Saturday, November 9, 2013

The big dilemma with how we view pro-choicers

So I've mentioned this before, but a lot of pro-choicers honestly don't know scientific facts, or aren't aware of other choices, or have people lying to them about the whole thing. Perhaps this actually makes them seem better, as it may not be their fault, and maybe they aren't the big bad people that want to kill babies but rather are just confused people who are uninformed as their side and society have pulled the wool over their eyes. Then again, maybe it's worse as they should know better and stand up against those trying to convince them of it. On the other hand, in a certain way that's better than then saying "Yeah we know it's a human being, but we don't care, people should be allowed to kill them anyway", and yet recently I came to the conclusion that one of the worst things about the pro-choice side is the fact that they spew so many scientifically illiterate things, and at the very least, if we got rid of all the "it isn't alive" "it's just an appendage of the mother" "it isn't human" garbage and all pro-choicers were just "yeah we recognize that it's a living human being but we think that mothers should have the right to do away with them" then life would be so much better, because at least they wouldn't be spewing unscientific crap that makes us think they are really just trying to justify it all with their bigotry, or perhaps they were wronged, or this will only help to further brainwash that side into actually believing all of that, and maybe that would be a step in the right direction as that big brainwashing mechanism which is the reason for a lot of people being pro-choice would be taken away from them and it could lead to less people being pro-choice.

So I guess what I'm saying is that this seems like a bit of a predicament. I'm sure it's also an area for lots of different sides and viewpoints in the pro-life side. You also have the pro-choicers who know it's killing and admit it and say there's nothing wrong with it and maybe wouldn't mind doing it, or people that act like it's great, like closer to your pro-abortion people, who on the one hand seem horrible, but on the other hand at least are more consistent and honest than their counterparts who are "personally pro-life" and think that abortion is a horrible thing, but think that we can't tell women to not do it, even though we don't do that with anything else, such as murder in general or rape.

The abortion doctors who know it is a human being and baby and life and they are killing it are great because it will help people understand these things and we can say "see, even they know it", but then are horrible because they are ACTUALLY fine with killing. The person who blatantly describes abortion like it is infanticide is horrible for being ok with that, but necessary for showing people that it IS infanticide. The person who honestly believes they are supporting women's rights by being pro-choice and doesn't realize the humanity of the unborn, and normally wouldn't hurt a fly, is better for being that type of person, but bad because they are supporting the stereotypes and a culture that hurts our young, but then that is split up into who was the one who wronged them and actually made them think that, as well as why on earth didn't they have the sense to realize that that is obvious bull and they should think for themselves?

It's hard. My empathy censors are going in all sorts of directions and I just don't know how to feel. Sometimes I want to hug those who actually think it's "just a clump of cells" and dehumanize, as I know they were brainwashed into believing that, and other times I hate that they are like that, and probably have convinced other people that that is actually true, as they even said it and are telling people that, and that's how it keeps spreading.

Tuesday, October 1, 2013

Feminist pro-choicers being open to the fact that feminists are diverse in every way, except not abortion

While I will always consider myself a feminist, it seems to have been taken over by a pro-abortion stance, with some people claiming that if you are pro-life, you can't be a feminist, as abortion rights is what feminism is about. Yet feminists usually tend to agree that you can be feminist and have a wide array of stances on a wide array of issues. We know that feminists can be sex-positive, sex-negative, pro-porn, anti-porn, pro-BDSM, anti-BDSM, choose to wear makeup, choose to not wear makeup, choose to shave their legs, choose to not shave their legs, choose to wear dresses, choose to not wear dresses, choose to be mothers, choose to never have kids, choose to get married, choose to never get married, choose to be housewives, choose to be career women, more concerned with feminism in the workplace, more concerned with intersectionality,  choose to go from a woman's body to a man's body, choose to go from a man's body to a woman's body, feminists who are nerds, feminists who are rockers, feminists who are gamers, feminists who are outdoorsy, feminists who are nudists, feminists who are athletes, feminists who are artists, feminists who are business people, feminists who are mothers, feminists who are stay at home dads, feminists who are of all races, all countries, all faiths and none, all ages, all genders, all sexual orientations, all sizes, all shapes, who have all disabilities, all diseases, all interests, all political ideologies, have to overcome all challenges, feminists who are this and that and the other and everything in between. So why is it different for the abortion stance? You're not letting anyone choose to be pro-life. That's not very "pro-choice." After all, Feminism started off pro-life. Apparently the people who started feminism in the first place, wouldn't be considered feminist by these people. Since they created and defined feminism to begin with, there must not be such a thing as feminism. Feminist pro-lifers aren't going anywhere. There are many pro-life feminist groups. You'll have to learn to accept it eventually.

To make it all about abortion is very limiting. You are throwing away all this good that can be done to make the sexes equal and help people not be judged by or have disadvantages because of their gender, all for the sake of trying to keep ONE thing around and say that ONLY people who believe in that ONE thing are good people, or adequate enough to call themselves something. THIS is one of the reasons why feminism is looked down upon, and many feminists don't realize they are feminists. Feminists themselves are making other feminists think they aren't feminists because they have pro-life views. We all hate how much people don't realize they are feminist. We all know the "Well I'm not a feminist, I just believe in (insert what feminists believe in)" circumstance that happens ALL the time, so why do that TO them? If they are feminist besides that, why wouldn't you HATE it if they didn't realize they were feminist, just like you do with people who do that in general? Feminism DOES NOT equal abortion.

Not only that but it really shows a lack of priorities. There are so many things wrong with the world, wrong with gender discrimination, wrong with women being raped and killed and this and that just for being women, and you are more concerned about women having a right to abortion? SERIOUSLY? Not to mention the females BEING KILLED IN THE WOMB JUST FOR BEING FEMALES!! But oh wait, you say we have to support that because a woman can choose no matter what, or let's just ignore it because it'll hurt our pro-choice movement. There are also women being FORCED or COERCED into abortions, but oh wait, we have to keep it legal for the greater good, all the bad things that come with it be damned. Not to mention all the women who regret abortion and have PTSD and suicidal thoughts and tendencies, or who have actually killed themselves because of it, but oh wait, we need it legal, and we need people to be pro-choice, so let's just ignore them and say they don't exist and it's all lies, even though you can hear their stories everywhere, so that we can keep abortion. Some people are going to be casualties, right? All of that really shows a lack of caring about women.

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Margaret Sanger (Planned Parenthood founder) was pro-life

Likewise, so was Marie Stopes (the namesake of the UK version of Planned Parenthood) which I will talk about after Margaret)

So I heard about this from one of the people who posted on my Riot Grrrls For Life Pro-Life facebook page when I first started it. She mentioned that Margaret Sanger was pro-life and she really liked her, and so at first I was shocked, as I had assumed that she was the queen of abortion, as that's what everyone, pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike, make it seem like, and what with her being the founder of the main voice for pro-choice, I guess I assumed it like everyone else does. So I start to look it up, not knowing what to expect, and it turns out, she was right. She hated abortion for several reasons and has a lot of good pro-life quotes. I found this link talking about how that one infanticide quote was totally taken out of context, and what she really said about abortion and infanticide, and how she often linked abortion, infanticide, and child abandonment together, calling them all "horrors" and the like, and other things like that, and this link that said the same stuff and gave more quotes. You can actually go to her book Woman and the New Race from there as it links it, or hey I'll just give it to you here, and it is written all over how much she hates abortion and infanticide and other things like that. Also, you can look at her wikipedia page. Some pro-choicers will try to brush it off like it doesn't matter or she was only against abortion because of how dangerous it is to pregnant women, but she clearly has said at least a few times that it was because it was the taking of a life, so I'm sure it was for both reasons.

In fact, Planned Parenthood pamphlets used to advocate against abortion, saying "An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that if you want a child you cannot have it. Birth control merely postpones the beginning of life." I guess the phrase "every child a wanted child" was first only meant in reference to birth control as well, since it says that on there too. Here are links I found for that.



I'm not saying she was a good person, and I'm not saying she wasn't racist or for eugenics (though honestly I don't know), but I am saying that everything like that she was for, was only with wanting to prevent them before conception so that no one was killing any human beings. She worked to secure birth control in part to get rid of abortions and infanticide. She knew that it was the taking of a life, so she wanted to take care of the situation before that happened. She seems like one of those people who is both good and bad. Some things about them you love, and others you hate. It did at least give me more respect for her, because in researching this, I found that I liked a lot of what she wrote.

They added abortion to Planned Parenthood after her death, and I'm sure that's why everyone assumes it, and no one corrects people. I'm sure if more people knew their founder worked to get rid of abortion, less people would support PP, or there would be some sort of outrage, and so they probably keep it under wraps. Also, the more conservative and religious pro-lifers really like to paint her as the queen of abortion and infanticide, and I have even posted that she was pro-life on a few pro-life pages, and they argued with me and tried to act like it wasn't true, and one even blocked me, even though I didn't do anything other than simply state that and post those links. So, funny enough the pro-life side is also fueling this false info, when really they could be using the fact that she was pro-life to say it's disrespectful that Planned Parenthood have abortion services. Or like that first link from the livelydust blog states, "And anyway, why would pro-lifers want to base a campaign against abortion on misinformation? Why not just sweetly point out that Planned Parenthood's founder called abortion a horror and devoted her life to making it unnecessary?"

We really should be doing that. Why bother to keep pushing a lie just because it makes someone look like they support abortion, when the people who support her already do, when you could be telling the truth and saying that even the woman pro-choicers love and celebrate as the leader of women owning their bodies and reproductive rights, was against this?

