Lindy’s Blog: Where Mom is Always Right

January 27, 2010

To call one’s self “pro-choice” implies, well, a CHOICE

Filed under: abortion — by lindyborer @ 7:36 am
Tags: , , , ,

So apparently there’s this big kerfuffle involving a commercial by Focus On the Family featuring Tim Tebow and his mom that’s set to air during the Super Bowl.  Read about it here.  It’s a pro-life ad which chronicles the 1987 against-the-odds birth of the Heisman winner.  His mother was encouraged to abort her son due to an illness she acquired during her pregnancy with him.  She ignored this advice from her doctors and gave birth to Tim, who has gone on to accomplish some pretty amazing things. 

The usual suspects (“Womens’ groups”) are throwing a hissy-fit over the ad, even though no one–including them–has seen it yet.  They claim that it advances a pro-life agenda. 

Oh, how terrible to comprehend!  What filth, what tripe, what downright evil–that a commercial might influence someone to choose LIFE?!?  What a horrible thing that a commercial might provide encouragement to a woman facing an unplanned pregnancy to…NOT kill her baby!!

Focus on the Family claims that it’s really quite tame and that it basically relates an uplifting, pro-family story with a really happy ending. 

My question is this:  Why is it that supposedly “pro-choice” groups have such a hard time hearing about such stories?  What about the fact that a mom CHOSE to have a baby–and that baby just happened to grow up to accomplish marvelous things–is so vulgar to them?  After all,  being “pro-choice” implies that one is equally fine with either choice chosen.  These supposedly “pro-choice” groups really become transparent each time they make a huge deal out of these stories with happy endings.  I mean, what kind of people hear such stories and grow so irrationally angry?

Let me attempt to answer my own question.  The kind of people who are not, in fact, pro-CHOICE.  They are simpy pro-ABORTION, and their unwillingness to celebrate good and happy endings with the rest of us just really makes them look, well, twisted

(Besides, am I the only one who actually looks forward to there being a Super Bowl commercial that doesn’t feature some mostly naked woman pushing tortilla chips or beer?  How is that message “good” for women?  What message does that send to my little boy and girl?)

Bring on the ad, I say, and further reveal the sickness of the pro-abortion movement.

RELATED:  Sarah Palin decimates NOW on her Facebook page–awesome.

October 15, 2009

Abortion doctor attempts to explain her actions. Fails miserably.

Filed under: abortion,pro-life — by lindyborer @ 4:55 pm
Tags: , , , , ,

I must admit:  This doctor’s mental meanderings defy comprehension.  Do these people have souls?

Abortionist Reflects on Dismembering One Baby While Feeling Her Own Flutter in Her Womb

August 26, 2009

bloodmoney

Filed under: abortion — by lindyborer @ 3:27 pm
Tags: ,

July 14, 2009

Abortion and Eugenics

Elections have consequences.

As do Supreme Court nominations. 

Supreme court justice--and one handsome lady--Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Supreme court justice--and one handsome lady--Ruth Bader Ginsburg

As empathy-queen Sotomayor sits in the hot seat, we’re reminded by this–er–savory bit from current Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg just why these grilling sessions are necessary; if only we could have weeded this out of Ginsburg before she was approved for the SCOTUS.

In an interview last week with NY Times Magazine’s Emily Brazelton, Justice Ginsburg offered this revealing comment regarding the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision:

“Frankly I had thought that at the time [Roe vs. Wade] was decided there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

Huh, interesting.  And what populations would those be, Ms. Ginsburg?  Do tell.  Amazingly, hardly anyone has followed up and pressed her on this statement.  She went on to bemoan the fact that a 1980 Supreme Court decision didn’t require Medicaid to cover abortions.  In Ginsburg’s mind, it’s apparently the poor segments of the population we “don’t want too many of” and therefore taxpayers should foot the bill to eliminate their unwanted get.  Nice. 

