February 15, 2019

Abortion survivor speaks out about new laws in New York, Virginia

Jessica SwietoniowskiRebel Correspondent

New York recently passed a controversial bill which allows abortion up to the moment of birth. And Virginia seems to be taking this even further, legalizing abortion after birth — in other words, infanticide.


During the State of the Union address, President Trump pushed back, and called upon Congress to end late-term abortion.

Trump’s remarks have re-started the national debate on abortion and “reproductive rights.” The voices on the pro-life and pro-choice sides are louder now than they’ve been in many years.

But there is one voice we often forget when discussing abortion: The voice of that of the child.

Claire Culwell is an abortion survivor who recently testified in the Kentucky Senate regarding a bill to make abortion illegal as soon as the fetus' heartbeat is detected.

WATCH her tell her compelling story, and talk about her efforts to spread her pro-life message.

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2019-02-28 23:16:17 -0500
How I wish this was required viewing in all junior high schools.
commented 2019-02-18 15:23:10 -0500
“M 103 includes discriminating against an ideology. "

You can’t use your dislike of an “ideology” to attack people who believe in it. Never could, never will. They also have personal freedom, to have a belief, and to be respected for having it, that is not lesser to yours. I can’t attack Christians because I think the Jesus mythology (“ideology”) is bunk. The debate about M103 seems to confuse discussion of beliefs, (which if fine, if done respeotfully), and using them to discriminate against people (which is not, and wasn’t before). M103 doesn’t add anything that wasn’t already there, which does indeed make it redundant, but that’s the extent of it.

“People who understand individual liberty are not going to be pushing a THEORY which speaks to a tiny portion of the population onto unsuspecting children. ’

Acknowledging the existence of something doesn’t mean they’re pushed to believe it. I can acknowledge that some people disagree with climate change, and that acknowledgement does not push anyone to change their beliefs. I may disagree, but you have the right to believe that.

Purely binary gender constructs is itself a theory, and not a particularly good one since we can observe nonbinary individuals. One can hypothesize that genetic sex bears an ironclad link to phenotypic sex, and gender, but we’ve observed that that isn’t the case. This isn’t an indication of “delusion” but rather that this hypothesis needs revisiting.

Whether you agree or not, it’s out there. They have the right to be there. It’s our job to acknowledge that right even if it makes us uncomfortable.
commented 2019-02-17 14:13:10 -0500
Andrew posted to Alberta Maga, "You never had the freedom to verbally attack others based upon some aspect of their identity "

Bingo Andrew. We already have those laws. We don’t need some omni bill/come m103, to run rough shod all over everyone’s right to free expression. People are already protected under the law from discrimination. M 103 includes discriminating against an ideology. That goes against everyone’s rights and freedom’s. It is our right to criticise ideologies. I don’t like political Islam, so you could say I discriminate against it. That is a right that can only be taken away from me by a tyrannical government. That is the purpose of m103. Its abuse of the law to effect will on the people that they know they have no right to, in a free society. M 103 is the move before actual force is applied. M 103 is bullshit.
-——————
Plus it is being used to fund Islam, domestically and abroad. Many outfits with questionable connections. Check out some Tom Quiggin. A highly credible source completely ignored by our government.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sj1G8zmoskA
8:18 min mark for specific m103 mention,
commented 2019-02-17 13:42:52 -0500
Andrew says, “I see no problem with normalizing diversity.”
I do. I don’t accept your definition. You live in a made up story. I live in reality. Andrew says. “Be conventional if you like, but recognize that others don’t have to be.”

Are you really that incapable of seeing your own hypocrisy? People who understand individual liberty are not going to be pushing a THEORY which speaks to a tiny portion of the population onto unsuspecting children. Taking our tax dollars to weave it into our public schools to indoctrinate our kids into what amounts to a fad is not respectful of the population as a whole.

A fad being pushed by very mentally, emotionally and in may cases morally unhealthy damaged adults who have no business deciding anything for children. Its not about being kind or unkind, its about perpetrating a fad which will do nothing to serve our children, in fact it will only serve twisted adults. A lot of it looks like sexual grooming of minors.
There will be lawsuits by the numbers of traumatized kids who were transitioned before they could decide for themselves. Just give it a couple more years. That’s if we don’t lose them all by suicide. Pushing it is criminal in my opinion.
-——————————-
So many intrusive bad laws, and so little time.
Don’t step on me, I won’t step on you. Do what you like to yourself, but don’t expect those who disagree, to stand by and watch as children are being sacrificed on the alter some post modernist redefinition of truth and reality.
-—————————-
Regarding abortions, I really hope that doctors can refuse to perform them if it is against their conscience. It certainly is against their Hippocratic oath.That alone would make a difference. Planned parenthood needs to be exposed and totally defunded. They don’t help women , they use them.
commented 2019-02-17 11:54:46 -0500
Al Peterson commented 1 day ago
So, Andrew, why is this evil:
But this is not? "
The fetus’ death is an unfortunate consequence of its eviction, not the primary intent of the procedure.

