Thomas Massie exposed this abortion doctor when she revealed something so evil it will leave you in shock


The Abortion Lobby continues to lose to Donald Trump at nearly every turn, and now they are fighting back.

One abortion doctor recently testified in Congress and all hell broke loose.

That’s because what this abortion doctor said, when Congressman Thomas Massie exposed her evil views on abortion, will leave you speechless.

The Abortion Lobby is in panic mode after the pro-life movement has racked up several victories under the Trump administration.

And one abortion doctor thought her testimony would help make her case for abortion, but she ended up shooting herself in the foot.

Rep. Thomas Massie exposed Dr. McNicholas’s evil ideas about abortion when he had his chance to grill her in front of Congress.

When he asked how many abortions her clinic performs each year, she admitted they murder over 3,000 babies at their clinic.

She also revealed that she believes abortion is “moral” and is willing to perform an abortion at any point in a woman’s pregnancy.

The Blaze reports:

On Thursday, Rep. Thomas Massie exposed an abortion doctor, Dr. McNicholas, who refused to answer his questions as to whether or not she would abort a fully viable fetus. McNicholas told the committee that “abortion is moral”, that “abortion is “important”, and that she would perform an abortion for “any reason”.

Later, BlazeTV host, Allie Beth Stuckey, called out the panel for saying abortion is moral simply because the baby is not wanted.

Watch the video below for more.

The abortion doctor’s words are frightening.

What’s more frightening is that many others in the abortion industry hold these views.

If it were up to doctors such as Dr. McNicholas they would fully legalize abortion at any stage in a woman’s pregnancy and have the government pay for it.

Minors would be given access to abortion without parental input.

Fortunately, these radical positions are also why the Abortion Lobby is losing the fight to the pro-life movement.

What do you think?

Who is winning the abortion debate?

Let us know in the comment section.


  1. Loading...
  2. Of course this abortion doctor( and pro-choice) would claim it is “moral” to kill these no fault of their own, innocent souls through abortions. Look WHO their God is. His name SATAN !!!!
    God bless Rep. Thomas Massie for exposing these abominations in front of congress ! Let’s pray Pro- Life will win and put a stop to this madness.

  3. Its the white racists that love abortion because they know its mostly the minorities that get aborted.
    They want to exterminate those black & brown babies before they grow up to become a burden to society and contribute to their climate change story. Margaret Sanger was a hero to the racist white people ahahahahahahaha


    McNickolas doesn’t deserve the Doctor title because of her views on abortion! She will have to make retribution to “GOD’S” justice!

    With Prayers for ALL who are pro-choice, that ALMIGHTY GOD will be merciful to you when you die because ETERNITY is forever and there are only two choices……….choose wisely!

  5. The answer is, as always, VOTE the pro-choicers out of office and then there’s
    a decent chance to pass pro-life legislation.
    Until that happens, pro-life is fighting a very uphill battle with all the money
    PP spreads bribing (and that’s what it is, basically) legislators.
    And it’s all due to a bad, make-law, by the Supreme Court. Bork was absolutely right
    about extra-Constitutional decisions. Too bad he was bombarded with lies
    and smears and not confirmed to the Court.

  6. This abortion doctor is evil, as they all are, but she calls abortion moral???? That is way beyond sick. And the baby not wanted?? It is wanted by God and it was not the baby’s choice to be conceived. If the baby isn’t wanted, there’s this thing called birth control.

  7. Ok it is now moral to kill babies. Fine then it is moral to kill death penalty criminals too right? And clearly moral to separate children from imprisoned adults right?

    Just need to understand when the new line is drawn becuase we dont want to fight about death penalty criminals if the liberals is way past that. We dont want to fight about any moral issue short of wholesale murder. We as green it is ok for gangs to shoot one another so the who ki e gun debate is over right? We can all hff ave whatever guns we want.