And yes, folks, this philosophy has a name:  Eugenics.  And apparently Ginsburg ascribes to the eugenics philosphy.

There’s simply no other way to conclude otherwise. 

But this is in no way a stretch; research Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger’s views on population control and abortion’s role in it.  I’ve always maintained that radical, liberal pro-choicers, at heart, ascribe in one degree or another to a eugenics philosophy, otherwise we’d actually make some progress with the Planned Parenthoods in the nation when it comes to other options to abortion, like adoption.  When you look at the statistics of PP clinics who have actually referred a woman toward an adoption clinic, they’re barely there.  Yes, money has a lot to do with it; killing babies is very lucrative.  But there’s this ugly little mindset that the left has rightly pushed beneath the surface, but it’s there nonetheless.

Jonah Goldberg briefly looks at Ginsburg’s comments, here.   

And lest we think that this phenomenon is going away, please note Barack Obama’s latest pick for “Science Czar,” John Holden, whose own opinions closely reflect that of Ginsburg’s.  In a book he authored, he wrote:

• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives — using an armed international police force.

I don’t need to detail why each and every idea here is abhorrent.  But if you want some more sordid details on the person now in charge of Science in the United States, read this link.

Well, Ginsburg should be a little less disturbed should Obamacare pass, as it would cover abortions for all–especially those in “unwanted” populations. 

Lord, help us.

June 3, 2009

Spartans, we are.

Filed under: abortion — by lindyborer @ 10:34 am
Tags: , ,

Substitute “deformed” with “inconvenient.”

Thoughts from an ex-fetus

“I don’t particularly mind abortion on demand; I mind only the arguments used to support it.”

June 2, 2009

This, that, and the other

Some links that have gotten my attention:

Caution: Bloody Century Ahead  Not for the faint of heart. I keep trying to disagree with Patterson, but…I…just…can’t.

Late-term abortionist George Tiller’s shooting death is a travesty, and his shooter most definitely qualifies as a domestic terrorist.  No matter how deplorable I found Dr. Tiller’s actions, to fight the anti-life agenda by taking life is wrong and deplorable. 

Obama has meanwhile assigned other abortionists police protection.   One wonders whether or not he has assigned the same protections to military recruiters, in light of the recent shooting death of one in Arkansas by a militant muslim.  Probably not.  (And does anyone remember the name William Ayers, the president’s favorite domestic terrorist?)  From Malkin:  Obama condemns Muslim attack on Arkansas Army Recruiters…not 

Every single pro-life organization has condemned Tiller’s shooting death, but the blame game is on.  Many are blaming Bill O’Reilly for his honest and brave reporting on Tiller and his practice:

Kudos to O’Reilly.  Without a doubt, any attempt henceforth to report upon and instruct people about the horrors of abortion will be deemed incitements to violence.  We must resist this full-on.  Women have the right to full knowlege about this horrific practice.  Reporting on it is necessary and must continue. 

And this article from American Thinker:

Do Liberals Crave A Master?   It’s almost like many people, even if it’s not overt, do need someone to tell them what to do.  Many conservatives/individualists like me often wonder why so many people not only accept but seemingly invite a person or group of persons (aka the government) to impose their agendas upon them.  I still maintain that the individual and the individual’s freedoms are to be protected, first and foremost.  A whole lot of people are seemingly content to kiss their individual freedoms goodbye in the name of “fairness,” or whatever.  This article presents a possible diagnosis.

To whet your appetite: 

Contemporary liberals, having abandoned the belief in God-given inalienable rights, masochistically crave a worldly master. This master is a sadistic god-substitute who will provide the stern discipline needed to force economic equality and “fairness” by requiring painful sacrifices and bestowing government-created rights onto obedient and acquiescent groups of left-leaning masochists. 

It’s really interesting.

And I stumbled across this as well.  I don’t know anything about the person or group that created this, but I just thought it was thought-provoking.

