When not cleaning my gun or sewing up the rips in my KKK uniform, I sit and think about my current beliefs about life, death, religion, God, etc. Of course, as many of you know, one of the most important issues with me is the abortion issue, which really is a cumulative mixing of a bunch of terrible shit going on in the world.

I am actually quite surprised at how few of my political/social views have changed since I've given up trying to practice Christianity. The two biggest that I can think of are gay marriage (and trust me, I'm not pro-gay marriage in the traditional liberal way: by having courts give it to us) and the use of contraception.

When I say "contraception", however, it's only non-hormonal contraception that I approve of due to the precise reasons I was against hormonal birth control pre-secular days. I have to ask myself, "When does life begin?"

It's hard to keep track of what the pro-choicers believe these days in regards to personhood. One minute they seem to insist that a conceived child is not a person and therefore can be removed without any moral question whatsoever, then the other they're saying that yes, it's a life, but it doesn't matter, because that life isn't worth as much as, say, a homeless person. I find this perennially intriguing--but that's another issue.

If we're looking at things in terms of personhood, why is it that we, as a society, don't believe that pre-implantation lives are actually lives? What is the significant difference between traveling up the fallopian tube and actually being attached to the uterine wall? There isn't really that much of a difference, when looking at the development of that human life. But in order to make ourselves feel better about pumping fourteen year-olds up with hormones, we say, "Actually, life begins at implantation! Anything goes up to that point!" Unless of course you're Obama, in which case it's OK to slaughter an infant in the third trimester with a pretty damned good "health" reason!

I guess all of this to say that I still believe that life begins at conception. This hasn't changed, and I doubt that it will.

Oh Supreme Court, how you tear my heart so...

On the one hand, the fact that you overturned the Washington DC gun ban is wonderful and, indeed, Constitutional. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

But then, on the other hand, you want to outlaw the death penalty for the most evil people in our society, child rapists? How is injection cruel and unusual?

Oh that's right, because child rape isn't murder, and murder is apparently only thing that we can kill the guilty for, and even then only sometimes. Great.

I mean, just think about it: child rape. Why can't we, as Americans, have things that are so hated that everyone will know their punishment if they do it and are found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Hell, now you can go around killing people and, depending on the state you live in, just chill for the rest of your life. This is insane.

If you rape a child, you don't need to be in our society anymore. It's as simple as that. Ironically, it's often the people who shout "rape and incest" from the mountain side regarding the dismemberment of fetuses who are against the death penalty from those who actually commit the crimes. Apparently liberals care more about the criminals than both the fetus and the rape victim.

Even better, Obama says he disagrees with the Court's decision on the death penalty for child rapists, thus making him look moderate before an election. Not that I believe him. I'm still waiting to see what McCain says, though I'm kind of scared to find out.

Norma McCorvey, the "Roe" in Roe vs. Wade, has made her first commercial, and I am pleased with it. While it mentions God, it is not preachy, and it gets this little-known person who should be more well known into the minds of people.

Many of the more "progressive" Evangelical Christians are supporting Obama this election season. This has been interesting because, while I was becoming more and more conservative, many of my peers were becoming more and more liberal. While I no longer hold my Christian affiliation, I still find the liberalism invading American Christianity disturbing.

But seriously...Obama? What are people thinking? Many liberal newspaper articles discussing the evangelical support for Obama--especially among "young people"--all say that abortion is an issue of lesser concern, and more and more people are concerned with feeding the poor and imposing socialism on our health care system.

It's one thing to support abortion in the first trimester. It's easy to kill a fetus who is less developed, less valuable and, of course, less visible to our eyes. But third-trimester babies? How insane do you have to be to support this on-demand?

In another friend's blog, we are having an interesting discussion on abortion. She is from the UK, and I was pleasantly surprised to find out that the major pro-abortion groups over there do not support abortion-on-demand throughout all nine months of pregnancy. I was skeptical at first, but several people reaffirmed this. Britain currently has a 24 week limit, which is still horrifying, but hell, it's a limit. And the pro-choice groups don't hysterically insist that women are dying because of it. They are happy with their limit.