Here are some of her quotes:

"Although abortion may be resorted to in order to save the life of the mother, the practice of it merely for limitation of offspring is dangerous and vicious. I bring up the subject here only because some ill-informed persons have the notion that when we speak of birth control we include abortion as a method. We certainly do not. Abortion destroys the already fertilized ovum or the embryo; contraception, as I have carefully explained, prevents the fertilizing of the ovum by keeping the male cells away. Thus it prevents the beginning of life."

"To each group we explained simply what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way—it took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worth while in the long run, because life had not begun."

"Human society must protect its children–yes, but prenatal care is most essential! The child-to-be, as yet not called into being, has rights no less imperative."

"While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization."

""It is apparent that nothing short of contraceptives can put an end to the horrors of abortion and infanticide"

"[It is] the most barbaric method [of family planning], the killing of babies — infanticide — abortion."

"Usually this desire [for family limitation] has been laid to economic pressure... It has asserted itself among the rich and among the poor, among the intelligent and the unintelligent. It has been manifested in such horrors as infanticide, child abandonment and abortion."

"When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become the foundation of a new race. There will be no killing of babies in the womb by abortion, nor through neglect in foundling homes, nor will there be infanticide."


It makes sense that Margaret Sanger was pro-life as all the feminists of the time were.

Marie Stopes was likewise one of these pro-life feminists who worked to further birth control yet had the biggest abortion facility named after her after her death. From her wikipedia,

"Stopes was strongly against the termination of a pregnancy once it had started: her clinics did not offer abortions during her life. She saw birth control as the only way families should limit their size.
The nurses at her clinic had to sign a declaration in which they swore not to "impart any information or lend any assistance whatsoever to any person calculated to lead to the destruction in uteroof the products of conception."[50]
When she learned that one of Avro Manhattan's woman friends had had an abortion, Stopes accused him of "murdering" the unborn child.[51]

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/06/22/there-is-no-doubt-the-early-feminists-were-pro-life-on-abortion/
"‘I was glad you gave space to the fact that the Queensland Medical Association is planning an extensive educational campaign against the evil of abortion.’ – Marie Stopes. (When Stopes found out that her contemporary Avro Manhattan had pressured one of his lovers into having an abortion, she called him a murderer to his face. And when William Carpenter named his abortion shop after her, she took legal action against him. But today, the largest abortion business in the UK bears her name since it was founded in 1976, eighteen years after her death.)"

Monday, September 16, 2013

The Pro-Choice side is based on lies

So from searching all of this stuff and trying to find like-minded people, I have found the history on why and how pro-life turned from being a liberal and feminist thing to pro-choice being a liberal and feminist thing, and it turns out, it is all based off of shysters lying to people and them being gullible and eating it up, hook, line, and sinker. I found this article, Why Liberals Should Defend the Unborn, that explains that a lot of what turned liberals pro-choice was the eugenicists and population controllers, and they went and campaigned for abortion, saying that poor women should have access to what rich women had, and framing abortion as a matter of justice to the poor, and there is even a scary quote by Alan Guttmacher, the president of Planned Parenthood, "If you're going to curb population", he said, "it's extremely important not to have it done by the damned Yankee, but by the UN. Because the thing is, then it is not considered genocide. If the united states goes to the black man or the yellow man and says slow down your reproductive rate, we're immediately suspected to have ulterior motives to keep the white man dominant in the world. If you can send in a colorful UN force, you've got much better leverage." In addition to that, the article says it was also the lies about when life begins and abortion and so on the Roe case told, which you can read more about in this new book detailing all of that, Abuse of Discretion: The Inside Story of Roe v. Wade, and that's in addition to the lies they told about what the women in those cases wanted, which I will get to later on in this post, people being led astray by institutions and people they relied on, people being gullible and not going with their own better instincts and bothering to think about how this issue betrayed their key principles, the gloomy European ideologies left over from the 1800s and early 1900s which were more rigid and less hopeful than early American views and liberal views which tended to be pretty optimist and idealist, and that also helped to turn the feminism of the 60s pro-choice, and Karl Marx's materialism and an essay that Friedrich Engels wrote that was hostile toward marriage and indifferent to children, Sigmund Freud's sexual theories making people assume sexual restraint is psychologically harmful, and the sexual revolution of the 60s that treated children as unwanted byproducts of sex.

While I love the sexual revolution and do think that too much sexual restraint is harmful, I could see it being too careless that way and making people think that they don't have to take care of the outcomes of sex as much. I think we can come to a place where we value everyone's sexuality and let them do whatever they want that way, but realize there are consequences and real adults take care of them. It came second nature to me. I have always known sex was incredibly natural and supported things like prostitution as long as all are consenting adults and there was no sex trafficking, and polygamy as long as there is no sexism, and sex whatever way you want it, with whomever you want (of course as long as all are consenting adult humans), and however much you want, yet of course there would be things to look out for such as pregnancy and STDs, so I never guessed people would actually advocate for opting out of their responsibilities. We know there are so many consequences to so many things, yet no one has a problem taking responsibility with anything else, lest they be considered a very immature person who isn't doing what they should.

Here is another article that explains how the left adopted abortion. I'll just pull out quotes that give a good summary of the reasons. "One factor was the popular civil libertarian rationale for freedom of choice in abortion. Many feminists presented it as a right of women to control their own bodies." "Unfortunately, many liberals and radicals accepted this view without further question." "Class issues provided another rationale. In the late 1960s, liberals were troubled by evidence that rich women could obtain abortions regardless of the law, by going to careful society doctors or countries where abortion was legal. Why, they asked, should poor women be barred from something the wealthy could have?" "Many liberals were also persuaded by a church/state argument that followed roughly this line: "Opposition to abortion is a religious viewpoint, particularly a Catholic viewpoint. The Catholics have no business imposing their religious views on the rest of us."" "Still another, more emotional reason is that so many conservatives oppose abortion. Many liberals have difficulty accepting the idea that Jesse Helms can be right about anything. I do not quite understand this attitude. Just by the law of averages, he has to be right about something, sometime. Standing at the March for Life rally at the U.S. Capitol last year, and hearing Senator Helms say that "We reject the philosophy that life should be only for the planned, the perfect, or the privileged," I thought he was making a good civil-rights statement. If much of the leadership of the pro-life movement is right-wing, that is due largely to the default of the Left. We "little people" who marched against the war and now march against abortion would like to see leaders of the Left speaking out on behalf of the unborn. But we see only a few, such as Dick Gregory, Mark Hatfield, Jesse Jackson, Richard Neuhaus, Mary Rose Oakar. Most of the others either avoid the issue or support abortion."

I also found a video, The Feminist Case Against Abortion, where Serrin Foster explains that the reason why feminism ended up taking a pro-choice stance was that Lawrence Lader and Dr. Bernard Nathanson were going around the country, and first seen as pariah, trying to tell people that women should have the right to abort. No one was buying it and there wasn't really an outcry for women to have abortions, but they tried all sorts of tactics and slogans and made up a whole bunch of lies to try and convince people that we need this. They came to Betty Friedan, who was the leader of the National Organization of Women, and the one who wrote The Feminine Mystique, and even she wasn't buying it at first, and her book didn't even have anything about abortion in it until after all this happened, but what really got her was them making up a number saying 100,000 women had died from illegal abortions, and they painted it as a civil rights issue, so she got on board thinking she had to legalize it to make it safe - a common misconception that still is around today. To this day, there has never been any documentation of more than 83 or 89 women who have died from illegal abortions, and if people actually thought about it, they would realize how false the 100,000 number was, as there weren't enough women who had died from causes other than those who were already accounted for, to account for that many deaths by abortion, but people just fell for it and didn't use their common sense. So it wasn't even until 1966 that the National Organization for Women included abortion in its list of goals, and even then it was really not a big priority. It just grew from there, and since then, the National Organization for Women has made legalized abortion it's #1 priority, even stating that access to abortion is the most fundamental right of women, without which, all other rights are meaningless.

In fact, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood was pro-life, and Planned Parenthood actually used to advocate against abortions. Here is an old pamphlet of theirs, stating "An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that if you want a child you cannot have it. Birth control merely postpones the beginning of life."



Bernard and Larry were trying to think of  what women want and what the movement was about, to try and persuade them that they needed and wanted this, so they figured it was equality in the workplace and education, and one of the ways they framed it was by telling women that if they wanted to be hired, educated, promoted, and payed like a man, they can't bother the poor employer with maternity and fertility issues.--The employer shouldn't be burdened with your fertility. You'r tummy's gonna ache for the first trimester and you'll feel sick and won't want to go to work, and then you'll want to have time off to have the baby, and then the baby will get ill with something, so you'll disrupt the workplace even more by taking time off when your kid gets sick.-- To this day, women still don't have adequate care for being pregnant or mothers, especially in the workplace, and now I know it is because of this. We need more help to get rid of all that. Women in America still don't have a federal paid maternity leave. These are the reasons people say abortion should be available. They don't need abortion, they need these things fixed.

Abortion proponents promised the women's movement all sorts of good things to further persuade them; that there would be this world of equality, and reduced poverty, even though the term "feminization of poverty" was coined after Roe V. Wade, and that every child would be a wanted child, because hey, we'll just get rid of the unwanted ones, and they won't bother us (which obviously doesn't happen because no matter how unwanted a child is, even if someone totally believes in abortion, it doesn't mean they will have one, and there are still other options that even the most pro-choice people could choose, not to mention that obviously not everyone would think abortion is ok in the first place, no matter how badly pro-choice people would want it, so you can't get rid of other people's unwanted children like that.). This also seemed to be popular in the eugenics crowd. They thought that if you just get rid of poor people and unwanted people and defective people, all the world's problems would be solved. It definitely isn't that easy. Instead of this world of non-violence, child abuse has escalated in every developed country where there is legalized abortion. Rather than shared responsibility for children, even more of the responsibility of children has shifted to women, do to the pro-choice side's "It's a woman's choice" anthem which really put all the pressure on women to make decisions regarding their offspring, and cultured a world where girls grew up thinking they had to take it all on their shoulders or else they were bad women or weren't strong enough or weren't feminist enough or that's just what women do, and guys grew up thinking they had to respect their girlfriends "right to choose" and do what THEY wanted, so they tell their girls that they will support whatever THEY choose, as if men are just supposed to stay out of it and let women do their thing because they are the mothers so that's women's work, and then of course the bad men taking advantage of this and using it as an excuse to get out of taking care of children. The #1 cause of death for pregnant women isn't abortion, it isn't even on the map, it's being beaten to death by their boyfriends who don't want them pregnant. You have schools and colleges who don't allow women or teenage girls to complete their education if they have a child. You have employers today who do not have maternity coverage in their health insurance, won't accommodate women with job-sharing, flex-time, create a virtual office, or pay a living wage. College students say without housing, without daycare, without maternity coverage, it doesn't feel like they have much of a choice.