“Alberta Maga commented 1 day ago
Andrew is m-103 about freedom as well LMAO! Or are personal opinions only valid when they involve made up genders?”

You never had the freedom to verbally attack others based upon some aspect of their identity – laws like M103 merely clarify the issue. Redundant virtue signaling? Sure. Threat to freedom… not so much. Your freedoms are bounded when they unreasonably infringe upon those of others.

“Al Peterson commented 1 day ago
Late term and early abortions are moral equivalents. What is the difference between this late term:

Late term means it can be delivered and survive. This removes the moral quandry for most people, and that’s also why it’s rare.

“liza Rosie commented 22 hours ago
Andrew, nobody has the right to force gender theory on our children. There are ONLY TWO GENDERS and we were born with the right to express them. If people want to identify as something else, have at-er, but don’t dare try to normalized it around my kids. "

If you want to express a “traditional” gender, go ahead. It’s a free country. Your kids will live in a world where non-binary identities exist (the same “normalization” that happened with gay rights over the last 20 years, will happen with non-binaries in the next 20. Thou doth protest too much).

“Canada was (until the recent U.S. law change) the only western country with no abortion laws whatsoever. That is uncivilized. Losing respect for human life will be the complete downfall of our civilization. It is a disgrace, and coupled with the neutering of our youth by normalizing gender fluidity and attempting to make this deviation in nature a desirable thing, should be a criminal offence in my opinion.”

We have abortion laws (S287 is still present in the criminal code) They are simply unenforceable. Taking the lead is not a bad thing.

I see no problem with normalizing diversity. There is no place for hate for those who are different. Be conventional if you like, but recognize that others don’t have to be.
commented 2019-02-17 11:42:52 -0500
Tammie: “you cannot identify with a “normal” woman who is pregnant…therefore, you minimize a pregnancy to a “clump of cells” or something similar”

Could that not also be reasonably projected to the male posters in this forum?

““in essence”is not a law. It is your opinion which makes it a lie- again. All the SCC said was that the proposed law was unconstitutional it did not a say that any law restricting abortion is unconstitutional”

“In essence” refers to being a summary. Due to the by-precedent nature of our legal system, the rationale behind the decision of Morgentaler would also apply to similar laws. Which is to say, that women have security-of-person.

“This is just a ludicrous attempt to present BS as rational thought. SO when someone does use that “option” it is forcing their beliefs on the baby they are carrying. You are the champion of obfuscation. "

They have that right. The fetus is not legally a person (Tremblay v Daigle, SCC, 1989).

“Semantics are crucial to arrive at truth. That is why leftists are so free and easy with changing the definitions words for the aforementioned reasons. "
Whether this particular issue is “evil” or not seems to be a matter of opinion and obviously the terminology reflects that.

I’m not a leftist. This is a strawman.
commented 2019-02-16 20:22:55 -0500
All good, Liza. We do agree on the truth chichis more than can be said for others. What you finished with I have humbly called, Peterson’s Law for many years: For every right there is an equal and opposite responsibility.
commented 2019-02-16 14:19:18 -0500
One more thing about Planned Parenthood. They are stoked with this new legislation in the US. and they love Canada’s lack of regulation. The closer to term the baby is aborted, the more valuable the body parts are to them.
It is positively morbid, ghoulish and utterly barbaric.
commented 2019-02-16 13:58:34 -0500
Al Peterson wrote to me:

“AL PETERSON
Sorry, Liza but you are partially right. 50% of the DNA comes from the mother and 50% from the father. That is how paternity tests are done. The baby does not have DNA identical to the mother. That makes each baby unique from its mother and not part of her body. All the other organs have the identical DNA to the mother.”
-—————————
Sorry I jumped down your throat Al, we are in agreement (i think). The DNA is not identical, but shared from both parents. Each child is unique but is a part of both parents. Babies are separate human beings from their parents of course. Babies are the responsibility of those parents because of that shared DNA, at least that is the way nature was meant to work
I agree that it should not give the mother the right to treat a fetus like a bad appendix, to be removed and discarded at her whim.

Pro abortion advocates don’t seem to accept that you cannot have rights without responsibilities and obligations. They cannot have anyone of those with out the other.
commented 2019-02-16 13:39:31 -0500
Andrew, nobody has the right to force gender theory on our children. There are ONLY TWO GENDERS and we were born with the right to express them. If people want to identify as something else, have at-er, but don’t dare try to normalized it around my kids.

You don’t believe in objective truth, so there is never any point in talking to you. So sick of going around the maypole with someone incapable of grasping the most basic realities. Have a nice life. stay away from my kids and remember that abortion is not there for slow witted women to use as birth control.

