Women's Center » choice

More Medical Data Proving Abortion Is Murder of Human Beings – Pro-Life Anti-Abortion Video

admin — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 06:24:28 +0000

Video from the public domain. The medical arguments against abortion are compelling. For example, at conception the embryo is genetically distinct from the mother. To say that the developing baby is no different from the mother’s appendix is scientifically inaccurate. A developing embryo is genetically different from the mother. A developing embryo is also genetically different from the sperm and egg that created it. A human being has 46 chromosomes (sometimes 47 chromosomes). Sperm and egg have 23 chromosomes. A trained geneticist can distinguish between the DNA of an embryo and that of a sperm and egg. But that same geneticist could not distinguish between the DNA of a developing embryo and a full-grown human being. Another set of medical arguments against abortion surround the definition of life and death. If one set of criteria have been used to define death, could they also be used to define life? Death used to be defined by the cessation of heartbeat. A stopped heart was a clear sign of death. If the cessation of heartbeat could define death, could the onset of a heartbeat define life? The heart is formed by the 18th day in the womb. If heartbeat was used to define life, then nearly all abortions would be outlawed. Physicians now use a more rigorous criterion for death: brain wave activity. A flat EEG (electroencephalograph) is one of the most important criteria used to determine death. If the cessation of brain wave activity can define death, could the onset of brain wave activity define life? Individual brain waves are detected in the fetus in about 40-43 days. Using brain wave activity to define life would outlaw at least a majority of abortions. Opponents to abortion also raise the controversial issue of fetal pain. Does the fetus feel pain during abortion? The evidence seems fairly clear and consistent. Consider this statement made in a British medical journal: “Try sticking an infant with a pin and you know what happens. She opens her mouth to cry and also pulls away. Try sticking an 8-week-old human fetus in the palm of his hand. He opens his mouth and pulls his hand away. A more technical description would add that changes in heart rate and fetal movement also suggest that intrauterine manipulations are painful to the fetus.” Obviously, other medical criteria could be used. For example, the developing fetus has a unique set of fingerprints as well as genetic patterns that make it unique. The development of sonography has provided us with a “window to the womb” showing us that a person is growing and developing in the mother’s womb. We can discern eyes, ears, fingers, a nose, and a mouth. Our visual senses tell us this is a baby growing and maturing. This is not a piece of protoplasm; this is a baby inside the womb. The point is simple. Medical science leads to a pro-life perspective rather than a pro-choice perspective. If medical science can be used at all to draw a line, the clearest line is at the moment of conception. Medical arguments provide a strong case against abortion and for life. Video from the public domain.

Duration : 0:4:31

[youtube c4SSaEbUODM]

The fight for save abortion From danger to dignity pt.2 of 6

admin — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 06:24:23 +0000

The movie combines rare archival footage with present-day interviews to weave together two parallel stories: the evolution of underground networks to help women find safe abortions outside the law and the intensive efforts of activists and legislators who broke the silence and changed the laws.

The second of three documentations on abortion. This one is from 1995. Con subtítulo español.

Duration : 0:9:32

[youtube 8mWrFZ0wFlM]

Sarah Palin reignites Culture Wars on Abortion

admin — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:32:18 +0000

In 2000, we elected W. Bush a president who put oil company’s interests ahead of caring for creation. We elected a “born-again” president who said he lived by biblical ethics who played the dirtiest political games possible, for instance in the filthy lies his people spread to derail Senator John McCain’s presidential primary bid. We elected a “pro-life” Republican Party that did nothing to actually care for the pregnant women and babies they said they were concerned for, but rather took their evangelical and other pro-life followers for granted, and played them for suckers. These Republican “pro-lifers” took us to war needlessly, tortured prisoners and have dishonored America.

The so-called evangelical leadership–Dobson, Robertson, Falwell and all the rest also played the pro-life community for suckers. That way the evangelical leaders could represent themselves as power-brokers to the politicians willing to kowtow to them.

Democrats who would like a clean shot at governing this country well for a few years and who want to shape a better American future, regarding health care, gay rights, women’s rights, rights for people of color, foreign policy, the environment, energy policy, a better educational system and a more humane welfare state; had better look hard and honestly at what is unfolding on the Republican side this year post Rick Warren’s intervention at Saddleback and after the Palin nomination.

John McCain should not only be behind in the polls he should more or less be nonexistent after the horrendous eight years of Bush misrule. The fact that he is even close hinges on two points: first, our latent racism, which no matter what individuals tell pollsters is playing a part in keeping Obama’s lead down. Second, the Palin news cycle, in other words the issue of abortion which simply will not go away.