As it also turns out, it was actually the Feminists, along with what would become the American Medical Association, and the media, who worked  to make abortion illegal in this country in the first place, because they were all in agreement that we needed legal protection for the unborn. I have known all the early American Feminists were pro-life for years now, but I didn't know they were the ones to make abortion illegal in the first place. 100 years later, Roe V. Wade undid everything they worked for.

In addition to that, I found this link that says, "It was in 1827 that the discovery of "conception" revealed when human life begins. As a result, the American Medical Association (AMA) urged state legislators to pass laws protecting the unborn human "from conception" and prohibiting abortion. During the 1800's all states passed laws making abortion a serious crime." and this link that says "The American Medical Association (AMA) declared as far back as 1857 (referenced in the Roe. vs. Wade opinion) that "the independent and actual existence of the child before birth, as a living being” is a matter of objective science. They deplored the “popular ignorance...that the foetus is not alive till after the period of quickening.”" and given the info from Serrin's speech, it seems to fit and give more of the history of how this all went down.

Then of course you have the Roe V. Wade and Doe V. Bolton cases which were also based on lies. Roe was just a pawn used in an attorney's attempt to gain legalized abortion, and was persuaded to lie and say she was raped and needed and abortion, which was not true. She ended up not ever having an abortion. She is now a pro-life advocate vowing to spend the rest of her life undoing Roe V. Wade. Doe never even wanted nor requested an abortion, and she was tricked into signing an affidavit about abortion in the process of filing for divorce from her husband and seeking to regain custody of her other children. She to has become a pro-life spokesperson and is fighting to overturn the court cases. She actually fled the state when her mother and a lawyer tried to force her to have an abortion. She too did not end up ever having an abortion.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/two-women-legalized-abortion-in-america-now-both-of-them-want-it-reversed
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/01/22/woman-behind-roe-v-wade-im-dedicating-my-life-to-overturning-it/?utm_content=buffer5bb9d&utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer

There were also Nixon tapes that came out a few years ago that shows that the conservative presidency of the time wasn't all that against abortion, that had this scary quote, “There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white,”

Dr. Bernard Nathanson turned pro-life in the 70s after seeing an ultrasound of an abortion, and admitted all the lies he told and the story behind how they were selling abortion. He has come out with a few books, Aborting America, and The Hand of God: A Journey from Death to Life by the Abortion Doctor Who Changed His Mind, telling his story. I'll post a few quotes where he says some of the lies and tactics they used.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/abortion/ab0005.html
"The First Key Tactic was to capture the media
We persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a liberal enlightened, sophisticated one. Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated, we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls. We announced to the media that we had taken polls and that 60% of Americans were in favour of permissive abortion. This is the tactic of the self-fulfilling lie. Few people care to be in the minority.
We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000 but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000. Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200 - 250 annually. The figure constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false figures took root in the consciousness of Americans convincing many that we needed to crack the abortion law. Another myth we fed to the public through the media was that legalizing abortion would only mean that the abortions taking place illegally would then be done legally. In fact, of course, abortion is now being used as a primary method of birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1500% since legalization.
The Second Key Tactic was to Play the Catholic Card
We systematically vilified the Catholic Church and its “socially backward ideas” and picked on the Catholic hierarchy as the villain in opposing abortion. This theme was played endlessly. We fed the media such lies as “we all know that opposition to abortion comes from the hierarchy and not from most Catholics” and “Polls prove time and again that most Catholics want abortion law reform.” And the media drum-fired all this into the American people, persuading them that anyone opposing permissive abortion must be under the influence of the Catholic hierarchy and that Catholics in favour of abortion are enlightened and forward-looking. An inference of this tactic was that there were no non-Catholic groups opposing abortion. The fact that other Christian as well as non-Christian religions were (and still are) monolithically opposed to abortion was constantly suppressed, along with pro-life atheists’ opinions.
The Third Key Tactic was the Denigration and Suppression of all Scientific Evidence that Life Begins at Conception
I am often asked what made me change my mind. How did I change from prominent abortionist to pro-life advocate? In 1973, I became director of obstetrics of a large hospital in New York City and had to set up a perinatal research unit, just at the start of a great new technology which we now use every day to study the fetus in the womb. A favorite pro-abortion tactic is to insist that the definition of when life begins is impossible; that the question is a theological or moral or philosophical one, anything but a scientific one. Fetology makes it undeniably evident that life begins at conception and requires all the protection and safeguards that any of us enjoy.
Why, you may well ask, do some American doctors who are privy to the findings of fetology, discredit themselves by carrying out abortions? Simple arithmetic: at $300.00 a time 1.55 million abortions means an industry generating $500,000,000 annually, of which most goes into the pocket of the physician doing the abortion. It is clear that permissive abortion is purposeful destruction of what is undeniably human life. It is an impermissible act of deadly violence. One must concede that unplanned pregnancy is a wrenchingly difficult dilemma. But to look for its solution in a deliberate act of destruction is to trash the vast resourcefulness of human ingenuity, and to surrender the public weal to the classic utilitarian answer to social problems.
As a scientist I know, not believe, know that human life begins at conception. Although I am not a formal religionist, I believe with all my heart that there is a divinity of existence which commands us to declare a final and irreversible halt to this infinitely sad and shameful crime against humanity."

I'd like to point out that these are still around today and still just as false, and regarding the false numbers they made up saying most people supported abortion, that stigma is still working to make people believe the hype today, with this gallup poll showing that most Americans falsely think that more people are pro-choice, when really it is pretty even yet actually more people are pro-life.

On the illegalized abortion leading to more women dying lie, Ground Breaking Study From Chile

                                                      National Center For Health Statistics


“We fed the public a line of deceit, dishonesty, a fabrication of statistics and figures. We succeeded because the time was right and the news media co-operated. We sensationalized the effects of illegal abortions, and fabricated polls which indicated that 85 percent of the public favoured unrestricted abortion, when we knew it was only 5 percent. We unashamedly lied, and yet our statements were quoted (by the media) as though they had been written in law.”

"How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In NARAL, we generally emphasized the frame of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always 5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year. I confess that I knew that the figures were totally false and I suppose that others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the 'morality' of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics? The overriding concern was to get the laws eliminated, and anything within reason that had to be done was permissible."

A lot of the false mottos and whatnot that were around in the 70s, still get spewed out today by pro-choicers. That is, after all, where all the "it's just a clump of cells" "it's not alive" "it's just a part of her body" "we need it legal so that it's safe as so many women die from illegal abortions" and so on and so forth came from. Most of the views held today by pro-choicers are false political rhetoric that their side never corrected so they had no reason to stop saying it all. We can actually pity them a bit though. Some of them honesty believe this stuff, or think they are doing the right thing, and don't realize they had the wool pulled over their eyes.


Wednesday, September 4, 2013

What they need are other options

One of the most annoying things about the pro-choice side, and I have been hearing it more and more as time goes on, is that they talk about how abortion should be available because lots of women can't work and have a kid at the same time, or don't have the money to raise a kid, or can't be single mothers, and so on, so essentially they say women need abortion because the system is screwed up and there aren't perfect other choices for women.

This is bad for several reasons. For one thing, it stops people from actually helping women and giving them these things so that they can have an excuse to say "this is why we need abortion" and for another thing, it essentially forces women to have abortions as they feel like they have no other choice. Those on the pro-choice side are usually the ones to say women only choose it when they feel like they have no other choice, yet they try so hard to make sure a bad choice that no woman ever wants to choose stays around, and especially at the expense of actually giving them other choices. They are clearly not pro-woman. When mentioning that women need abortion because sometimes they can't be, or don't think they can be working mothers, single mothers, student mothers, poor mothers etc. I try to explain to them that this is why my liberal/feminist pro-life side is in support of the other choices and social safety nets for mothers, and an overall support for motherhood, and it's weird because it seems like they've accepted it and don't care for helping those situations, but rather use it as an excuse to say, "Well see this is why abortion should be available." I don't know why Liberals or Feminists would do that, as it fits those ideologies better-and is always better-to help all the other choices instead of accepting them being faulty so that you can push your one poor choice agenda. That doesn't sound very pro-woman to me. When you have women who feel like they have no other choice than to abort, and you are using that to say, "This is why we need abortion" instead of, "This is why we need to fix the system and make sure there are so many options, and good ones at that", that sounds neither liberal nor feminist. 

It seems like a big no duh to me. "Well some mothers are poor and wouldn't be able to take care of a child"...um yeah, that's why we should tell them of all the other choices, and help make sure there are financial availabilities, and giver her some help, and give more support for being a mother, for the woman personally, and in general, so that eventually our country would have to change into one where mothers would have lots of paid maternity leave etc. and can actually easily be mothers. The fact that abortion would even come into their minds when talking about the injustices that pregnant women, mothers and children face, is rather telling. That on top of constantly acting like all people against abortion want to force the woman to raise an unwanted child (especially since most abortions aren't about the children being unwanted but the women feeling like they can't be the mothers they want to be) when there are such things as adoption and safe surrender, really make me think they only care about that one choice. If all the energy spent making sure women have the right to abort went into supporting all the other choices, and the act of being a mother in general, abortion wouldn't even be an issue.

