Quotes Archives - Page 170 of 350

Children who deliver teddy bears are “exploited”; aborting children is fine

Senator Shirley Smith, on a visit from children bearing gifts of teddy bears to Senators in order to promote the heartbeat bill: (The children were sent into the offices of proabortion Senators with little teddy bears and a brief message asking them to vote to restrict abortion after the heartbeat can be detected)

“I’m not at all supportive of the bill, and I’m not supportive of them sending kids in my office with a teddy bear that mimics a heartbeat, either. I thought that was a very cheap exploitation of kids.”

Laura Bassett, “Antiabortion Group Sends Children with Teddy Bears to Lobby Lawmakers,” Huffington Post, January 12, 2012

From Kellie Copeland, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio:

“I think a lot of our folks looked at the flowers and other things as stunts. I think that was how it was received in a lot of the Senate offices as well. The one that got a little different reaction was when they had the children come and lobby and deliver the teddy bears. One of the Senate staffers told me that it kind of disturbed them because some of the kids were quite young. Their family walked them to the door of the Senate office, but didn’t go in with them. She told me that the kids that walked into her office looked pretty scared and intimidated. So I think that was received with a little more concern, how the kids may have been exploited.”

Robin Marty, Jessica Mason Pieklo Crow After Roe (Brooklyn, New York: ig Publishing, 2013) 43 – 44

So a child being sent into an office for a few minutes while his parents wait outside his exploitation, but abortion, which actually kills children, is perfectly okay? What about this child: he was legally killed by an abortion in the first trimester. Was he not “exploited” and mistreated?

Or this one, aborted at 21 weeks:

NARAL Pro-Choice argues for keeping 21 week abortions legal. According to them, it is perfectly all right to abort these babies – but not to send children into a senator’s office with a gift of a teddy bear

Share on Facebook

Pro-abort threatens to strangle pro-lifers

Lovely.

I suppose someone who advocates doing this to a baby….

doesn’t really flinch all that much at strangling an adult.

Share on Facebook

Jury member shocked by tales of babies aborted into toilets

On July 21, 2011, a jury of six found that the notorious late-term abortionist James Scott Pendergraft IV was liable for injuries sustained by a pre-born baby during a failed abortion ten years ago.

From a member of the Jury

“One of the things that kept me up at night was hearing the routine practice was for the women to void the fetus’ into the toilet of the facility, often by themselves. The MA testified on occasion movement was seen, yet no vitals were checked or resuscitation was performed. All of these protocols were put into place long ago by Pendergraft. He preys on poor, scared women in their time of desperation…

Tanya [Severance] testified squirming was observed “a couple times” which to me translated to numerous times. All the clinic workers said most of the infants were evacuated into the toilet as well. Pendergraft even testified it was no big deal and that “Most countries squat to give birth”. Needless to say his testimony did him no favors in our eyes.”

The abortionist in this case had his medical license suspended four times as of 2011

Cheryl Sullenger “Babies Born Alive in Toilets at Abortion Center, Left to Die” LifeNews 7/27/11

Share on Facebook

Saving baby girls targeted for abortion leads to “oppression of women”

Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada’s (ARCC) Facebook page, posting an article, on their support of sex selection abortion:

“Lessons from India: Here’s an excellent article that explains in detail how the war against sex selection abortion in India contributes to the further oppression of women in many ways. ….

The right of women to do what they feel is best for them in the circumstances they find themselves is sacrificed at the altar of making empty ‘pro-girl’ gestures. …If you are pro-choice, then you cannot start limiting someone else’s choice because it makes you feel uncomfortable.”

So it is perfectly okay for a woman to have an abortion, often an abortion she is pressured into, solely because her baby is a girl. In fact, preventing baby girls for being aborted because they are girls is “oppression of women.” This is like bizarro world, where everything is backwards – where preventing sex discrimination is a form of sex discrimination in itself, and killing girls for being girls is somehow pro-woman.

You can read the article that cited this quote here.

Share on Facebook

Proabortion attorney complains about ultrasound law

A proabortion attorney said the following about a law requiring a sonogram to be performed before abortions. The law would also allow a woman to see the sonogram image if she chose

“It’s really about chipping away at the various ways in which abortion care can happen in an effort to make it impossible for women to obtain it.”

