DNC Dispatch: The Planned Parenthood protest; Update: Vid added
Scroll down for updates…vid added…
DENVER — I attended the abortion protest at the new Planned Parenthood mega-facility here in Denver this morning.
The pro-abortion presence was measly. I counted about seven or eight demonstrators who tried to compensate for their low numbers with their loud mouths.
The ignorance of the pro-abort activists is, frankly, astonishing. This woman, Elaine Brower of NY, stood with the small gaggle of pro-Planned Parenthood cheerleaders attacking pro-lifers as racists.
But when asked whether the barbaric eugenics legacy of Planned Parenthood godmother Margaret Sanger bothered her, she told me: “No, I don’t believe that. That’s made up. This has nothing to do with black people.”
Speaking of which: All of the pro-abortion activists I saw were white. Meanwhile, across the street from Planned Parenthood’s palace, I spoke with black and Hispanic mothers who had very strong feelings about abortion. They weren’t there to take part in the protests. They were there because Planned Parenthood had the disgustingly bad taste to build their bloody business right next to a large park and playground. It’s Martin Luther King Jr. Park — and it was filled this morning with families watching their sons practice football:
One of the moms, Priscilla, was angry about the construction of the clinic right across from her neighborhood park and said bluntly: “I don’t want a f**king abortion clinic in my neighborhood!” A Hispanic mother added: “It’s against the Catholic Church.” Someone tell Joe Biden. And another black mother of three I spoke to while sitting in her minivan, when asked about her views on abortion, told me simply: “I don’t believe in it.”
But our tax dollars pay for it.
And you’re a woman-hating racist if you oppose it.
And if you want to make your views known at the DNC, you better be quiet about it.
The People’s Press Collective, an impressive group of Denver-area bloggers who have united to provide multimedia coverage of the circus, caught a Democrat clean-up crew quickly dispatched to scrub away pro-life chalk messages left on the sidewalk at the Pepsi Center yesterday:
The message they didn’t want the public to see:
“True change ends abortion.”
***
Stay tuned here, at Hot Air, and at the People’s Press Collective for more video.
Update: Here’s vid of the protest. Some of my interview with Priscilla, one of the moms angered by Planned Parenthood’s presence, begins at around 5:39:
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Choosing Life and Beating the Odds
February 11, 2012 11:50 AM by Doug Powers
32 CommentsObama’s fraudulent abortion mandate “accommodation” Updated: Prez condemns “cynical” opposition
February 10, 2012 10:05 AM by Michelle Malkin
245 Comments‘To Stop the Multiplication of the Unfit’
February 10, 2012 09:06 AM by Michelle Malkin
194 CommentsFirst, they came for the Catholics
January 31, 2012 10:51 PM by Michelle Malkin
181 CommentsThe March for Life 2012
January 23, 2012 10:21 AM by Michelle Malkin
132 CommentsShredding Kathleen Sebelius
October 28, 2011 10:03 AM by Michelle Malkin
155 CommentsAccording to Nancy Pelosi, 11 House Democrats are Willing to Allow Women to ‘Die on the Floor’
October 14, 2011 08:46 AM by Doug Powers
52 CommentsJoe Biden ‘Fully Understands’ China’s ‘Millions of Children Left Behind’ Policy
August 22, 2011 07:01 PM by Doug Powers
59 Comments
The victims of nationalized health care
July 5, 2011 02:04 PM by Michelle Malkin
123 Comments
Categories: Abortion
Pundit & Pundette
» Obama's war on conscience, cont'dBabalu Blog
» Greece is BurningBetsys Page
» Cruising the WebPatterico
» NYT hails the safety net: Poor hardest hitDaily Caller
» Inside Media Matters: Sources, memos reveal erratic behavior, close coordination with White House and news organizationsAmSpecBlog
» Weekend Political Wrap-UpJustOneMinute
» I Guess I'm Still Stuck On StupidThe Hill
» Rep. Ron Paul not conceding Maine vote
Wrong part of upstate. We have many many cows, not pretty waterfalls.
OK, someone had to say it. If 12 week mental function is fair game let’s abort congress. soon.
It’s socially dangerous not to mark the beginning of life at conception. We must have standards and the standard in this country is the US constitution. It is not the arbitrary discovery of rights by the Supreme Court.
Wait… I missed the part of the constitution that said life began at conception.