But here in the US our pro-choice groups insist upon abortion availability throughout all nine months of pregnancy, for any reason, and Obama's their man. He and his wife have advocated and voted for it time and time again. If you think such a man has respect for life because he wants to force middle-class me to pay more in taxes to help feed "the poor", try reconciling the photo above, brought to us by Cranky Catholic (via Jill Stanek). If you think that feeding the poor through social programs and yet slaughtering the unborn makes us "progressive", you need a serious reality check. 

As one of those gays who doesn't believe in a "gay gene", I fantastically look forward to the day that it is discovered, because the pro-choice movement is going to have to figure some things out.

Because the movement officially (but quietly) stands for abortion on demand (any time during pregnancy for any reason--and yes, that includes the third-trimester for those of you having trouble grasping "any time"), when the gay gene is discovered you are suddenly going to have an influx of two different kinds of people: 1) pro-choicers who want to abort their children because they are gay and 2) pro-choicers who want to restrict abortion only in this one instance.

For some reason, it appears as if every gay and lesbian in this country supports abortion rights. It's as if there's a "abortion-supporter gene" included in the DNA structure of virtually every gay and lesbian I've ever met! Let's research it! I'm sure we'll come up with it! It must be there because I know they're born that way! Granted, most gays and lesbians (or just pro-choicers in general) are not NARAL-type pro-choicers, but many strongly feel that 1) abortion is needed to help women or 2) that it's not their problem so they're just going to ignore that issue.

And of course NARAL isn't going to budge on the issue. They have no problem killing blacks, why would they care about a few fags? "A fetus is a fetus, no matter their DNA structure." (A very nice motto to have when comparing human fetuses with that of dogs, as if that were relevant in any possible way in this debate.) This will be a moment when you'll want to pop some popcorn and grab your lawn chair: the pro-choicers will have the greatest schism of all time! *thunder and lightning crash*

While normal pro-choicers (hell, even me) can understand the desire of women who really feel as if they cannot care for a child and who are poor and single to abort a child as early as possible, a woman offing her gay fetus looks just a tad less noble when she's a suburbanite not wanting to deal with a lifetime of paying for baton-twirling lessons or expensive shoes. Indeed, she begins to look quite heinous.

But you gotta love the ladies at NARAL: this woman is still their amassment of courage and feminine power, shining with glorious light with choirs singing mystical chords around her! They adore any kind of woman who can kill her own child, via doctor or coat hanger, and will do anything--anything--to make sure she can get it without any kind of delay or harm to her person, including being able to pay for the thing herself.

The pro-choicers will be forced to actually take a public stand for what their position has been all along, and at least their position will be consistent: if you can kill the blacks or the unwanted, you should be able to kill the gays. While enraged pro-lifers are generally ignored by the media (unless of course they kill someone, in which case they are the epitome of all that is "pro-life") the media generally listens to groups of enraged gays. The feminists will get defensive, the gays will get defensive, and pro-lifers like me will have to stifle our giggles throughout the entire bout of drama. It will be glorious.

While it is obvious that aborting a baby because of their sexual orientation is quite deplorable, it's also worth noting that it's also just as disgusting to abort a child for any other reason. If a woman can abort for "cultural" reasons such as being looked down upon and called a "slut" in her community, why is it any less acceptable to abort the mother of a gay guy who doesn't want to deal with what could very well be a strong homophobic cloud in her community? We can argue all we want that such a sentiment shouldn't exist, but so also the stigma of the unwed mother shouldn't exist. Why is one an acceptable reason to abort while the other isn't?

Pro-choicers have it good: abortion is always the exception in every situation, impervious to comparison to any other event or situation. This is good, when you consider the grisly reality of abortion (generally ripping the unborn apart) and that, if we were to apply logic to their arguments, pro-choicers would look worse than Nazis, or even Joe McCarthy!