    Killing babies is moral so a baby killed in a car accident does not count as murder right? What age are we going to? I have a 23 year o kn d child I would like to be red of. Is it moral to kill them?

  8. Wish that so called doctor was aborted at birth and suffered immensely. What a complete POS. Hope she rots in hell. DISGUSTING IGNORANT FOOL

  9. What ever happened to “Thou shalt not kill?” I used to hold women on pedestal as I was taught, but ever since you fought for your women’s rights, you stepped off the pedestal and look where you are now. I llok at the current women that are leading the movement and all I see is a bunch of man hating dykes and sluts. Now you are fin ding out with all of your efforts you can’t legislate and demand respect, YOU HAVE TO EARN IT!

  10. Redman, it’s obvious that the only racist individual in this discussion is you. This isn’t an issue of race, this is a discussion of murder. It’s a lack of reverence of life. You comment as if brown and black people have a higher regard for life yet historically abortion and murder rates are higher in their communities. Do us a favor. Stop It!! Stop the blaming and take responsibility for your problems.

  11. Babies have their OWN hearts, fingerprints, DNA, blood type, skin, organs, characteristics,feelings, etc.,etc.,etc., apart from the mother that’s carrying the baby so babies in the womb can be described as their own separate person that HAVE THEIR OWN RIGHTS TO LIVE TOO… the end.
    HUGE DIFFERENCE between the RIGHT & left is that mothers on the right would gladly and without hesitation give up their lives for the lives of their children whereas liberals would rather kill their own babies to save their own lives…and the day WILL come when we all must face God and His judgement as to what we did with our lives and to His most precious gift of life in babies.
    HUGE DIFFERENCE between left & right is the right would GLADLY give their lives for their children & left would kill their child to save their own life and/or make it more “convenient” for themselves…ENOUGH SAID

  12. Linda it should be up to the states to decide. If you live in a red state fine don’t allow it. But if you live in a blue state and we the majority back it then what’s the problem.

    The ironic thing is as racist as I believe most of the people on here are by banning abortion just think of extra Africa Americans and Hispanics will be procreated further swamping the soon to be white minority. Now I find that amusing.

  13. First thing you have said I agree with Birth Control.

    But many of the upright/uptight religious leaders would like to control that to.

  14. It will really SUCK being her on JUDGMENT day! . . . That REPROBATE will find out what TRUE righteousness is, and it ISN’T MURDERING God’s creation which is an ABOMINATION according to God’s Word (6th Chapter of PROVERBS). Team Trump and his allies 2020 – KAGA (Keep America Great Again).

  15. You’d think the unborn-right-to-lifers would immediately understand the animal-right-to-lifers! The case for animal rights should be readily understandable to the millions of Americans opposed to abortion on demand.

    “Although I may disagree with some of its underlying principles,” writes pro-life Democrat Karen Swallow Prior, “there is much for me, an anti-abortion activist, to respect in the animal rights movement. Animal rights activists, like me, have risked personal safety and reputation for the sake of other living beings. Animal rights activists, like me, are viewed by many in the mainstream as fanatical wackos, ironically exhorted by irritated passerby to ‘Get a Life!’ Animal rights activists, like me, place a higher value on life than on personal comfort and convenience, and in balancing the sometimes competing interests of rights and responsibilities, choose to err on the side of compassion and nonviolence.”

    The animal rights movement, representing a cross-section of mainstream secular American society, is NOT “officially pro-choice,” but IS divided on abortion. In a 1992 interview on Dennis Prager’s conservative talk show, when specifically asked about the animal rights position on abortion, Ingrid Newkirk, co-founder of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), admitted, “We’re divided.”

    Former television game show host Bob Barker is a conservative Republican and an animal activist. Tony LaRussa of the Animal Rescue Foundation is a political conservative. Vegan labor leader Cesar Chavez was pro-life. Vegan civil rights leader Dick Gregory was pro-life. Former Washington Post columnist Colman McCarthy, a devout pacifist, has expressed opposition to abortion, and in the 1980s was critical of Reverend Jesse Jackson for having changed sides on the issue.

