http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/03/20/i-paid-to-have-babies-murdered-and-all-i-got-was-this-coat-hanger-necklace/

I paid to have babies murdered and all I got was this coat hanger necklace?

In these lean times, we must be discerning about the causes to which we donate our energy and money.

Sure, we’d like to give to every worthy charity and needy neighbor, but alas our resources are finite.

So, do we perhaps give a portion of our expendable income to a homeless shelter or soup kitchen? Do we give to starving children in Africa? Do we put our money towards education for the disadvantaged?

Do we concentrate on nurturing, sheltering, clothing, protecting, blessing, and loving our fellow human beings? Or do we negate the need for such things by opting to fund the extermination of the very sorts of humans that might end up requiring our charity, should they be permitted to exist in the first place?

Do we feed them, treating them like hungry friends, or do we fumigate, treating them like swarming cockroaches?

If the ease and efficiency of the latter option appeal to you, The DC Abortion Fund is here to help. They are an “all volunteer, non-profit” organization dedicated to offering abortion grants to underprivileged women. No word on whether they are the sort of non-profit that doesn’t turn a profit, or the sort of non-profit that, like Planned Parenthood, rakes in over a billion dollars a year (half from taxpayers), pays their executives enormous six figure salaries, and banks a large but totally non-profitable profit.

Whatever the case, as the website stipulates, their services are needed because women face a “multitude of state and national restrictions designed to deny their access” to abortion.

True enough. Think of the rigorous controls they have in places like Pennsylvania, where a serial killer was able to operate a well known baby butchery in plain sight for three decades, with nothing stopping him from keeping baby corpses in his fridge, or drowning babies in the toilet, or segregating his waiting room based on race, or drugging women with dangerous narcotic cocktails, or perforating their insides with unsterilized equipment leaving some of them dead or permanently infertile.

Imagine what he could have done without all of those restrictions cramping his style.

Luckily, The DC Abortion Fund — much like Gosnell himself — likes to keep it classy. That’s why they offer a gift to anyone who chooses to donate to their organization:

A coat hanger pendant.

Yes, really, a coat hanger pendant.

How might this be described? Well, some particularly sensitive folks may use a word like “offensive,” or “despicable,” or “disgusting,” or “maniacal,” or “crass,” or “psychotic,” or “evil,” or “degrading,” or “repugnant,” or “repulsive,” or “vulgar, or even “debasing and cruel,” but not everyone shares these sentiments.

Pro-choicers have taken to Twitter to express their gratitude for the unique opportunity to fund a child’s murder AND sport a fashionable piece of jewelry to commemorate the occasion:

Who wouldn’t want to help, Colleen?

Personally, I love this idea.

I wish more abortion groups would be this honest and forthright about their intentions and their character.

In fact, I love the idea so much that I’d like to offer a few suggestions for future fundraising incentives.

Here’s one:

Next year, maybe they should give a KKK medal to their loyal donors.

This spiffy accessory could represent the abortion movement’s startling success at doing something that the KKK could only dream of accomplishing: the mass genocide of an entire generation of black people.

For some strange reason, pro-choicers were silent last week when news broke that, in 2012, more black babies were aborted in New York City than born. Overall, black people make up 13 percent of the population, but 30 – 35 percent of abortions, as even this pro-choice website will attest. Since 1973, it’s estimated that about 16 million black people have been killed through abortion.

Could anyone possibly argue that the black population has benefited from such a steep reduction in its numbers? Could anyone pretend to have great concern for minority groups while actively promoting policies that will lead directly to their extinction?

Abortion has been unquestionably devastating to the black race, and the same political party that enthusiastically supports it is the same political party that owned slaves, opposed civil rights, and founded the KKK.

Coincidence, I suppose.

Hey, here’s another nifty idea:

This breast cancer ribbon could remind donors that they are helping to increase breast cancer across the nation. Despite the assertions of biased academics and media types, the link between abortion and breast cancer is well established. A meta-analysis by Chinese researchers, published in a peer reviewed journal called Cancer Causes and Control, found that women had a 44 percent increased risk of breast cancer after an abortion. After two abortions it jumped to 76 percent. After three, the risk went to 89 percent.

Indeed, out of the 70-some studies on the abortion-cancer link, over fifty of them found an association.

Or how ’bout this:

A heart necklace represents the unborn child’s heartbeat, which can be heard only a few weeks after conception (although it doesn’t count as ‘alive’ until an arbitrary point sometime later). The vast majority of abortions happen after the baby’s heartbeat can be detected.

Here’s another idea:

This is a pendant with a literary quote from a Jack Kerouac novel, but when I see it I can’t help but think of pro-choicers. Specifically, I can’t help but think of the common abortion enthusiast’s claim that a “fetus” is a human but not a person.

This is confusion at its most confused.

They realize that the unborn child’s status as a human cannot be denied. It is not up for debate. It is a scientific reality, and the conversation is long since settled. Instead, they try to draw a distinction between “human” and “person.” This is a dubious argument, mostly because the dictionary defines “person” this way: “a human being.”

If you really want to parse these concepts, you might say that a person is the actual self of a human being. In other words, it would be accurate to say that a dead human is still a human but not a person. Or else, the corpse is a human corpse, but it is not itself a person. Now, is an unborn human the same as a dead human? No, of course not. “Unborn” is really just a matter of development and physical location, whereas “dead” is a much more permanent and non-negotiable situation.

