Pro-abortionists should be screaming bloody murder at the instrusion of "us" questioning the actions Suleman took with her womb. But they are unsually quiet. Where is their rallying support for this woman whose rights are being infringed upon by society? Where are their picket signs blaring "STAY OUT OF MY WOMB!" and "KEEP YOUR LAWS OFF MY BODY!"  I thought pro-abortionists consider a woman's womb, and the human being growing inside it, untouchable by law. Shouldn't these pro-abortionists be circling the wagons around Ms. Suleman and telling society to shove it?; after all, wasn't this the woman's "private" and "personal" choice, a choice made between a woman and her doctor, a choice only a woman can make? (I can only guess that the pro-abortionists are keeping quiet because a woman who wants to keep her children is bad for the abortion business.)

     Now even the fertility doctor who helped her become pregnant is facing a state investigation and harsh criticism from medical ethicists. What, now all of a sudden these people care about the human beings growing inside the mother? So there's something "unethical" about having too many children at once but there is not something unethical about slaughtering these same children through abortion? Please, if the supposed "ethicists" are going to start backtracking on the whole children-in-the-womb-have-no-rights deal, they better start by reversing the legality of abortion before trying to tell people they must be "ethical" when it comes to deciding how many children they want to have at one time.

     Board spokeswoman Candis Cohen stated, "We're looking into the matter to see if we can substantitate if there was a violation of the standard of care." Care? Care is now the issue? What kind of care does abortion provide?

     To tell citizens, yes, they may kill their unborn child, but no, they may not have more than five children at once because it would not be "fair" to these children is nothing short of hypocritical. 

www.catholicvote.org

     Every day, as these four-legged felines are put to death, thousands of human beings are also put to death. Through the aid of Planned Parenthood and other abortion services, human beings are subjected to even more inhumane, life-ending "procedures" than these cats sitting in the pound (if you are unaware of how abortion works, please visit www.jillstanek.com).

     Now, if I saw, on one side of the street, a cat about to be killed, and, on the other side of the street, a human being about to be killed, which would I rescue?

     What if the cat was about to be brutally beaten and killed by its female owner? Would the woman be charged with animal abuse?          

     But what if the human being in jeopardy was about to be brutally beaten and killed by the same woman, only it happens to be his own mother? Would we pause, and then let the beating and murder take place because she cries, "Privacy!"?

     So can you want to protect "animal rights" but ignore a fellow human being about to be slaughtered by his own family member?

     So, there you are, let's say, five weeks old. You catch wind that your mother isn't sure she wants to "keep" you.

     As you listen to your mother weigh the pros and cons of letting you live, do you merely shrug your shoulders and concede to one of the numerous defenses given by the pro-choice camp? ("Well," you think, "it is her body"/"Well, it is her choice"/"Well, it is between her and her doctor"/"Well, Obama did say it was above his pay grade to determine whether I am a "person.")

     As you listen to your mother debate whether or not she should end your life within the next few days, do you still want to tell the government to keep its life-protecting laws "out of your mother's womb"?  

     As your mother passes through the doors of Planned Parenthood, do you still find those pro-life protestors "annoying" as they try to speak for you who cannot speak?

     And as your mother decides, that, yes, she will abort her child, you, do you still praise the United States for protecting her rights while denying you yours?

     Now Obama, a black man, says it is "above [his] pay grade" to say whether or not a fetus inside a woman is as valuable as the rest of us "real" human beings, thereby justifying his continual support for the slaughter of U.S. babies every day.

     So Obama can condemn the time in America when the human dignity of blacks was not fully recognized, but turn right around and tell an entire generation of America, that, nope, sorry, "not sure if you're worth as much as the rest of us, so, yes, you may die."

     Shouldn't this man be the one supporting the thousands that are also being told "Weeeeell, we're not sure if you're really 'human'..."? But Obama really thinks they might not be fully human, you protest. Well, many of the slave-owners also really believed that blacks weren't "worthy" enough of being set free; that doesn't mean they were right. It took both blacks and whites to show them the truth, whether they accepted it or not.

     The sad thing is, while blacks could start protests and write books and form rallies, babies are silent; they cannot speak up for themselves; they have only us to speak up for them, and if we do not, another human being dies. Another human being dies because someone doesn't think he is "fully human." And for Obama to condemn the racism of America when blacks weren't given the same one hundred percent of human dignity as whites, but then refuse to acknowledge the humanity of unborn children is just the beginning of his many hypocrisies.