It only exists at all because women were going to back ally butchers. Then Planned parenthood got into it and realized what a money maker it was and grew abortion clinics into baby part factories, with the added element of controlling populations, blacks in the U.S being the most aborted.

Canada was (until the recent U.S. law change) the only western country with no abortion laws whatsoever. That is uncivilized. Losing respect for human life will be the complete downfall of our civilization. It is a disgrace, and coupled with the neutering of our youth by normalizing gender fluidity and attempting to make this deviation in nature a desirable thing, should be a criminal offence in my opinion. Be whatever, but you are a small minority, stop trying to make it a fad. Its ridiculous and it harms children and society as a whole.
commented 2019-02-16 11:14:58 -0500
ALBERTA MAGA commented 9 hours ago
…the slippery slope is real no matter how much you deny it.
________________________________________________________________________________
MAGA, I’ve never agreed that the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. There are too many real life examples of it truth.
commented 2019-02-16 02:27:23 -0500
Andrew is m-103 about freedom as well LMAO! Or are personal opinions only valid when they involve made up genders?
commented 2019-02-16 02:25:46 -0500
Andrew Stephenson abortion was supposed to be rare, it isn’t! Now some want live babies killed, the slippery slope is real no matter how much you deny it.
commented 2019-02-16 02:24:21 -0500
Andrew Stephenson if you do not like guns, do not get one. Practice what you preach.
commented 2019-02-16 02:23:18 -0500
Andrew Stephenson we will be made to call people their made up gender, that is FORCE!!
And how about women pay for their own damn choice, pro abortion people seem to love autonomy but at the expense of others.
commented 2019-02-16 01:33:52 -0500
The left claim life doesn’t start til the first breath. That of course, is silly, and “convenient”. But the best way to prove them wrong, is to ask the children.

Did you now if you ask a 3yr old (young enough to still remember and old enough to answer), they will tell you what it was like in the womb? I’ve done it dozens of times. I thought they’d like it, but they all scrunch up their nose and say it was “too squishy”. Try it!!
commented 2019-02-16 01:09:58 -0500
3) I’m sorry you’re so triggered by semantics. I disagree it’s “evil”, merely unfortunate. Differences in opinions are not “lies”.
__________________________

Semantics are crucial to arrive at truth. That is why leftists are so free and easy with changing the definitions words for the aforementioned reasons. They try to sugar coat the evil they are promoting so as to ensure the gullible. We are not having a difference of opinion. You are distorting word meanings which is another form of a lie.

An intentionally false statement.
‘they hint rather than tell outright lies’
‘the whole thing is a pack of lies’ Used with reference to a situation involving deception or founded on a mistaken impression.

‘all their married life she had been living a lie’

Tell a lie or lies.
‘why had Ashenden lied about his visit to London?’
with direct speech ‘‘I am sixty-five,’ she lied’

More example sentencesSynonyms
1.1lie one’s way into/out of Get oneself into or out of a situation by lying.
‘you lied your way on to this voyage by implying you were an experienced crew’

More example sentences
1.2 (of a thing) present a false impression.
‘the camera cannot lie’

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/lie

These definitions explain you perfectly. You want to believe and promulgate lies. Fancy word smithing doesn’t hide the lie.

" You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. "

John 8:44
commented 2019-02-16 00:58:58 -0500
I’ll try this again:
AL PETERSON
Sorry, Liza but you are partially right. 50% of the DNA comes from the mother and 50% from the father. That is how paternity tests are done. The baby does not have DNA identical to the mother. That makes each baby unique from its mother and not part of her body. All the other organs have the identical DNA to the mother.
commented 2019-02-16 00:55:07 -0500
ANDREW STEPHENSON
My beliefs are that my beliefs are irrelevant to you or anybody else. I do not make that decision for others, only leave the option available. Having an option available is not forcing beliefs on anyone, since you don’t have to use that option.
________________________________________________________________________________
This is just a ludicrous attempt to present BS as rational thought. SO when someone does use that “option” it is forcing their beliefs on the baby they are carrying. You are the champion of obfuscation.
commented 2019-02-16 00:51:41 -0500
ANDREW STEPHENSON
R. v Morgentaler (which, in essence, made it unconstitutional to enforce abortion laws, due to their infringement on her security-of-person),
______________________________________________________________________________
“in essence”is not a law. It is your opinion which makes it a lie- again. All the SCC said was that the proposed law was unconstitutional it did not a say that any law restricting abortion is unconstitutional. No one has a had the backbone to present another one since.
commented 2019-02-16 00:45:59 -0500
Sorry Hat makes each o baby unit due from its mother and not part of her body. All the other organs have the identical DNA to the mother.

