UW-SC students show tolerance for opposing views on abortion.

See for yourself just how "tolerant" they are when pro-life group Pointers for Life put up a display of 4,000 crosses symbolizing murdered fetuses on campus at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point.

Here's the story:

Students at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point butted heads Thursday after an anti-abortion organization planted 4,000 white crosses on campus to symbolize aborted fetuses and a student responded by pulling hundreds of them out of the ground.

The display, sponsored by Pointers for Life and planted on Isadore Street outside the Health Enhancement Center, is called "Cemetery of the Innocents" and features crosses and anti-abortion and religious signs, one of which reads "Seek Jesus."

The group has come to expect minor vandalism each time it displays the exhibit, but students were shocked when Roderick King pulled up many of the crosses in protest.

"It's just so disrespectful, and it's disappointing that this comes from UWSP students. I've always thought of this campus as a tolerant place. ... Someone made these (crosses) with their own hands," said Pointers for Life member Tracey Oudenhoven.

King eventually left the site of the display after speaking with Protective Services officials, but he later returned to protest. King said his anger was not just politically charged, but also related to the anonymity of the exhibit.

"If you're not ashamed of this, then you should claim it and sign it," King said. "My student dollars are going to support this, this travesty."

Pointers for Life reserved the space but didn't indicate its sponsorship of the exhibit. At King's request, students eventually posted a sign reading, "Sponsored by Pointers for Life."

Students put up the exhibit early Wednesday. By Thursday morning, some signs had been slashed and a few crosses had been broken. King said he didn't participate in those acts.

Why bother letting someone with a different opinion than you speak out or protest?

Let's just imagine it was the other way around, and a pro-abortion group had put up a display showing their support. Some members of a pro-life student group came along and started tearing it down because they didn't agree with it. What do you think the reaction would be?

Let me guess: it would be OPPRESSION! Right Wing intimidation tactics! Christian extremists trying to silence opposing voices!

One student gets it:

Passing students paused to watch King debate the moral implications of abortion with Pointers for Life members, and even some who supported abortion rights said they supported the group's right to protest.

"You don't have to agree with this. I don't agree with this, but they have just as much right to be here as the Pro-Choice Alliance," said student Colleen Kiefer.

Only some who supported "abortion rights" thought it was OK for the pro-life group to protest? Wow, how very tolerant of them. It must be the liberal streak in them.

Michelle Malkin shows us past vandalism from pro-abortion groups on college campuses.

Who cares about free speech when an angry lefty college student disagrees with you? Free speech only counts when it fits into the liberal -- and in this case, pro-abortion -- agenda. Too bad these students never got the message.

Here comes... Abortionman!

Sickening:


This is just disgusting. Seriously... there is no humor in abortion. None whatsoever. For or against abortion, no one should sit there and pretend that getting an abortion is no big deal or something to laugh about. It's not like getting a Pap smear or something similarly innocuous. Abortion is a horrible thing to happen to someone, and it shouldn't be celebrated.

What's especially awful is that the woman in the video is -- gasp!! -- happy about having her baby. The boyfriend is the one who forces the abortion onto her.

Gee, doesn't that sound familiar? How many women find themselves in that exact situation -- unexpectedly pregnant and actually happy about it, but her shithead boyfriend pressures and guilts her into having an abortion for his own selfish reasons? Abortion in and of itself is a selfish act anyways, but I think you often find that the woman pressured into having the abortion is a victim, as well.

Mary Katharine Ham discussed this video on the O'Reilly Factor, and thinks it may be a parody. Whatever the intent behind the video was, it wasn't funny. It was crude, it was disgusting, and inappropriate doesn't even begin to cover it.

Link: sevenload.com

Hat Tip: Hot Air

More from Aliza Shvarts: Ranting against the "Patriarchal Heteronormative"

Oh, boy. Here's video of Aliza Shvarts, the girl I just wrote about earlier today, who made an art project out of artificially inseminating herself as often as possible, and then -- somehow -- giving herself home abortions.