     So Mr. Obama, if deciding whether or not an unborn child is a viable human being is "above [your] pay grade," why not make it part of your pay grade? If you say you're going to help the downtrodden and the oppressed, why not put a team together to figure out if those who are sentenced to die every day are "human" or not? Because by remaining on the fence, you're remaining open to the possibility that, yes, they are indeed human beings, and yes, you let that many die every day because you did nothing. What if the early Americans sat back on their hands and said that deciding whether or not  blacks deserved the same human dignity and value as whites was "above their pay grade"? Ignorance may be bliss for you, but not for those who are sent to the dumpster outside of Planned Parenthood.

     For further information on FOCA , the act Obama has promised Planned Parenthood to pass, visit www.jillstanek.com

Margaret Sanger, the alcoholic and Demerol addict, who spawned the International Planned Parenthood Federation, was a proponent of forced eugenics, segregation, abortion, birth control and sexual immorality. Here are some of her quotes:

"The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood

"Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race."
Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood

"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population…"
Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood

"Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need ... We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock."
Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood

"Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.
Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood

"Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives."
Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood

"The unbalance between the birth rate of the 'unfit' and the 'fit,' [is] the greatest present menace to civilization… the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective."
Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood

"The campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics."
Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood

"Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying… a dead weight of human waste… an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all."
Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood

"The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind."
Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood

"The procreation of [the diseased, the feeble-minded and paupers] should be stopped."
Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood

"The marriage bed is the most degenerative influence in the social order..."
Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood

"[Our objective is] unlimited sexual gratification without the burden of unwanted children..."
Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood

"[Mandatory] sterilization for [the insane and feeble-minded] is the answer."
Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood

"Give dysgenic groups [people with 'bad genes'] in our population their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization."
Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood

Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood, proposed the American Baby Code that states, "No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child… without a permit for parenthood".

Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood, proposed the Population Congress with the aim, "...to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization."

"As we celebrate the 100th birthday of Margaret Sanger, our outrageous and our courageous leader, we will probably find a number of areas in which we may find more about Margaret Sanger than we thought we wanted to know..."
Faye Wattleton, Past-president of Planned Parenthood

    I am not going to put the link of the site due to the graphic Nazi camp images, but a simple Internet search with the words "Margaret Sanger" and "Adolf Hitler" will bring up a great deal of comparisons of which you are most likely unaware; and understandably so, as Planned Parenthood is now hailed as a "benefit" to our country, a title that I'm sure would have pleased Sanger to the bone.

     What a lie.

     How can a man who, as promised to Planned Parenthood, is about to reverse all abortion restrictions (see the Freedom of Choice Act at www.jillstanek.com), and allow on-demand abortion everywhere in the United States, look us in the eye and tell us that all children in the U.S. should "go to schools worth of their potential...have a chance to go to college...get good jobs..." and pursue their dreams.

     No, Obama. You tell the children who were allowed to live that they are worthy of receiving these things. You tell the rest of the thousands of children that, because you won't take the time to listen to the simple, scientific, and rational points of the anti-death cause, you are still not sure whether these children can be considered human beings., and no, they will not have a chance to do a darned thing. With your approval of children being killed by the hundreds every single day, you deny these fellow human beings everything.

     So don't you dare tell America that you want every child to have a chance at anything.

    Actually, though the country has taken a step toward the end of racism, because it has elected Obama, it has taken two steps back when it comes to another form of human rights: infanticide.

    Obama has promised Planned Parenthood to sign the most radical abortion legislation in U.S. history, the "Freedom of Choice Act," or FOCA (see www.jillstanek.com for details).

     FOCA will:

- invalidate laws to protect a woman from unsafe abortion clinics and to ensure that she is informed about abortion.

- require taxpayers to pay for abortions.

- require states to allow "partial-birth" and other late-term abortions.

- require states to allow abortions by non-physicians.

- bar laws protecting a right of conscientious objection to abortion, removing language previously approved by the AMA that no "physician, hospital, nor hospital personnel" shall be required to violate "personally-held moral principles."

- will deny parents an opportunity to be involved in their minor daughter's abortion decision.

     So while many citizens, white, black, and everything in between, rejoice at Obama's step toward equality for all, thousands, hundreds of thousands of future U.S. citizens have their simple, legal right to live yanked from their grasp because Obama deems his, and our, lives valuable, but those in the womb, living human beings, not (see post "Dear Barack:..."; 12/20/08).

    So, yes, a black man wins the office, America cheers; this same man supports, and further broadens, the procedures in which a doctor "empties the contents of a woman's womb," America feigns ignorance. Obama's inaugaration a step towards equality for all mankind? I think not; it was merely an exchange of racial equality for thousands and thousands of human beings' lives, lives that the supposed-"Equality-for All!"-Obama has sent to the grave.

