The Creepiest Pro-Abortion Ad Ever

No, this ad celebrating the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade is not a parody. From Youtube:

To celebrate the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade we didn’t buy a ruby. Instead, the Center for Reproductive Rights asked Mehcad Brooks of the USA Network’s “Necessary Roughness” and HBO’s “True Blood” to prepare a special video message just for you. To learn more and to sign the Bill of Reproductive Rights visit

Frankly, Mehcad Brooks comes across as Screwtape. If the pro-life community had tried to  make a parody ad, it could not have done a better job of showing how sickeningly demonic the pro-death lobby is.

(H/t LifeSiteNews)

Enhanced by Zemanta
This entry was posted in life and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to The Creepiest Pro-Abortion Ad Ever

  1. Pingback: This is how pro Aborts celebrate “Reproductive Rights” | Stacy on the Right

  2. LD Jackson says:

    That is sickening. The way we celebrate the killing of over 55 million babies, it is no great surprise that our country is suffering.

  3. Kerry says:

    That is pure evil.

  4. Brandon says:

    A woman’s right to choose for her own body when and how to reproduce is her right as an American and as a Human Being. No one is infringing on your right to believe to whatever you want and to act on those beliefs when it comes to your body. Do whatever you want, no one is saying you can’t, if you don’t believe abortion is the answer then by all means don’t get one. It is not your right however to prevent others from exercising that option. Gay marriage uses this same principle, if you don’t like the idea, don’t get one but for the love of whatever you pray to leave the option open for the ones that choose to exercise it. You all want small government until it comes to running our personal lives back to the 50s. And I’ll admit that I’m an atheist and believe life begins at birth. The difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals want liberties provided to all americans whether we agree with them or not, conservatives want to close the doors on all freedoms that they don’t agree with.

    • LD Jackson says:

      The right for a woman to murder her unborn child is not much of a right. If that is what freedom entails, then I can’t see much use for a freedom that allows a country to kill generations of children, before they are even born. As Kerry mentioned above, it is sick.

      • Brandon says:

        A mass of tissue is not a person, I can see the debate there but for me it’s honestly as simple as when you’re born, you’re alive. I’ve heard all the rig a mor ole about beating hearts and feeling pain but until an organism can survive on it’s own power outside of a womb, etc. it’s just a mass of tissue. Babies are still born everyday (believe me I work in a hospital). I also pose the question if that fetus you’re fighting for is gay, will you still stand up for it’s right to marry whomever they love?

        • LD Jackson says:

          No fetus is born gay. Homosexuals make a choice to engage in that kind of deviant behavior. Therefore, your argument is not valid, no matter what scientists tell us about homosexuality being genetic.

          As for a fetus being just a mass of tissue, I could not disagree more. It may not be viable outside of the womb, but that makes it no less of a baby.

          Funny thing about this debate. The feminists cry foul if they believe their right to kill their unborn children are being infringed upon. At the same time, they applauded when Scott Peterson was convicted of two murders; that of his wife, Laci Peterson, and the murder of their unborn son.

          • Brandon says:

            So you’re not willing to listen to scientists who can demonstrate genetic heredity of traits? well then you’re so far lost it’s scary (please don’t tell me you haven’t indoctrinated children into that archaic belief). People are born gay. It is NOT a choice. Clinical studies have shown that a gay man’s brain is more anatomically similar to a straight woman’s brain than a straight man’s brain. The physical evidence is there and if you’re willing to ignore it than you’re just an ignorant idiot. And even if it was whom would they be hurting? the only correct answer is not a single person. Your religious rights extend to the end of your arm. No one has ever tried to tell you that you can’t believe what you want. Your rights do not give you permission to discriminate against others for any reason, even religion. As soon as your religion is affecting other people especially negatively it is no longer protected. and Hallelujah!!

        • Kerry says:

          “until an organism can survive on it’s own power outside of a womb, etc. it’s just a mass of tissue”. … Lots of people on earth right now that “can’t survive on their own power”, so perhaps we should take their pacemakers, life support, oxygen tanks, etc. from them as well, as they are obviously just “masses of tissue”.

        • John Scotus says:

          Since you work in a hospital, you must know that a baby cannot survive on its own power outside the womb. It must be fed and taken care of. Indeed, children must be fed and taken care of for many, many years after they are born or they will die, as they cannot survive on their own. I know this because I have five children. They all require intense, patient love and care, as they cannot make it on their own without the help of others.

          Many people like to say that life begins at the point when a viable, self-perpetuating creature comes into being. By that standard, all children below the age of around 13 are therefore just masses of tissue. They cannot live on their own, and they cannot breed. Yet, something that is merely a mass of tissue, like a gall bladder, has no feelings, no soul, and no potential for growth, self-sustenance, or self-perpetuation. We all know that children under the age of 13 have these things, as do children who are not yet born. They are not merely masses of tissue.

          In the end, your distinction between what is life and thus must be preserved, and what is merely a mass of tissue is purely arbitrary, and cannot stand up under any scientific, logical, or moral scrutiny. You have arbitrarily decided that a child in the womb can be killed, even though it has the same defect of inviolability as a child outside the womb. Whose other lives might you see fit the end under this same standard? There are many people who are adults, yet cannot survive without the help of others. Are they just masses of tissue, as well?