Well, here's Aliza ranting against the "institution", and the "establishment", the "patriarchal heteronormative"... and a lot of other crap. Try to figure out what kind of point she was trying to make, because I couldn't figure out what she was saying. It's the definition of talking and talking without saying a word.

Is she just the definiton of a spoiled rich brat wanting to feel important or what?!

Welcome to the modern feminist movement.

Hat Tip: American Digest

There are no words.

There are no words, when something like this is considered art:

Art major Aliza Shvarts '08 wants to make a statement.

Beginning next Tuesday, Shvarts (pictured) will be displaying her senior art project, a documentation of a nine-month process during which she artificially inseminated herself "as often as possible" while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibition will feature video recordings of these forced miscarriages as well as preserved collections of the blood from the process.

The goal in creating the art exhibition, Shvarts said, was to spark conversation and debate on the relationship between art and the human body. But her project has already provoked more than just debate, inciting, for instance, outcry at a forum for fellow senior art majors held last week. And when told about Shvarts' project, students on both ends of the abortion debate have expressed shock saying the project does everything from violate moral code to trivialize abortion.

But Shvarts insists her concept was not designed for "shock value."

"I hope it inspires some sort of discourse," Shvarts said. "Sure, some people will be upset with the message and will not agree with it, but it's not the intention of the piece to scandalize anyone."

The "fabricators," or donors, of the sperm were not paid for their services, but Shvarts required them to periodically take tests for sexually transmitted diseases. She said she was not concerned about any medical effects the forced miscarriages may have had on her body. The abortifacient drugs she took were legal and herbal, she said, and she did not feel the need to consult a doctor about her repeated miscarriages.

OK, well, the "there are no words" thing is false. There ARE words.

This is disgusting, this is vile, and I cannot believe that Yale would approve this kind of thing.

Actually, well, yes, I can believe it, but it saddens me. A lot. What is happening on these college campuses? Students seem to pretty much have free reign to do whatever they feel like doing, and there sure won't be any faculty or staff to stop them -- unless, of course, it's involving a conservative viewpoint. As long as it fits into the liberal agenda, then students can do anything, no matter how depraved.

And I have to wonder how this girl's parents feel about this. They couldn't possibly be proud, could they? I mean, what would they say? "Oh, gee, well, we're so happy that our little girl is endangering her health and sanity by giving herself multiple abortions without seeing a doctor first, and then putting her blood and the videos of her home abortions on display at school. She's just so smart, we're so proud!"

Was this girl also not concerned about her health at all? Well, that's a stupid question -- apparently not, because if she was, she would have seen a damn doctor.

Is the story about the sperm donors strange to anyone but me? I mean... so, she was "artificially inseminated", but they weren't paid for their "donation". How, exactly, did she go about acquiring it? Something seems a little off there, but maybe I'm just reading too much into it.

In any case, this is easily the most awful story I'm going to write about today -- probably this week. Yale shouldn't be allowing this to go on. Yes, this girl has freedom of speech like all the rest of us, but no one is required to go out of their way to support that -- they just can't hinder it. The university has every right to tell her they don't want this disgusting display on their campus, but we all know they won't.

That something like this is allowed to go on -- and is considered art, no less -- is a sad indicator of what our society is like today.

Hat Tip: Gateway Pundit

Women make an informed choice?! How DARE they?!

Feministing is hyperventilating over a new Oklahoma law that requires for women to view ultrasounds before having abortions, and that the doctor must point out all the features of that child as well (heartbeat, fetal movements, etc.).

Because, you know, how dare women see an image of the baby they're about to kill!

An in-the-know friend of Feministing emailed to explain the bill to us:

SB 1878 is a hideous piece of anti-choice omnibus legislation that would, among other things, compel physicians one hour prior to performing an abortion to do an ultrasound on the patient and point out various features (e.g. heart beat, fetal movements) to the patient. A vaginal probe ultrasound is mandated if that gives the best image, even in those instances where the unwanted pregnancy is the result of rape. In first trimester terminations (almost all of them) that will be the case. There is a very hefty penalty if the physician fails to perform an ultrasound. (BTW, Oklahoma already has a law that requires doctors to offer women the opportunity to view an ultrasound at no cost to the woman by referral to a location that provides no-cost ultrasounds).