One way to answer an atheist:

May 31, 2009

Tiller’s shooting death, and a few predictions

Filed under: abortion — by lindyborer @ 4:38 pm
Tags: , , ,

One of the few doctors in the country who performed late-term abortions, Dr. George Tiller, was shot to death at his church this morning. 

We should all pray for this man’s soul.

This will serve as a catalyst to further demonize the pro-life movement by the left, and it wil be an opening for second amendment opponents to attempt to grab guns. 

More on this to come…

May 20, 2009

Connect all the little dots, people.

Filed under: abortion,Catholicism,politics — by lindyborer @ 7:10 am
Tags: , , , , ,

A fascinating piece.  Not to be missed.

Frankfurt School Reigns Supreme

I never really knew a Marxist’s perspective on abortion, did you?

May 19, 2009

Obama at Notre Dame: The fallout, UPDATED

Filed under: abortion,Catholicism,politics — by lindyborer @ 8:39 am
Tags: , , ,

“For you created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb” -Psalms 139:13

Obama’s words at the Notre Dame commencement were no great surprise.  He was, as usual, full of platitudes about “holding hands,” “dialogue,” and “coming together.”  No doubt much of what he said was appealing to those on both sides of the issue.  There are many who find comfort where they may, even in empty words that change absolutely nothing.  But, for all Obama’s pontifications on openness and dialogue, to genuinely reflect upon the horror of the very act of abortion renders simple “dialogue” and acknowledgement of our differences as ridiculous.  How does one meet in the middle upon such an issue?  Where is the middle ground on life and death? 

As far as dialogue goes (linked here):   

It’s easy to ramble on about how everyone should be civil and learn to respect each others’ viewpoints, when your side of the debate is sitting on a Supreme Court decision that renders the opposing position illegal.

Indeed.  It is very easy to sound magnanimous and even conciliatory toward those in opposition to you when it is in your power to keep them there.  Obama is a genuine self-aggrandizer; he loves and excels at rhetorical language that makes everyone feel good about themselves.  He has mastered the art of sounding like he cares.  But (as Steele said), his actions speak louder than his words. 

Again, I ask:  How does one find common ground on this? 

abortedbaby12abortedbaby19

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Meanwhile, does it not strike anyone else as particularly ironic that an elderly priest, praying the rosary in protest of the abortion president being honored at the university of Our Lady, being arrested and carried away from a CATHOLIC INSTITUTION? 

Also, that the original Jane Roe, Norma McCorvey, was herself arrested for protesting this travesty?

For a far more nausea-inducing brand of irony, how about Obama wearing a robe with a prayer inscribed to the Virgin Mary, patroness of the unborn, upon his breast?  And this picture, of Obama raising his hand while conferring a blessing upon the graduates (no doubt thinking that the power of blessing was from himself and not from God):

obama_robe

Were I someone who did not believe in a Divine Creator, I believe that I would still be somewhat troubled by donning a robe dedicated to the mother of that Creator, if my positions happened to be so diametrically opposed to everything for which they stood.  Even were I a “person of faith,” but not necessarily Catholic, and held pro-abortion positions to the extreme degree, I can’t but help thinking that the small, self-preservation portion of my being would flair up an alarm at so brazenly flying in the face of such a core teaching of Catholic Christianity.  Were I wrong, the thought of being held to account for my hand in enabling the horrific deaths of millions of innocent babies would, in effect, chill me to the core. 

Take comfort in these words from yesterday’s gospel:

Jn 15:26-16:4a

Jesus said to his disciples: 
“When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father,
the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father,
he will testify to me.
And you also testify,
because you have been with me from the beginning.

“I have told you this so that you may not fall away.
They will expel you from the synagogues;
in fact, the hour is coming when everyone who kills you
will think he is offering worship to God.
They will do this because they have not known either the Father or me.
I have told you this so that when their hour comes
you may remember that I told you.”

