Thursday, October 21, 2010

Yes Virginia, there really is a Santa Claus

The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC) has recommended a set of photos to be used by the media for abortion-related stories that, I am ashamed to say, actually made me laugh.

Abortion is certainly never a laughing matter, but two of the pictures are a pathetic attempt by the pro-abortions to pretend that, yes Virginia, an abortion really is only a small clump of tissue, not a real live unborn person at all.

And frankly I was puzzled by the picture of a woman holding a positive pregnancy test. Oh I get it, that woman is only a little bit pregnant. You know, unlike those dreadful pictures where a pregnant woman is a lot pregnant.

39 comments:

  1. ARCC must think people are stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Rather Maureen, they are suggesting that some others believe people are stupid. The photos that are routinely used by pro-lifers to show "what abortion really is" really don't: "In reality, the vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester (90% in Canada) and virtually none in the 3rd trimester."

    Not quite sue why Patricia sees this as a gift from Santa though.

    ReplyDelete
  3. According to Statistics Canada in 2006 we had 464 (reported) late-term abortions. On a foot note next to the number 55,006, Statistics Canada states: 'Note the large number of induced abortions of unknown gestational age". We have no idea how many of those 55,006 were also late-term abortions. So no Ginny, there are definitely not "virtually none in the 3rd trimester".

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ginny, the photos used by the GAP are pictures of babies aborted in the first trimester; there is NO doubt the little fingers, toes, lips, noses and rib cages are little ones who tried to make it to the light of day. Besides what difference does it make when the babies are aborted from their mom when we all know that human life begins at the moment of conception. Ginny, this is exactly the problem with pro-aborts: trying to justify the unthinkable by renaming, rationalization and a plethora of other nonsense to justify the killing of unborn babies. I trust you thank your mother for your life.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "late term" is over 20 weeks gestation.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Besides what difference does it make when the babies are aborted from their mom when we all know that human life begins at the moment of conception."

    If it doesn't make a difference, why don't pro-lifers use the photo that depict fetal development when the vast majority of abortions occur Jennifer?

    And yes, I do thank my mother for giving birth to me, just as my boys (though they don't express it) are thankful for me giving birth to them. Their births were planned. Mine was not btw.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thank you Patricia,that is correct: Late term refers to over 20 weeks. Third trimester, however, refers to over 28 weeks and THAT is what ARCC was referring to.

    I don't see the 2006 stats, but in 2003 there were 17 third trimester abortion in Canada all done in hospital. 17 not 464. Just to be clear.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It is clear to me that whether we have 17 third-trimester abortions, or if the 55,000+ abortions of "unknown gestational age" in 2006 were all third-trimester abortions, doesn't really matter to the single viable unborn child who was aborted. What is clear, is that just one, third-trimester abortion is one too many. Stats Canada themselves say that abortions are under reported. They also say that for 2006 at least four clinics never reported at all. How many third-trimester abortions were done in those four clinics? Stats also says that "as of 2004 CIHI no longer obtains reports on Canadian women obtaining abortions in the United States" which is interesting since they did receive reports from 13 states in 2003. And we can all make a pretty good guess why Canadian women have abortions in the United States. How many were third-trimester? All of them? So regardless of the number of third-trimester abortions in Canada, just to be clear, each and every one of them is abhorant. No matter how you slice and dice the numbers.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ginny in response to why we don't show pictures of aborted babies when most happen: the Genocide Awareness Program (GAP) does exactly that. Most people don't realize how well formed a baby really is by 9 or 10 weeks. Do you know that the baby has a beating heart at just 18 days and perfectly formed toes at 10 weeks. Yes Ginny, we do show pictures of the dismembered bodies when most of them are aborted. However, it does not matter when the baby is killed, killing is killing is killing. Would you ask this sort of question as a means to justify the killing of an infant of 3 days, 3 months? or a toddler of 18 months or 20 months. Ginny, I hope you are understanding why pro-life individuals are so passionate when we know these little ones in their mothers wombs are treated like 'objects' rather than the people they are.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Certainly you would feel that way Patricia, because to you abortion is a sin, regardless of whether it occurs shortly after implantation or later in a pregnancy.

    That was not the point. My point was that as ARCC states, "virtually no abortions are done in the third trimester" in Canada. You tried to argue that using the wrong statistics and I corrected you.

    If you are going to argue something, just be honest. Use the appropriate figures. Use the appropriate photos.