The bill also:

Prevents employers from "discriminating" against health care workers who refuse to perform a medical procedure (i.e. abortion, or a pap smear on a single woman)

Says only physicians can prescribe mifepristone (the abortion pill also known as RU-486) -- even though this is already the law

Requires women's health clinics that provide abortion to "conspicuously" post a sign on the premises that states it is "against the law for anyone, regardless of his or her relationship to you, to force you to have an abortion."

The Oklahoma State Medical Association opposes the bill because it interferes with the practice of medicine. Also, if a doctor fails to comply with the law, the fines are absurd -- starting at $10,000 and possibly up to $100,000. (Compare that to the maximum fine for DUI or reckless homicide in Oklahoma -- $1,000.)

...

Antichoicers call this "informed consent." But as Jessica wrote awhile back, when Will Saletan had a horrible column on mandatory-ultrasound legislation,

Because obviously women who have made the decision to end a pregnancy won’t understand the “truth” unless it’s put up on an easy-viewing screen. As Amanda so aptly noted in an email exchange: "If women only knew that they were getting abortions when they got abortions!!!!!"

Right. What mandatory-ultrasound-viewing bills do is insult women by assuming they haven't fully considered what they're doing when they decide to opt for abortion. We don't need the "help" of antichoice state legislators to understand what abortion is. We get it.

What is it with pro-abortion advocates being against this? If abortion is so great, and you aren't actually killing a child, then why does it matter if a mother sees an ultrasound? If it's no big deal, and it's just a "blob of flesh", as abortionists like to say so often, then it shouldn't be a problem.

Of course, the reason abortion advocates are so against this is because they know that if many women see an ultrasound of their baby, they'll change their mind. And we all know how lucrative the abortion business is. But in this bill, women are allowed to "avert their eyes" if they so choose during the ultrasound, so really, aren't they really complaining about nothing? If she so chooses, she can close her eyes and never look at the baby she's about to murder. Fine, go ahead -- whatever makes you sleep better at night, honey.

And why criticize the anti-discrimination part of the bill? If a doctor wants to work at, say, Planned Parenthood so he can help women who can't afford to see an OB/GYN or get birth control, but doesn't want to perform abortions, then isn't that his decision? They're basically arguing that doctors should be prosecuted for refusing to perform abortions. How does that make any sense?

The sign, in my opinion, is a great idea. Too many women are forced into abortions, led to believe that they have no other choices, by boyfriends or husbands most often, but by the clinic workers themselves as well. (But hey, gotta bring in that dough!)

So, posting a sign saying that it is illegal to force a woman to have an abortion is a negative... how?

The complaints about these types of things really show that the "pro-choice" movement isn't about choice at all. Choice has nothing to do with it. They want all women to have abortions... they want abortions to be as commonplace as Pap smears (and no, Amanda Marcotte, they aren't quite the same thing). They don't want women to decide to keep their baby or give it up for adoption, for reasons I just can't understand. Even if you're pro-abortion, why is it something to be proud of, to push women towards? No one should want to have an abortion. It's a horrible, awful thing. If you really feel like you have no choice, then it's understandable (sort of). But to parade around like it's no big thing to abort a baby is ridiculous. It is a big deal -- it's a huge deal -- and it's something that will often have a lifelong (negative) effect on the mother.

If abortion advocates really were about choice, then provisions like this wouldn't make them so angry. They'd want these mothers to make informed choices, they'd want them to know exactly what was going on with these babies so that they understand completely what it is they're doing. You can sneeringly claim that of course they understand what they're doing, but most don't. They're scared, they're confused, and they feel like they have no other options. It's only fair to them to tell them -- to show them the life growing inside of them, to give them all possible information about adoption and what help is available if they choose to keep the child. She should then be told exactly what the procedure will be like, including how painful it will be and what effect it has on the baby. Then, and only then, can you say that a mother has a made an informed choice. Only then can she truly understand exactly what she's doing.