Michelle Movahed attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights, which sued to block the state’s ultrasound law

Robin Marty, Jessica Mason Pieklo Crow After Roe (Brooklyn, New York: ig Publishing, 2013) 91

This completely ignores the fact that ultrasounds are already a routine part of abortion care.

The only way to truly, accurately date a pregnancy is through ultrasound; ultrasound is also needed because an ectopic pregnancy must be ruled out before an abortion is performed. Even if ultrasounds were not a part of routine abortion care, how would requiring one “make it impossible” for women to have an abortion?

The only consequences this law would have would be to make abortion safer and to offer women a chance to get more information about the baby they are about to destroy.

The goal of the law is to change minds and hearts by giving the woman more information about her own body.

Is it better for her to be exposed to ultrasound pictures (from a friend/family member’s pregnancy or her own future pregnancy) after she has the abortion, when it is too late for her to change her mind?

Share on Facebook

“Grieving counselors” have women take pictures of their aborted babies as keepsakes

Abortionist Amos Grunebaum Said the following under oath at the partial-birth abortion ban trial in New York:

“We have been told by grieving counselors to take pictures of all dead fetuses and babies – specifically babies, but also fetuses – so there is a memory of the baby by the mother.”

Testimony of abortionist Dr Amos Grunebaum, National Abortion Federation, et. al. v. Ashcroft, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, March 30, 2004.

He is referring to the practice of late-term abortionists’ giving “keepsakes” to women who have abortions. These women are offered the chance to hold their babies and “say goodbye” as if it were a natural death or miscarriage. Some of them take photographs with their dead child. Other abortionists have also spoken of this and Dr. George Tiller offered such services in his late term abortion clinic.

The women or couples that do this are usually ones that aborted their babies because the babies would’ve been disabled – in some cases, these children had such severe problems if they would have been stillborn or may have died soon after birth, but in many more cases, the disability was one that the child could’ve lived with.Below is one such picture. It was taken of a woman who now regrets her abortion. Her identity has been obscured, but you can see the body of the baby and her features (the child was a girl). The baby had been diagnosed with cystic fibrosis, a serious illness, But one that can be managed. The average life expectancy for someone with cystic fibrosis is in the early 40s. Perhaps 40 years of life were taken from this baby.

Share on Facebook

Researcher discusses the technology that allows women to abort disabled babies

Former abortion clinic worker Rayna Rapp, who herself had aborted a disabled baby, wrote a book where she interviewed men and women going through the process of amniocentesis to detect abnormalities in their babies. She has many quotes from these men and women, some of whom aborted, some of whom did not, in her book, but I would like to present two quotes from the author herself. In these, she talks about the conflicting values between supporting the disabled and aborting them before they are born.

“Over the years of this study, I learned a great deal about two related and tension fraught issues. The first is the need to champion the reproductive rights of women to carry or refuse to carry to term a pregnancy that would result in a baby with a serious disability. The second is the need to support adequate, non-stigmatizing, integrative services for all the children, including disabled children, that women bear. The intersection of disability rights and reproductive rights as paradoxically linked feminist issues has emerged as central to my political and intellectual work.”

In the second quote, she discusses how the technology that is aimed that destroying disabled unborn babies cannot be “neutral”,:

“It is hard to argue for the neutrality of a technology explicitly developed to identify and hence eliminate fetuses with problem-causing chromosomes (and, increasingly, genes): the biomedical and public health interests behind the development and routinization of the technology itself evaluate such fetuses as expendable. Ethicists and counselors are surely right to respond that parents of such potentially atypical fetuses have a right to know as well as not to know about the chromosomal status of their fetus, and to use the information however they may wish, whether that means preparing for the birth of a child with special needs or ending the pregnancy. But the very existence and routinization of the technology implies anything but neutrality. It assumes that scientific and medical resources should be placed in the service of prenatal diagnosis and potential elimination of fetuses bearing chromosome problems.”

Rayna Rapp Testing Women, Testing the Fetus: the Social Impact of Amniocentesis in America (New York: Routledge, 1999) 8, 59

Share on Facebook

Feminists treat book on postabortion suffering with “contempt”

“When an article I wrote about women’s negative experiences of abortion appeared in The Canberra Times in 1997, a family planning figure hastily wrote in to dismiss postabortion trauma. Similar reactions surfaced in a feminist email discussion about my book that lasted several days. The project was treated with contempt by all but two participants. Someone suggested a quick online collection of “stories of women not hurt by abortion” to be compiled. This reaction unnecessarily pits women’s differing stories against each other and, once again, suggests there is only one authentic experiential reality when it comes to abortion.”