    ReplyDelete
  11. To reiterate: we don't know the number of third-trimester abortions done in Canada.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Oh Ginny, how amusing that you ask Pat to be honest when arguing. Pat is trying to expose the truth about the actual number of abortions done in Canada based on the numbers released. Numbers not easy to access, for reasons I leave you to think about. Honesty is the most difficult trait to find when it comes to abortion and not just the honesty we don't find in government agencies, including hospitals. If only thoes who advocate abortion would be honest when they describe what abortion REALLY is. The most common complaint from post abortion women and men is, "they didn't tell me," or "they lied." So Ginny you would serve women well (this is your intent correct) if you could convince the abortion providers and thoes who parade around in "Choice" clothing that abortion stops a beating heart and harms women in the worst possible way. Thanks for taking this to heart.

    ReplyDelete
  13. From what we do know, it's very low. Virtually none. Less than 0.02%.

    That is why third trimester fetal development and pregnancy do not depict abortion. And that's what this is about.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Ginny, you say "That is why third trimester fetal development and pregnancy do not depict abortion. And that's what this is about." But the length of time an abortion is allowed in Canada is up to nine months--no medical reason needed. So yes, third trimester fetal development and pregnancy does depict abortion, at least 17 of them every year and as I've already shown, likely a lot more than 17. Those 17 abortions are not, not abortions. That is a fact. Just because you don't like it when we draw attention to third trimester abortions is moot. We all know that third trimester abortions are legal in Canada. We all know that third trimester abortions occur in Canada . We also all know, that we don't know how many of them occur each year. Perhaps if third trimester abortions were prohibited in Canada, maybe then the pro-life community might consider stopping showing those pictures. Until that day happens, I will support their depiction, as do many many others.

    I'll make a deal with you Ginny. If you can convince Joyce Arthur to advocate against third trimester abortions, I will advocate against showing third trimester pregnancy depictions of abortion.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I'll second that deal, go for it Ginny,

    ReplyDelete
  16. "I'll make a deal with you Ginny. If you can convince Joyce Arthur to advocate against third trimester abortions, I will advocate against showing third trimester pregnancy depictions of abortion."

    No you won't Patricia and you know it. You'll only do that if it's part of a total disallowance on abortion. Why? Because it doesn't matter to you have far along the pregnancy is. But it does matter to others. And that is why you use these photos and want to continue to do so.

    Furthermore, I think that some if not all of those 17 abortions per year must have good reason, though in saying that I know there would be no good reason in your mind. If it is a matter of life or death for the mother I think she should choose, particularly if both mother and fetus will die without the abortion.

    It remains that a very small portion (17 is <0.02%) of abortion are third term. To say these photos depict abortion is a ginormous stretch and does you a disservice.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Ginny you say "It remains that a very small portion (17 is <0.02%) of abortion are third term." As I have already shown, we do not know how many third trimester abortions occur.

    Ginny you say "Furthermore, I think that some if not all of those 17 abortions per year must have good reason, though in saying that I know there would be no good reason in your mind. If it is a matter of life or death for the mother I think she should choose, particularly if both mother and fetus will die without the abortion." Regardless of what you or I may think their reasons are, we do not know the reasons why women have third trimester abortions.

    Ginny I said I would make the following deal with you: "if you can convince Joyce Arthur to advocate against third trimester abortions, I will advocate against showing third trimester pregnancy depictions of abortion." Your reply was "no you won't Patricia and you know it." Ginny why do you believe I would make such a statement, if I had no intention of standing behind my word? I do not make things up and I stand behind my word. Do we have a deal?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hmmm. Seems you didn't recieve my response. So again, no we don't have a deal Patricia. As I already explained, there may be valid ( though not to you) reasons for these rare third trimester abortions so I am not going to advocate that they be illegal. And as I already explained, you don't really want that anyway because you use these photos as the " reality" of abortion for a reason. I don't think you would stand by your word but in amy case that is irrelevant because it is nit you who is making the decision to use these photos is it?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Ginny, what exactly would be those "valid" reasons for third trimester abortions you are referring to?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Jeannie, you would see none of these reasons as valid. The Catholic Church is even against abortion to save a woman's life even when there is no way the fetus will survive with or without an abortion.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Ginny, I do not presume to know what you would consider "valid reasons" for a third trimester abortion. So I will ask: what do you consider to be the valid reasons for third trimester abortions?

    ReplyDelete
  22. What does it matter Jeannie? You won't consider any to be valid would you? Be honest.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Ginny, you brought up the fact that there may be valid reasons for third trimester abortions. The obvious question then is, "what are those valid reasons?" When asked, twice in fact, what you believe those valid reasons are, you refused to answer the question. Instead you make presumptions about my own views, which has nothing to do with what your views on the valid reasons are. I am trying to engage in a respectful, intelligent dialogue with you, but for some reason you are skirting the issue. Do you feel uncomfortable revealing what you really think about third trimester abortions, Ginny?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Jeannie I have said that I will not advocate for making third trimester abortions illegal because I can see valid reasons for allowing them. I would not say I am uncomfortable with these reasons though they would be tragic. I do view these abortions as different then earlier ones. This is common and why they are rare and why in the US they are restricted and actually illegal in some states.

