Category Archives: Human Rights

Why are so many people willing to condemn a totally innocent unborn baby to death when even its rapist father doesn’t merit the death penalty?

Chrissy’s Site Bites: http://news.webshots.com/photo/2212694650056011884QPluzM

Victims and Victors: Speaking Out About Their Pregnancies, Abortions, and Children Resulting from Sexual Assault

This compelling book addresses the complex issues surrounding sexual assault pregnancy and abortion in a clear and insightful manner. Drawn from a survey of nearly 200 women who experienced rape or incest pregnancies, Victims and Victors reveals a seldom-heard truth: that most women who become pregnant through sexual assault do not want abortions! Victims and Victors lays out a clear argument against abortion in cases of sexual assault and gives pro-lifers the tools they need to combat the argument that abortion is helpful–or even necessary–for women facing a sexual assault pregnancy.

http://afterabortion.org/2005/victims-and-victors-speaking-out-about-their-pregnancies-abortions-and-children-resulting-from-sexual-assault/

by Mark Crutcher, president of Life Dynamics Inc.

Recently, the Ohio legislature was debating a piece of abortion legislation when State Representative Connie Pillich became unhinged and began shrieking that attempts to restrict abortion indicate that we don’t trust women.

First off, this seems to be an odd assertion given that most of the people in the pro-life movement are women and, yes, that includes most of its leaders. Apparently, Ms. Pillich is hoping that the public is simple-minded enough to just accept at face value her charge that a predominately female entity does not trust women and seeks to squash them underfoot.

Beyond that, however, saying we shouldn’t have laws against abortion and should, instead, trust women to make their own decisions, is no different than saying we shouldn’t have laws against rape because men should be trusted to make their own decisions. It’s also no different than opposing laws against armed robbery on the basis that we should just trust each person to make his or her own decisions about whether stealing is right or wrong. In fact, this philosophy can be just as easily applied to any subject.

As for this particular issue, the abortion lobby’s basic argument is that since women are the ones who get pregnant, they are the only ones qualified to make the decisions that are right for them. Using that concept, imagine the following hypothetical, but quite realistic, scenario. A pregnant woman has an abortion scheduled for tomorrow, but goes into premature labor today and gives birth. Also imagine that the baby survives. (And yes, abortions are done on babies who have reached the point of viability. For proof, all you have to do is check out abortion clinic advertising in the Yellow Pages.)

The question is: under these circumstances, should it be legal for her to kill that baby? Remember, she already decided that she doesn’t want it and arrangements were in place to have it killed the next day anyway. So why should she lose her “right to choose” because of circumstances that were beyond her control? Is she not still the one best qualified to make the decisions that are right for her? Otherwise, what we’re saying is that we trust women to make good decisions while they’re pregnant, but at the moment they’re no longer pregnant we no longer trust them.

It should also be pointed out that, from the baby’s perspective, there is no distinction between being butchered inside the womb or outside. Naturally, the mental images created by the latter might cause the rest of us to feel a little queasy, but we could comfort ourselves by just looking the other way and referring to it by some high-sounding sanitized term like “reproductive choice ex-utero.” Since Roe vs. Wade, our society has developed a real talent for inventing that sort of self-deluding rhetoric.

So again, do we still trust this woman to make the right decision or not?

Look, the cold hard reality is that every statute enacted denies someone the legal ability to make certain decisions. In fact, that is what they are intended to do. The law is a response to the realization that all human beings–men and women–are capable of making decisions that are dangerous, immoral, destructive, et cetera. And the law exists to keep those decisions from being inflicted upon other innocent human beings.

Now, to Ms. Pillich and her fellow travelers who are out there chanting this mindless “we trust women” mantra, I have a challenge for you. If you do indeed trust women, prove it. Start promoting an overhaul of the American legal system so that it exempts women from all legislation. By doing this, you would be making sure that women have the legal right to make their own decisions about everything – driving drunk, embezzling money from their employers, writing bad checks, using cocaine or selling their bodies in prostitution. Female business owners would even be allowed to decide for themselves whether to discriminate against minorities.

The list goes on and on, but the common element is that every law enforceable against women is, by definition, a statement that we don’t trust them. Clearly, that makes such laws irreconcilable with your philosophy and demands that they be eliminated. If you are “pro-choice,” you simply cannot tolerate the fact that women are being denied these choices. Either you trust women or you don’t.

Of course, we both know that you are not going to accept my challenge and we both know why. You know that doing so would expose your “trust women” rhetoric as pure undiluted nonsense. To put it succinctly, this line of argument is nothing more than a diversionary scam you people dreamed up to keep from having to defend a barbaric practice that you know cannot be defended.

As for my fellow pro-lifers, it is important to understand that when your enemies are reduced to making idiotic and irrational arguments like this, what they are telling you is that you are winning and they are out of ideas. Today, death merchants like Connie Pillich are seeing a tidal wave of pro-life sentiment rolling across America and they know there is nothing they can do to hold it back. So be encouraged, ratchet up the pressure, and savor the beautiful sounds of pro-aborts squealing like pigs stuck under a fence.