    Dixie Mahy, past president of the San Francisco Vegetarian Society, has been vegetarian for sixty years, vegan for forty of those sixty years, and identifies herself as pro-life-and-pro-animal Matthew Scully, a conservative Catholic and former speechwriter for George W. Bush identifies himself as “Pro-Animal, Pro-Life.” Catholic Concern for Animals is pro-life-and-pro-animal. Reverend Frank Hoffman’s Christian vegan website is pro-life-and-pro-animal Compassion for animals is a fundamental tenet of the Baha’i faith, which endorses vegetarianism, says abortion is more a matter of individual conscience, but concludes, without taking a position on abortion, life should not be destroyed.

    John Stuart Mill wrote: “The reasons for legal intervention in favor of children apply not less strongly to the case of those unfortunate slaves — the animals.”

    Animals are like children. Henry Bergh, founder of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), successfully prosecuted a woman for child abuse in 1873, at a time when children had no legal protection, under the then currently existing animal protection statutes. This case started the child-saving crusade around the world.

    In Christianity and the Rights of Animals, the Reverend Dr. Andrew Linzey writes: “In some ways, Christian thinking is already oriented in this direction. What is it that so appalls us about cruelty to children or oppression of the vulnerable, but that these things are betrayals of relationships of special care and special trust? Likewise, and even more so, in the case of animals who are mostly defenseless before us.”

    When told the animal rights movement is divided on abortion, Serrin Foster, Executive Director of Feminists For Life, said understandingly, “The Children’s Defense Fund is also divided on abortion.” Feminists For Life has many vegetarians and vegans. Serrin identifies herself as a vegetarian.

    From 1992 through 2003, James Dawson, raised Catholic and now a Buddhist, published Live and Let Live, a pro-life / animal rights / libertarian ‘zine. The ancient eastern reincarnationist religions Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism all predate Christianity, all oppose abortion, all teach ahimsa, or nonviolence towards humans and animals alike to the point of vegetarianism, all are vegan-friendly, and all teach that abortion and war are the karma for killing animals, and that therefore, we cannot end abortion nor bring about world peace until first we abolish the killing of animals.

    This knowledge, however, does not rest with everyone. Not all pro-life-and-pro-animal people advocate the reincarnationist strategy for ending abortion and bringing about world peace. Shay Van Vlieman, founder of Vegans For Life in the late ’90s, said she doesn’t expect to see a vegan president in her lifetime: she would just be glad to elect a president who will work to overturn Roe v. Wade. And she insists she is not a Republican, but a libertarian!

    During the late 1990s, Rachel MacNair, a Quaker pacifist, feminist, vegan, past president of Feminists For Life, moderated an email list for pro-life vegetarians and pro-life vegans. Rachel is now a psychology professor, and has written several books on nonviolence. In 1998, the Animals Agenda ran a cover story on the debate within the animal rights movement over abortion. Vegan congressman Dennis Kucinich (D – Ohio), one of the most liberal members of Congress, was pro-life throughout most of his political career.

    Pro-life vegetarians and pro-life vegans are found within the “consistent-ethic” movement: pro-lifers opposed to capital punishment. A significant number of “consistent-ethic” Christians were / are vegetarian or vegan: Rose Evans, Ruth Enero, Rachel MacNair, Albert Fecko, Carol Crossed, Bill Samuel, Mary Krane Derr, Mary Rider, Father John Dear, etc.