    But to prolifers they are no different than earlier abortions and no reason is valid. So it is pointless for me to discuss what reasons I personally find valid. That may madden you but it really makes no difference.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Ginny, why/how do you view third trimester abortions as different than earlier ones?

    ReplyDelete
  26. In a word, viability.

    But you knew that didn't you Jeannie?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Yes, I realize the fetus is viable at that time, but why/how does that make these third trimester abortions "different"? i.e. what is it about fetal viability that leads you to view such abortions differently?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Nice attempt Jeannie, but still no.

    ReplyDelete
  29. No, what? Ginny, I don't know what you are disagreeing with when you say "no" because I didn't ask you a "yes/no" question. I asked you how you thought early abortions differ from third-trimester abortions. And I also don't know what you mean by "nice attempt." My attempt at trying to understand your position? Because that is what I am trying to do.

    You brought up the fact that third trimester abortions are different from earlier ones, and when asked how, you replied only by saying the fetus is viable. You and I both know that the fetus is viable at that time, and so my question to you is--and it's not a rhetorical question--why do you think aborting a viable fetus is different than aborting a non-viable fetus? You must have had a reason for saying they are different, and I'd really like to understand your thinking on this, Ginny, but so far, you have avoided answering this question. Why?

    ReplyDelete
  30. "Ginny, I find it curious that you speak for others but seldom do you respond to direct question or to take others up on their suggestions. Quite some time ago Patricia said, "If you can convince Joyce Arthur to advocate against third trimester abortions, I will advocate against showing third trimester pregnancy depictions of abortion." Jeannie has repeatedly wanted to know your thoughts but you don't answer....why not? "

    ReplyDelete
  31. I already explained why not Jennifer. It's a futile argument. We fundamentally disagree on this so why explain myself? It may madden her that I won't and she can ask as many ways as she wants, but the answer is still no.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Ginny, I have attempted to engage in a respectful dialogue with you about an issue that is obviously important to both of us. I have politely asked you two straightforward questions that you have consciously chosen not to answer: first, about what you see as the valid reasons for third trimester abortions; and second, why/how you think abortions on viable fetuses differ from abortions on non-viable fetuses.

    For some reason, you are not willing to share your views in spite of my repeated attempts to try to understand them.

    My hope for you, Ginny, is that in your inability to answer these questions, you will learn something about yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Save your hopes Jeanie. I am completely comfortable with and confident in my views on this. As I have said several times to you, it is not inability that keeps me from answering your repeated questions but rather lack of desire. This ain't my first rodeo Jeannie. I have no desire to round and round on this very fundamental difference in our beliefs. Sorry it maddens you but it's the way it is.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Ginny you say "As I have said several times to you, it is not inability that keeps me from answering your repeated questions but rather lack of desire."

    Well Ginnie if it's your "lack of desire" in answering questions, then why do you frequent this blog? You seem quite interested in taking the time to post comments that don't actually say anything, but not interested to take the time to post comments that actually defend your position.

    Your non-answer is actually a very telling answer.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Comments that don't actually say anything? Really? Funny, there is plenty of discussion stemming from them! Nice try Patricia.

    Why do I frequent the blog? Well, that's pretty obvious from my comments isn't it? Largely to correct misconceptions and inaccuracies. But Im not interested in futile debates. Yes indeed, my non-answer should tell you that.... Loud and clear. Too bad some people can't hear it!

    ReplyDelete
  36. Hi again Ginny, I have been following the conversation between you, Patricia and Jeannie and have come to realize that in attempting to correct 'misconceptions and inaccuracies', there is little substance. I follow because I am intrigued by the questions and would like to know your thoughts but I don't see where 'futile debates' exist. All I keep reading are questions but please, where are the answers??? Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  37. "but I don't see where 'futile debates' exist. All I keep reading are questions but please, where are the answers??? Thanks"

    The futile debate exists Jennifer in what are valid reasons for third trimester abortions? What makes third trimester abortions different?

    These questions you keep reading and that I say I'm not going to bother answering are regarding my personal beliefs and those of others who share these beliefs. The answers you are looking for are mine and others' who share my view and they differ fundamentally from yours and other pro-lifers'. In no way would I hope nor expect to change your mind on this. Debate is futile.

    If you have been following the conversation you should have seen that this is what I have been saying. I hope you do now.

    ReplyDelete