My only exception!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Chapoutier
The point is there is no abortion rights in the Constitution.
chapoutier
Also check out the part about states rights
Everybody keeps saying it, so I’ll admit that I teach math. Lots of people have trouble with math problems. One constant source of trouble is that people expect questions to have simple answers.
But there are questions that do not have simple answers. If you demand a simple answer, you make sure that your answer will be wrong.
The question: “When does the fetus become a person?” does not have a simple answer. Neither does the question: “What is life?”
Was Terry Schiavo (the autopsy found mostly fluid where her cerebrum (higher brain) had been) a person? If yes, keep her heart beating. If not, let it stop.
Sometimes a distinction, even a life and death distinction, happens in small stages. A fertilized egg is not a person. How about a collection of 64 (6 cell divisions)? Also no. After implantation? no. After 12 weeks? I think not. After 24 weeks? maybe yes. Let’s not have abortions after 24 weeks. Where to draw the line? That’s hard. But putting it at conception also is the wrong answer, simple but wrong.
So abortion can be murdering in one state and not in another?
If not, then why do you rely on the “state’s rights” argument?
Individual human life, or personhood, begins at conception.
Empirically, we know that an unfertilized human egg cannot become a human person.
Empirically, we also know that human sperm alone cannot become a human person.
And empirically, we do know that the fertilized egg, or zygote, always becomes a person. Not a tomato. Not a bird, but a human person with his own unique DNA.
Human life, or personhood, begins at conception.
The fact that you use the word “becomes” implies that the zygote starts out as something other than a person, doesn’t it?
The zygote “became” as a result of the sperm and the egg meeting. The zygote did not exist before the sperm and egg met. Sheesh. I feel like I’m teaching Sunday School.
I kinda look at it as a petit Big Bang.
No, atheling. You said the zygote “becomes” a person. One does not become something that it already is. If you want to change your words because you incorrectly stated your opinion, that is fine, but don’t blame me for your lack of verbal precision.
Okay, right. I should say that we all know that individual human life begins as a zygote.
But there it is. Human life – the person – begins at conception.
Lgm
Relative terms applies to the study of cosmology. The law must have no gray levels when basic social contracts of life and death are concerned. Life and death are finite lineal terms and are irreversible and can not be breached. It’s the nature of living in a dualist theology. That is why, chapoutier our constitution was written to limit the power of the Federal government. We will battle the issue state by state.
But then, why? It doesn’t have a heart or a brain at that time. Just because it has human DNA?
Because it socially dangerous to conceder otherwise.
By saying that, do you admit that it is fine for one state to allow abortion and another to not? Seriously, I am confused as to whether you are making a moral/religious/philosophical argument or a legal/constitutional one.
lgm, re: “But putting it at conception also is the wrong answer, simple but wrong.”
Uhhhh, conception, conception of what?
It is not called preparation, It is called conception & for a reason. What part of the word conception is so hard to understand?
It has unique DNA. That makes it an individual person.
Secondly, the existence of certain or any organ should not be a requisite – many already born persons lose an organ during their lifetime. Losing or not having one does not invalidate one’s humanity.
Conception of a cell that can eventually become a human being?
I had eggs over easy for breakfast this morning. Should I actually say I had sauteed chicken?
I do, also county and city: this alows us all a legal and moral opinion.!!!!!!
Listen, if you planted a tomato seed in fertile ground, and a tiny seedling appeared, and someone calls it a tomato plant, do you say, “No it’s not, because it has no tomatoes”?
So can you kill one or the other or both of a person who is an identical twin?
N.B. My wife is an identical twin.
THE FEDS ARE NOT HERE TO DICTATE TO EVERY PERSON IN THE ‘UNITED STATES’ OF AMERICA!!!!!!!!
I repeat UNITED STATES of AMERCIA
I repeat: UNITED STATES…STATES
Yes yes yes and yes
I have my views that should be decided in the states.
Each state has it’s own constitution. The moral religious and philosophical views will remain the same.
Only if they were fertilized eggs.
You sure are in a hurry to kill.
And if your wife was aborted??? or YOU were aborted??? Did you abort all of your kids or just a few??
It is a tomato plant and not a tomato. Try making spaghetti sauce out of those unsavory stalks.
Are you saying your wife is not life? You are not life?? Your children are not life?
I think I will keep her around. I am not the one that said she was not a person because her DNA was not unique.