But see, if that were to happen before every woman went in to have an abortion, I'd wager that the number of abortions would plummet. And abortion advocates simply can't have that.

Pro-"choice"? Bullshit.

This is bad news?

According to Feministing, it is.

Here is what is being called "bad news":

A Florida House committee on Thursday passed a measure (HB 513) that bill that defines life as beginning at conception for the purpose of prosecuting violent acts against pregnant women, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel reports (Hafenbrack, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, 3/12). The bill would define an "unborn child" as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb" (HB 513 text, 3/13).

My, how terrible that is. Considering an unborn baby an actual human being. My, my, how awful the Florida House is.

Why exactly is this bad news? This is, in all actuality, excellent news. I know that feminists and Planned Parenthood like to pretend that it's just a blob of flesh and is completely meaningless, therefore making it easier for women to murder their babies and still feel guilt-free over but guess what? It's not, and most women don't feel guilt-free. But don't tell NOW that.

This bill still has to go through a few committees before it's considered Florida law. Let's hope that it is passed.

That "spawn" is half his!

John Hawkins at Right Wing News is pointing to the Democratic Underground today, which has a poll going on whether or not men have any rights concerning abortion. Here's the poll, and some of the responses:

Mondo Joe: There are no men's or women's rights in abortion. There is the individual's right over their own body. In practical terms this applies only to women because they are the only people capable of pregnancy.

But if a man finsds himself pregnant he should have the same rights over his own body.

Deep13: The right to an abortion is a right to bodily integrity. It has nothing to do with who has a choice about having a baby. Bodily integrity is a pretty basic right and the financial and time-commitment interests the father has are trumped by that basic right.

Melody: Well, when their body is ravaged by nine months of pregnancy, they can have a choice. They don't have the right to tell a woman they want to force her to keep the child. That oversteps the
whole concept of parsimony at the heart of law -- doing the thing with least impact. A man who wants a child can adopt. A man who wants to stop an abortion is consciously preventing a woman from exercising the right to control her own body.

Incidentally, I voted "no, but he should be informed".

HypnoToad: Abstain? You're joking, right? Abstinence policies do squat.

femrap: You certainly aren't some kind of animal that is governed only by instinct, are you? If that is the case for males, I believe they are not capable of holding high political office. All they can think of is humping...just like a tom cat.

Yes, the decision-makers of the world require estrogen, progesterone and just a tad of that crazy hormone, testosterone!

genie_weenie: Men, if you don't want a kid don't F---.

One person challenged the DU abortion gospel:

TheWraith: The right to at the very least talk to someone and try to persuade them to a different course isn't a violation of anybody's rights, and pretending like the woman in this scenario is some weak-willed moron incapable of taking dissenting opinions is mommy-knows-best protectionism at its worst.

By the way, you both seem to operate on the implicit idea that getting pregnant is something nasty that men do to women, and that women are powerless to stop--conveniently forgetting that women have several times more contraceptive options than men do. Try giving the women you're talking about measures of credit and responsibility as well as sympathy. In case anybody forgot, it takes two people to make babies. The idea that maybe both sides of that interaction should at least have input on the final decision is not unreasonable.

Of course, this one sane person was derided and overlooked. Next to no one agreed with him.

Now, I am not pro-choice. I am pro-life, all the way, and not for religious reasons. But that's another argument for another day. Let's just pretend that there's nothing wrong with abortion and women should be able to have it whenever they want to.

Should the father be part of that decision?

The answer is a resounding yes. That "spawn", as DUers like to refer to it as, is half his. He helped create it. Yes, the woman is carrying it, but it didn't just magically arrive from the pregnancy fairy who just decided to make this poor, innocent woman's life miserable. A woman had sex with a man, either not using proper birth control or experiencing a failure in birth control, and his sperm joined with her egg. That baby is created with half of the father and half of the mother. While yes, the mother does carry it, she couldn't have created it without the father, and half of that child's genes come from the guy who supposedly has no rights in this situation.