Here is a post on how the pro-life side does support women's other choices and give support for pregnant women vs. how little the pro-choice side does.

Sometimes I actually think that it is the abortion industry keeping it this way because they know that so many less people would be pro-choice if there were much more options and better options available and there wasn't really a need for abortion. Think about it, a lot of people find abortion horrible but say women need to be able to choose it, but they still hate it being used basically as a back up contraception or it used easily and willy nilly. They say it has to be around for women in tight situations and with good reasons, but greatly frown upon women who just want to go out and do it for the heck of it. If people were already aware of all the options, or there were more and better options, so many more people would be pro-life because abortion would be left to women who could have very easily chosen a different choice yet didn't, and if there are more pro-lifers, and more/better/women knowing of choices, not only would you have people voting pro-life more and not voting pro-choice, but you would have less and less abortions, and eventually abortion would be outlawed, so abortionists would lose a whole bunch of money, and so many people would be out of work, and pro-choice politicians would have way less of a voice and be less likely to get elected. The abortion industry would crumble, and it has spent 40 years building itself up on the lies it tells people to try to get support. I'm not saying that's definitely what has been happening, but it's something to think about. We saw this clearly in Texas. Even most pro-choicers hate late-term abortion and would vote against it, yet the media and even some of these pro-choicers painted the Texas laws like it was so horrible and "stand with Texas women" even though Texas women especially didn't want that, but oh no, since it was the pro-lifers who were trying to get rid of abortion far enough along that nobody wants it and get abortion clinics up to code and doing exactly what pro-choicers always wanted and said should be done, they rejected it. They acted like it was so bad just because it would stop some abortions THAT ARE DANGEROUS IN THE FIRST PLACE AND WHAT YOU GUYS ARE ALWAYS COMPLAINING ABOUT and passed it off, and acted like pro-lifers must have some ulterior motive and suddenly changed their tune just because it would of course stop some abortions from happening and it was proposed and supported by pro-lifers. They  always say they want it "safe legal and rare" yet they really only care about the legal part. They have to have it by their people for their reasons or else they'll be hypocritical and not want it, even if it is the main reason they argue abortion should be legalized. I bet if pro-lifers did have a lot of laws they were trying to pass that totally helped out pregnant women and mothers and made it so less and less women would choose abortion, especially if that meant some would close down because of lack of need for them, pro-choicers would be against it because of that and because it was pro-lifers who did it. In fact, I bet you that has already happened. They don't care about women at all. Well ok, a lot of them don't. I guarantee you there would be some thinking this is so stupid right alongside us.

Also, I find it so odd that in a feminist society where they successfully made abortion illegal and have kept it legal and they have gotten so many other things for women, they couldn't secure more rights for pregnant women and mothers and children. That truly shoes where their priorities lie.  If feminists really wanted support for pregnant women, they could easily get it. They are just more concerned about that one choice. Mind you I'm a feminist too, so I'm only talking about the pro-choice feminists, but pro-life feminists need more people to support pregnant women in order to get anywhere with it. Feminism should change it's path to support women who actually want to be mothers yet feel like they have no other choice. What about their rights? What about pro-choice in that sense?

As the saying goes, abortion is a band-aid solution to a much bigger problem. It takes women and puts them right back in the situations they were in before they got the abortion. Abortion doesn't solve anything. 


Here is a good quote from Pro-Life Humanists...
"Feminist author Frederica Matthews-Green once pointed out that “No woman wants an abortion as she wants an ice cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal caught in a trap wants to gnaw off its own leg.”    The challenge for our ever-evolving society  is this:    Are we going to hand the woman a hack-saw and help her amputate her leg?   Or are we wise and capable enough to come up with creative ways of removing the offending trap, without destroying the leg in the process  -  especially when that “leg” is a fellow human being?"

Saturday, August 31, 2013

Finding the organizations for people like me

So after I started finding out that apparently pro-life was somehow on the conservative and non-feminist side and vice versa, I decided to look for people like me. It actually wasn't that hard. I found Feminists For Life pretty easily and early on, and then I knew that I was right and that pro-life was a feminist thing, and learned that even the early feminists were pro-life. I also found this video where a woman says "I think the figure often used is 43%, approximately 43% of all Democrats are Pro-Life." I remember telling my mom that. In the video, she explains that pro-life Democrats tend to be more passive, and don't take on leadership positions, and so their voices are diluted. I can see that, as this is an area where a lot of people would still be in the closet, as it is not the majority and this is such a polarizing and controversial issue. I found some liberal and feminist pro-life quotes and stuck them in a notepad document that I've had now for years, though I only keep adding to it. I also found the Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League, which has members list of hundreds of members, a lot of whom are also liberal. When I got on facebook, the first pro-life page I found was searching for a liberal pro-life page and finding Pro-Life Liberals, and that became the basis for my connects to other people like me. I started to look around the web, and found that a lot of people also thought that considering what liberalism is about (helping the poor, the innocent, equal rights for all, hating all violence etc.) that pro-life would most definitely be liberal. I'm surprised it took me a while to find Democrats For Life of America though, but then again I keep finding more and more. I also found Secular Pro-Life (actually I think I first heard about them from this article), and that was great because not only did they advocate from a secular perspective, but they have a lot of science based stances, and you can probably learn from them with the science behind it all. Here is that post where I list a whole bunch of liberal, feminist, Atheist, and those related pro-life groups as well as other important resources. I'm so glad I turned out to be right, and there are also a lot of people who think like me as well.

Here is what I had on that notepad document

"The feminist Elizabeth Cady Stanton wrote to Julia Ward Howe in 1873, "When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit."

In his book (All Men are Are Brothers: The Life and Thoughts of Mahatma Ghandhi As Told in His Own Words), Mahatma Gandhi, the prophet of nonviolence, wrote, "[I]t seems to me as clear as daylight that abortion would be a crime."

Another great feminist, Susan B. Anthony who worked with Elizabeth Cady Stanton in the battle for women's suffrage wrote, "Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!"

Finally, in an election message in October of this year, Alveda King Beal, the niece of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., said, "Please, I urge you, do not be distracted by political rhetoric. The most pressing civil rights issue of this season is the protection of the lives of the pre-born."

Former president Bill Clinton in a letter to the Arkansas Right to Life dated September 26, 1986 wrote, "I am opposed to abortion and to government funding of abortions. We should not spend state funds on abortions because so many people believe abortion is wrong."

Former Democratic presidential candidate Rev. Jesse Jackson spoke at the 1977 pro-life march in Washington D.C. and asked, "What happens … to the moral fabric of a nation that accepts the aborting of the life of a baby without a pang of conscience."

Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts said to his constituents in 1971 that, "abortion on demand is not in accordance with the value which our civilization places on human life."

Of primary importance to Anthony was the granting to woman the right to her own body which she saw as an essential element for the prevention of unwanted pregnancies, using abstinence as the method. In The Revolution, Anthony wrote in 1869 about the subject, arguing that instead of merely attempting to pass a law against abortion, the root cause must also be addressed. Simply passing an anti-abortion law would, she wrote, "be only mowing off the top of the noxious weed, while the root remains."[8] Anthony continued: "Guilty? Yes, no matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; but oh! thrice guilty is he who, for selfish gratification, heedless of her prayers, indifferent to her fate, drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime."[8]"

Saturday, August 10, 2013

Finding out all your favorite bands are pro-choice

One of the really hard things about being a very liberal, grunge/alternative rocker chick who is pro-life, is finding out that all of your favorite bands are pro-choice. I think I found out when I was still assuming that liberals were always on the side of pro-life and vice versa. I had to find out that Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Stone Temple Pilots, and whoever else were, and that L7 actually started Rock For Choice. It is soooo horrible to have to come to terms with the fact that the only people you fit in with, your tribe, your fellow bohemian outcasts, actually advocate for lack of rights for the unborn and women being able to get rid of their own offspring. It makes you feel so weird, and like an outcast all over again, but questioning how people so much like you can be so different in this one way.

The way I came to terms with it is by realizing that this is literally the only thing we disagree on, and that should be worth something. We have all these things in common, all these similar values, all these similar tastes in music and art and vibes and culture, and these people's music is the reason I haven't killed myself yet, and the medicine I use to get rid of all pain and sadness, and what makes me happy and feel connected, so am I really going to throw that away all for one difference? It's not like I'd be able to stop liking their music because of it anyway, and if I didn't have their music, I don't know, I feel like I'd just die or something. I'd cease to exist. Same with feeling like I can relate to these people.

Thursday, August 1, 2013

Intellectual dishonesty in the pro-choice side/abortion industry

So I have heard a LOT of stories and of people who turned from pro-choice to pro-life or got an abortion and regretted it based off of the fact that they honestly didn't know and weren't told about the facts of the unborn, other choices, or what an abortion is or does. I've heard people say they literally go to pro-choice groups or websites and they won't give out info of other choices, or they will use lots of euphemisms and not tell the truth about the unborn, and I have even heard pro-choicers actually say we should be dehumanizing. This really does a disservice to their own supporters, as they don't actually know what they are supporting. They have the wool pulled over their eyes, and that isn't fair to them.