Palin is a joke candidate only on the ticket as a sop to pro-lifers. End of story.

Progressives need to take a fresh look at abortion. Few countries are as extreme as America. Progressives look to places like France as examples of generous maternal leave and so on. France is hardly anti-woman. And yet France limits abortion rights more than we do. So does Sweden. Even in Great Britain, which has almost as a permissive an abortion law as our own, there is growing debate in Parliament about rolling back the legal date after which abortions can no longer be performed from 23 weeks to 20 weeks. And this UK debate is not fueled by right wing preachers, but by medical science, and human rights ethics.

Roe leaves the door open to very late term abortions. Enter Senator Obama and this year’s presidential race. Obama voted once in a state legislature to keep those sorts of late term abortions legal. He had his reasons and the Religious Right has been unfair to him over their branding him as favoring infanticide. But there it is: Obama is being saddled with the abortion albatross instead of being allowed to move on. Here we go again!

And all this is needless. If the abortion laws reflected the will of the people abortion would be legal but limited more than now. That is a fact that every poll shows. Indeed more young people are against abortion than their parents. This won’t fade.

Do Democrats really perpetually want to lose elections to keep a small minority of Americans–the pro-choice fundamentalists–happy by keeping abortion legal up to the moment of birth? Is there any good reason, other than the life of the mother, for abortion to be legal after the 12th week of pregnancy?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/sarah-palin-its-the-abort_b_123896.html
Note: Obama’s current position on abortion is to limit late term abortions only to instances when the mother’s life is at risk.

Duration : 0:7:28

[youtube de3v-r3xEzY]

The fight for save abortion From danger to dignity pt.1 of 6

admin — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 09:28:54 +0000

The second of three documentations on abortion. This one is from 1995. Con subtítulo español.

Duration : 0:9:54

[youtube XMtjYpRr6r8]

Obama Repeats False Claim Abortions Haven’t Declined Under Bush / Pro-Life Anti-Abortion Video

admin — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 07:23:15 +0000

Obama Repeats False Claim Abortions Haven’t Declined Under Bush / Pro-Life Anti-Abortion Video. During the presidential forum on Saturday night, pro-abortion presidential candidate Barack Obama repeated the erroneous claim that abortions have not declined under President Bush. The idea behind is the claim is to make it appear that pro-life policies don’t reduce abortions. During a discussion of abortion, Obama declared his support for the Roe v. Wade decision that allowed virtually unlimited abortions. Following his statement, he made the attack on President Bush’s pro-life policies. “The fact is that — although we have a president who is opposed to abortion over the last eight years — abortions have not gone down,” Obama said. Yet that claim doesn’t square with the latest national abortion numbers put forward by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a research firm ociated with Planned Parenthood, the abortion business that has endorsed Obama. In January, AGI reported that the number of abortions nationwide have fallen to their lowest point in 30 years and have declined 25 percent since 1990 — with half of that time period coming under pro-life presidents. The number of abortions are now at their lowest point since 1.179 million in 1976, AGI said. Meanwhile, research from a nonpartisan political watchdog group finds the claim false when compared with national and state abortion statistics. The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania says that claims that abortions have not decreased under President Bush are “not true.” “Politicians from Hillary Clinton and John Kerry to Howard Dean have recently contended that abortions have increased since George W. Bush took office in 2001,” the researchers have written. “This claim is false. It’s based on an opinion piece that used data from only 16 states. A study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute of 43 states found that abortions have actually decreased,” Annenberg indicates. “The claim is repeated by supporters of abortion rights as evidence that Bush’s anti-abortion policies have backfired, or at least been ineffective,” it added. “But the claim is untrue. In fact, according to the respected Alan Guttmacher Institute, a 20-year decline in abortion rates continued after Bush took office.” Video clip courtesy of Fox News. Others images and video clips from Fair Use and public domain.

Duration : 0:46:57

[youtube TBVvBk2wJVg]

