UnPLANNED

Abby Johnson, Norma McCorvey (a.k.a. Jane Roe), Dr Bernard Nathanson were all important tools in the hands of the devil to brainwash our society defending abortion and women's rights but NOW they are among the most influential pro-life advocates in the world. If they can see the truth, anyone can. God has some great judo-moves to help us defeat this evil system which uses Newspeak in order to hide its true nature. They are not pro-choice any more, they feel that we, pro-lifers twisted the word "choice" and now use it to our advantage. They are pro-freedom from now on. I don't see much difference there, to be honest. Freedom is simply one of the many basic human rights, one of which is the right to life and the right to security! Human rights are "rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled." The only question is whether a fetus of a human is a human then there is no argument left on the side of "pro-freedom". If they don't acknowledge that a human fetus is human then they should seriously consider going back to school. I guess third grade science covers this topic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMSfr_3xDsE&feature=player_embedded
http://www.unplannedthebook.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xfEoqGeliA

Rights of the unborn

http://www.zenit.org/article-31282?l=english

"Abortion advocates have long argued for a woman's right to control her body and to be able to dispose of the unborn child if she wishes. In a bizarre decision, a Belgian court has extended that reasoning to say that a child has a right to be aborted.

A Belgian journal, "Revue Générale des Assurances et Responsabilités," has just published the decision handed down by the Brussels Court of Appeal on Sept. 21 regarding the case of a child born disabled after an erroneous prenatal diagnosis, according to the Gènéthique press review for Nov. 29-Dec. 3.

The court ruled that the child's parents could claim damages from the doctors who failed to detect the disability. They said that by making therapeutic abortion legal, the legislators intended to allow women to avoid giving birth to seriously handicapped children, "having regard not only to the interests of the mother, but also to those of the unborn child itself."

Thus, the judges considered that the child would have had the "right" to an abortion if his disability had been correctly diagnosed."

The absurdity of this article lies not only in the implied eugenistic views of Belgian jurisdiction. It is in acknowledging the right of the unborn but only the right to be killed.
However, I'm pretty sure that pro-life attorneys could use this ruling in favor of the unborn by proving that if the unborn are recognized as human beings who "have the right to a "wholesome" life", (which is basically what they mean by stating that it is better for a kid to die than to live with some kind of health disorder), then the unborn are just like any other human child, it needs love and caring from its parents and the unconditional support from our society. So killing the unborn by abortion or hurting it in any way (e.g. by hitting it or even the mum smoking while pregnant) could be ruled as murder, respectively child abuse.
Concerning a "wholesome" life, who are we to decide what is wholesome and full.  Diagnosing disorders is not 100% accurate. What about those children who are born with "undetectable" abnormalities (do they have the right to die after being born?) or which abnormalities are so serious that they have to be prevented by terminating the life of a baby? If someone wants to commit suicide because he does not feel worthy enough to live (and well, he has the right to be killed - he can even be considered a conscious being who knows best what is good for him), are we allowed to push him off the bridge? 
That small, fragile life needs our protection. The smile of a child with Down Syndrome is just as precious as the smile of a healthy baby.

Analogy of the winning lottery ticket

 A parable by Zsolt:

So here's a question for you. Let's suppose you have a lottery ticket with ALL the winning numbers for the prize of, say, 100 million dollars.  Someone who knows it was the winning ticket steals it from you. Would you be as upset and offended as if the thief stole the money itself? Or more? Or less? Certainly no sane and honest person can answer 'less'. In fact many would answer 'more' since if they get the money at least they have the hope to use some of it before it's stolen. Stealing the ticket does not even give a chance for that. If you observe the situation you will see that stealing the ticket is morally the same (or worse) as stealing the money because the lottery ticket INEVITABLY yields money once you present it to the treasury/bank.