The problem with this is that whenever we advocate for lack of knowledge of something, we're doing it wrong and ensuring that people will make decisions they regret as they didn't have all the info to begin with. That's why all the post-abortive women who regret it's number 1 complaint is that people acted like it was just a "routine medical procedure" (There is also the problem of the more feminist women being told by their feminist friends that they have to be pro-choice in order to be a proper feminist and support womanhood, or telling them they should get an abortion if they are in whatever situation), or like it was no big deal and ignored to tell them info about anything, and they honestly didn't really know what they were doing, or maybe they did in the back of their heads but everyone acted like it was no big deal and skipped over what it actually is and does, so they went along with it. Here is my playlist for post-abortive women telling their stories and how they regret it. These women wish people actually told them stuff. They end up thinking it was their fault when really it's the society that decides to hide info and act like they can "exercise their legal right to choose" and use euphemisms the whole way. Dehumanizing and hiding info and not telling them of all their options is bad for everyone. We all hate abstinence only education because of that as well, so just think of that.

The only thing to say when a woman says she's pregnant is to tell her all of her options and any nearby pregnancy support centers or hotlines or websites and make sure she feels supported and is informed as possible on everything available to her, and that includes the support and choices she has like all the social safety nets and financial stuff and daycare and adoption and safe surrender/safe haven and so on and so forth, as well as what is happening with her unborn, and what an abortion is.

I just recently came across a post of a picture of abortion victims, and someone there posted that it wasn't an abortion and it was propaganda, and it made me realize that they really don't know what abortion looks like and that they are also told that anything showing abortion or describing abortion is just propaganda and they shouldn't believe it. I have come across a lot of abortion supporters that are very abortion illiterate, and if you try to describe it to them, they'll deny it and act like that's not what happens. These poor people have no idea what they are supporting. You can go see what the abortion doctors themselves say about the procedure, yet if you describe it to them or show them pictures or medical diagrams showing the procedure, pro-choicers are told not to believe this, that it must be propaganda from the pro-lifers who are distorting the truth, or make up lies about how abortions are always early enough to where it isn't developed yet and thus there is no blood or gore, or it doesn't even look human yet, or whatever else. I literally just came across a page where the admins were defended deleting comments and posts, and granted I didn't see the comments they were referring to so they could have been ones with the more conservative and religious side actually lying a bit, but usually you get that about the unborn or abortion in general, but they were going on and on about the "anti-woman forced birth opinions" and that they rely on lies. They actually think that people who are pro-life are lying about it all. This spreads even more of a stereotype that they are, especially when they delete comments so that no one can see what the person says and no further dialogue can be attained, so they have to take the admin's word for it, and once again advocates for a lack of knowledge of abortion, the unborn, other choices, how it hurts woman, and so on and so forth. Anything about any of that is not allowed to seep through to the media, and I've noticed pages who lean pro-choice will delete and block pro-lifers and pro-life comments more than any other pages delete and block. It's total censorship, and ensuring a world full of a lack of information on this subject. These people are so brainwashed it's ridiculous.

It is odd when you have pro-choicers advocating for lack of knowledge of it and not showing what it is. This is what you SUPPORT! This is the choice you proudly stand behind and say you think people should be allowed to choose, yet you can't stand to see it or know what it is about. That should be clue that you perhaps don't actually want to be supporting it. There was this controversy where a paper refused to show an accurate image of  a baby at 20-24 weeks and labelled it as being controversial. I love the quote Secular Pro-Live gave, and I couldn't have said it better myself, "If you find an accurate image controversial, it's time to reconsider your philosophy." 

There was also this one where three physicians were planning on giving presentations on risks of abortions, and their presentations were cancelled because of that. This just ensures even further that women will be more likely to end up going through all of this because they weren't told about it, because pro-choicers really like to censor those things.

It has been proven to work where pro-lifers by abortion clinics tell the girls coming in of other options instead of just shouting at them or calling them names, and they actually choose something else. When they know they actually do have other choices, they choose them. This shows that the people around them either weren't giving them enough support or weren't being honest and telling them of their other choices (though perhaps they honestly didn't know either.) Everyone (especially pro-choicers) always says that women only choose abortion because they feel like they have no other choice, and that's true. The thing is, they do have other choices. They just don't get told about them that much, and everyone's first response to a pregnancy is, "you know you can exercise your legal right to choose, right?" It all becomes about politics, and making sure they know first and foremost that they can abort, and that helps to ignore the other options and support for those other options as well. Supporting a choice that you know women only choose because they have no other choice, especially if you don't spend that much time on the other choices, is NOT pro-choice. It is anti-choice. I have heard so many sentiments from pro-choicers who prove that they really only care about that one choice. To them, even if you support all the other choices, you're a bad person if you don't support this one. One would think they would want to get rid of that choice and totally help out all the other choices, since they are so "pro-woman" and "pro-choice" and women only choose it because they feel like they have to and it isn't even a good choice (actually the worst) anyway. If it were that great of a choice, women would be lining up to do it with pride and utter happiness, or at the very least, not choose it because they feel like they have no other choice. To keep supporting something like that, and then claim to actually care about women, is just sick. Perhaps the pro-lifers that actively work towards getting women more choices, better and fixing the choices, and them knowing of their choices more should actually be the ones to be called pro-choice.

They aren't told what the unborn goes through, they aren't shown any pictures or ultrasounds, or pictures of abortion victims (or if they see them they are taught that it must be wrong and just political weaponry from the pro-lifers, or they are so gung-ho about their own position that they don't really pay attention to them) and a lot of people have turned pro-life or found out about what happens to the unborn just by seeing ultrasounds or sonograms or pictures or abortions or reading info about the unborn, and realizing that what they thought was "just a clump of cells" actually looked like a human, and had already formed this and that and the other. The pro-choice side is full of a lot of outdated mottos that still get spread around even though it isn't the 70s anymore and we have much better technology and a greater knowledge of science. People in their side just don't spread around the new info, and keep feeding people lies. Here are some links to just a few of the stories I have seen where people describe how their former side and the abortion industry is full of lack of knowledge, and I'll put parts of note below them...

Why I Lost Faith in the Pro-Choice Movement
"My first tipoff that something was wrong in the pro-choice movement was when I realized that there was a great fear of information. A year or two after Sara's situation, another friend found herself in a crisis pregnancy (also due to failed contraception), and was wrestling with the issue of abortion. She had asked me to find out how far her baby would have developed at this point, so I did some research online.
I found some images and descriptions of fetal development, and was amazed by how much I hadn't known. For all the time I'd spent talking about abortion rights, I'd never bothered to learn the details about what, exactly, happens within a woman's womb when she's pregnant, and no one had encouraged me to do so. I had never heard that fetuses have arms and legs and tastebuds at eight weeks gestation, or that they began practicing breathing at 11 weeks. I paused and thought about that for a long time. It didn't make me question my pro-choice stance, but for the first time I could understand how someone could be uncomfortable with abortion.
The biggest thing I noticed, however, was that pro-life sites had this information in abundance. The pro-lifers encouraged women to educate themselves about the details of pregnancy, suggested that they view ultrasounds to know what was happening within their bodies, and offered resources to educate women about all aspects of the female reproductive system.
On the pro-choice side, it was a totally different story.
I had started my research on websites for abortion providers and various feminist organizations, which I had assumed would equip women to make informed choices by providing them with full information. To my concern and surprise, I could not find one shred of information about fetal development on any websites associated with the pro-choice movement. When I read their literature about the details of abortion procedures, they were full of insulting euphemisms. Even when describing second trimester abortions, they would use eerily vague terms talking about "emptying the uterus" of its "contents." I felt like I had been transported back to Victorian England, where women weren't supposed to be told hard facts, even about their own bodies, because they might get all flustered."


Kristen Hatten's pro-choice feminism to pro-life feminism story
Sadie spoke of human rights, ethics, and science. She explained the provable fact that the unborn human is a distinct and separate life from the moment of his or her conception. She shared the statistic that in more than 99 percent of cases, the pregnant woman willingly engaged in the act that led to her pregnancy. How then, she asked, could she treat her baby as an unwanted alien invader, a nutrient-stealing parasite, in order to justify its killing?
She also talked about the harm done to women by the abortion procedure – physically, mentally, and emotionally. She talked about the brutality of abortion, how the fetus is often ripped limb from limb, and how the woman is often left wounded – and sometimes infertile. She explained “partial-birth abortion.” She made me understand the cycle of violence that is continued when a woman, feeling oppressed herself, passes that oppression on to her children.
I asked to see the photographs to which she’d alluded during our conversation. I saw them. I saw proof of what abortion does, and the lie that says that an unborn child is just a “clump of cells” or a “blob of tissue” was destroyed for me – forever. My ignorance was gone, and I was pro-life.
Don’t get me wrong – I’d seen those images before, but I’d never really seen them. I did not see the humanity of the children shown in those images until my heart was opened to the fact that I was looking at a human being. As a pro-choice woman, when I was shown graphic images of aborted fetuses – held up in front of clinics, at protests, or seen accidentally while surfing the Web – I did not see murdered human beings. I saw my own opinion, assaulted. I saw crazy people holding gross signs, and my mind glossed over the rest.
To this day, I have many friends of various opinions on abortion. I don’t know a single person who has been converted by an unexpected graphic image waved in his or her face, and I don’t like the idea of making a clinic look like a safe haven from the scary people outside. But when I was ready, and asked to see them, graphic images of intact and aborted unborn children were the final nail in the coffin of my pro-abortion beliefs.
I kept saying to Sadie, “Oh, my God. You just made me pro-life.”
I spent the next week on the Internet trying to “un-convince” myself of the truth of abortion, hoping that something would make me pro-choice again. But you can’t unlearn what you’ve learned. Information made me pro-life. Information about the early feminists and their pro-life views convinced me that Sadie told the truth when she called herself a feminist.