While the crux of their arguments always comes down to "it's the woman's choice", because apparently the millions of women who surprisingly find themselves pregnant every year are ex facto morally suited to make this choice, the pro-choicers like to take the fast route in debates by throwing out "reasons" that women should get an abortion. Instead of simply saying what they think--"Any reason will do!"--they throw out a series of situations in which a woman may need to kill her child. These include but are not limited to:

• Rape and incest
• She can't afford a baby
• She has no emotional support
• She wants to go to school
• She wants to go to the prom
• She may get kicked out of school
• She hates kids
• She's an environmentalist

And the list goes on. The problem with abortion is that people look at the reasons before they look at the action, and frankly I don' think there's much hope of getting them to do otherwise. It's easy for us to say that, for example, none of these reasons are a good reason to kill a three year-old. But abortion is always the exception, every time. Humans are selfish, I myself being no exception, but where is the line drawn? It's not drawn, actually, but continually is changing to fit the desires of the Abortion Lobby.

I think that if we are going to indiscriminately slaughter the unborn, than we should expand the legal age of abortion to post-birth 70 years. Why, just today, I could have aborted the following: (one of the great things about putting this policy into place is that men will finally be able to feel what it's like to have an abortion, something the feminists insist would make us "male-lifers" rapidly change our minds on the subject...)

• The cyclist who ran the stop-sign and almost got killed by my car, scaring the crap out of me
  
• The homeless people on the street who constantly ask for money, never willing to loan me some
  
• The grumpy shop clerk who never smiles at me even though I try to be friendly

That's three abortions in one day! And to think, if we follow the pro-choice practices, I'll be able to win every argument on account that I've had an abortion! "You're wrong! I know because I've had an abortion!" "Put your statistics away! I've had an abortion!" "OMG! Look at what Sheets posted today! That m*****f***** hasn't even had an abortion. He should be aborted! LOLZ!!!111!1!"

But, of course, the pro-choicers won't let us apply their logic to kill the unborn with anyone else. Forget that an infant is simply minutes older than a fetus: abortion is the exception.

If a woman is attacked, and her unborn baby (or twins) is killed, should the gunman be charged with murder?

Many pro-choicers have no problem saying, "Yes," because the babies were wanted by the mother and even if they weren't, it wasn't an abortion. Sorry guys, but this is another example of your movement being extreme while you are not.

Case in point, brought to my attention by Jill Stanek, Katherin Shuffield of Indiana was shot and wounded while on the job at a bank by a bank robber. Her unborn babies are dead.

The Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled that a wrongful death suit cannot be brought for killing an unborn child, regardless of whether the baby is viable. This was in the wake of a drunk driving accident a few years back when a nearly full-term baby died.

Indiana law also does not define "viability" in reference to its fetal homicide or manslaughter laws. We believe we have identified a murder case in which the courts accepted viability as being 24 weeks.

It appears that fetal battery charges may be the only charges that can be brought.

Several legislators have worked throughout the last two years to correct these problems, but the core issue in Indiana is that our Democrat-controlled House kills every pro-life bill that it gets.

So because the babies were not "viable" (meaning they cannot survive outside of the womb) they are considered unworthy of justice. Sounds like a pro-choice world to me. Jill makes a good point though: "I questioned this, since the doctors decided to deliver the babies, meaning they thought the babies stood a better chance of surviving outside their mother's uterus than inside... meaning they were potentially viable."

Not that it matters whether or not they were viable: they were killed by a non-abortionist, and the mother was not planning on aborting them. Can you imagine what this mother is going through, wounded from being shot and not being able to have justice for her children? The robber remains to be caught. The babies were five months-old, no where near the pro-choice scientific definition of "blob of tissue". (See picture.)

The only reason this is an issue is because of abortion.

Pro-choice advocates, from the feminists and organizations like NARAL and Planned Parenthood, are very, very glad that the robber cannot be charged with murder, as they have openly stated time and time again that such laws would "endanger" a "woman's right to choose".