If that which eventually became my wife was aborted then she never would have been my wife, so I can’t say as I would have missed “her.” If that which became me was aborted, I do not believe “I” would have ever had any existence in the first place. We have never aborted any “kids” let alone “just a few”.
No. We certainly are now (except for the kids, none right now.)
Atheling was the one arguing my wife is not.
6000 years of human history have shown us that governments can not be trusted. Biology shows us what life is. Do you want a government to dictate to you when life and death occur? You could take the anarchist view but that creates chaos. You could view it as an atheist but atheism it a dualistic theology also. You could view the issue in a religious context and then the majority wins. The only safe solution for a society is to preserve human life at all levels.
If you want to go there, biology is a harsh mistress. Animals, and humans, biologically abort fetuses when presented with any number of non-ideal situations in order to better ensure the existence of the mother.
Ironically, it is the anti-choice crowd that wants government to to most definitively make this decision, isn’t it?
What exactly is the “anarchist” view? And why is it relevant?
What is the atheist view and how is it a “dualistic theology”? What does this even mean?
If the majority wins in the US, abortion stays legal.
Or just look into a child’s eyes and let you natural nuro endocrine system creating a chemical biological response and you will always decide on LIFE.
I am too tired to try to explain the nuances.
Next time
Yes, there are many slippery slopes, like the one where a 12 week abortion limit becomes a partial birth abortion issue, then the “born alive infant” legislation that Obama voted against. Very slippery indeed, but one rarely slips uphill.
Do you really think this is the right discussion to bring God into?
Would it not be more prudent to err on the side of life until the matter is resolved by means other than some arbitrary legal limit?
I might like to see you argue this point with PETA folks…
Good point, bad example. Chicken eggs you buy in the store are not fertilized.
You are the one, with “life begins at conception” –full stop– that is arguing against nuance.
Alright, but you get my point. Are quail eggs fertilized, cause I had some of those recently too. Elitist, I know.
what BS. the thing you pro abort types fear the most is having a vote on the issue. you have to have a majority of black-robed thugs on the supreme court.
otherwise you lose, and you know it.
Show me one legitimate poll where a majority of the US comes out against abortion rights. Here is one, actually many over many years, that shows the opposite.
Life begins at conception, and it is nothing less than murder to purposely end the developing person’s life.
It isn’t as if the embryo, while developing into a fetus, will randomly develop into a sofa if let alone to grow. A fertilized egg is a future person. Period. It will never be anything other than a living being in time.
First, an infant, then a toddler, then a child, then a teenager, then an adult, then a senior, and finally, worm food.
Always has been, always will be.
How pro-abortionists can claim embryos aren’t life and aren’t persons is nothing less than madness.
Talk about deniers…
A future person? Meaning not a person then?
Agreed. Male lions also eat the cubs of rival males when taking over a pride. Not an example I would like to follow.
(snip)
Here is an interesting thought: with the recently reported rise in the numbers of hispanics in the U.S., a group largely Catholic (and strongly so), is it possible that this situation could reverse, and the majority begins to favor the pro life side of the equation?
Chapoutier, I guarantee you, if the public were to be given a real explanation of what abortion is, how and what it does to the child, and the apparent agenda that promote this culture of death (while their proponents vigorously protest on behalf of criminals’ lives), that poll would be inverted.
If there is one thing American culture values above all else is the sanctity of human life.
There is no way the majority of Americans would condone abortion if they were presented with the realities, versus the liberal television dramatizations of the girls and women who are “punished,” because they were careless or promiscuous, by having to carry a baby to term.
As only 3% or less of the total number of abortions are the result of rape or incest, that leaves 97% of abortions being committed out of convenience and profit.
Deplorable.
Chap said: “A future person? Meaning not a person then?”
It is obvious what I said and meant. If you’re going to engage in childish semantic games, there is no use including you in the debate.
Have you ever TASTED male lion cub? Don’t knock it until you try it.
Maybe, but that is not the case now.
So you are saying you can’t find a poll? Sorry if I want to rely on something a bit more solid than your “guarantee”.
It is unfortunate that you are adopting a trollish posture in this discussion. Perhaps DU would better suit your debate style.
This is not semantics. This is the very heart of the debate, isn’t it?
A future something is not the same as something. I could not charge $300/hr for my advise in law school because I would someday become a lawyer.
