Friday, December 19, 2008

Two searches: Alicon Porcella, and wife-killing abortionists

  • Allison Porcella is one of the people who signed the Planned Parenthood petition, based on a hoax, attacking CPCs. She added her own comment: "By deceiving women you are making an extremely stressful situation much harder,whereas panic will set in and more women will die." Consider the women who died because they trusted abortion facilities in general, Planned Parenthood in particular. Or aren't they women? Or don't they count? And why don't we compare these deaths to the number of women who have died after trusting these prolife pregnancy centers. Count 'em: ZERO.

  • doctor abortion murder wife: We have three that I know of to choose from: John Baxter Hamilton, who bludgeoned his wife to death in the bathroom of their home on Valentine's Day; Joe Bills Reynolds, who sliced open his wife's abdomen and let her bleed to death while he was ostensibly doing a liposuction; and Malachy DeHenre, who shot his wife dead in their home. Wife-killing abortionist trifecta complete.

    Anonymous said...

    No, it's not zero.

    If any of the women who went to CPCs chose to give birth rather than to have abortions, some of them died in childbirth.

    We don't know because no one tracks what happens to women who go to CPCs.

    Christina Dunigan said...

    Find me JUST ONE.

    If prochoicers are correct, and childbirth is so horribly risky, then surely SOMEBODY at some point would have had to have died there, and the family raised an outcry. This is a litigious society, after all. The lawsuits are filed after plane crashes before the debris is even cleared away. People file suit against Christmas trees that offend them. Surely if you guys are right about the stupendous horrors of childbirth, then scores of women are dying every year at every one of the thousands of CPCs across the country. And the abortion lobby has been beating the bushes looking for dissatisfied customers.

    Surely you can find ONE distraught set of parents, ONE distraught husband, ONE distraught boyfriend, ONE distraught orphans, out of the thousands and thousands devastated by those horrible CPCs, who at least TRIED to file suit, who came forward weeping to the media about how those dastardly antichoicers frightened their loved one out of a desperately needed abortion.

    Come one. Give me ONE.

    Anonymous said...

    You wrote: "If prochoicers are correct, and childbirth is so horribly risky, then surely SOMEBODY at some point would have had to have died there, ..."

    Died where? CPC? Who gives birth in a CPC??? Hello???? Maybe you need to see a neurologist.

    And you can't sue for the consequences of following bad advice unless you paid for the advice or the advisor was operating under a license.

    Anyway, I don't mean to say childbirth carries a high risk of death. It doesn't in the USA. Death in childbirth is rare. Death from abortion is MORE rare. As I said before, death is not the only outcome you want to avoid.

    You asked for examples of bad govno going down at CPCs--I suggest you read Rep. Waxman's report to Congress on CPCs.

    I'm not gonna say they should be shut down but they sure as hell shouldn't be getting government money and they should be required to inform everyone who enters their facility that because they do not charge a fee or operate under a license, they are not legally obligated to tell the truth. And to post signs stating the same, in large letters, in every room. (Of course if we could regulate their speech to require this, we would also be able to regulate it to make them stop lying in the first place. That's the problem. Being no-fee/no-licence they're protected by the First Amendment.)

    Anonymous said...

    Here's an interesting idea for a project, maybe for a high-school student's senior paper in PoliSci or whatever.

    Go into a CPC and say you're underage and pregnant by an older man. (Maybe go in with an older man.) Bring in fake urine so you can convince them you're really pregnant. And say that IF YOUR PARENTS FIND OUT, THEY'LL MAKE YOU ABORT. Like your family religion and the older man's family religion are at war.

    Would the CPC...:

    1. ...try to help you get away from your parents,

    2. ...advise you that you have the right to refuse to have an abortion even if your parents say you must, or

    3. ... call the police because the father of the pregnancy is a child-molester, knowing that by doing so they would be alerting the parents and most likely causing the abortion?

    Anyone wanna make a prediction?

    Christina Dunigan said...

    Okay, I'll clarify SoMG, since you seem a bit slow on the uptake -- Find me one woman who died BECAUSE SHE VISITED A CPC AND TOOK THEIR COUNSEL TO HEART.

    By your logic, the cemeteries should be brim-full of them. Surely ONE of them had a family that complained, sued, or tried to sue. After all, doctors DO ask "Who referred you?" Of all those CPCs referring for what you're insisting is lethal prenatal care, surely ONE family suing saw that "Referred by: AntiChoice Birth Enforcers of Anytown" and slapped them with a lawsuit.

    As for your experiment, go to town! I can pretty much guarantee that they'll do #2 -- advise you that you have the right to refuse an abortion. (You seem to think this is a bad thing) and either #3 (report the abuse to the cops) or report to Child Protective Services. And again, you seem to think this is a bad thing.

    I guess your response to ANY pregnancy is to scrape her out and assume that this fixes all her life circumstances.

    Anonymous said...

    Regarding the right to refuse abortion, here's something I don't understand.