These people are insane. Even though the babies were wanted and the mother had no intention of aborting. "Sorry, babe. Take a back seat for our agenda next to the blacks. We wouldn't want you and your children being brought to justice to endanger promiscuous teenagers in any way." Women who get knocked up and "exercise their right to choose" are considered heroines and yet a woman who survives getting shot and the loss of her children is potentially a menace to the right to choose. It's nice they care about women, isn't it?

Thankfully I removed Feministe from my RSS reader months ago, and since then I have experienced less nausea, constipation and Pink Eye. In other words, life has been better.

However, every once in a while, I need material, and today was one of those days. It's funny how much I actually agree with teh ladiezz over there, and today is one of those days. However, like they are whenever they discuss abortion, the feminists are, well, stereotypically womanly.

Today's hysterical denunciation of pro-lifers was crafted by Jill. She's upset because of an Oklahoma bill (which is not going to pass) which would require that women getting abortions get an ultrasound. Like, require them to. Not offered, but required if they are going to have an abortion. That's annoying to the feminists and it's annoying to me.

The idea that we are going to force women to get an ultrasound while they are in baby-killing mode is preposterous. I realize full-well that this has the potential to save lives, but you can't force someone to undergo a medical procedure. I am all in favor of "requiring" ultrasounds via the route of asking women if they want to have an ultrasound, but if they say no, you can't force them to.

But what does Jill expect at this point? She and all of the other pro-aborts don't believe in any type of restriction, so pro-life people everywhere are getting desperate. Children are being killed, and while womyn like Jill may think that's empowering, it's quite horrifying for the rest of us. Perhaps if the Feminists would give us something as pathetic as, say, parental notification, a lot of "normal" pro-lifers (that is, pro-lifers who aren't advocates and don't focus on the issue constantly) would lay off of them and stop producing insane bills like this one.

Jill hysterically says: "It’s disgusting. And I’m trying not to sound hyperbolic here, but it’s awfully close to sexual assault." While I don't think it's really sexual assault (no abortionist is going to force an ultrasound on a woman) I do agree that it's "disgusting" in that you cannot force people to undergo medical procedures. But then again, I'm one of those people who thinks it's disgusting to dismember an unborn baby.

The crones at NARAL are celebrating the fourth year anniversary of the "March for Women's Lives", an event that took place in Washington DC four years ago. Because the fourth anniversary is the Silk Anniversary, NARAL is appropriately recalling stories from the march and immortalizing them on their blog. Later today they will fold linen napkins in the shape of coat hangers.

The March for Women's Lives was a smashing success for the pro-choicers. They had a lot of women there, at least 800,000, possibly over 1 million. Pro-choicers gloat that their march drew in considerably more people than those who show up to the annual March for Life. This, to them, is solid evidence that more women are pro-choice than pro-life (I'm still checking, but I also believe that it's also evidence to them that the fetus can't feel pain). It's worth pointing out that dragging a bunch of rhetorically-ginned up college-aged women off the street and getting them to Washington DC for one event is considerably easier than getting over a million people to show up in January-weather year after year. (Note to fellow anti-choicers: can we PLEASE criminalize abortion in August so we can march in celebration of it every year?) And yet we get an average of 300,000 pro-lifers there every year. Multiply that by 35 years and we've slaughtered the pro-choicers, which is terribly ironic.

The blog entries are presumably still coming in, but NARAL policy director Donna Crane had an unintentionally ironic story about meeting the wife of Christopher Reeve, paralyzed actor and embryonic stem-cell proponent. She discussed the link between we "anti-choicers" and the death of Christopher Reeve. While his death is largely blamed on lack of federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, no one sees that, in fact, embryonic stem-cell research did nothing to help him. The fact remains that, today, four years after his death, he would still be paralyzed, advocating for the destruction of human embryos in order to help him personally. Notice that one can understand Reeve's selfishness and be somewhat empathetic. No one wants to be paralyzed. That doesn't makes his position automatically ethical, however. And what other issue can we empathize with the killers of innocent people? Abortion. Funny how NARAL's on top of both.