     Obama has reversed the U.S. ban on using tax-payer money to support abortion worldwide, a ban otherwise known as the "Mexico City policy." He said the debate on abortion was "stale and fruitless." Stale! Fruitless! Gee, we are just so sorry, Obama! Sorry to bore you with our fight to enable equality among all human beings! ISorry to prevent our fellow human beings from being slaughtered! I wonder how many people told Dr. King that his civil rights movement was "stale and fruitless."

     Obama says that his "administration will initiate a fresh conversation on family planning...." Fresh? As in, Hey! Abortion is hip! I can't wait to see the "fresh" spin Obama will put on abortion, a spin we haven't already heard, a spin that doesn't already try to make the killing of human beings in the womb seem less brutal, less barbaric, and less like the other forms of genocide mankind has witnessed.

     We once again witness Obama's "All hail, me!"-attitude when he simply flicks the entire abortion debate off his shoulder like a fly: "I have no desire to continue this stale and fruitless debate." Yes, yes, Master, we bow and scrape, a thousand apologies for daring to approach your throne as if  we were living in a democracy and could protest your Herodian approach to human infants.

     So glad to see Obama use the money withdrawn from my monthly check for the destruction of my fellow man. 

     Obama has reversed the U.S. ban on using tax-payer money to support abortion worldwide, a ban otherwise known as the "Mexico City policy." He said the debate on abortion was "stale and fruitless." Stale! Fruitless! Gee, we are just so sorry, Obama! Sorry to bore you with our fight to enable equality among all human beings! ISorry to prevent our fellow human beings from being slaughtered! I wonder how many people told Dr. King that his civil rights movement was "stale and fruitless."

     Obama says that his "administration will initiate a fresh conversation on family planning...." Fresh? As in, Hey! Abortion is hip! I can't wait to see the "fresh" spin Obama will put on abortion, a spin we haven't already heard, a spin that doesn't already try to make the killing of human beings in the womb seem less brutal, less barbaric, and less like the other forms of genocide mankind has witnessed.

     We once again witness Obama's "All hail, me!"-attitude when he simply flicks the entire abortion debate off his shoulder like a fly: "I have no desire to continue this stale and fruitless debate." Yes, yes, Master, we bow and scrape, a thousand apologies for daring to approach your throne as if  we were living in a democracy and could protest your Herodian approach to human infants.

     So glad to see Obama use the money withdrawn from my monthly check for the destruction of my fellow man. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090127/ap_on_re_us/bodies_found).

     Using pro-abortion "logic," I would like to defend this man's actions (please feel free to oppose the listed arguments and explain why the argument does not work in this man's case, but does work in the case of a woman attempting to kill her child, or abortion).

     1) This was family business and a privacy issue; note to society: butt out/worry about your family/don't tell this man how to manage his family/insert any other "Keep your laws/values out of my life!"-excuse here.

     2) This man felt that he had a valid reason for killing: he no longer had any reason to live, and he felt the authority to decide that his child (children) were better off dead. 

     3)  At what age is killing not permissible? For example, when an unborn child is, say, six months in the womb, it is permissible to kill him. Is this man's case "worse" because two of his victims were 2-year-old twins? Why were these twins more "valuable"? Since abortion requires the twisting of the definition of the word "person," who is to say that the definition of  "person" includes children? Why aren't "persons" adults only? Why are the unborn eliminated from the definition of the word "person"?

     4) This didn't hurt you, so why do you care? Again, butt out.

     5) "Why leave the children to a stranger?" the man wrote. He obviously didn't want to leave his children with strangers, so he thought killing them was the alternative.  Adoption is always a better alternative to killing "unwanted" children. I assume all parentless children, if given the choice, would rather have been allowed the chance to live instead of having been aborted.    

     6) The man despaired and thought he had no other options: "Oh lord, my God, is there no hope for a widow's son?" Who are we to pretend to know his problems? Why don't we try walking in his shoes? Every man has to make the choice that is right for him.

     Now, of course, I am only trying to make a point. I completely disagree with all of the above twisted statements in both this man's case and in the case of abortion. The man needed support and help just as a frightened, pregnant woman needs support and help.  Who knows what his children and all aborted children may have grown up to do?

     Ultimately, when we twist laws to bend to our needs, even to the point of killing for "our own, personal reasons," and having to redefine the definition of "human being" to fit this need, we can hardly point a finger at another person for merely doing the same thing.