Claiming I am a troll seems a convenient way of avoiding my arguments.
We rely upon biology for facts, not morals.
No idea (are they any good?). But yes, I do get your point. Of course, you do recognize that they are chicken or quail eggs and not just “eggs,” which implies a recognition that they are still one or the other. But now we are getting into the vagaries of semantics etc.
I guess my major issue with abortions are all the procedures done for the wrong, or better, trivial reasons, such as gender preference, convenience etc., vs. life of the mother etc.
And when you can say that biology says as a fact that a zygote is a person, then we will be in agreement. But you get into a whole lot of sticky issues trying to get from A to B, don’t you?
So…what’s your point? Does human DNA not make someone human?
This is just utter bullsh*t. None of you pro-aborts admits to when life begins, but like Obama, you have no problem destroying it.
I’m sick of this argument. I’m sick of pro-aborts saying and doing anything to justify what – in a sane culture – would be illegal.
This has nothing to do with women’s health. As someone else pointed out, less than 3% of abortion is done to save the life of the mother. Which means a majority are done for no other reason than alternative birth control.
It’s a joke. And worse than a joke, it’s immoral.
Which is why whenever liberals talk about “compassion” and taking care of others, I have to laugh. Those who advocate ripping a baby apart limb-from-limb, or sticking a scissors in his skull to suck out his brains don’t give a rat’s behind about their fellow man. It’s all about me, me, me with you people.
As I’ve said before, I will go to my grave fighting to outlaw abortion. And the day will come when you thank me.
You define a “fetus” as non-human because her organs are developing, or she doesn’t have full consciousness – which means some day some equally vile person might come along and define you as not human and try to off you.
And I’ll be there to stop that person as well.
See – for liberals, when they agree with the majority, it’s all right and good. When they disagree with the majority, only the opinion of the minority matters.
And, I repeat, just because something’s popular doesn’t make it right. If slavery were to make a resurgence, would you pro-aborts defend it because, hey, a majority of Americans support it?
Chap, you are the one avoiding the point of arguments by acting obtuse, and throwing up straw man arguments.
How old are you and do you have children?
Biology shows a zygote has distinct human DNA.
Last I check, a human is a person.
Funny someone mentioned tomato plants above – in some nations, the tomato seedlings have more rights than an unborn child.
Bald eagle eggs have more rights than an unborn child.
He is being dishonest.
He has cats, not children. Figures.
As I said, a piece of human hair has human DNA, but it is not a human, so it must be more than that.
You are making a circular argument here, assuming a person to argue one is destroying a person.
I never argued that it was for a woman’s health. but while we are at it, what about that 3% that IS? What do you think about abortion then?
When will that be, exactly?
I agree, but I was arguing to a specific point made by Familyman that was claiming that abortion should be banned because a majority favored doing so, which is not true.
Please point out my “strawman” argument and I will be happy to elaborate.
Why do pro-aborts try to nuance the definition of human life?
What is the point of trying to obscure the issue, which is really: Life is sacred. If the lives of cats, dogs, and llamas are considered sacred by the likes of PETA, why do pro-aborts have such an inability to recognize the value and nature of unborn human life?
What is the real payoff for them to illogically argue a fetus is not a “human” LIFE?
I absolutely agree that at some point a fetus becomes a human life. I do not agree that that point is at conception.
That is why I think abortion should be absolutely illegal in the third trimester except if the mother’s life is in danger (and I recognize this may be very very very rare).
We are talking about the human organism, not its parts.
You are being dishonest in this debate. You’ve been bested in several ways and you continue to obfuscate, employ strawman arguments, and demonstrate flippancy.
If you want to act like a libtard teenager, go to the Obama bin Biden Gaffe thread. This is a thread for adults.
But a zygote isn’t hair. A zygote is an unborn child, with all the necessary DNA to grow.
Do you not stop to think about what happens in pregnancy? How miraculous it is that all the organs and body parts develop the way they’re supposed to?
And abortion doesn’t happen when a baby is a zygote. It happens later, usually after 8 weeks, when a baby looks like a human being…
When the same half-assed definition you use to define/deny an unborn child’s humanity is applied to you or someone you love. Should you have an accident, grow old, and get ill – I wouldn’t tolerate someone saying you’re no longer human and need to be put down. Being pro-life is not just about the unborn, ya know.
But, by and large, we haven’t gotten to mass euthanasia. Yet.