Even I can concede that there is a difference between destroying a fetus and destroying an embryo. I think most pro-lifers see that and even some grapple with it. It's much easier for us to accept a few cells being used for supposedly helpful research as opposed to a 2nd trimester unborn baby. But that's where we differ from the pro-choicers. We give the benefit of the doubt to life, every single time, even if we cannot see or understand its value. Pro-choicers, in general I am sure, oppose slaughtering children in Darfur. However, their respect for life begins only after a child has passed out of the birth canal. Then magically, they have rights and we should be outraged that evil people are killing them and their families! They dismiss the deaths of fetuses as nothing, however. After all, who are fetuses compared to women? Well, then I ask, what value to society does a 4 year-old in Darfur have? Realistically, none. And frankly, what value to society does even a 16 year-old pregnant girl have? Realistically, none.

But that doesn't matter. Pro-lifers don't base a person's value on their contribution to society. We give them the benefit of the doubt and we encourage them to leave a productive life We are against the taking of any innocent human life--even that "potential life" found in a bunch of cells in a dish.

Of course Donna doesn't have a problem with chopping up embryos in a lab. She is for abortion for any reason, throughout all nine months of pregnancy. She thinks that simply changing your mind during labor is an OK reason to kill your baby. Sure, it may never happen, but that what she supports. By being cool with killing early-term fetuses and embryos, the pro-abortion position of NARAL has reached horrifying proportions. Perhaps when euthanasia on infants with Downs Syndrome becomes the status quo, NARAL will be right along side those proponents as well.

Colorado Right to Life (NOT affiliated with National Right to Life) opposed a bill that would require women seeking abortions to see an ultrasound.

In Portland, Oregon, 70% of abortion-minded women who see their babies on the ultra-sound screen don't abort. That's a huge percentage. Can you imagine if it were actually required?

But Colorado Right to Life, closely affiliated with American Right to Life, opposed it saying that it regulates child-killing. So, instead of potentially saving 70% of the babies, they would rather none be saved.

Thankfully they offer another solution: an outright ban on all abortions! Well why didn't we think of that?

Like I've said before, we'll see how many babies are saved via the purist crowd. Maybe this is all a part of their strategy and we'll all think them later.

See, it's one thing to be against parental notification and claim that it doesn't save any lives (which I disagree with but at least that makes sense), it's another to actually oppose a bill that will actually save lives. Maybe 20%, maybe 70%, who knows? I think the pro-choice reasons for being against this bill (traumatizing women!!!) are better than CRL's.

HatTip: Anonymous

If one were to say, "God help us all", it would not be in vain, nor over dramatic.

Update: Will I vote for Huckabee now? I don't know. He's a lot stronger on the life issue than McCain, but otherwise a liberal.

Update II: This is just another case of "We need to trust in God." It's hard when you are politically-minded and convinced that what you want is the best way. But God can work through people. The time to start praying for our next president--whomever he (or she!) will be--is now. Especially for the babies.

I've written on this before. It's the question of common ground. That is, can we who are pro-life "work together" with those who are pro-choice? I think the answer to that question ultimately is a "Yes", but my follow-up question would be "And what would that accomplish?"

I was thrown back into this train-of-thought from a post that JivinJ linked to, which involved Steve Wagner and Jill Stanek's seemingly opposing view on the subject. (I've met both in person.)

Steve Wagner made the following comment:


Jill responded in her recent World Net Daily column:


Now, I don't think that Jill was making an emphatic statement here; only really expressing a concern that I share with her. There are a lot of pro-lifers who think that we actually have something in common with pro-choicers. Perhaps we do, but this is no time to discuss our common love of banana bread—this is baby-killing we are talking about.