The question becomes this: does the fetus have a self? If it does then it is a person. If it is a person then it has rights. Here we get to the most confused bit of confusion in the perpetually confused pro-choice position. They claim that the fetus — though it exists, and is alive, and is human — has no self. But how can this be? Trace your own self back through your timeline. Retrace all of your steps. Go backwards through your entire existence and your path will lead you directly to your fetal state. I can follow the Path of You, right to the point when the Reality of You went from a mere potential to a solid actual. That point is, and can only be, conception.

YOU were once a fetus. The fetus was YOU. YOU were the fetus. How could you be you but not you at the same time? How could you be the potentiality of you, but also the actuality of you, all at once? How can ANYTHING be at once fully potential and fully actual? How can I be potentially me and actually me? How can you track your existence back to the existence of a thing that was you, but wasn’t you?

My head hurts.

Maybe this is a bit too abstract for a fundraiser giveaway.

Maybe this is better:


Perhaps the coat hanger is the best idea, after all.

I’m not sure what they were going for, but to me it symbolizes the myth of the “safe” abortion. We pretend that the clinics provide a less hazardous experience than back alleys and coat hangers, but it’s all a charade. A show. A merciless ploy, and women are the victims.

“Safe” abortions have killed at least 400 women.

The “reproductive health care industry” funnels them through, takes their money, and spits them out the other end, leaving many (all) to deal with the very real consequences. According to the Elliot Institute, 31 percent of post abortive women report physical complications, while 65 percent suffer from PTSD.

A peer reviewed study, published in the British Journal of Psychiatry, found that women who’ve had abortions suffer from an 81 percent higher risk of mental health problems.

Worst of all, the suicide rate among these women is tragic and startling.

Safe?

Safe for who, exactly?

Safe for the abortionists, I guess.

Every once in a very, very long while one of them might find their prestigious baby-killing career cut short by a misguided anti-abortion vigilante, but this is an extreme rarity. For the most part, they make out pretty well. The same can’t be said for their victims — both mother and child — but at least someone’s making a few bucks out of the deal, right?

Actually, the Bible would suggest a very different sort of necklace to these abortionists:

As Jesus said, “whoever causes harm to one of the little ones, it would be better if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were drowned in the depth of the sea.”

Well, maybe that’s a fundraiser for a different year.

This is a very complicated topic with a mixed bag of emotions and motives.

A child creates a burden. If a parent is unable to handle the burden, the government props them up, thereby becoming a burden on the government, not to mention a burden on health insurance.

Terminating an unwanted pregnancy is more fiscally sound, although not necessarily morally upright. Most make exceptions in the cases of rape and life of the mother (incest gets thrown in there too sometimes, not really sure why), however.

So what is the path forward? Do you ban all abortions? What about rape victims or medical situations?

Medical situations are probably much easier to legislate, but what about rape? Does the woman have to prove rape first? How long will that trial take, clock's ticking after all, how far along will she be by then?

There really isn't a right answer, and there really isn't any way you could legislate a ban without coming across as though you don't care about the lives of rape victims. While you (and Mr. Santorum) may believe that God intended for a woman to get raped to create a child, she may not agree with you (and thus you're forcing your religion on someone else).

The only thing you can do is educate people to engage in "safe" sex. The "safer" people are, the less incidence of unwanted pregnancy, and therefore the less incidence of terminations.

Most laws intended to restrict abortion make allowance for rape, incest and danger to the mother. My opinion is that if rape or incest is given as reason for seeking abortion the person should be required to provide evidence that it has been reported to the police and that a "medical" condition must be verified by a medical professional other than the attending physician.
Prevention is much cheaper than abortion anyhow.
This will offend some but, welfare should not be available for any children born out of wedlock after the first one or for a second generation welfare recipient.
A former co-worker told me about a relative about a relative of hers who told her seventeen year old daughter that she needed to find a boy friend and get pregnant so that they could "keep those welfare checks coming".
Educating people to engage only in "safe" sex will not work.
What's needed is teaching both male and female that sex causes babies and should be reserved for marriage and then prevention used until they can be the kind of parents that a child needs.

This is a very complicated topic with a mixed bag of emotions and motives.

A child creates a burden. If a parent is unable to handle the burden, the government props them up, thereby becoming a burden on the government, not to mention a burden on health insurance.

Terminating an unwanted pregnancy is more fiscally sound, although not necessarily morally upright. Most make exceptions in the cases of rape and life of the mother (incest gets thrown in there too sometimes, not really sure why), however.

So what is the path forward? Do you ban all abortions? What about rape victims or medical situations?

Medical situations are probably much easier to legislate, but what about rape? Does the woman have to prove rape first? How long will that trial take, clock's ticking after all, how far along will she be by then?

There really isn't a right answer, and there really isn't any way you could legislate a ban without coming across as though you don't care about the lives of rape victims. While you (and Mr. Santorum) may believe that God intended for a woman to get raped to create a child, she may not agree with you (and thus you're forcing your religion on someone else).

The only thing you can do is educate people to engage in "safe" sex. The "safer" people are, the less incidence of unwanted pregnancy, and therefore the less incidence of terminations.