Reprinted with permission. Here are some other recent articles by Mark that are worth a read:

Apparently, Seeing Ain’t Believing

Someone Please Pass the Logic

By Chrissy the Hyphenated

Click graphic to embiggen for easier reading.

Tea Partiers singing hymns and quoting the Constitution. Pro-Lifers handing out bookmarks explaining that an unborn child is alive and human. What is this country coming to when such dangerous and subversive elements are allowed to roam free?

Chrissy’s Site Bites: http://news.webshots.com/photo/2944250400056011884BfgWvM

Sources:

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/11c/Dattilio_arrest/arrest/handout.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/23/fusion-centers-expand-criteria-identify-militia-members/

By Chrissy the Hyphenated

Click graphic to embiggen for easier reading.

In Washington, D.C. for every 100 black babies born alive, 165 are aborted … with the approval of black leaders. But now, blacks are stepping up to stop the genocide. AbortionInTheHood, the Restoration Project and the National Black Pro-life Union are launching a billboard campaign in downtown Atlanta. They’ve also got videos up at YouTube.

Chrissy’s Site Bites: http://news.webshots.com/photo/2905640520056011884QpdESY

Source: http://abortioninthehood.com/

By Tina Korbe – July 21, 2011

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/07/21/obama-doj-takes-elderly-pro-life-sidewalk-counselor-to-court/

Those who know Dick Retta describe him as a peaceful, prayerful man, who regards his sidewalk counseling outside the Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington as a ministry. Retta even conducts weekend training sessions to encourage other pro-life advocates to stand outside the facility to offer words of hope, encouragement and possibility to the young women who come and go from the abortion center. At these training sessions, one attendee says, he specifically emphasizes that the point of sidewalk counseling is not to block access, but, instead, to remind pregnant women that they do, in fact, have a choice other than abortion — and to offer post-abortion healing, as well, as few abortion centers prepare women for all of the possible emotional consequences of their decision.

But perhaps nothing attests to Retta’s warm and compassionate nature so much as the influence he has been able to have on the women he counsels as he walks side-by-side with them. Some estimate that, over the past 14 years or so, Retta’s words have resulted in more than 1,000 “saves,” what members of the pro-life movement call the change of heart that leads a pregnant mother to choose to have her child.

Retta also patiently endures the antipathy of those who aren’t receptive to his message. Just last week, by one account, a woman entering the clinic pepper-sprayed Retta. Yet, Retta persists in his work because he’s seen what a positive difference it makes.

In a short video[1], Peter Shinn of Pro-Life Unity documented one of Retta’s days, in which six women decided not to abort because of the information and assistance he was able to provide.

“They go in and they’re kind of sullen in what they’re doing, and I’m sure there’s a lot of sorrow there,” Retta says in the video. “But when they change their mind, they’re smiling, they’re happy about it and they’re willing to talk to us.”

Yet, this man, the Department of Justice describes[2] as “among the most vocal and aggressive anti-abortion protesters outside the Clinic.” In fact, the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ has brought a lawsuit[3] against Retta, alleging that he has repeatedly violated the Freedom of Access to Clinic Act, obstructing entrance to the clinic on at least one occasion. The complaint objects to Retta “walk[ing] very closely beside patients” and says he yells at them.

Retta was not available for comment when I contacted him by phone, but he reportedly was shocked[4] at the allegations.

    When LifeSiteNews.com contacted Retta for comment today, the shocked veteran pro-life activist said that he was unaware that the lawsuit had been filed against him, and that he had not been informed by the Department of Justice. He is seeking legal counsel before making a public statement. …

The Department of Justice is demanding that Retta be fined $10,000, that a permanent 20 foot bubble zone be placed around the clinic barring pro-lifers, and that Retta pay an additional fine of $15,000 in equal parts to the three ‘victims’ of his actions, which the DOJ argues were contrary to the Freedom of Access to Clinic Act (FACE).

A Department of Justice that can’t find time to defend the Defense of Marriage Act somehow has time to bring a lawsuit against a 70+ year-old man who simply seeks to pass out flyers and speak a few kind words to women in need of them? It’s hard to think this has nothing to do with the hundreds of thousands of dollars Retta has cost Planned Parenthood.

Thomas E. Perez, assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division, describes the DOJ’s justification for the suit this way:

 “Individuals who seek to obtain or provide reproductive health services have the right to do so without encountering hazardous physical obstructions. We will continue to aggressively enforce FACE against those who seek to violate the rights of their fellow Americans to safely provide or obtain such services.”

Retta is a “hazardous” physical obstruction? The best the complaint could offer is that, once, he accidentally stepped on a patient’s shoe and broke a shoe strap.

Perez just happens to be the same Perez who testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights about the DOJ’s decision to completely drop charges against the New Black Panthers who engaged in voter intimidation a couple years ago. Perhaps not prosecuting important cases like that one is what frees the DOJ up to pursue cases like this one.

How beautiful would it be if the many women Retta has helped would step forward to help him now?