Partial-Birth Abortion Procedure With Real Instruments – Pro-Life Anti-Abortion Video

admin — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 07:23:04 +0000

Partial-Birth Abortion Procedure Using The Real Instruments. Excerpt of presentation by Dr. William Lile. More information on the video can be found at http://www.dyinglight.com. To reach Dr. Lile, go to http://www.prolifedoc.org. To order the DVD, visit http://www.dyinglight.com/store. The partial birth abortion is not a rare procedure. It is, essentially, a variant of the even more common and equally gruesome Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) procedure. There are in fact absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this country which require a partially delivered human fetus to be destroyed to preserve the life or health of the mother (Dr. Pamela Smith, Senate Hearing Record, p.82: Partial Birth Abortion Ban Medical Testimony). People like Jill Stanek have exposed a practice, in which children marked for abortion are born alive and then killed. This is exactly where the logic of partial-birth abortion leads. On November 5, 2003, President George W. Bush signed into law the Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. On April 18, 2007 the Supreme Court announced its decision to uphold the ban on partial-birth abortion. The procedure in question is properly called “partial-birth abortion” because, as even secular sources acknowledge, it requires the doctor to deliver the unborn child partially from the uterus, feet first, leaving the baby’s head inside the womb. The doctor then uses scissors and a hollow needle to empty the skull of its contents. The unborn baby’s head then collapses and the doctor removes the dead baby entirely from the mother’s body. Given the nature of the procedure, the congressmen who drafted legislation to prohibit it, the “Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 1995″, defined the procedure as follows: “an abortion in which the person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery”. The doctors who perform this barbaric act and those who seek to justify it attempt to hide its nature by describing it euphemistically as “intact dilation and evacuation/extraction” or as “intrauterine cranial decompression. “Physicians Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth” (PHACT), a group of more than 300 medical specialists organized to counter the misinformation provided by the abortion industry of the United States, pointed out: “Partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect the health of a woman or to protect her future fertility; in fact, the procedure can pose grave dangers to the woman”. Many people argue that the anesthetics used in the process kill the baby, so death to the child is painless. However the American Society of Anesthesiologists testified to Congress that this is simply not true. On July 11, 1995, American Medical News (AMA’s official journal) submitted the transcript of a tape-recorded interview with abortionist Dr. Martin Haskell to the House Judiciary Committee in which he admitted: “…the majority of fetuses aborted this way (partial birth abortion) are alive until the end of the procedure.” As disturbing as this sounds, these are the facts. In this country medical doctors are partially delivering babies and then killing them. These babies are inches from being born. Many could be born and placed directly in the loving arms of childless couples for adoption. Instead, they are cruelly killed.

Duration : 0:4:30

[youtube QUr0jCbcPNc]

Abortion is morally wrong: Four Arguments

admin — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 05:20:42 +0000

Militant TV Network Presents:
“Why Abortion is not good: Four Arguments” (”Abortion is morally wrong: Four Arguments”)
-
By “not good” we mean that abortion is not good to society, and that it is morally evil.
-
1. If the fetus is not a person and we know it, then abortion is morally neutral.
2. If the fetus is a person and we know it, then abortion is murder.
3. If the fetus is a person but we don’t know it, then it is manslaughter
4. If the fetus is not a person and we don’t know it, then it is reckless endangerment or depraved indifference
to human life.

Research and debate is encouraged. But please be respectful.
Pax Christi.
-

Music: “Judgment” by Revelation Project

–
Militant TV Network Militant TVN MilitantTVN MTVN Militant Television Network

Duration : 0:2:11

[youtube fFVlZuCFCYs]

THE SILENT SCREAM Part 1 High Resolution Pro-Life Anti-Abortion Video on Abortion

admin — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 05:20:10 +0000

ABORTION – THE SILENT SCREAM 1 / Extended, High-Resolution Version (with permission from APF). Republished with Permission from Roy Tidwell of American Portrait Films as long as the following credits are shown:

VHS/DVDs Available
American Portrait Films
Call 1-800-736-4567
www.amport.com

This has been performed as asked. This video is perfectly legal.