   Now let's look at a slightly modified version of the above. You still have the winning ticket but you have NO money and this ticket is your only option to get money EVER. Furthermore someone else (called, say, X) has the task to take the ticket to the treasury and claim your money for it (which is yours of course). However, while going to the treasury X makes up his/her mind maybe saying "I have better things to do" or whatever. So instead X burns up your ticket. As in the first scenario, thus eliminating your ticket is morally the SAME as stealing your money (or even worse). Again, it is so because the winning ticket is INEVITABLY cashed in as money at the treasury. And it is especially serious since it was your only hope to get money EVER. Of course even if X does intend to go all the way, and cash in the ticket at the treasury, something unforeseen could happen, e.g. a big hurricane could rip out the ticket from X's hand and shred it to a million pieces. So one can say it's not a 100% sure that one can actually cash in the ticket. All that doesn't matter with respect to its INEVITABLE worth in case claiming at the treasury. And thus this uncertainty doesn't matter if X intentionally burns the ticket up. If X intentionally destroys it X is morally at least as responsible as if stealing the money. The only situation in which the action chosen by X does result in the loss of the ticket BUT X remains morally clean is if on the way to the treasury there is a road block (say a big fire on the way) with only two ways forward and NO OTHER path towards the treasury. The alternatives must be: 1. one path on which it is virtually CERTAIN that both X and the ticket will be destroyed; 2. another path which will leave X alive but will destroy the ticket in his/her hand. If X does still intend to go to the treasury but chooses the 2nd path then X is morally not responsible for loosing the ticket (and thus your money) because, again, X did intend to go forward, and loosing it, though was foreseen, was not intended.

   So now for those who don't see it yet let's explain how the analogy applies to pregnancy and abortion. The winning lottery ticket is the foetus; the money is the born baby; cashing in the ticket at the treasury is birth; 'X' stands for the mother; taking the ticket to the treasury is pregnancy; burning the ticket is abortion; and stealing the money is infanticide (killing the born baby). Importantly, to establish equivalence between abortion and burning the ticket NOTHING ELSE is required than the INEVITABILITY that links lottery ticket to money or foetus to born baby. That is, the lottery ticket INEVITABLY yields cash once claimed and a foetus INEVITABLY results in a human baby once born. There are NO ALTERNATIVES for the outcome!!!! Thus if burning the ticket is the same (or worse) as stealing the money then abortion is the SAME (or worse) as killing the born human baby.

   Observe that it doesn't matter here what one believes about the humanity or viability of the foetus at any given stage of pregnancy. It's OK if one thinks it's just a piece of gorilla dung one minute prior to delivery. It's irrelevant for the moral outcome. Consequently it also doesn't matter when during pregnancy abortion occurs just as burning up the lottery ticket at any point on the road is the same with regard to its ultimate outcome.

  It is also clear that on this moral outcome it has no bearing that the probability of reaching the treasury (i.e. actually giving birth) may be less than 100% due to outside circumstances! That is, such as a storm could destroy the ticket, a disease could kill the foetus resulting in spontaneous abortion but these events have NO BEARING on the moral outcome of intentionally burning up the ticket (aborting the pregnancy). The illustrated only situation with a morally righteous action resulting in the loss of the ticket (the road block situation) corresponds to the situation when the continuation of the pregnancy poses virtually CERTAIN death for both mother and foetus. And even then the ONLY morally right way out is to try to save the life of the mother WITHOUT intending to harm the foetus even though the saving action (perhaps foreseeably) results in ending its existence. Killing the foetus in order to save the mother, however, is the SAME as leaving the road to the treasury in face of the road block and thus giving up the task, i.e. it's still the same as stealing the money (killing a born baby).