          It is a sad commentary on the US that a hospital would see fit to hire a person such as yourself.

          • Brandon says:

            Thank you for exaggerating my original point to the extent where it no longer resembles anything like I said. Obviously babies and children need to be taken care of. And they should be. No one in their right mind perpetuates the idea that abandoning babies and children is in any single way ok. It is so stupid that I have to clarify this but to be clear let’s put a clock on it. If your heart can still beat under its own power after 24 hours removed from an umbilical cord or artificial life support system then you are a living person. If not then a mass of tissue it is; or someone who for all use and purpose is already dead.

            • John Scotus says:

              Therefore, according to your wisdom, a person who needs a pacemaker or a heart-lung machine is just a mass of tissue, even if they still very much have a chance of surviving and having a long and useful life, provided they receive some care.

              • Brandon says:

                I already covered that in a reply to someone else so I won’t do it again. Please don’t be an idiot calling out every specific example of contradiction you can think of….that’s the way a child debates. Suffice it to say that fetuses not far enough along in development and those who are braindead are just masses of tissue. Everything in between…hope you’re having a good life.

              • John Scotus says:

                You admit that your position is logically inconsistent, yet somehow you hold that by pointing out your inconsistencies others are being childish? Talk about being braindead!

    • Kerry says:

      “life begins at birth” …. so then even though an unborn child is able to survive on it’s own outside the womb (using your requirement for what differentiates between a mass of tissue and a human being), if it hasn’t come forth from the womb yet, it’s still ok with you to kill that child?

      • Brandon says:

        First Kerry I want to thank you for asking exactly the questions I wanted someone to ask because it gives me a chance to ask you not to grasp onto specifics until you lose my original meaning. So to clarify I’m not against Oxygen, pacemakers, etc. Those devices improve quality of life and sustain people who are already alive. However if someone is in a PSV (persistent vegetative state) then pull the plug they died a long time ago. And yeah, that happened to my grandpa and we did exactly that, obviously I miss him dearly but I don’t regret it for a second. Not the point though. To address your second point: Pull a baby out of the womb in the first 2 trimesters and leave it on the sidewalk and we’ll see if it survives (graphic I know but I have to illustrate my point). And before anyone starts whining I’m aware a fully developed and even born baby wouldn’t survive long on a sidewalk unattended but it will live a hell of a lot longer than the 30 seconds a fetus that can’t sustain it’s own anatomical processes would. Abortion isn’t a rampant problem destroying this country. Think about it, if those “50 million” people were walking around today this country would be so much worse off. Most abortions are performed on young (even teenage) mothers and low income individuals. That means they’d be seeking welfare/other “entitlements”, do you really want to be assisting more people to make ends meet than you already are?

        • Kerry says:

          18% of abortions are women/girls under the age of 20. 69% are 200% of poverty level or below. So, since most of them would have been poor (and only 36% white), that’s even more justification for abortion? Abortion IS a rampant problem destroying this country, because it is convincing people that it is ok to view certain members of society as “disposable”.
          What have we lost in those 50 million? What great inventions? What cures for disease or society ills? What beautiful music? What amazing work of literature? And yes, we likely lost some thugs, serial killers, and others that would have tormented society, but as with all babies born everyday, that is a small percentage.
          Speaking of small percentages, the percent of abortions due to rape/incest is 1%. While relatively small, why should that be a criteria for allowing an abortion? The unborn child is not a “bad seed” simply because of the situation in which it was conceived. Difficult for the woman to carry this child … perhaps, but I’d like to see more Americans willing to do what is right, even though it might be hard to do. Many, many families unable to have children that would gladly adopt these little ones.

  5. LD Jackson says:

    I indoctrinated no one, but I did raise my children to know right from wrong. Yes, I did teach them from the Bible, the King James Version. I will apologize to no one for that. The Bible clearly teaches that homosexuality is an abomination before God. I don’t expect you to accept that, since you claim to be an atheist, but that doesn’t change what I believe strongly to be the truth.

    We may as well stop this debate right here. We are not going to see eye to eye on this, for obvious reasons and besides, homosexuality isn’t the topic of this post.

    Going back to abortion, I would still like to hear why it is okay to perform an abortion and kill an unborn child, but it is okay to charge Scott Peterson with two murders. That just doesn’t jive with the idea that abortion isn’t murder because the baby is unborn.

    • Brandon says:

      I’ll agree that to me personally there was only one murder in that scenario. I’ll entertain the idea though that since the implication is that was a wanted fetus that to some people gives it an elevation in status. So once again it comes down to the mother’s choice. And by default if it’s ever uncertain it should always be tried as if it were wanted. No one who’s pro-choice is pro-abortion. I don’t even believe it should be the first option except in cases of incest an especially rape. Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term under those conditions can be mentally and emotionally debilitating. I do however respect that it is a choice and should remain safe and legal.

      and whether the original issue was gay marriage or not it is an important social issue of our day and I’m glad to say the but the tide is turning the right way. Social liberalism has always been on the right side of history. People have no right to enforce their religious beliefs onto others so a vote against marriage equality is unconstitutional.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s