While Steve is right in finding common ground in reaching out to your everyday pro-choicer (on a college campus, for example), I don't think that we will reach the Nancy Keenans of the world with this approach, as he seems to promote by his comments. Whenever I work on a college campus, I almost always find common ground, because these are normal people, not people on the NARAL payroll. They are pro-choice, as opposed to Pro-Choice. The NARAL ladies can't bring themselves to stop calling us "anti-choice" for 5 seconds and think that we are a bunch of white men, even though they've been snarking the movement for 35 years now which is mostly women: believe me, they don't have the slightest bit of interest in what we have to say.

One of the lessons I've learned from a political standpoint is that it's never good to compromise with your enemy. Steve apparently grasps this point, and has no intention of compromising. But you have to say, "What's the point then?" The pro-choicers won't even give us their consideration for something as pathetic as parental notification without making us sign papers allowing free contraception for all females, no matter their age/background. And that's usually a turn-off for most pro-lifers because of our fundamental differences in our views of sex and procreation.

The movements will never be able to work together. Even if abortion were to be made illegal, and the Pro-Choice Prophesy of billions of women sticking coat hangers into their bodies mindlessly actually becomes true, our approaches to stop them from doing so would be different: pro-lifers would love the women, pro-choicers would get them their blessed abortions. 

From the Telegraph:

Jin Yani's waters had already broken when China's abortion police came for her. They took her to a nearby abortion centre, injected her unborn baby girl and removed the body two days later.

Mrs Jin's crime was to have become pregnant by her fiance [sic] five months before she married him at the age of 20, the legal minimum.

Pregnancy outside marriage is illegal. But forced abortions are now supposed to be illegal in China.

This is horrifying on a few levels. I can't imagine how a woman would feel, after carrying her child for 9 months, to have him or her killed during birth. We in America are so far from these situations that it's hard for us to even care to relate, but we really should. Please pray for her.

I wonder what will happen with this case. Hopefully it will get some attention.

Jessica over at Bush v Choice is snippy over Missouri governor Matt Blunt's remarks in his recent attempt to block prison inmates from getting abortions. Now, I must say, myself, that I don't see why prison inmates should be the exception in the mad dash to abort children. (Does anyone see any reasoning for this?) Thankfully, to Jessica, pro-choice liberals generally get what they want by using the courts, as they did in this case: the Federal Appeals Court said, yes, women in jail have the right to dismember their children too, thus preventing any glass wall that the jailed women who have spent their entire lives contributing to society have been striving to surpass. Ah, how glorious the victory must be.

Jessica indignitaly quotes Blunt, who said, "Over the last three years, we have … enacted laws that reflect our profound respect for the inherent dignity of each and every life...I am hopeful and prayerful that we can further protect life by enhancing our laws to defend the dignity of human life."

Responding with her usual thought-provoking commentary, Jessica states: "Unless that life is an incarcerated woman, then her dignity doesn't really mean [obligatory curse word] to Blunt." (And the blog entry dramatically ends!)

What kind of a world do pro-choicers live in? It must be nice that any kind of argument, no matter how elementary or advanced, can be ended with, "PRO-LIFERS HATE WOMEN!!!!!11!!!" and a threat to go stick a coat hanger in themselves.

Queen of Child-Killing Advocacy herself, Kate Michaelman, graced us with her presence on the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade with a rather intriguing column in the Los Angeles Times. She frankly states, "Twenty years ago, being pro-life was déclassé. Now it is a respectable point of view. "

In the 1970s, the arguments were simple and polarized: Abortion was either murder or a woman's right to control her body. The fetus, however, stayed largely invisible. The pro-choice movement stayed on the message offensive, tactically shifting in 1989 from women's bodies to the "who decides" [Hahahahaha!] question posed by NARAL Pro-Choice America. But this was rapidly parried by the anti-choice demand that we look at what was being decided, not just who was deciding.

Um, wow. I totally agree with what she just said.

She declares, "It's not 1973. Pro-choice forces must adjust to regain the moral high ground."

This article was actually enjoyable to read, because it reaffirms what I've been saying from the start: pro-choice advocates know the fetus is a human, they just don't care. To have Michaelman of all people admit this is wonderful.

