Praying Catholic Grandma Violently Attacked at Planned Parenthood While Filming Botched Abortion Incident

Wilmington, DE — A 63-year old Catholic grandmother of 12 was violently attacked yesterday outside the Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Wilmington, Delaware, as she filmed the fourth abortion injury there in less than five weeks.

Earlier in the day Rae Stabosz had been praying outside the Planned Parenthood clinic when a woman and her mother came to the clinic. Rae learned that the woman was suffering complications to an abortion she received on March 8. Rae persuaded them to go to St. Francis hospital where it was discovered that aborted baby body parts, including a leg and foot, had been left behind by the abortionist. The woman required additional surgery and was referred to legal counsel.

Rae left Planned Parenthood to attend mass, and when she returned to the Planned Parenthood, she was shocked to see that yet another medical emergency was in progress. As she was filming the incident with her cell phone, a young woman came out of the Planned Parenthood clinic and violently attacked Rae, knocking her down and taking away her phone.
The attacker took Rae’s phone inside the clinic and gave it to a Planned Parenthood worker. Rae immediately ran into the clinic, retrieved her phone, then returned to the street where she continued to film the gurney with the injured patient, covered head to toe in blankets and sheets, being loaded into the ambulance.

The police soon arrived and Rae made a police report, but the attacker has fled the scene. At this writing, she remained at large.

Rae began to feel the effects of the attack, and another ambulance was summoned to transport her to the same hospital where the two Planned Parenthood patients were receiving treatment. Rae was treated and released with minor injuries.

Two other medical emergencies
took place at this Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in February 8 and 16, 2013.

“This is an amazing story of a pro-life hero who was willing to do what it took to aid women and document Planned Parenthood’s abortion abuses,” said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue and Pro-Life Nation. “It is because of dedicated people like Rae that, babies are saved, women are helped, and the truth about abortion clinic abuses is finally getting out. Something is very wrong at this Planned Parenthood clinic where women are hospitalized almost weekly due to the shoddy practices there. This Planned Parenthood needs to be investigated and closed.”

Take Action! Please contact the Delaware Board of Medical Licensure and Discipline and ask that they fully investigate abortionists at the Planned Parenthood in Wilmington and close the facility to prevent further injuries.

Voice: (302) 744-4500

  • Heidi

    This is an outrage! Women are dying and the so called pro choice or lets say Planned Parenthood is not for parenthood. They are for death and they do not care for the women and the unborn. There needs to be investigations regarding this clinic and the faculty there and the place to lose its license and shut down.


    Some still pictures of violent girlfriend. Put her on the Most Wanted List please.

  • I’ve heard about supposed violence by pro-lifers against pro-choicers, but I’ve never seen it. I seriously doubt I will ever see a video like this of a pro-lifer attacking a pro-choice protester or someone going into an abortion mill. This is very sad, it’s tragic. I am praying for this courageous grandmother and her family, for these women hurt by abortion and their families, and for the abortionists and the attacker. All, each in their own way, are in need of grace and healing.

  • Trevor

    Being secondly pro-choice, but firstly a logical person, I don’t see how this incident demands complete closure of the facility. The attack, while unfortunate, was not made by staff; the same way that if a member of a church group berates or hollers (or worse) at a patient attending a clinic in an inappropriate manner, the church itself should not be held responsible. That would be a correlation / causation error. However, considering the gross implications being made against the clinic, I do agree that a full investigation should occur, and those responsible for misconduct [medically] should be help accountable for their actions. Just don’t blame Planned Parenthood at large for the mistakes of one… that’s equally ridiculous. Shouldn’t close any hospital, grocery store, government, anything because you attribute to misconduct of one to an organization at large. That’s just ignorant.

  • thecla paolini fsp


  • mark a salois

    @ Trevor: Your “logic”, is that even though this one clinic has medical emergencies on a weekly basis, from botched abortions, it should NOT lead to closure of this clinic, while an investigation is done, is akin to leaving open a restaurant despite weekly cases of food poisoning. No one is suggesting that this clinic be closed b/c of the attack; but b/c of the ONGOING WEEKLY medical emergencies from botched abortions. I would think that anyone on EITHER side of this issue would want these women to be medically safe. BTW, despite your belief that you are “pro-choice”, that is not a true designation, since those who support Planned Parenthood, are at best, “pro-abortion”, b/c being pro-choice means allowing and supporting those who are against abortion. Planned Parenthood does not support pro-life issues b/c there is no money to be made; whereas there are tons of money to be made through abortions. First and foremost, Planned Parenthood is a for-profit business, and cash profit is their bottom line. Their only care about women is how they affect their bottom line. Women, to Planned Parenthood, are aspects of how they turn a profit, nothing more. This is a business that is subsidized by federal money, which equates to our tax dollars. Even if you support abortion, one would think that at minimum, you’d want your tax dollars going into a place that practices high medical standards and is subject to independent audits of its facilities. Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger, who wanted to legalize abortion as a means of “weeding out those of inferior races” (meaning African-Americans and other “non-white” races.) Is this the philosophy you want to be attached to? Pro-lifer philosophy, on the other hand, is from the Ten Commandments, for those who attach a religious view, or from the golden rule, “Do unto others as you’d want them to do to you” view, from those who while not espousing a religious viewpoint, still regard abortion as wrong and a crime against humanity. One need not be religious to know that abortion is wrong no matter how you try to excuse it w/ euphemisms and putting a politically-correct spin on it.