    Mary Rider, a practicing Catholic, wrote in Harmony: Voices for a Just Future, a “consistent-ethic” periodical in 2002:

    “So we teach our children to walk softly on the earth and to embrace nonviolence as the only legitimate means of conflict resolution, on both a personal and a global level. We are aware of the excessive, privileged life we lead as educated, first world U.S. citizens and of the responsibilities to which our privilege calls us. We try to live simply. We eat low on the food chain. We try to buy nothing new… We try to respect all life and carry that message forward in all we do… Because we value people and relationships over things… First world consumption kills people around the world… Pollution, environmental devastation, corrupt governments, war, sweatshops… all are a are a result of our desire to buy more at a lower price… We believe each person has a right to live a valued and respected life free from hunger and discrimination…”

    The threat of overpopulation is frequently used to justify abortion as birth control. On a vegan diet, however, the world could easily support a human population several times its present size. The world’s cattle alone consume enough to feed over 8.7 billion humans. Even if abortion advocates argue shifting to a plant-based diet, a vegan diet, isn’t enough to stave off overpopulation, in light of the data showing the depletion of energy, food, fresh water, land space, raw materials and resources as well as the heavy contribution to air and water pollution, deforestization, and global warming caused by a meat-centered diet, how do abortion advocates — warning about overpopulation consuming the world’s resources — justify consuming animal products?

    If vegetarianism were merely about “fit” or following a peculiar set of “dietary laws” why are pro-lifers offended by pro-choice vegetarians and pro-choice vegans? Clearly, they’re offended because they know vegetarianism involves the animals’ right to life, and thus these pro-choicers appear to value animal life over human life under some circumstances. And issues like animal experimentation, circuses, and fur have nothing to do with diet, eating, nor food, but do involve the animals’ right to life. Leonardo Da Vinci, Count Leo Tolstoy, Mohandas Gandhi, George Bernard Shaw, Susan B. Anthony, Percy Shelley, Rosa Parks, etc. were all vegetarian, and none of them were Jewish nor Muslim.

    For Love of Animals: Christian Ethics, Consistent Action offers an introduction to animal rights ethics within Christianity alongside directly related sanctity-of-life issues, like the possible rights of unborn children. The book’s foreword is written by Mary Eberstadt, senior fellow with the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, DC, a Catholic who identifies herself as “Pro-Animal, Pro-Life.”

    Author Charles Camosy responds to criticisms from academicians Peter Singer and Lynn White, Jr., that the misinterpretation of “human dominion” (versus compassionate stewardship) is responsible for the current ecological crisis. Camosy indicates that Christianity cannot be blamed if humans with their imperfections distort their own religious teachings, that Christianity did not give rise to the industrial revolution, and that real Christianity — as it was meant to be practiced — is at odds with market-driven ethics and mass consumerism (a point made decades ago by liberal Protestant theologian Dr. Harvey Cox). Camosy concludes: “I became convinced that, if I wanted to be authentically and consistently pro-life, I should give up eating meat.” Dozens of books have been written on Christianity and animal rights. Camosy merely provides an overview of animal ethics in Christianity.

    Steve Kaufman, head of the Christian Vegetarian Association, was raised Jewish, and is now serving in the United Church of Christ, America’s largest pro-choice Protestant denomination. Steve expressed interest in Democrats For Life, his only reservation was whether Democrats For Life favors criminalizing abortion. Some animal advocates and activists (like Catholic vegan columnist Colman McCarthy) oppose abortion, but don’t think criminalization is the answer.

    In 2004, on the Democrats For Life email list, Maria Krasinski mentioned a poll which found animal activists evenly divided on abortion. This either indicates animal rights really are a bipartisan cause which conservatives can support alongside liberals, or it indicates many liberals are uncomfortable with abortion!

    In 2014, Kristen Day of Democrats For Life said: “Roughly a third of the Democratic Party is pro-life. And while many do not call themselves liberal, they share the values which seem to identify with liberalism, particularly a commitment to helping the vulnerable and providing a social safety net.”

    The Democratic Party platform should support: Animal Rights, Defending the Affordable Care Act, Ending Citizens United, Ending Marijuana Prohibition, Giving Greater Visibility to Pro-Life Democrats, Gun Control, Net Neutrality, Raising the Minimum Wage to $15 an Hour, Responding to the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming, and a Sustainable Energy Policy.