How does that work? Honestly -- how is it that a woman carrying a baby can just kill it get rid of it abort it without ever consulting the other person who made that child? Pregnancy is a two-way street. Two people helped make that baby, two people should be responsible. The father should absolutely be notified and should be given the option to halt the abortion. What if he wants to keep the baby? Mommy may not feel anything for the life growing inside of her, but what if he does? To be fair to the "ITS MY BODY!!!!!!" crowd, if he's willing to take responsibility for the baby and the woman's medical bills until it is born, then they don't have an argument.

It's also interesting how these same "feminists" will screech with outrage if men decide they don't want anything to do with the baby. Basically, the position for men is that they have to bend over backwards to accomodate whatever position the woman decides to take, and they better not ever complain, not even once, or else it's "mysogyny". And it's all "men, if you don't want a kid don't f---", while women, apparently, should be able to f--- to their heart's content without having any consequences, whatsoever. It's all fun, no responsibility for women.

What a load of crap.

Anyways, that's my position on the issue. Men should absolutely be able to make that decision with their partner as long as abortion remains legal. The "ITS MY BODY!!!!!!" crowd needs to just relax. Yes, its your body, and if he starts telling you to cut off your limbs for him, then we'll talk. But that "spawn" you're carrying inside of you is half his, and therefore the decision is half his as well.

Here's a poll for you guys too. What do you think?

Should men be able to halt an abortion if they want to keep the baby?
	Yes; it's half his.
	No; but he should be notified.
	No; it isn't his body and it's mysogyny to say he should be able to.
	I don't know; it's too sticky a situation.
Free polls from Pollhost.com

Uh-oh, they're not backing down!

Remember the Sorry Everybody campaign? It was a pathetic attempt for moonbats to deal with their BDS and PEST by sending in pictures of themselves holding signs "apologizing" to the world for the 2004 election.

Well, NARAL's jumped onto that bandwagon to show us that they are NOT backing down, damn it. They've started a photo petition:

Despite all our hard work, the Global Gag Rule won't be repealed this year. But we're not giving up.

Join us in sending a photo message to international women’s health providers, telling them that we stand with them in their work, and – more importantly – that we’re not backing down.

I think I'm a-tremblin' now. I didn't realize that they weren't going to just give up! And those pictures... man, they just strike deep into my soul. Now that I know that they won't back down, maybe I should just be all for killing babies too, since it's a useless fight, with the NARAL advocates proudly saying they won't back down.

Did they really think they were sending some kind of meaningful message? Yeah, we get it, you want to keep on killing babies so that you can be free to have sex without consequences, and you won't quit fighting for that "right". Trust me, none of us ever thought you would.

Anyways, here are some of the pictures -- there are just over 100 total in the album, so these are just my personal favorites:




















What I really love is the looks on their faces. Most of them have this smirk that I think is supposed to come off as tough and defiant. But mainly, it just makes them look like snobby, stuck-up, and kind of constipated high school students protesting something they don't really understand because they have nothing better to do and want to feel important.

I especially love the people who brought their babies into the pictures with them, as if that's supposed to prove something. "Look, I didn't kill my babies! I just want it to be OK for other women to!" Wow, congratulations. How about you buy 'em a shirt that sums up their position in this debate perfectly?



Anyways, I guess there's something we should let them know. Something that might be kind of important for them to understand. We're fighting for life. They're fighting for death. And if pictures are how they need to communicate, then fine. Here's a picture for them.



Hat Tip: Free Republic

Planned Parenthood reports huge profits, zero adoptions

Business at Planned Parenthood is going very well. The Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) just released their annual report for the 2005 - 2006 fiscal year. The nonprofit organization performed a record 264,943 abortions, attained a high profit of $55.8 million, and received record taxpayer funding of $305.3 million.