The Silent Scream Part 1 – Abortion as Infanticide

Dr. Bernard Nathanson’s classic video that shocked the world. He explains the procedure of a suction abortion, followed by an actual first trimester abortion as seen through ultrasound. The viewer can see the child’s pathetic attempts to escape the suction curette as her heart rate doubles, and a “silent scream” as her body is torn apart. A great tool to help people see why abortion is murder. The most important video on abortion ever made. This video changed opinion on abortion to many people. Introduction by Dr. Bernard Nathanson, host. Describes the technology of ultrasound and how, for the first time ever, we can actually see inside the womb. Dr. Nathanson further describes the ultrasound technique and shows examples of babies in the womb. Three-dimensional depiction of the developing fetus, from 4 weeks through 28 weeks. Display and usage of the abortionists’ tools, plus video of an abortionist performing a suction abortion. Dr. Nathanson discusses the abortionist who agreed to allow this abortion to be filmed with ultrasound. The abortionist was quite skilled, having performed more than 10,000 abortions. We discover that the resulting ultrasound of his abortion so appalled him that he never again performed another abortion. The clip begins with an ultrasound of the fetus (girl) who is about to be aborted. The girl is moving in the womb; displays a heartbeat of 140 per minute; and is at times sucking her thumb. As the abortionist’s suction tip begins to invade the womb, the child rears and moves violently in an attempt to avoid the instrument. Her mouth is visibly open in a “silent scream.” The child’s heart rate speeds up dramatically (to 200 beats per minute) as she senses aggression. She moves violently away in a pathetic attempt to escape the instrument. The abortionist’s suction tip begins to rip the baby’s limbs from its body, ultimately leaving only her head in the uterus (too large to be pulled from the uterus in one piece). The abortionist attempts to crush her head with his forceps, allowing it to be removed. In an effort to “dehumanize” the procedure, the abortionist and anesthesiologist refer to the baby’s head as “number 1.” The abortionist crushes “number 1″ with the forceps and removes it from the uterus. Abortion statistics are revealed, as well as who benefits from the enormously lucrative industry that has developed. Clinics are now franchised, and there is ample evidence that many are controlled by organized crime. Women are victims, too. They haven’t been told about the true nature of the unborn child or the facts about abortion procedures. Their wombs have been perforated, infected, destroyed, and sterilized. All as a result of an operation about which they they have had no true knowledge. Films like this must be made part of “informed consent.” NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) and Planned Parenthood are accused of a conspiracy of silence, of keeping women in the dark about the reality of abortion. Finally, Dr. Nathanson discusses his credentials. He is a former abortionist, having been the director of the largest clinic in the Western world.

Duration : 0:5:27

[youtube iipPDUsojng]

Abortion Facts.

admin — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 04:25:33 +0000

my lovely videp to pro-choice.. so u choose death?.. its the hard truth.. now im not trying to pass no judgment or make any decisions but i do know this is murder AND ITS WRONG!

Duration : 0:4:17

[youtube kF0YEZaENOo]

ABORTION – THE SILENT SCREAM #4 / Part 4 / 04 Pro-Life Video

admin — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 04:17:28 +0000

ABORTION – THE SILENT SCREAM #4 (with permission from APF. Published with Permission from Roy Tidwell of American Portrait Films as long as the following credits are shown:

VHS/DVDs Available
American Portrait Films
Call 1-800-736-4567
www.amport.com

This has been performed as asked. This video is perfectly legal.

The Silent Scream Part 4 – Abortion as Infanticide

Introduction by Dr. Bernard Nathanson, host. Describes the technology of ultrasound and how, for the first time ever, we can actually see inside the womb. Dr. Nathanson further describes the ultrasound technique and shows examples of babies in the womb. Three-dimensional depiction of the developing fetus, from 4 weeks through 28 weeks. Display and usage of the abortionists’ tools, plus video of an abortionist performing a suction abortion. Dr. Nathanson discusses the abortionist who agreed to allow this abortion to be filmed with ultrasound. The abortionist was quite skilled, having performed more than 10,000 abortions. We discover that the resulting ultrasound of his abortion so appalled him that he never again performed another abortion. The clip begins with an ultrasound of the fetus (girl) who is about to be aborted. The girl is moving in the womb; displays a heartbeat of 140 per minute; and is at times sucking her thumb. As the abortionist’s suction tip begins to invade the womb, the child rears and moves violently in an attempt to avoid the instrument. Her mouth is visibly open in a “silent scream.” The child’s heart rate speeds up dramatically (to 200 beats per minute) as she senses aggression. She moves violently away in a pathetic attempt to escape the instrument. The abortionist’s suction tip begins to rip the baby’s limbs from its body, ultimately leaving only her head in the uterus (too large to be pulled from the uterus in one piece). The abortionist attempts to crush her head with his forceps, allowing it to be removed. In an effort to “dehumanize” the procedure, the abortionist and anesthesiologist refer to the baby’s head as “number 1.” The abortionist crushes “number 1″ with the forceps and removes it from the uterus. Abortion statistics are revealed, as well as who benefits from the enormously lucrative industry that has developed. Clinics are now franchised, and there is ample evidence that many are controlled by organized crime. Women are victims, too. They haven’t been told about the true nature of the unborn child or the facts about abortion procedures. Their wombs have been perforated, infected, destroyed, and sterilized. All as a result of an operation about which they they have had no true knowledge. Films like this must be made part of “informed consent.” NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) and Planned Parenthood are accused of a conspiracy of silence, of keeping women in the dark about the reality of abortion. Finally, Dr. Nathanson discusses his credentials. He is a former abortionist, having been the director of the largest clinic in the Western world.

Duration : 0:5:20

[youtube QIeOBkQ86OQ]