    Democrats for Life of America, 10521 Judicial Drive, #200, Fairfax, VA 22030, (703) 424-6663

  16. I wish you didnt feel that way. I know many brilliant minorities and many white burdens. I am an aging white woman and I dont like the word racist thrown into the conversation. I respect you and your opinion but I for one am against abortion as a means of birth control. I understand it has its purpose.

  17. Jack: First of all, most of us are not racist by any stretch of the imagination. At least not what I have read. But I can positively speak for myself that I am not racists. I marched in Mississippi during the 60’s. I served in the military with all different races. And in my civilian career, I also worked with many different races as well. Does that mean I support everything minorities say or do? Absolutely not. But that also applies to minorities as well. What I am against is the massive influx of illegals storming our borders now, and thinking they will have us supporting them. No free rides for anyone. Sorry.
    I am positively against abortion. It is against my religion and my morals. And with all due respect to your thinking that it should be up to each state, in my opinion that is just ridiculious . If people just used some common sense, most abortions wouldn’t be needed. It has now become THE form of birth control. So why are you for abortion? Red states, blue states that shouldn’t determine one’s choices.. I know Democrats( yes it’s true) that do not support abortions .So now you are speaking for “the majority”?? Maybe you should view a video of what ACTUALLY happens during an abortion. It might change your mind.
    Now, you are on this site. Does that make YOU a racist?? It certainly sounds like you that with that statement concerning African Americans and the Hispanics. I know you are a Liberal. Sorry about that too. So why are you here?? Or better yet, why do you center me out to have a debate with??

  18. Absolutely on point, Linda.
    Since pro-lifers are starting to be more forceful in pointing out the horrors
    of abortion (and the commercializing of baby part selling), people like your correspondent
    are being forced to take positions like “…let the States decide.” The original (lousy) decision
    was made by the Supreme Court and they are the ones who should junk it. Bork was right!
    Baby killers will simply locate in the abortion States and the moral problem will continue.
    (New York and California come to mind, don’t they?!)

  19. Lisa: Please pay no attention to RedMan. Don’t even respond to him – it doesn’t matter
    what you say; it simply gives him another chance to spew garbage.
    If you aren’t aware, he is well known on this site for his rabid posts with
    his ridiculous anti-white ravings.

  20. Feel sorry for this doctor and all others like her because when they meet their maker their excuses for taking so many innocent lives will not be acceptable, I don’t think so yet I may be wrong

  21. Are you aware red man that the founder of Planned Parenthood Margret anger [sp] goal was to eliminate the black race. You my racist blogger are so racist it it is not even funny. God help you.

  22. OH MY GOD I have compassion for animals however we are talking here Mr. Murti about abortion of a human being created by God.

  23. Jack, You are a very sad creature. You have no concept of what you are even talking about.
    First, let states decide?? So it’s just fine with you that blue states would choose to murder a baby. YES, it is murder. Life begins at conception. Read a biology book. That’s the problem!!!!! Abortion is murdering the most innocent and helpless human being. It is the SAME baby whether in or out of the womb. It is just a differernt state of development. So you would think nothing of killing a baby after it is born???
    And second…racist???? We are NOT racist!!!! This is a conservative CHRISTIAN site and God created and loves ALL races!!! There will be ALL races in Heaven. It is obviously YOU who is racist for even bringing that up. Why do you even come here? You have no clue what a conservative is or a Christian is

  24. Jack, you know nothing at all about what religious leaders want. You have no concept at all of who God is or what He teaches in the book He gave us.

  25. Patricia, Vasu has no understanding of that. He does not know or care who God is. He just uses the Bible for his own agenda without understanding a word that is in it. very sad.
    And I also have compassion for animals. God says we are to be good stewards of what He gave us. I love most animals. But Vasu does not understand that HUMANS have what animals do not…souls. He has no concept of what a soul is.