    You RTLs support parental-consent laws, right? Now if I'm gonna be able to veto my daughter's abortion, I should sure as hell be able to veto her growing the pregnancy and having a baby. Much more dangerous for her, and I'm gonna end up paying for most of it.

    Why should parental-consent laws be one-sided, allowing the parent to veto the less dangerous and less life-changing option, but not the more dangerous, more significant one?

    Explain please.

    Christina Dunigan said...


    I realize that you can't grasp this. Elsewhere you've compared abortionists to oncologists, so clearly you consider babies to be a form of cancer. You personally consider babies to be a horrible, terrible, evil, deplorable thing that we should throw vast amounts of our medical resources at destroying, the way we're dedicating medical resources to finding a cure for cancer. But prolifers don't see it that way. We don't want to ban abortions because we agree with you that babies are evil and want to see women "punished" with them. We want to ban abortions because we VALUE babies. Okay?

    I realize that to you, it should be contingent upon the person who wants to spare the life of the malignant intrauterine vermin to prove that this particular parasitic evil holds enough potential to overcome its inherent loathsomeness that we ought to allow it to live. But prolifers are coming from the opposite end of the spectrum.

    JUST GRASP THAT ONE TEENSIE WEENSEIE BIT OF INFORMATION, okay? And our arguments will make much more sense to you.

    Anonymous said...

    No, the unborn is not a "parasite" because parasites are different species than their hosts.

    Whether or not to "allow it to live" is up to the one who owns the life-support machine.

    Christina Dunigan said...

    So now the woman isn't even a mother; she's dehumanized to the status of "life support machine."

    RELATIONSHIP, SoMG. It's about RELATIONSHIP. The woman is the child's MOTHER, not some stranger who owns a life-support machine that the fetus somehow sneaked in and hooked itself up to.

    There's no room for relationship, no room for responsibility, no room for LOVE, in your wordview.

    Anonymous said...

    Excuse me, I would say that willingly supporting another life is a greater act of love than supporting it because the law says you must.

    FREEDOM, GG. It's all about the FREEDOM.

    Christina Dunigan said...

    SoMG, nobody's freedom ought to give them license to simply choose to end somebody else's life. You come here and pester me day in and day out, but that doesn't grant me any right to have you put to death.

    Anonymous said...

    That's because I'm not inside your body.

    Christina Dunigan said...

    Your also not my child -- a relationship that seems to you to imply that the CHILD has all the responsibility and the parent none. The CHILD has to get permission before being conceived, or risk fatal eviction. The parents, on the other hand, have zero responsibility to even allow their offspring to draw breath.

    Anonymous said...

    No, the fetus is not responsible.

    It's just unlucky.

    Christina Dunigan said...

    So it's okay to kill somebody for having had bad luck. Gotcha.

    Anonymous said...

    You have the causality backwards. It's not that we can kill the fetus because it has bad luck. It's the other way around. It's ok to kill the fetus because of its location. That fact makes the fetus unlucky.

    Killability comes first; unluckiness is a consequence.

    Christina Dunigan said...

    Well how did the fetus get to be where it's "killable"? Though any fault of its own? Or because of what SOMEBODY ELSE DID to cause it to be there? The baby didn't decide to engage in sexual intercourse at an untenable time or in untenable circumstances. That as the PARENTS' choice.

    Why is it that the BABY is made responsible for the choices the parents, to the point where he's PUT TO DEATH for it, whereas it's too goddam much to ask the parents to step up and take a little responsibility?

    If somebody kidnaps you, do they then have a right to kill you because you're in their van? After all, they put you there!

    Anonymous said...

    I'm sure I've addressed your points before but you wrote: "The baby didn't decide to engage in sexual intercourse at an untenable time or in untenable circumstances. That as the PARENTS' choice."

    Yes, and the baby should be grateful. It gets a short intrauterine life which it would not otherwise enjoy. That's just so much gained. It doesn't obligate the life-support owner to extend the life further.

    You wrote: "Why is it that the BABY is made responsible for the choices the parents, to the point where he's PUT TO DEATH for it,"

    Not to make an analogy or anything, but the answer to that is something like (not identical, but like) the answer to the following: "Why is it that the PATIENT WHO NEEDS THE TRANSPLANT is made responsible for the choices the UNWILLING POTENTIAL DONORS, to the point where he's ALLOWED TO DIE A PREVENTABLE DEATH for them,...?" Because needing (the use of) part of someone else's body in order to live is not a unique situation.

    You wrote: "If somebody kidnaps you, do they then have a right to kill you because you're in their van? After all, they put you there!"

    Yes, and before they did, I was alive and free. They took that from me, so they're guilty and responsible for my welfare while I'm in their custody. Before being "put" in the uterus, a fetus was ... what? Is there life before CONCEPTION? Menstruation is murder? What has it been deprived of by its conception? Does feeding someone for a week obligate you to feed him another week? How is it different when "feeding" them means keeping them inside your body, giving them access to the contents of your bloodstream, and enduring childbirth?