Opposing Thuggish Abortionists: A Source of Common Ground?
— Posted by John (June 9, 2010 at 1:17 pm)
Jill Stanek reported this week that the pro-choice blog RH Reality Check has decided to scrap “On Common Ground,” its attempt to “bridge the divide” between the two sides in the abortion debate less than a year after its launch.
Calls for “common ground” like those issued by RH Reality Check are always doomed to fail, because predictably, one of the first proposals is an increased push for contraception — which is a non-starter.
Not long after learning of RH Reality Check’s decision to abort “On Common Ground”, I learned (via Pro-Life Florida) that Orlando abortionist Randall Whitney had been arrested earlier this year for slapping one of his patients as he was preparing her for an abortion. (See Whitney’s booking photo at left.)
If the “pro-choice” movement were truly interested in finding “common ground,” they might start here: Denouncing creepy abortionists like Whitney would surely be something that both sides in the abortion debate can agree on. Right?
“Pro-Choice” = Pro-Woman?
After all, if the major “pro-choice” organizations really cared about women, wouldn’t we expect them to lead the charge condemning Whitney’s act of slapping a woman he was preparing for an abortion?
In a word: No.
As of this writing, there is not a word about Randall Whitney on the websites of NOW, NARAL, or Planned Parenthood.
For one other example, remember the Philadelphia abortion facility run by Kermit Gosnell, where a woman died following an abortion last fall? A few months later, following an investigation into Gosnell’s facility, state authorities suspended his license and ordered his facility closed after they discovered “deplorable and unsanitary conditions” there.
As of this writing, there is no mention of Gosnell’s name on any of the Big Three “pro-choice” organizations’ websites either.
Calling out the thugs and hacks in the abortion industry should be something both pro-life and “pro-choice” organizations can agree on.
Yet “pro-choice” organizations have no interest. So much for their being pro-woman.
And so much for “common ground”.
[Cross-posted at Pro-Life Action League]
This entry is filed under Abortion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Ceecee says:
That’s not the only thing they have no interest in. Women who die from illegal abortions make good pro-abortion propaganda copy. Women who die from botched legal abortions don’t. Women who say they feel relief after their abortions make good pro-abort copy. Women who have post abortion syndrome, with its PTSD, nightmares, and relationship problems don’t. Women who die in childbirth make good pro-abort propaganda copy. Proper medical care to stop such deaths does not, and neither does discussing the increased likelihood of breast cancer after an abortion. Women who die after breaking up with an abusive boyfriend make good feminist propaganda copy. Women who die because they refused their boyfriend’s demand that they get an abortion don’t.
It’s doesn’t protect the “choice” mantra to talk about forced, or coerced abortion, or what happens to women who disobey that coercion. So hard core pro-aborts just don’t talk about it.
Basically they don’t want to look at, and certainly don’t want to talk about (this would spread around) any facts that don’t promote abortion as a good idea to the public.
Facts are discussed or ignored (or worse, sometimes just falsely denied) by the pro-aborts, depending on whether or not they can use it to promote abortion. To know the real facts, you have to go on the internet and look on the pro-life sites.
Comment posted June 9th, 2010 at 5:06 pm
Ceecee says:
Oh, I forgot to add yesterday: women pregnant by rape make great tear jerking pro-abort copy. But there are several things that don’t, and which the pro-aborts hope you never hear of. Like the woman who aborts her rape pregnancy and later testifies that the abortion was like geting raped all over again, it compounds the trauma. Or like the woman who gives birth to the baby she conceived in rape, and later testifies that the baby was the best thing that ever happened to her.
Also there are women who get an abortion of a pregnancy NOT conceived in rape, but they were raped at some point in their lives; maybe last month, or last year, or five years ago, or 20 or 30 years ago. When the abortionist goes into her vagina to get at the baby, it triggers a traumatic flashback to the rape experience.
These are things the pro-aborts don’t want you to know about.
Comment posted June 10th, 2010 at 4:40 pm