Perhaps some of you have already clued into this "moral highground" of screaming "women, women, body, women!" when discussing abortion pointlessly with some NARAL supporter type on a college campus or, worse, abortiondebate. (Not dissing the community, mind you.) You have the smart ones and the clueless ones: the smart ones are the ones who don't care about the development of the fetus despite any information that comes out (the fetus could literally be saying, "Um, please don't kill me!" and they would tell it to shush, their mother is getting ready to practice her right of bodily integrity, and it would be ever-so-much easier if the fetus would keep it down) and the clueless ones are the ones who don't know about Doe vs. Bolton and think that abortion is illegal after the first trimester. Needless to say, these types don't lead the movement.

It's funny, because pro-choice advocates are so desperate to kill children. They have ignored any new information about the fetus that has come out in the past 35 years that points to "personhood" or claim that, why no, just because a fetus is fully developed doesn't make it a "person", oh wow look at how deep we are talking about "personhood"! ("Personhood" is a term so vaugue that it has come to mean "whatever pro-choicers want it to mean at the time".) They simply are now the most honest they've ever been about their position, which has been the same ever since Roe: they think women have the right to kill their children.

Pro-choicers will really be stepping it up come the next election. They are terrified that we may get a right-wing fanatic in the White House they may appoint "conservative judges" who will tear down Roe vs. Wade, sending women into alley ways by the droves.

The focus, of course, will be on the health of women, as if dismembering unborn children was on par with pre-natal treatment and brushing one's hair. This is the problem: by refusing to actually talk about abortion until they are absolutely forced to, pro-abortion groups can gin up support from know-nothing Americans.

I say "know-nothing Americans" to mean that the American people know nothing about abortion law. It's seriously a sad thing. The looks of shock I get when I inform someone that you can get an abortion in the third trimester are great in number. This is pro-choice and pro-life.

I consistently say that the pro-choice movement is a bunch of well-meaning people led by a group of lunatics. But they are holding their own in the public school system as well as the university front.

Politics, as we know, are only part of the solution to abortion. But it's hard to ignore politics when we are facing a presidential election in about 10 months, and a new president in the White House in about a year. So I say, until then, let's work to elect a pro-life president. (Hint: John McCain is not a pro-life president.)

While everyone in the pro-life movement seemed to be pretty happy with George W. Bush during his term for passing the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, I need hardly point out that he did scant else. Yes, we got Robert and Alito on the court, but there was the Harriet Meyers incident, which frankly is a big deal.

We need someone more conservative and more pro-life than George Bush. I don't even care if he is personally pro-life and is just pandering to pro-lifers: so long as he acts pro-life with some enthusiasm. Passing bills is fine and good, but we need someone who is sure to appoint constructionist judges to the bench.

Now that Fred is out of the race, I suppose my next choice is Romney. *prepares for hate mail* While he's not the best we could have produced, I feel that he will be a good president should he be elected. I also feel that he will have the greatest chance of winning, besides John McCain, whom I won't even consider hypothetically on principle.

It's hard, though, when you are not enthusiastic about a candidate to get behind a campaign. I'll probably wait until we have a nomination. If we nominate McCain, I'll probably not support anyone.

Poll #1126348
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All

Whom are you supporting now?

Another year has gone by, and 1.4 million babies have paid for the Supreme Court's 1973 decision of Roe vs. Wade. Thirty-five years later, and we still have an American public that is clueless about abortion law and policy, and who would much rather spend their time playing video games than standing up for the unborn.

Things have got to change, and, slowly, they are. As I read some of the comments from the gatherings and marches around the country, one of the things that struck me was this idea of "We have simply got to be nice!" As in, don't ever be brazen or blunt.

Meekness is not your tone of voice or word choice. Meekness is the understanding of who you are (or, rather, who you aren't) in the midst of everything and everyone else. We needn't always be quiet, speaking in tones of religious respect while speaking of the women who want to kill their children. We mustn't try to be "cool pro-lifers" in order to win pro-choicers to our side. We have got to speak the truth.