“Only one person in every 10 million million (10,000,000,000,000) will have a particular STR profile. With the world human population estimated at only 7,100 million (7,100,000,000) it is therefore extremely unlikely you will share the same profile as someone else, unless you are an identical twin.”

https://www.yourgenome.org/facts/what-is-a-dna-fingerprint
commented 2019-02-16 00:43:55 -0500
Well said TAMMIE PUTINSKI-ZANDBELT… Andrew, how about you discuss the issues with me? But, before you do.. You should know that I have a few “freaks” in my family.. As the old saying goes “You can choose your friends, but not your family”.. So, lets get at it…:)
commented 2019-02-16 00:34:31 -0500
LIZA ROSIE:
Women have selective abortions where there are multiple babies and all but one are aborted. Often as a result of IVF.
Melissa Ohden, abortion survivor, started Abortion Survivors’ Network https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5uhZg4EwJg
commented 2019-02-16 00:22:45 -0500
Thank you Jan G, for that link.. It’s heartbreaking…. And, it’s real… The good news is, that each and every one of us is being watched over.. Yes, we are being watched.. Be honest and stay true to those around you.. We are going to be fine… Andrew (on the other hand) has some issues…
commented 2019-02-15 23:22:16 -0500
Andrew, we all know this is one of your mania topics, I also know from your previous posts you are not likely to become pregnant . Your words “cis-gendered” “asesexual” “mysanthropic” You confirmed you are on the autism spectrum. So, I will lay it out knowing if you were truthful in past posts, this will not affect you emotionally. Here it is, you are never likely to attract a male who will sleep with you; let alone get you pregnant, you cannot identify with a “normal” woman who is pregnant…therefore, you minimize a pregnancy to a “clump of cells” or something similar. So, as a woman who doesn’t have sex, and doesn’t stand a chance of getting pregnant, I think your opinions are laughable.
commented 2019-02-15 22:48:28 -0500
“Andrew, if you feel that way why do you insist on forcing gender studies ,fluidity, sex ed on children whose parents don’t want it? Why are there laws you agree with to charge those who misgender, or parents who don’t start hormone drugs for their confused misguided child ?(as a result of the damn public school !) .”

You have the right to express whatever gender you want. Telling kids that this exists is not forcing it on them – it’s a basic acknowledgement of what’s happening in the real world. Malicious verbal attacks on others are not legal and never have been, regardless the circumstances.

“Look Andrew. I know you feel omnipotent, but you are not God.
You cannot say none will be forthcoming. The matter needs to be reopened. Just because politicians, including Harper were too cowardly to do it does not mean it isn’t going to happen and won’t happen. If Canadians demand restrictions there will have to be discussion. "

There’s not much you can do in the face of the SCoC ruling. The old laws were never actually removed. Trudeau started to but doesn’t seem to have followed through, even if a lot of Canadians demanded restrictions only about 1 in 10 Canadians favours strong restrictions) the SCoC ruling is quite clear about the unconstitutionality of it.

“I do not believe that all abortion will ever be made illegal in Canada or most of the states(is it a state or federal issue there?) But a civilized country doesn’t allow them past heartbeat. "

Roe vs Wade established it as a Federal jurisdiction in the US. Many countries restrict past third trimester but even when not restricted, it’s rare that late – by then it can be delivered live in most cases and usually is. I wonder if Ireland might have been the last developed nation to have a substantial blanket ban?
commented 2019-02-15 22:30:48 -0500
“Peter Netterville commented 4 hours ago
Andrew said, " …but must acknowledge that her beliefs cannot be forced upon others."

I have noticed this is a sacrosanct absolute with you, so then I find it odd then that you support forcing your beliefs on the baby. "

I have never had an abortion, and thus forced nothing on any baby. Having the option available does not force you to use it.

I do consider individual freedoms to be sacrosanct, yes. Thanks for noticing.

“Any ruling from a judge can be overturned with exception to the SCoC. " Both rulings are SCoC rulings. Although the Supreme Court can indeed revise its own rulings, they require evidence of substantial changes in circumstances – they will not hold the same trial twice. In practice this is very rare. What circumstances have changed since the original ruling substantial enough to re-try?

“Tammie Putinski-Zandbelt commented 40 mins ago
Andrew Stephenson, Roe v Wade will be overturned. Deal with it!”
I’m not American, I don’t have to deal with it. Nor do I know anyone that lives in a state that would be affected by such an event.

Most of the states that would take advantage of the legal space allowed by reversing RvW already make it very difficult to access services among those without the means to travel, an overturn of RvW would not affect state laws like those in NY or VA. In practice I don’t think it would really change as much as people seem to think. (Assuming it happens. They did block that difficult-access law in Louisiana just a few days ago)

hell, maybe an overturn might be for the best, because that opens the door for the next Democrat president to simply declare lack of abortion access a national emergency.