$55.8 million profit? Baby-killing is a pretty lucrative business, I guess.

Cybercast News Service breaks it all down:

According to its annual report, income is divided roughly into three major categories: clinic income (fees charged to customers at clinics); donations (gifts from corporations, foundations and individuals); and taxpayer money (grants and contracts from federal, state and local government).

For the year July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006, Planned Parenthood received $345.1 million in clinic income, $305.3 million in taxpayer funding and $212.2 million in donations. Total income reached $902.8 million while total expenses came to $847.0 million, leaving a profit of $55.8 million.

Numerous calls to Planned Parenthood offices in both New York City and Washington, D.C., seeking comment for this article, were not returned, but a statement on the organization's website says that the report "illustrates the achievements of an organization founded to prevent unintended pregnancy and protect women's health and safety."

Oh, but it gets better. Overall donations and clinic income are down, so guess who is paying more for PPFA to kill babies? You and me:

Jim Sedlak, executive director of Stop Planned Parenthood (STOPP) International, told Cybercast News Service on Thursday that the flow of taxpayer dollars to the abortion provider "has to be stopped. Since our elected officials won't do their job, it's up to us."

"Clearly, it was a good overall year for Planned Parenthood," he said. "Total income went up 2.4 percent, passing $900 million for the first time." At the same time, however, he said further analysis revealed "potential trouble spots" for the PPFA.

"The final category of Planned Parenthood revenue sources is you and me -- the American taxpayer," Sedlak said. He noted that the amount of taxpayer funding reported by PPFA exceeded that of the previous year by $32.6 million, or 12 percent.

"The bottom line is that Planned Parenthood is losing donations, its clinic income is down, and you and I are being forced to pay more so the organization can kill our children through abortion and spread its perverted ideology throughout the land," Sedlak said. "Everyone is getting the message: Stay away from Planned Parenthood. Everyone, that is, except our elected officials," Sedlak stated. "Without the increase in taxpayer funds, Planned Parenthood would have had an overall decline in income this year."

The jump in taxpayer funding to the PPFA also drew criticism from Douglas Scott, Jr., president of Life Decisions International (LDI). "This 'not-for-profit' entity ends every fiscal year with tens of millions of dollars in 'excess revenue over expenses,' which is known to regular people as 'profit,'" he said in a statement. Referring to the closing date of the latest annual report, Scott noted that "on June 30, 2006, PPFA had net assets valued at $839.8 million, of which $330.9 million was unrestricted and another $116.6 million was temporarily restricted. This is essentially a savings account. The money is sitting in a bank and drawing interest that will further advance Planned Parenthood's deadly agenda."

But wait, it just keeps on coming. PPFA recorded... zero adoptions. Over 260,000 abortions, and zero adoptions. The previous year, they reported 1,414 adoption referrals, which was roughly 1 adoption to every 180 abortions. But this year, they chose not to reveal the number of adoptions -- wonder why. Sedlak theorizes that "we can only assume the number was so low that Planned Parenthood didn't want to embarrass itself by revealing it."

Funnily enough, however, despite record high profits and record high numbers of abortions being performed, clinics around the country are closing, with the lowest number of clinics operating since 1987.

Keep abortion safe, legal, and rare, huh? Sure sounds like it. PPFA will tell you that they are simply giving "family planning services" or something similar, and that they do not encourage girls to get abortions, something more and more undercover reporters are discovering every day to be very, very false. And the numbers speak for themself.

Sedlak saw the PPFA's declining number of clinics as a silver lining in the organization's new report.

"This data should encourage all who fight Planned Parenthood in your community every day," he said. "Planned Parenthood is hurting. It is closing down clinics faster than it can open new ones, and its clinic income is down. Now is the time to rededicate ourselves to a tireless fight against Planned Parenthood."

But it doesn't matter, because PPFA "consultants" will say that it is just a blob of flesh, and not a baby.


Does this look like a blob of flesh to you?


Hat Tip: MoonBattery