Human potential

One of the many pro-abortion arguments has to do with "human potential" meaning that it is impossible to determine when a human being becomes a human being. It is inevitably human at the time of birth, but before then it only has a potential of becoming human, so until we are not sure what it is that is growing inside the mother's womb, it is okay to let the mother decide what she wants to do with it.
First of all, let's define what a human being is. A being is "the state or quality of having existence." And existence is defined by only one word: LIFE. Life is: "the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally". A foetus (and an embryo, too) is growing, developing, it is developing reproductive organs which are fully developed by the age of 16-18. So I am confident that it is alive.
Biologists classify human beings as Homo sapiens, a primate species of mammal. And since two individuals of the same species can only produce an offspring of the same species, the offspring of 2 homo sapiens individuals can only be a homo sapiens. Human.
At the moment of conception when the sperm penetrates the egg, changes occur in the protein coating around it to prevent other sperm from entering. At the moment of fertilization, the baby's genetic make-up is complete, including its sex. It own, unique genetic code is different from both father and mother. It is an individual.
Even if we know all this and still say that it is only potentially human, then think about this: when a human baby is born, it is inevitable that it is developing into a full-grown human being and we do everything in our power to make sure that this individual is safe, we protect it in order to give it the best chance to reach adulthood.  You can say that a baby is only a potential adult, well, infancy is just a stage of human development just like toddlerhood or adolescence. But even thought it is only potentially an adult, nobody is questionning its right to life. We have no right to stand in its way of development, its body is its own, terminating its life is a serious crime.
Let's look at a foetus. It is inevitable that it is developing into a infant. Preventing it from becoming an infant is preventing the development of a human adult. The foetal stage is just as important to becoming a grown adult as adolescence. You can't even say that it is different from a child outside the womb because you can't see it. With the help of technology, you CAN see it (if somebody still needs proof of its existence).
So even if we see a foetus only as a potential human, we don't have the right to prevent it from reaching its "full potential", what's more it is our duty to protect it the best we can.
But if we know it is inevitably a human being (which I think everybody knows who opens their mind just a little bit), let's not be afraid of calling it what it actually is: MURDER

My sentiments exactly

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzisHrqZAbM

Open your minds just a little bit (and listen) and you'll have no comment after seeing this.

European Court of Human Rights and Ireland

Currently abortion is only available in Ireland if the pregnancy threatens the life of the woman.A strict law, which I think was passed by Irish politicians not only to "please" the Catholic Church but to stand against the wave of demographic decline that threatens our culture all across Europe. I think a country has the right to take such measures in order to preserve their own cultural and social integrity. It is part of their domestic affairs and no other country has the right to make them think differently (unless they want to pick a fight and invade that country). What does the European Council of Human Rights stand for? Who has human rights? In certain countries even dogs and pigs have more rights than a baby. What's more I can imagine that there are laws which protect certain plants but there are no laws for protecting the unborn. Why is it always women's rights when it comes to abortion? What about the father's rights and most importantly the child's rights? This seems twisted.
Concerning the faith of the Irish, I think it poses a dilemma for them to enforce a liberal abortion law on them. If they had a permissive abortion law, they could not call themselves a Catholic country anymore. Where is religious tolerance in this case?
"When two Irish women and one Lithuanian woman who were forced to travel to Britain for abortions they took the action against the Irish state five years ago.
The three women, who were supported by the Irish Family Planning Association, claimed the inability to have an abortion in Ireland breached their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, which Ireland originally signed up to in the 1960's.
The three women claimed that the limited abortion law in Ireland means they are being discriminated against, and that the state contravenes their rights under the convention."
One of these ladies is from Lithuania. I think, as an immigrant one is supposed to subject themselves to the laws of the chosen country. Nobody would dare to take action against Saudi Arabian laws for example if they didn't want to be kicked out of the country (in the best case scenario). 
Ireland has to stand firmly against these attacks and set a good example for the rest of the world.

Here's the blood

For those women, who are considering abortion but they don't know what it is about, watch the video first. Abortionists will tell you that images shown by pro-life groups are manipulated and that women have the right to do whatever they want with their own bodies. But what about those dismembered, small bodies? 120,000 bodies every day!
http://herestheblood.com/