I Used To Be Pro-Choice...But... stories from people who went from pro-choice to pro-life
"The whole reason I was pro-choice was based on lies. I was very loyal to Planned Parenthood, but, when I did some research, I found out that a lot of the things they were telling me were false. I didn't know that most of the world's top scientists have said that the fetus is human, and I never really thought about it. I also didn't know that PP was lying when they said 1 million women died as a result of illegal abortions in 1972. The number is closer to 39. There were so many lies that I decided to see what the pro-lifers were really all about, instead of relying on what PP had to say about them. That's when I learned that the fetus deserves to live just as much as any of us. I still believe that if the mother's life is in danger, she can choose, along with the father of the child if he is in the picture, to save her life instead of the child's. But any other time, I now think abortion is murder."

"At one time I was for abortion, until I learned what it is actually about. I was greatly mislead by the media"


Here is a great blog post from Secular Pro-Life mentioning how parents got upset at people distributing fetal models and cards (strictly about prenatal development, not aborted fetus dolls or anything like that and not having anything to do with abortion).


Here is an interesting story, My Fake Abortion Story
"I decided to kick my experiment up a notch and sought out the Pro Life Club on campus. I stormed into their meeting, and said, "Keep your fetus worshippers away from me! If I want to kill this thing I will, I will even kill it myself.'' They were very nice, they tried to calm me down, tell me facts about my child, about abortion, and if I ever heard my other options.

Then I went to our campus' Pro Choice club. I told them I want to abort, had an appointment, but I wasn't sure. If they could me information or facts. I received none. Just warm smiles, ''comfy'' talk, and reassurance about my decision.

Personally I am neither Pro Choice/abortion/ solution/life . I try to see it logically and scientifically . Yet the attention I received from the Pro Choice club versus the Pro Life club was insufficient . It was downright scary. These women who are passionate about their bodies...don't seem to know anything about them, and even seem terrified about the facts surrounding them. I almost felt like the blind being led by the blind."

post about someone's pro-abortion friend seeing an illustration of what happens in an abortion of a 23 week old baby, and realizing she doesn't think she's ok with that.

"I spend a lot of time reading articles. While my friend was visiting, I was reading an article that contained the illustration displayed here, of a D&E abortion of a 23 week old baby.
My friend looked over my shoulder and gasped.
“What are you LOOKING at?” she asked, horrified.
“That’s an abortion,” I answered plainly.
“But, that’s a baby!” she exclaimed. “That doesn’t happen!”
“That’s a 23 week abortion. That happens quite frequently, actually.”"
I tried to remain calm.
She’s not stupid. Really, honestly, she isn’t. She’s actually incredibly intelligent, educated. She has a degree.
I truly believe that my friend has been deceived.
How else could an intelligent, loving individual be completely “pro-choice”?
Deception.
People are told what they want to hear, that it’s “just a blob of tissue,” or they’re told, “abortion is OK in certain circumstances,” and most importantly, they’re told “abortion is a woman’s right.” But when they are presented with the reality that what they thought was a blob of tissue was actually a baby, a human being, a lot of them change their minds. Yes, a lot.
She just stared at the illustration with pain in her eyes.
“I don’t know if I’m OK with that.” She said with finality."


Here is a post about reporters getting to see abortions. 
"“This is kind of gruesome,” I said. “Was there some special reason she didn’t want to have her baby?”
“She wanted an abortion,” the nurse replied, “and we’re required by law to do what she wants.”
The doctor had been listening to our conversation. As he stood up, he said, “At this point in the pregnancy, the products of conception aren’t much.” I knew the emphasis on “products of conception” was for my benefit.
Is that what you have in that pail? I thought. Does that make it easier for you? I did not have the courage to put into words what I was thinking. I’ve always regretted that.
I stepped forward and peered into the pail. This time I broke out in a cold sweat. Dear Jesus! I thought. I just saw someone murdered! And I just stood and watched! Why did I come down here? How will I ever put this out of my mind?
“Are you OK?” the voice of the nurse brought me back.
“I’m sorry,” I smiled weakly. “I just never realized what it was like.
Do you assist with these all the time?”
“More than I care to admit,” the nurse said. “Actually, I can handle one, but when they start to come back for the second or third time, it really gets to me.”
As I left the operating room, I shook my head in an attempt to get the horrible vision out of my head. I couldn’t. It was there; it would always be there: a little hand…a little rib cage.
The author goes on to describe nightmares he had about the abortion. Now he is a pro-life activist."


Also, medical students can turn from pro-choice to pro-life by witnessing abortions and be disgusted by them, as even the scientific and medical minded can be tricked by society and not realize what an abortion actually is. Here is a story about just that.
"To begin, I must say that until yesterday, Friday, July 2, 2004, I was strongly pro-choice."
"This summer, I was accepted into a pre-medical program in NYC in which we are allowed to shadow doctors and see all sorts of medical procedures. When given the opportunity to see an abortion, I did not hesitate to accept the offer."
"The cervix was held open with a crude metal instrument and a large transparent tube was stuck inside of the woman. Within a matter of seconds, the machine’s motor was engaged and blood, tissue, and tiny organs were pulled out of their environment into a filter. A minute later, the vacuum choked to a halt. The tube was removed, and stuck to the end was a small body and a head attached haphazardly to it, what was formed of the neck snapped. The ribs had formed with a thin skin covering them, the eyes had formed, and the inner organs had begun to function. The tiny heart of the fetus, obviously a little boy, had just stopped — forever. The vacuum filter was opened, and the tiny arms and legs that had been torn off of the fetus were accounted for. The fingers and toes had the beginnings of their nails on them. The doctors, proud of their work, reassembled the body to show me. Tears welled up in my eyes as they removed the baby boy from the table and shoved his body into a container for disposal. I have not been able to think of anything since yesterday at 10:30 besides what that baby boy might have been. I don’t think that people realize what an abortion actually is until they see it happen. I have been tortured by these images – so real and so vivid – for two days now…and I was just a spectator.
Never again will I be pro-choice, and never again will I support the murder of any human being, no matter their stage in life."


This is about someone observing abortions for a book, and a couple examples from that.
"In the first session, a woman named Peggy sits with a clinic worker named Carye as the worker explains the procedure. Carye is telling her about how to prepare for her abortion. Korn says:
Peggy’s mind is off on a different track. ‘Is it true that at six weeks it has a heartbeat?’ Carye says nobody is sure exactly when the heart begins beating, and tries to deflect that concern. “This pregnancy and you are the same thing,” she adds, explaining to Peggy that prior to twenty-four weeks the fetus cannot survive outside her womb. (25)
The beating heart of an unborn baby can be heard with a fetal heart monitor or seen on an ultrasound screen in the first trimester. According to The Mayo Clinic “Pregnancy Week by Week” Timeline:
Just four weeks after conception, the neural tube along your baby’s back is closing and your baby’s heart is pumping blood.
Here you can see the image of an unborn baby’s heart working at four weeks and four days after conception. Scientists have known for decades when a baby’s heart started beating.
The clinic worker, rather than giving accurate information to the patient, answers evasively and tries to steer the subject away from the baby’s humanity. “The pregnancy [i.e., not the “the baby” or even “the fetus”] and you are the same thing.” Actually, the “pregnancy” and the mother are not the same thing. The baby has his or her own DNA, circulatory system, and developing organs. The goal of the clinic worker seems to be geared towards shifting Peggy’s view away from seeing her baby as a living being and toward convincing Peggy to accept the “it’s just part of your body” viewpoint that many abortion advocates share.
This is not unbiased counseling."


There was also one of the most extensive interviews of postabortion women ever done. There are tons of scary statistics here, but I'll post the ones that show they felt they had a lack of info below, which is actually most of them.
"82% said there abortion decision was “not at all” “thought out.” Only 9% felt that it was moderately well thought out and only 8% believe the decision had been well thought out.
“Do you feel you had all the necessary information to make a decision?” 93% said no.
40 – 50% of women surveyed were wavering in their choice and were actually hoping for another option when they first went to speak with a counselor.
91% reported that their abortion counselors offer little or no help in exploring her decision and options.
Only 4% of the women gave their abortion counselors high grades for being informative and helpful.
66% believe that there abortion counselors are strongly biased toward selling them on abortion is the best solution.
Only 9% believe that their counselors had been free of pro-choice bias
90% of women surveyed felt they did not have enough information to make an informed choice.
76% complained they were not given an accurate description of the procedure.
For example, there was no mention of the physical pain involved.
Only 16% felt the counseling session had adequately informed them about the technical aspects of the abortion procedure
over 80% remarked that there were little or no discussion of risks
only 8% believe their counselors had adequately discuss the surgical risks of the procedure.
Over 90% of women stated that the biological nature of the fetus had not been discussed during a counseling session.
Only 2% said that the fetal development had been thoroughly or even moderately discussed
asked whether they felt “well-informed about the procedure and fetus through other sources before seeking an abortion.” 90% claimed they had little or no prior knowledge and 5% stated that they had only moderate prior knowledge. Only 4% claim to have been well informed about abortion, fetal development, through prior knowledge.
80% felt their counselors had not encouraged – or even attempt to discourage – questions about the abortion. only 5 to 13% believe that their counselors were open and willing to answer their questions. When questions were asked, only 8% thought the questions were thoroughly answered. 8% believe they receive moderately complete answers and 52 to 71% said the questions were trivialized or avoided
21% were at a Planned Parenthood facility for their counseling and/or abortions. 60% stated that there Planned Parenthood counselor had very strongly encouraged them to choose abortion as the “best solution to their problems. Over 90% of those encouraged to abort by their planned parenthood counselor said there was a strong chance they would’ve chosen against the abortion if they had not been so strongly encouraged to abort by others, including a counselor
Of the Planned Parenthood patients, over 60% were still hoping to find an alternative to abortion when they went for counseling. Only 25% were already firm in their abortion choice. All felt their Planned Parenthood counselor did little or nothing to help them explore their decision. 89% said the Planned Parenthood counselor was strongly biased in favor of abortion.
95% of Planned Parenthood counselors gave “little or no biological information about the fetus which the abortion would destroy.” And over 80% of the Planned Parenthood counselors gave little or no information about the potential health risks
Only 13% felt “adequately prepared” by Planned Parenthood counselors"


Mom Baby God is the name of a pro-abortion play written by an abortion supporter after she went undercover at a Students For Life of America conference and was "disturbed by how much enthusiasm there was for the pro-life issue among youth" and wanted to show her side this and "wake up the pro-abortion movement." Yet she ended up censoring fetal development because this backfired and the facts made her own audience question their pro-choice beliefs.
“The writer admitted during the Question & Answer session after the premiere that she had to rewrite several scenes of the play relating to fetal development, because they were actually causing her audience to question their pro-abortion beliefs.”


