal activist showed pics of slaughtered cows who am I to tell them they shouldn’t show that. This is what ppl do when they are trying to prove a point

  • pagansister

    Well said, Bill S.

  • Bob Seidensticker

    Looks like we need to band together to minimize unwanted pregnancies.

    • pagansister

      Exactly.

  • Bill S

    At the very least, if you are going to be against abortion based on photographs and all, at least encourage birth control. First you want to tell people they can’t have abortions. Then you want to tell them that they can’t have sex if they don’t want children. Then you want to offer natural family planning as a safe way to have sex without the risk of pregnancy. What is that all about?

  • http://www.keeplifelegal.com Rev. Katherine Marple

    First, [to your commenters] stop trying to compartmentalize abortion. Abortion kills, contraception kills, even stupid kills. Period. Secondly, EXCELLENT illustration, Rep. Hamilton!

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      Thank you, Reverend Katherine!

    • pagansister

      Excuse me, Rev. Marple, but in my experience, condoms do not kill anything—they are a “cover” of the male body part in order to keep sperm from entering the woman. That is “killing? what exactly? The chance of an unplanned pregnancy which could be the cause of an abortion? As for other forms of birth control, obviously not having sex is the perfect way to prevent an unwanted pregnancy—and in a marriage that could cause the end of a marriage. Sex in marriage isn’t always just to make babies–though some disagree. (thus birth control). Whatever form of birth control is chosen, I think just the fact that it is being used is excellent, as prevention is key to reducing abortions.

  • Bill S

    “Abortion kills, contraception kills, even stupid kills. Period.”

    OK. What about condoms and the pill? How do they kill?

    • Warren

      You’re right Bill, contraception doesn’t kill. It prevents. The life hasn’t started yet. The sperm needs to fertalise the egg. Once that happens the life process begins. A completely different scenario.

  • Bill S

    Something like this (from another blog) is unrealistic.

    “Sexual integrity instead of contraception and abortion is key. How many more times…how many other ways can it be explained that if a person stops and thinks instead of unzipping there would not be a need for contraception and abortion with young people and young adults? I mean, this ain’t rocket science…if you don’t have sex the likelihood of getting pregnant is ZERO….every time. Sexual irresponsibility leads to sexual sin….every time. SAVE SEX FOR MARRIAGE.”

    Young people are going to do it. Of that, there is no doubt. Instead of telling them how sinful they are, we should make sure they are protected from unwanted pregnancy. Preaching abstinence is not going to cut it.

    • erica

      Teaching abstinence is like the same thing as teaching ignorance.. you are teaching nobody anything but to be afraid of getting pregnant because of sex! This is very irresponsible; this is what they tried teaching in my high school. It is very sad how upset people get over abortions. It’s a personal matter, and it is very sad how sheepish and judgmental a lot of these people are. Shame on Reverend Marple, who posts here with such a mentality! It isn’t a proud moment for the pro-life argument.

      If I terminated my pregnancy, would the child live on its own? probably not… people consider this a host-parasite relationship. Just as how pulling the plug isn’t illegal, abortions aren’t illegal, and should never become illegal! I think that only the smartest, wisest and healthiest people should be able to reproduce… but hey, I’m not one to judge on who decides to have a child in question or not.

      • Warren

        “It’s a personal matter.”
        No joking. I garantee it’s personal to the main person in this debate (you know, the very one who has had their lives taken from them even before they have taken their first breath & is given NO CHOICE in the matter). Pro-choice? Choice for whom exactly? The child I’m sure takes it VERY personally ……………… People like you entirerly seem to skip over the part where the child has their life painfully taken away from them regardless as to how they would feel about it. You wouldn’t put down your pet dog in the same way. You would be horrifide if I killed your pet the same way, but would you do it to your own child??? “Heck yeah!!!” you say? Don’t get me wrong. Many women have had to make incredibly tough decisions (& there are some incredibly gutsy women out there), but to take the life of their own child is a selfish & guttless decision. What rights do the children have??? Zero apparently.

  • http://www.facebook.com/ Lee Soo-Jin

    Even what is their big (super big) problem don’t do that monsterific act and rights and unlawful act. Remember In God’s name not impossible and you do that, you don’t have conscience? If you don’t like that child just born him/her and let it go/ put her/him on Orphanage. You don’t need to kill a child because of your anger to who demons who’s do that to you!

  • http://www.facebook.com/ Lee Soo-Jin

    and if you don’t stop that Your will become one of whose Monster who do that a lawful acts to you!


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X