Melinda Tankard Reist, quoted in her book Giving Sorrow Words: Women’s Stories of Grief after Abortion (Springfield, IL: Acorn Books, 2007) 20

Share on Facebook

Interview with an abortionist

From Nightline. Reporter Martin Bashir of ABC news interviews Dr. William Harrison, an abortionist.

DOCTOR WILLIAM HARRISON (PHYSICIAN) My conscience calls me to do abortions because I consider the mother’s life much, much more important than that tiny little blob of tissue.

MARTIN BASHIR (ABC NEWS) (Off-camera) It’s interesting you say it’s a blob of tissue, but as you know after just 21 days, the heart is pumping blood. At 42 days, the child has recordable brain waves. And you are, every day, relentlessly terminating that life, and you’re happy with that?

DOCTOR WILLIAM HARRISON (PHYSICIAN) Am I happy with it? No, but I’m not distressed about it. I would be a lot more distressed if I could not terminate that life for the patient that that life is going to be a disaster for.

DOCTOR WILLIAM HARRISON I’ve had lots of patients who come in for second, third, fourth, fifth, even one who had nine abortions.

MARTIN BASHIR (ABC NEWS) (Off-camera) Is that really appropriate?

DOCTOR WILLIAM HARRISON (PHYSICIAN) If she needs nine abortions, yeah.

18 year old patient

MARTIN BASHIR (ABC NEWS) (Off-camera) Did you see a photograph of the fetus yesterday?

PATIENT (FEMALE) Yes, I did.

MARTIN BASHIR (ABC NEWS) (Off-camera) What effect did that have?

PATIENT (FEMALE) It made it a little more difficult. I think it made me a little more nervous about it.

MARTIN BASHIR (ABC NEWS) (Off-camera) Did you consider the possibility of perhaps adoption?

PATIENT (FEMALE) I thought about it. But I really thought that that might be even harder going through the whole pregnancy stage and seeing the child and then having to give it away, I just think would really, really tear me up inside.

DOCTOR WILLIAM HARRISON (PHYSICIAN) The most important decision that a woman ever makes is to have a baby. Whether you have an abortion or not is relatively minor. Basically, abortion is a method of birth control. You know, it’s not the best method of birth control. But all it does is stop the birth of a baby that a woman doesn’t want at a time she doesn’t want it.

….

DOCTOR WILLIAM HARRISON (PHYSICIAN) I’ve had one of the most emotionally satisfying careers that I can imagine anyone having. I can’t tell you how satisfying it is, when two weeks after a young woman has come in distraught and thinking that her life is ruined, and she comes back two – two weeks after the abortion and she is a new woman. She’s been given her life back.

MARTIN BASHIR (ABC NEWS) (Off-camera) And for her to be born again, you’ve had to kill the fetus.

DOCTOR WILLIAM HARRISON (PHYSICIAN) Uh-huh. That’s right.

MARTIN BASHIR (ABC NEWS) (Off-camera) And that’s a fair exchange?

DOCTOR WILLIAM HARRISON (PHYSICIAN) That’s a fair exchange.

MARTIN BASHIR “THE ABORTIONIST” Nightline (ABC), 1/11/2006

See what a baby at this age looks like after an abortion.

Share on Facebook

Clinic worker: “The “honeymoon period” did not last long with abortion

Former counselor who worked at an abortion clinic shortly after abortion was legalized:

“It blows my mind, thinking about it now, about how much power we [the counselors] had… If one of the doctors they hired was causing too much pain or saying disgusting things to patients, we’d run into the director’s office and get him fired. Unfortunately, the honeymoon period didn’t last too long though.”

Carole Joffe The Regulation of Sexuality: Experiences of Family-Planning Workers (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1986) 36

Nowadays, due to the shortage of abortionists, clinics are having to tolerate more and more from abortionists. Clinics can no longer afford to fire abortion doctors unless there is a TRULY egregious reason.

Read about abortion doctors in the disrespectful way they have treated women here, here, and here.

Share on Facebook