There are also a lot of abortion doctors or abortion clinic workers that tell their stories of how they were specifically told to lie to their patients and not let them know about the development of the unborn. They know they are supposed to do this, because if they ever knew the truth, the girl wouldn't choose abortion, and then they would be out of money. You can find a lot of them on Clinic Quotes, especially in these sections, and here is a facebook page for that site as well, Clinic Quotes facebook page, and there is also another facebook page affiliated with that, Abortion Quote of the Day, and I will post some below.

http://clinicquotes.com/former-planned-parenthood-worker-describes-counseling-at-her-clinic/
Former Planned Parenthood worker Catherine Anthony Adair :
“In fact, clinic workers would purposefully avoid providing information on fetal development, what the child looked like, the child’s anatomical development and the pain he or she could feel. I was continuously reminded that when referring to the baby, the appropriate terminology was “clump of cells” or “contents of the uterus.”
Planned Parenthood’s mission is to pressure as many women into having an abortion as it can. Those in charge know that can’t be accomplished if they refer to the child as a “baby.”
Then women would know what was really growing inside them: a little person with a beating heart, functioning nervous system, tiny hands and feet. The child is entirely disregarded. There is no counseling, no care, no waiting and no discussion. Once a pregnancy is confirmed, it is off to termination.”
Catherine Anthony Adair “Planned Parenthood lies about itself” Washington Examiner, 11/22/11. Quoted in Abortion Industry’s “Mission Is To Pressure Women”, Afterabortion.org, Elliot Institute, January 12, 2012.

http://clinicquotes.com/clinic-worker-we-would-find-their-weakness-and-work-on-it/
Former Clinic Worker Deborah Henry:
“Many women could not afford to have babies, so we would use examples- like the price of babies’ shoes, the price of clothing, how much it cost to raise a baby. If they weren’t finished with their education, the hindrance it would have on their education, how would they find a baby sitter, who was going to take care of that baby for them? We would find their weakness and work on them…All they were told about the procedure itself was that they would experience slight cramping similar to menstrual cramps, and that was it. They were not told about the development of the baby. They were not told about the pain the baby would be experiencing or the physical effects or the emotional effects it would have on them. They had no idea who was going to be there to help them when they fell apart afterward…Some of the women were a little apprehensive about it. We were told that in explaining to them we could never use the word “babies.” It was always tissues, tissues of cells, or clusters of cells or products of conception.”
“The women were never given any type of alternatives to the abortion. It was just automatically assumed that they knew what they wanted. They were never told about adoption agencies. They were never told about people out there who were willing to help them–to give them homes to live in, to provide them with care and even financial support. The euphemisms that are used — clusters of cells, products of conception, or just plain tissue — are all lies.”
Personal Testimony “Meet the Abortion Providers” Convention
in 2005, in Georgia, a law was proposed that would’ve allowed women coming in for abortions to see information about their unborn babies. The woman would not be forced to look at this information, but she would have the option to if she chose to. Planned Parenthood vehemently oppose the law. According to Kay Scott, who is executive director of Planned Parenthood :
Supporters of the Woman’s Right to Know bill say it would allow time for reflection, but this bill is really about deception. …women already receive full informed consent before having an abortion…..”
Kay Scott “ABORTION: 24-HOUR-WAIT SUPPORTERS TRY TO DECEIVE” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (Atlanta, GA), Jan 21, 2005 pA15


http://clinicquotes.com/ultrasound-technician-shari-richard-speaks-out-about-abortion-and-ultrasounds/
Ultrasound technician Shari Richard describes how effective ultrasounds are in changing the minds of women considering abortion.
“In my own career as an ultrasound technician, I’ve been told to turn the ultrasound monitor away from pregnant women so that they wouldn’t decide against an abortion (I refused). That’s because 90% of women change their minds about having abortions after viewing their babies via sonogram.”
She goes on to tell the following story:
“For 10 years I have been an ultrasongrapher and I have witnessed the development of pre-born children. I am convinced that if every mother could see her baby on ultrasound, the abortion argument would be over. A look through the window reveals the true victim of abortion. This is why ultrasound images are often censored, for example…
In 1990, I testified on fetal development before the House and Senate committee considering the “Freedom of Choice Act.” I brought an ultrasound videotape of fully formed fetuses as young as eight weeks after conception. Representative Don Edwards (D – CA) tried to prevent me from showing the videotape.”
Shari Richard “Now Wombs Have Windows” All about Issues vol 5 # 2

http://clinicquotes.com/abortion-clinic-workers-given-instructions-at-odds-with-clinic-advertising/
One Chicago abortion clinic said the following on a brochure aimed at women considering abortions at the clinic:
“From admission to recovery, patient ease and comfort are first considerations. She is encouraged to ask questions, share feelings or misgivings.”
These were the actual instructions given to the clinic workers:
“1. Don’t tell [the] patient. The abortion will hurt.
2. Don’t discuss [the abortion] procedure or the instruments to be used in any detail.
3. Don’t answer too many questions.
Pamela Zekman and Pamela Warrick “The Abortion Profiteers” Chicago Sun-Times November 12, 1978
This article was from a long time ago but things in the abortion clinics haven’t changed much. Read about what one former Planned Parenthood clinic worker says about how the clinic counseled their patients.


http://clinicquotes.com/abortion-provider-hides-ultrasound-screen/
In the article “Abortion Providers Share Inner Conflicts” in American Medical News, a Toronto physician said she didn’t know “how and whether we [should] protect the patient from the reality of the procedure.”
She said she regularly hid the ultrasound screen.
Diane M. Gianelli, “Abortion Providers Share Inner Conflicts,” American Medical News, July 12, 1993. Quoted by Rachel MacNair “Achieving Peace in the Abortion War


http://clinicquotes.com/lying-about-whether-babies-feel-pain/
“The hardest question you get asked is ‘does the baby feel pain?’ We had to lie to them or say we don’t know.”

Former clinic worker Amy

http://clinicquotes.com/adoption-is-subversive-says-abortion-clinic-owner/
From the essay “Alternatives to Abortion and Hard Cases” Patricia Casey. This quote was from an abortionist who runs a clinic in London:
“… it is not in any way standard to offer advice on adoption.  It would be subversive….  In fact I would consider firing anyone who did this.”
Today, BBC radio four, 28 August 1996


http://clinicquotes.com/clinic-counselor-on-how-to-think-of-abortion/
When a woman in an abortion clinic voiced her concern that abortion might be killing, her counselor said
“Don’t think of it is killing. Think of it is taking blood out of your uterus to get your periods going again.”
Dr. Monte Harris Liebman and Jolie Siebold Zimmer “The Psychological Sequelae Of Abortion: Facts and Fallacy” in David Mall and Dr. Walter Watts, editors The Psychological Aspects of Abortion (Washington DC: University Publications of America, 1979) 133


http://liveactionnews.org/is-it-a-baby-clinic-workers-respond/
Carol Everett, former owner of two abortion clinics and administrator of four, said that:
Every woman has these same two questions: First, ‘Is it a baby?’ ‘No’ the counselor assures her. ‘It is a product of conception (or a blood clot, or a piece of tissue)’ Even though these counselors see six week babies daily, with arms, legs and eyes that are closed like newborn puppies, they lie to the women. How many women would have an abortion, if they told them the truth?” 
Another former clinic worker, Linda Couri, who worked at Planned Parenthood, described how she responded when a teenager considering abortion asked her the following question: “If I have an abortion, am I killing my baby?”
Couri said:
‘Kill’ is a strong word, and so is ‘baby.’ You’re terminating the product of conception.
But Couri was haunted by the girl’s question and troubled about her response. She began questioning whether providing abortions was really moral. She recalls asking her supervisor if she had done the right thing. The supervisor did not deny that abortion was killing a baby but told her that in the teenager’s case, abortion was a “necessary evil.” Struck by the use of the word “evil,” Couri continued to question her position at the clinic. Eventually, she left, and now she is a pro-life speaker.

