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

September 16, 2009

Everything that’s fit to print…

…but isn’t by the soon-to-be obsolete mainstream media.  (NBC, ABC, MSNBC, The Washington Post, The LA Times, The New York Times):

1) First and foremost, the corruption that is being uncovered at Obama’s favorite grassroots organization, ACORN.  If this were a Republican administration, and ACORN was a Republican venture, Glenn Beck, James O’Keefe, and Hannah Giles would all be winning Pulitzers for investigative journalism and uncovering corruption.  However, since this is so all-out incriminating and embarrassing for liberals and President Obama, the decrepit dinosaurs of media and print (mentioned above) have felt it best to ignore…completely…even though the Senate has voted to cut all federal funding to the group by a huge margin, and the Census has also cut ties.

O'Keefe and Giles undercover (hilarious)

O'Keefe and Giles undercover (hilarious)

 2) The downplaying by the media of the million or more people who showed up in DC last Saturday, and the subsequent attempts to portray all of them–and anyone else who doesn’t agree with the agenda and spending by this administration–as nothing more than fringe racists.  (Not to mention Joe Wilson, who was right.)

YCR20090912

3) The murder of pro-life activist Jim Pouillion in Michigan last week.  Obama finally got around to issuing a statement.  We have yet to hear from abortion promoting groups Planned Parenthood, Emily’s List, NOW, and others.  Do note that the pro-life movement didn’t incriminate the entire pro-abortion industry for the actions of a single lunatic among the many statements issued in the shooting death of Dr. George Tiller.  And we didn’t even blame Olbermann…

From the above link:

David Bass, a writer at the American Spectator, noticed the juxtaposition.

“A growing sidebar of the James Pouillon murder (he was gunned down while peacefully protesting outside an abortion clinic in Owosso, Michigan) is the silence of national pro-choice organizations,” he writes today.

“I ran a quick search, and none of the biggies … have issued statements condemning the murder,” he says. “President Obama was late to the party, but he did end up issuing a statement on the killing.”

“On its home page, the National Abortion Federation gives top billing to mourning the loss of Ted Kennedy and to remembering George Tiller, whom NAF calls ‘an American hero,'” he adds.

Bass notes the contrast between the responses from pro-life and pro-abortion organizations.

“In contrast, a number of pro-life groups issued statements the day of Tiller’s death condemning acts of violence in the heated abortion debate (National Right to Life and Americans United for Life, to name two),” he said. “Naturally, pro-choice groups put out their own releases. But the non-existent response from abortion advocates over the cold-blooded murder of Pouillon – a man standing up for life and exercising his constitutional rights – should give us pause.”

“Could be that one side in this debate does, in fact, value human life more than the other,” Bass asks.

 

 

 
 

 

  

 

 

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.”

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 8, 2009

pro-life ad to air during Am. Idol final

Filed under: abortion,Catholicism,pro-life — by lindyborer @ 8:31 pm
Tags: , , ,

May 6, 2009

You picked the wrong morning. UPDATED

I’m visiting my parents.  I slept in the same bed with a two and four year old, who wouldn’t settle and couldn’t seem to stop wiggling.  About three in the morning, I opened a window to alleviate the stuffiness, only to find that Booker, the damn dog, was barking incessantly outside.  So, I went to close the window, but it was stuck.  I therefore had to go outside on the balcony and force it shut.  At which point the kids needed something to drink.  Their thirst quenched, I realized that I had to go mess with the thermostat since the window was shut.  Finally arriving back upstairs, the kids were sleeping peacefully, but I was now wide awake.  After tossing for over an hour, I at last fell into a peaceful slumber, only to have the kids wake me up in order to go downstairs this morning.

So, you can imagine my mood as I sat down with my coffee to read Mothering magazine’s email newsletter, which advocated the insane leftist group, Code Pink.  CODE PINK.  I fired off a snippy response, telling them that I’m cancelling my subscription, and requesting that they stop sending their propaganda.  They had finally gone off the deep end.

The thing is, I’ve seen this coming for awhile now.  I began subscribing three years ago, and each new issue has focused less and less on mothering issues and more and more on things like the environment and veganism.  I have no problem with people eating no animal products.  I have no problem with caring for the planet.  We’re supposed to be good stewards of the environment.  I do, however, have a problem when those people start telling me what I can and cannot do.  I really don’t understand how some of these people think the world would eat if we started practicing agriculture the way they wanted us to.

When it comes to the “save the planet” craze, I think that those who care so fanatically about the environment do so because they’ve made the earth their deity.  Some people are now literally worshiping the environment, whether they realize it or not.  This occurred to me yesterday as I was mowing my parents’ lawn.  When looked at this way, it makes complete sense for some of these wackos to reduce the number of people on this planet in order to save it, including sterilizing themselves, promoting population control, and promoting abortion.  If you believe that the only thing that’s forever is the earth, and not human souls, your hierarchy of importance will follow suit.  Humans are bad.

What’s worse, these people don’t realize that they’re victims of people at the top (politically, usually) who create fear for the sake of grabbing power.  The people at the top of the Green Movement, I’ll wager, don’t give a rat’s rear end about actually “saving the planet,” but they do realize that they can exert an ever-increasing amount of power over us if they create the narrative that life as we know it will end if we don’t do as they say.  Key example:  Cap and Trade.  If you object, you don’t “care about the environment, you unimaginable bastard, you!”  Actually, I just want to live my life without someone’s foot on my neck.

It still amazes me, too, as I read the Mothering dot com forums every once in awhile, or as I read the featured article in the publication itself, that often the things they rail against all fall into this narrative:  Let us parent the way we want to.  We don’t want the government involved in our parenting decisions.  Hey, that sounds downright conservative or libertarian!  Yet there’s apparently not anyone in there that exercises some basic critical thinking skills in order to wonder why they think BO’s the best, or that the only people pushing for less government and not more do not generally vote D.

Reasons for this?  Oh, many, but this post grows long.  Perhaps I’ll continue another time.  But I feel better now.

UPDATE:  I watched the Mother’s Day Code Pink video.  It’s precisely what you’d expect.   My response:

Yes, the world would’ve been a better place had we not fought the Civil War. Slavery was just so great, too bad we had to do away with it.

This video had the (unintended, I’ll wager) effect of making me laugh hysterically. The dismissal of reality on display in it is staggering.

I persist in my belief that wars are not to be sought, but are sometimes necessary.

Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.