Pointing out that pro-choicers stand for death, ageism, genocide, euthanasia and racism isn't being "mean". It's pointing the truth out. These are the people also standing for fornication, homosexuality, sodomy, drunkenness, "experimentation", defeatism and narcissism, among a plethora of other things. It is not hate or anger to point these obvious things out: it is love and it is truth.

You can be loving in confrontation, and we need confrontation. Not rebellion, not violence, but confrontation. We need to get 400,000 pro-lifers out to the March for Life next year. We need all of those people who attend the march to call in to their politicians once per month. We need all of those pro-lifers and then some to go on their knees to pray before a merciful God for mercy on our country. We need to be in front of the clinics, in front of the pro-choice gatherings, in front of college campuses and in front of high schools, presenting—no, confronting—the public with the truth about abortion. This is no time to worry about the effects of abortion pictures on the minds of teenagers who shoot up prostitutes in video games, or offending a woman who has had an abortion should she see a plastic fetus: children are dying.

We speak much of the correlation between abortion and Nazism, but do we respond the same way?

This is from Dawn Eden's blog post called "Supreme Irony". I am quoting it at length because it is wonderful:

At the March for Life conference at the Capitol Hill Hyatt today, I stopped by a display table filled with books and devotional items from Marytown, the National Shrine of St. Maximilian Kolbe.

A soft-spoken, gray-haired woman with kind blue eyes at the table explained to me that she and the other volunteers there were members of the Militia Immaculata, the group started by St. Maximilian to spread devotion to Jesus through Mary.

The woman introduced herself as Margaret Mary and said she was a convert to the Catholic faith, received into the Church on September 8, 1966. We spoke for a few minutes about St. Maximilian, who is a patron saint of the pro-life movement.

As I walked away from the table, one of Margaret Mary's fellow volunteers told me something quite beautiful and poignant about her. He said she was the daughter of the late Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger — who presided over the Roe v. Wade decision, which made abortion legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy.

She is now doing her part to bring healing and justice in the wake of her father's actions, which have resulted in the legal murder of more than 48 million children since 1973. God bless her, as well as her fellow convert to Catholicism and the pro-life cause — Norma McCorvey, aka "Jane Roe."

From Kyle-Anne Shiver at American Thinker:

Everyone's been posting that the number of abortions have gone down to 1.2 million. I'm not trying to be a pessimist, but that's not exactly a celebratory number to me.

If you were to count to 1,200,000, it would take you about a month. Go ahead, start counting. Every number represents a life per year. While it's great that two hundred thousand less children died, none should be dying in the first place.

Oh God have mercy on us.

JivinJ has a humorous blog entry tracking former John Edwards' blogger Amanda Marcotte's comments on our motives. (She's writing for RHRealityCheck, some cool, trendy pro-choice blog. "Being pro-choice just makes sense to cool people of all nationalities..." No really, they manage to fit every conceivable nationality on their header image. Who doesn't love a pro-choice Indian Hindu?)  It's funny how she can't just stick to one evil motive from our camp. Writes JivinJ:

According to a post today, Marcotte claims,

"It's well understood that one of the primary motivations of the anti-abortion movement is generating a steady supply of white babies into the adoption market."

Last week, Marcotte believed prolifers were "primarily motivated" by a "desire to control sexual expression, especially female sexual expression."

Two weeks ago, it was all about virginity. Prolife men don't care about unborn children, they want to make sure women are virgins on their wedding nights. This, of course, is part of the "larger social agenda, which is controlling women." I'm not sure if this extends to the numerous women who lead prolife organizations.

Seven months ago, Marcotte revealed the "true intentions" of prolifers were "to punish and control women, and it has nothing to do with babies" because authorities in Pennslyvania [sic] arrested a woman for the abuse of a corpse after she stored her apparently miscarried child inside her freezer.

As someone in his comment section pointed out: if they knew anything about what we think, they'd be pro-lifers.