Clinic worker Peg Johnston, who works in an abortion clinic in New York, revealed how she dealt with women who said they were killing their babies in a 2005 article.
Johnston acknowledges that many women suspect that having an abortion is killing a baby. It seems that when directly misleading women fails, she uses semantics to separate the concept of “murder” from “killing.”
On the blog “Abortion Witness” in a post entitled “Talking about the babies: saying the things we cannot say,” a clinic worker discusses a similar situation when she describes a conversation with a patient.
“You’ve written in your chart that you feel guilty.” I say to the patient I am screening. “Can you tell me more about this? Why do you feel guilty?”
“I feel guilty because I am killing my baby,” she answers. “That’s why I feel guilty.”
The first time an abortion patient said this to me, I was completely unprepared for it. Although I was a long-time pro-choice activist, a Ph.D. who had studied feminist theory , and a former abortion patient myself, nothing in my experience had prepared me to talk with a woman about killing babies. “Oh no,” I said to her as gently as I could. “It’s not a baby- it’s just tissue.”
But the clinic worker later came to feel that her response was wrong.
She describes how pro-choice activists have trouble with using the word “baby” to describe the child who is killed in an abortion and says:
We all know that an unborn child dies in each abortion. And the majority of abortion care workers accept responsibility for our roles in these deaths. We have, for various reasons, determined for ourselves that having a part in these deaths is an important- and ethical- thing for us to do[.]


http://clinicquotes.com/just-a-clump-of-cells/
A woman getting an abortion at three months related the following conversation with an abortion clinic counselor:

ultrasound of the baby at three months
“Are there psychological problems?” I continued.
“Hardly ever. Don’t worry,” I was told.
“What does a three-month-old fetus look like?”
“Just a clump of cells,” she answered, matter-of-factly.
Later the woman said:
“When I saw that a three month old “clump of cells” had fingers and toes and was a tiny perfectly formed baby, I became really hysterical. I’d been lied to and misled, and I’m sure thousands of other women are being just as poorly informed and badly served.”
Quoted by David C Reardon, Randy Alcorn “Pro-life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments” (Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah Publishers, 2000) 198


Former clinic worker Luhra Tivis, who worked for Dr. George Tiller, stated:
“We were told specifically to coax [pregnant women to have an abortion] by any verbal means available.”
Quoted by Cal Thomas, “Celebrate Life” Oct 1991


http://clinicquotes.com/former-clinic-worker-ellen/
And Then There Were None, a ministry that helps former clinic workers, told the following story in one of their emails:
“Ellen” recalled her time working at Planned Parenthood.  Like many others, she felt uncomfortable with her job there, but it paid the bills and offered the benefits she needed.  She was hired on as a patient educator and was reprimanded for quietly giving patients information on adoption services and resource centers in the counseling rooms, because she was not pushing the sale of abortion onto women who weren’t sure what they were going to do. ”It took a huge physical toll,” Ellen said. “I would always come home from work and cry.”


http://clinicquotes.com/abortion-clinic-worker-sallie-tisdale/
"A twenty-one-year-old woman, unemployed, uneducated, without family, in the fifth month of her fifth pregnancy. A forty-two-year-old mother of teenagers, shocked by her condition, refusing to tell her husband. A twenty-three-year-old motlier of two having her seventh abortion, and many women in their thirties having their first. . . .Oh, the ignorance . . . .Some swear they have not had sex, many do not know what a uterus is, how sperm and egg meet, how sex makes babies. . . .They come so young, snapping gum, sockless and sneakered, and their shakily applied eyeliner smears when they cry. . . .I cannot imagine them as mothers. I am speaking in a matter-of-fact voice about 'the tissue' and 'the contents' when the woman suddenly catches my eye and asks, 'How big is the baby now?'. . . .1 gauge, and sometimes lie a little, weaseling around its infantile features until its clinging power slackens. But when I look in the basin, among the curdlike blood clots, I see an elfin thoraxattenuated, its pencilline ribs all in parallel rows with tiny knobs of spine rounding upwards. A translucent arm and hand swim beside. . . .I have fetus dreams, we all do here: dreams of abortions one after the other; of buckets of blood splashed on the walls; trees full of crawling fetuses. . . ."


http://clinicquotes.com/former-clinic-worker-dina-madsen/
"My official title at the mill was “health worker.” I did various duties-lab work, leading groups (deceiving women about their abortions), “advocating” (deceiving women during their abortions), and assisting the abortionist, which included helping during the abortion and checking to make sure all the parts of the baby were there in the collection jar afterwards."

"There was no medical background required for the job, you just had to be able to accept abortion. And of all the women I worked with several of those women, at least half of them had had abortions and had repeat abortions. And yet they wouldn’t let any of these guys [abortionists] touch them with a 10 foot pole. Never. And yet every day they told these other women, “they’re wonderful doctors, they won’t hurt you. They’re the best at what they do. He’s really a nice man.” And sometimes the women would ask, “have you ever had an abortion?”And of course they wouldn’t say, “yes but not by him.”
I have to admit though I didn’t really have much sympathy for them.[the women] In my view, well you got yourself into this position, tough it out.
So I was looking at these babies as something to be disposed of. I didn’t see them as important, I didn’t see life as important, I didn’t value my own life, therefore how can I value anyone else’s life. And if these women were stupid enough to get pregnant, then it was their fault. And that’s how I felt.  And that was how the majority of the staff felt.
Some of the directors I worked with had eight or nine abortions, and we were the same people who would look down on these women when they came in for repeat abortions. How stupid can you get, you know?
And every time she’d come in for an abortion or a D&E, we’d stamp, stamp, stamp, stamp – some of these charts were filled in on both sides. And the doctor would take a look at them and say, “Gee, if she tries real hard she can come in again before Christmas.” And this is somebody who cares about women? I don’t think so."
"I just took it as the general consensus, the general population does, that it is a choice, unfortunately it’s often presented as the only choice.
A woman would call, and I’d make her feel that this was her choice and that we were going to support her in this choice. Because the women are looking for someone to support their decision.”

http://clinicquotes.com/naral-opposes-law-that-would-allow-women-a-choice-to-see-ultrasounds/

NARAL opposes law that would allow women a CHOICE to see ultrasounds


A Michigan law requiring abortion providers to ask women if they want to see the ultrasound before they consented to abortions was proposed. The women would not be forced to see the ultrasound. This law mandated that abortion providers perform an ultrasound for their patients. In many ways, this is a safety issue, for the only way to know for sure how far along a woman is is to do an ultrasound. Also, an ultrasound is the only way to make sure a woman does not have an ectopic (tubal) pregnancy. Most clinics, including Planned Parenthood clinics, routinely do ultrasounds before abortions.
But clinics didn’t want women to have a chance to see their unborn baby. According
REBEKAH WARREN of Lansing-based abortion rights group MARAL Pro-Choice, gave NARAL’s position:
“…requiring a doctor to ask a patient if she’d like to see an ultrasound in proximity to an abortion is a move Warren has described as “emotionally manipulative.”…
So is it emotionally manipulative to allow a woman the CHOICE to look at information that might let her make a more informed decision? Keep in mind that the woman would not be forced to view anything.

https://www.facebook.com/ClinicQuotes/posts/563952570339214
“I have never yet counseled anybody to have the baby. I’m also doing women’s counseling on campus at Albany State, and there I am expected to present alternatives. Whereas at the abortion clinic you aren’t really expected to.”

–abortion counselor

James Tunstead Burtchaell, editor Rachel Weeping and Other Essays About Abortion (New York: Universal Press 1982) p 42 From The Ambivalence of Abortion Linda Bird Francke

http://clinicquotes.com/former-abortionist-joseph-randallwhat-happened-then-was-a-christian-girl-came-into-my-life-and-influenced-me-basically-the-reason-she-came-into-my-life-to-start-with-is-because-the-only-prerequisite/
"When we started, we lost two nurses. They couldn’t take looking at it. Some other staff was lost. The turnover got greater when we started doing the D&Es and mostly, as I said, the ultrasounds. So I think the ultrasound was one of the keys there. The other thing, too, is because the women who are having the abortions are never allowed to look at the ultrasound, because we know even if they heard the heart beat that many times they wouldn’t have the abortion, and you wouldn’t want that. No money in that."

http://clinicquotes.com/former-clinic-worker-carol-everett-on-abortions-after-rape/
Former clinic worker and owner Carol Everett on abortions for rape victims:
“Abortion is a skillfully marketed product sold to a woman when she needs help.The mother has already been the victim of that crime [rape], and we don’t traumatize that victim a second time by aborting her.”

William Saletan Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War (Berkley: California: University of California Press, 2004) 172


http://clinicquotes.com/chicago-abortionist-on-sales-tactics/
From the owner of an abortion clinic:
“We have to sell abortions. We have to use all the tactics we can because just like my other businesses [a trucking firm, a pollution control business, and a real estate sales office] we have competition. Now, we have to go by the rules, but rules have to be broken if we are gonna get things done.”
Pamela Zekman and Pamela Warrick “The Abortion Profiteers” Chicago Sun-Times November 12, 1978, 12
“Every single transaction that we did was cash money. We wouldn’t take a check, or even a credit card. If you didn’t have the money, forget it. It was unusual at all for me to take 10,000 to 15,000 a day to the bank – in cash. It’s a lie when they tell you they’re doing it to help women because they’re not. They’re doing it for the money.”

“Pro-Choice 1990: Skeletons in the Closet” New Dimensions, October 1990, 31

https://www.facebook.com/AbortionQuoteOfTheDay/posts/148804571986947
"I'm sure that there have been doctors involved in performing abortions who have hated women. ....If you felt at all sadistic towards women, that was an area where you had them totally in your power."

Bertram Wainer, M.D, abortionist The Abortion Dilemma: Personal Views on a Public Issue. Contributors: Miriam Claire - author. Publisher: Insight Books. Place of Publication: New York. Publication Year: 1995. Page Number: 128-130




http://clinicquotes.com/former-abortionist-dr-george-flesh/
Dr. Flesh talked about the experience he had that led to him quitting abortion practice:

“… a married couple came to me and requested an abortion. Because the patient’s cervix was rigid, I was unable to dilate it and perform the procedure. I asked her to return in a week, when the cervix would be softer.
The couple returned and told me that they had changed their minds and wanted to “keep the baby.” I delivered the baby seven months later. Years later, I played with little Jeffrey in the pool at the tennis club where his parents and I were members. He was happy and beautiful. I was horrified to think that only a technical obstacle had prevented me from terminating Jeffrey’s potential life. The connection between the six-week-old human embryo and a laughing child stopped being an abstraction for me. While hugging my sons each morning, I started to think of the vacuum aspirator that I would use two hours later.”