And another excellent link:

Archbishop Chaput:  Obama Honor a Fitting Bookend for Catholic Higher Ed

UPDATE:

Obama’s Fuzzy Logic, by Matt Spivey:

President Obama continued this disconnected rhetoric by urging this generation to “decide how to save God’s creation from a changing climate that threatens to destroy it.”  Strangely, though, the president seems okay destroying one of God’s other creations.  Only in a liberal’s mind would saving the planet carry more value than saving a life.

and later,

President Obama not only caused great confusion with his words for this generation, his moral relativism should cause great concern for people of all generations.  He assumes that truth is relative because we may all passionately hold beliefs that are diametrically opposed.  

When Obama advocates for all opinions and deems all perspectives valid, he is implying that no ultimate truth exists.  It’s as if one person can say that stealing is okay while another condemns it, and they will just have to agree to disagree.  There is an inherent wrongness in stealing that cannot be avoided.  The abortion controversy is also one of those moral discussions with no gray area in which a support for innocent life and a support for the destruction of innocent life can co-exist.

When we reach a point in which anything goes, everything will.  According to the president, as long we feel strongly enough, we can never be wrong.  Unfortunately, terrorists would make the same argument.  The protection of innocent life and the preservation of the inalienable right to life are not to be bargained by lawyers, grandstanded by politicians, or debated by emotional activists.  Life is life.  Morality is morality.  There is no wavering or reinterpretation of this.

It all does boil down to that.  Is there objective truth?  Moral relativism–it will be the ruin of this nation.

May 14, 2009

if you think this post was necessary, you’d be right

I simply can’t go a day without mentioning any of the following:

1)  I wrote a few posts back about Mothering magazine’s advocating the radical left-wing, Marxist group Code Pink.  Here is a clip of two of these morons attacking Donald Rumsfeld and his wife as they entered the White House Correspondents Dinner.  Of course, this type of thing happens all the time, and no, we never hear a word about it from the media.  Really, watch it.  Witness the depravity.

If you think these people have no lives, you’d be right.

2)  Sweden is now approving gender-based abortions.  If you think the slippery slope is well at work, you’d be right.

3)  How tyranny starts.  I’m anti-American, I suppose.

4)  What has happened to Europe?  Where are all the artists, thinkers, innovators, and entrepeneurs? 

What has happened is that Europe, with a few exceptions, has lost its creativity, intellectual excitement, industrial innovation, and risk taking. Europe’s creative energy has been sapped. There are many lovely Europeans; but there aren’t many creative, dynamic, or entrepreneurial ones.

 A true must-read, the article linked talks about what happens when nations do away with religion and create welfare state social models.  And yes, if you assessed that this is directly where we’re headed…you’d be right.

5)  Remind Obama what transparency looks like.  If this cap and trade thing is going to be a reality, then we should demand that the taxes that our utility companies pass on to us be open and calculable:

Rep. Jason Chaffetz is seeking original cosponsors for the Cap-and-Trade Tax Disclosure Act which will require utility companies to disclose and separately itemize the impact of cap-and-trade taxes on each customer’s utility bill. Sound tax policy requires that taxes should be visible to taxpayers and not buried in the cost of items we purchase. With this legislation, every utility customer – residential and business — will be able to identify the cost of cap-and-trade emissions that the utility is passing on to the customer. As regulated entities, utilities pass taxes on to customers, unlike unregulated companies that can also pass taxes on to shareholders and employees. The cap-and-trade tax is potentially the largest tax increase ever imposed. According to the Administration’s own budget document, the cost will be at least $646 billion over an eight-year period. No matter where you stand on the issue of cap and trade, both sides can agree that full disclosure and transparency are good public policy. 

Contact your representatives and tell them to support full disclosure of tax impact of cap and trade, especially the Democrats who have criticized the national eco tax, 202-224-3121.

Again, if you think that taxes are going to skyrocket under Obama’s unprecedented in the history of the world spending, you’d be right.

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.