  26. Let me ask you this who are you to dictate your morals to everyone else In other words who made you the judge, of what other people believe.

    Additionally the question is about free agency better known as choice you don’t have the right to dictate that to anyone just because you believe one way about something and I believe another way. After all that is the one true things God gives all persons free agency.

  27. You don’t have to hope. She definitely will. God said thou shall not kill. He also said I knew you before you were born. She will be burning in Hell for sure.

  28. Linda just because you believe one way and I believe another doesn’t make either of us wrong or right. Also you said you marched in Mississippi during the 60’s I admire that.

  29. I’ve never heard the race baiting in the abortion question before. Except when talking about the founder of Planned Parenhood. The problem with the abortion argument, in my view, is the left got their way through Roe v Wade. But then they had to keep it going even bigger. Teenage abortions without parental consent, then government paid for abortions, the 2ns and 3rd trimester abortions, then partial birth abortions, then afterbirth abortions. Then selling bay parts after abortions. Frankly, the abortion industry has done far more harm to their “right to abortion” than any Republican or Evangelist. But that’s fine by me. Keep it up and soon Roe V Wade will be overturned

  30. If a woman does not want a child, it is easy to find many more who want to adopt a newborn child, whatever its race. It’s selfishness not to be willing to go through the “inconvenience” of carrying a baby to full term and giving it birth.

  31. Jack: Agree to disagree. But please reconsider your view on abortion. If not for from a religious point of view. But for a moral one. Watch a video and then think about it. Also, reconsider your political party.
    Now don’t throw a fit. I was only kidding. Not really. But it’s worth a try!!!

  32. There are sometimes reasons to abort a baby….but they are very rare, not any 3000 times a year! Sometimes the baby is an anenecephalic (without the front part of its brain = incompatibility with life) and the mother is having health issues. Or perhaps it has other genetic anomalies that are incompatible with life! But this is NOT what this abortion mill doctor was talking about. Sometimes there is a complication of pregnancy called a hydatidiform mole which MUST be removed as it can lead to cancer. Again, these are rare….not 3000 per year at any clinic!

  33. Its white racists that love abortion because they know it’s mostly nigga black babies that get exterminated before they grow up to become a burden on society and start robbing gas stations in hoodies with handguns held horizontally ahahahahahahaha

  34. Yes I am aware that Margaret Sanger was racist and I also am aware she was white and that’s my point. It’s always white racists that cause all the pain and death ahahahajaha

  35. This is the truth why abortion is so popular with pro-choice women, it is a stealthy way to allow these women to hide that they are unfeeling sluts, who care more about hiding their personal shame than the life of a child, when they do not take proper precautions to avoid becoming pregnant.

    “BlazeTV host, Allie Beth Stuckey, called out the panel for saying abortion is moral simply because the baby is not wanted.”
    Under that illogic it would be open season on politicians, The IRS, Antifa, all gangs, etc. This is complete lunacy. Murder is wrong, period. Children, and don’t even try to claim that “they are not children”, are being murdered in America by the millions. The children are then cut up to sell like meat in a butcher shop. How can anyone with any feelings not see this is wrong.
    Also how can anyone say a child is not wanted? How many people would gladly adopt that child? Instead of funding abortion / murder how about we fund adoption instead.

    Planned Parenthood is completely biased, and should be defunded immediately. No tax payer should ever have their tax dollars be used in funding the murder of unborn children.

    This must stop. Vote out all those who seek to kill, or support the killing of children. Vote and protest til we get the laws changed to stop allowing the murder of innocent children, under whatever politically correct misnomer they are using.