We do, however, let 3,000 children die via abortion each day.
Most do oppose late-term, partial birth abortions. And I’m betting if we were to sit down and recount in explicit detail what abortion really is (i.e., tearing apart a fetus, burning them with saline, etc.) it would be abhorrent to most decent Americans.
And if pro-aborts are so confident Americans will vote in favor of abortion, give people the opportunity to make that decision.
As for the 3% – we’d have to talk about it. In most cases, medical technology can treat/solve a problem without resorting to direct abortion. In the event a treatment caused a miscarriage, that’s not the same thing.
And I’d be willing to not be as passionate about the subject if we could reduce the number of abortions from 3,000 a day to about 90 a day for strictly health-related reasons.
But that won’t be acceptable, will it?
Thats the point sport. The law is not arbitrary. This a sovereign country with a constitution. Its call LAW. The nuance in all my arguments is government can not be trusted. It should not be changeable by arbitrary political, religious or philosophical groups. The Law of the land MUST maintain human life above all.
Read about natural law: Adams and Jefferson
Please explain how. All I have seen is me poking obvious holes in your “logic”
atheling: A zygote is human because it has human DNA.
me: So does a strand of human hair.
atheling: Yeah, but it is not unique human DNA.
me: So if something has to be unique human DNA to be human is it okay to abort identical twins.
atheling:………
Well if we can all agree when human life begins, then I agree with you. But that is the debate, isn’t it?
And if you do not think that it should be changeable, why do you think that it is a state’s rights issue? Isn’t the whole point of state’s rights that what is good for Maryland may not be good for New Hampshire?
So your solution is to have government (whether at sate or federal level) dictate when human life begins?
‘Those who have no sense of right, reason or religion, have a natural propensity to make use of their strength to the destruction of such as are weaker than they.’” –Thomas Jefferson: copied into his Commonplace Book.
“God… has formed us moral agents… that we may promote the happiness of those with whom He has placed us in society, by acting honestly towards all, benevolently to those who fall within our way, respecting sacredly their rights, bodily and mental, and cherishing especially their freedom of conscience, as we value our own.” –Thomas Jefferson to Miles King, 1814. ME 14:197
“A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sin and suffering.” –Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:40
On August 24th, 2008 at 12:32 am, chapoutier said:
atheling: A zygote is human because it has human DNA.
me: So does a strand of human hair.
atheling: Yeah, but it is not unique human DNA.
False. I did not say that. Retract.
YES!!! I was counting the minutes until atheling pulled out the old “Thomas Jefferson Defense.”
i was hoping you could find a quote a little more directly on point, though. Those above are just generalities. I wonder if he would have made Sally Hemmings get an abortion had he known she was carrying his child.
False. You did say that.
Me:
You:
This about human CONTRACTS. Not chicken contracts, not lion contracts and NOT DNA contracts. Its about the beginning of human life. It dangerous to give the government arbitrary decisions on this matter. Maybe Jews are next and just maybe it will be bloggers with the handle of chapoutier or englishqueen01. I’m not being flippant. Slow down a think about it.
As a biologist, I believe that the concept of “person” or “personhood” is more of a human sociological or legal construct than a biological one.
I said that we are discussing an organism, and not its parts.
Really, I’m done with you. You have been disingenuous and obtuse here.
Since you brought it up, please go ahead and define what you believe to be a “person”.
If you can’t think of an answer right away, let me help you out. The fetus is alive, it contains the same DNA that it will have as a baby, toddler, teenager, adult and senior citizen… that of an individual human being.
If you claim its just a bunch of cells… well so are you. At 22 days, it has a beating heart, just like you. At 3 weeks, the backbone, spinal column and nervous system are developing, with the kidneys, liver and digestive tract not far behind… just like you. By 40 days, those higher brainwaves that you alluded to, can now be detected… just like you. By 6 1/2 weeks, you can see fingers, toes and teeth… just like you. After this, muscles and facial features form… just like you. By 8 weeks, all required bodily systems are present, and the baby’s blood type is most often different from the mothers. (You mean its NOT her body she’s deciding on?!?!?)
Btw, if you’re going to use technical terms, it behooves you to understand what they stand for…
“Fetus” is Latin for “offspring” or “young one”.
So unique DNA is not the measure of humanity, right? If you misspoke before, just say it.
That is the sound of atheling scurrying to her corner to lick her wounds.