  36. Jacky boy, only folks have souls, not animals, but white folk think their soul shine brighter than black & brown folk so they favors abortion ’cause they know it mostly niggas and spics that get exterminated ahahahahahaha

  37. Murder is intentional homicide lacking legal excuse. To claim that abortion is murder is to ignore the fact that murder is not the only thing that can be the basis of the loss of a human life. There is also manslaughter, wrongful death, depraved indifference, capital “punishment” and war killing, at least as far as homicide goes.

    By the way, the lion’s share of abortions are god’s doing, which is medically known as spontaneous abortion, aka miscarriage. Welcome to life on planet earth. It’s rough.

    When woman commits or arranges for the expulsion of an unborn human life (be that her own offspring or some other woman’s) from her womb, which is certain to result in the unborn’s death, it may be moral or immoral, as it would depend upon needfulness of the sacrifice, such as saving an innocent mother’s life or the life of a healthy fetus sharing the womb with a parasitic sibling, rather than termination (preceded by evisceration at that) in the name of pure convenience. A moral person will do this regardless of what pathetic threats are enshrined into law. There is not always a precise alignment between morality and law. We cannot pretend that we’ve never heard of immoral laws or that anything and everything that is immoral can also be made illegal.

    The idea that a human fetus, even a human embryo or a human zygote, is human as a matter of genetics is fine. An acorn belongs to the same species as the mature oak that produced it. Things that are alive are capable of dying. The law traditionally has not considered such a human life to bear personhood to any degree at all, and in lieu, treats the human unborn as property. Of course, the law can be changed. There is still the matter of practicality. Affirming equality under law between the born and unborn is one thing. Being able to determine that an embryo even exists let alone that he or she has died, let alone that a person’s behavior was the cause of death is orders of magnitude much harder to do than analyzing the corpse of somebody who had been born and later died.

    Let us also not forget that convicting somebody of murder requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, in the United States. If a forensic pathology team cannot determine whether a death was a pure miscarriage or due to somebody’s behavior, then the death would probably be miscarriage.

    Now, does Colleen McNicholas or Allie Beth Stuckey give a hoot about any of the aforementioned? Probably not. They have a one-sided agenda to promote. We see a lot of that in politics.

  38. WOW! If God said she wasn’t important and didn’t allow her to be born, then maybe all humans should have never been born, because none of us are important…according to them. Planned parenthood is sick and those running it are sicker. Murder is a serious thing with God and one day God will let them know that.

  39. Just curious. Do these “doctors” even take the Hippocratic Oath any more? “First, do no harm”. Crushing a baby’s skull and tearing it to pieces certainly counts as doing harm, doesn’t it?

    We’re talking about an unborn human being with a heartbeat. Are these “doctors” unable to comprehend that? Somebody please remind me never to go to a “doctor” that doesn’t know that the first stage of human LIFE is the gestation in the mother’s womb. Heck, I learned that in grade school many, many years ago.

    As far as the prime argument of baby murdering Liberals that the fetus is just a collection of tissue, I’d remind them that SO ARE THEY. The difference is that someone didn’t tear them apart with a forceps before they made it into the world.

    Hitler – 10,000,000. Stalin – 25,000,000. Mao – 50,000,000. And what’s the body count for abortionists now? Over 100,000,000 worldwide and counting?

    I have the perfect solution to abortion. It’s absolutely foolproof. DON’T GET PREGNANT.

  40. If the crushing and maiming is being done to a dead baby, then those actions do not constitute harm. But, of course, we know that sometimes those actions are done to living “babies”, and without anesthetics being applied on top of that.

  41. I was watching an animal video set to music that showed the mother’s protecting their young from any dangers. They will fight any predator to the death to give her offspring every chance to live. Have some women forgotten that it is their sacred duty to do likewise? I am heartsick that so many of these beautiful little souls will never have a chance to experience life. I also wonder who will be left to care for these women when they are old and no one is there for them. Abortion is a selfish act that demonstrates no regard for anyone but themselves. In the end they will face God and I for one have no pity for them.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here