If you take any view that is arbitrary than you’ve given the power to the government. The only choice is at the moment of conception which is constant.
You my also keep your pants zipped or your legs together.
How is it not arbitrary for a government to say human life begins at the point of the fertilization of the egg?
Ontological arguments didn’t work so well for St. Anselm. I am equally unimpressed here.
Not true. All fetuses that eventually develop into viable human children pass the 12 week mark. Is that not a constant?
Because the moment of conception is the only non arbitrary point of beginning.
NO. Everyone who eats carrots will some day die. 12 weeks is arbitrary.
13 weeks is arbitrary. so is 33 week so is 1 day.
FamilyMan said (#185):
This is the mistake of looking for a simple answer when there isn’t one. Why does there have to be a unique moment?
seems to me she’s composing herself after talking to such a dank like yourself..
I didn’t say it wasn’t arbitrary. I said it was a constant.
800 year ago we believed the earth revolved around the sun. We know better now. Because of rational linear scientific observation, we know when human life and all it’s uniqueness begins. Any other view is an arbitrary social convenience.
How can it be a constant when someone or some group my say its 33 weeks. Don’t you see how dangerous your thought patten is?
When the sperm penetrates the egg and genetic material is combined that is a constant and that is a unique human life.
Anyone who thinks that life begins at conception is arguing against the legality of Plan B and IUDs. In other words, against common and safe birth control. Yet, they don’t advocate outlawing those family planning devices. Why? Because they know it’s a battle they can’t win.
Further proof that that the anti-choice movement isn’t about morality as much as it’s about politics.
People like EQ and Atheling (and I use these two handles because they are noteworthy commenters…I mean no other comparison. EQ is a million times brighter than that dullard Atheling)…people like EQ and Atheling say they are single issue voters. Yet they have voted time and time again for candidates who don’t advocate for the criminalization of common birth control (read: every major candidate in the past 50 years).
Their movement is weak.
IUD will become outlawed for all the above reasons. This isn’t about politics, it is about law and science and the dangers of government. Im afraid there is too much paranoia about the politics. We are concerned with the constitution and the potential abuses. There is only one non arbitrary constant. AT CONCEPTION
you don’t steel
you don’t kill
you don’t make babies you can’t take car of.
you don’t make babies you can’t take
carcare of.Family Man, I applaud your consistency, but if you think IUDs are ever becoming illegal, you’re fooling yourself.
And I don’t see how conception is any less arbitrary than implementation. How many zygotes never make it to the uterine wall (naturally; without the help of Plan B or IUDs)? It happens often and no one considers that a miscarriage.
Every constant is somewhat arbitrary. Mine is viability. (Legally, not morally. And I know plenty of pro-choicers who think my position is BS because I don’t go far enough.)
To be frank, I often disagree with the way LGM debates. But I think he has it spot on. Too many people are trying to take simple answers that may not be right and apply them to a population that doesn’t agree with them. There are no simple answers here. So saying there is only one non-arbitrary constant is doing reasonable people a great disservice.
Rusty, please go online and look up all the countless stories of women who are in anguish since realizing that they’ve KILLED THEIR OWN CHILD. They are many. They said they were told it would make things better, and they’ll tell you killing the child only made things worse. Many of them get horribly depressed, fall into addiction, can’t shake the guilt…that’s no way to live, is it? So why be so cavalier about something that harms women emtionally to that degree, plus snuffs out a life while they’re at it?
..and Rusty, you haven’t heard the comments from pro-aborts, who are saying they are beginning to lose the abortion argument due to people putting those pictures of babies via sonogram on the fridge for all to see. It’s become quite real to people. People know that this entity with head, arms, legs, feet, etc. is quite human-looking and certainly has a beating heart. They realize this isn’t, in fact, “just a blog of tissue.” In fact, it’s anti-science to say that, when you can see the pictures.
Again, an objective source did a study showing that there was no link between abortion and mental duress. The people who deal with mental issues after an abortion would have done the same if they carried the child to term.
Hell, no one is saying post-partum depression, which is very real, is an argument for abortion. So saying that regret after an abortion is an excuse to criminalize it doesn’t make any sense either.
Anecdotes won’t wine me over, Micheleeroo. I have a few of my own of women who have had an abortion and have no regrets. I don’t bring those up (except in response to other anecdotes) because anecdotes don’t matter.