  • Bodski

    @ Mark A Salois, A few points….

    Pro- choice is the correct designation. It supports the choice of a woman to abort or not. Pro-life only allows no abortion. Logically, pro-abortion would only allow abortion, no life ! Pro-life allows both.

    Trevor is in agreement with you in the sense that he states that “I do agree that a full investigation should occur, and those responsible for misconduct [medically] should be help accountable for their actions”. Which I think is the moderate side of your intention (I realise that your belief is that all abortions are wrong, however, there is agreement that this place should be investigated and for what it’s worth, I agree.

    I agree that there is an issue in respect of the way healthcare in the US is funded. Looking in from the outside, it is interesting that when someone wants to ensure that helathcare is available to all Americans, the ones complaining are…. Americans. I doubt that many other countries would have the same perspective. Note thazt according to Wiki, Planned Parenthood is a not for profit organisation (Approximately two-thirds of the revenue is put towards the provision of health services, while non-medical services such as sex education and public policy work make up another 16%; management expenses, fundraising, and international family planning programs account for most of the rest).

    Please note that there is no such thing as no abortion, there is only safe abortion or unsafe. This place seems to be straddling the line.

    Your refetrence to Margaret Sanger is irrelevant. She died almost 50 years ago. What is relevant is how the organisation operates now. This is similar to my football team being founded by a Catholic, I support the team but not its Catholic roots of over 100 years ago (I find it difficult to believe in a talking snake, virgin birth, impossible ark, resurrection after death and Jesus turning into a wafer amongst other things).

    There is much debate around whether abortion is wrong or not and it rather depends on the culture you are brought up in. Whilst I suggest that the 10 commendmants are utter nonsense and irrelevant in today’s world, there is no reference to abortion, simply murder. If you take the religious view purely from the ten commendments, do you equally detest the murder of insects or other animals and people who work on the sabbath ?

    I am pro-choice, but I’m thinking about this.


  • Macy

    The day before I found out I was expecting my son, I met him in my dream. He was grown and I shook his hand and he told me his name and he had my husbands last name and even though he did not tell me he was my son…I new he was. I woke up the next morning and called my best friend and told her I met my son in my dream last night…I took a pregnancy test and SURE ENOUGH :) I am sooo happy I have him, he is the Joy of my life and a complete GIFT from the Lord. :) :)

  • jerry

    Bodski : Sorry Mark was referring to PP. You might be pro choice but they are not. They do not give instructions on the dangers of abortion, nor do they offer information on places a women may go to put their baby up for adoption (with appropriate care offered), and the don’t offer counseling or follow up care after. They don’t even notify the authorities when a man brings in an underage girl for an abortion. They are Pro-Abortion only, just as Mark said.

  • Christine

    Nice try, Bodski, but your argument is invalid. It seems our government thought that the Ten Commandments were pretty relevant because in 1932 they thought it was a gret idea to include a relief of Moses holding the Ten Commandments in the design and building of the current US Supreme Court building. The Commandments are the basis for all civilized law…unless what you are saying is that we do not live in a civilized society today.
    In addition, if you bothered to open a dictionary, you would find the definition for murder as follows: (taken from Webster’s pocket dictionary c. 2000) : to kill (a person) unlawfully and with malice.
    It is utterly laughable that squashing a bug or even killing an animal would fit under this definition.

  • Cheryl Thomson

    At pro-life vigils in Toronto, outside the infamous Morgenthaler clinic, we saw all kinds of threats and intimidation and virulent profanity screamed in our faces while we were quietly praying, all this 20 years ago. Then the Canadian corrupt legal establishment allowed civil suits against grandmothers like this one, taking sides with the abortionists, and some people actually lost their homes and their retirement. Now abortion is legal in Canada at any point in the pregnancy, while pro-life has been silenced and crippled all this time. The supposed violent acts of loner pro-lifers, never members of our groups, by the way, have been committed by nutjob criminals, recruited & ‘handled’ by government agents. The Toronto bombing falls into this category also. Do not underestimate the ugliness behind those doors, and the hidden connections to the powerful in society.


    These are places where they KILL BABIES. What is logical and right about that????? And if the murdering moms are the ones in danger of dying bec of the botched abortions, why is it that only then is the only time this place is wrong and abortion wrong??? PLANNED PARENTHOOD KILLS/MURDERS HUMAN BEINGS. Especially targetting the defenseless humans – babies. SHUT IT DOWN.

  • Bodski

    Jerry – I can understand why we have a different interpretation, however, if you read Mark’s post again “despite your belief that you are “pro-choice”, that is not a true designation” is clearly suggesting that Mark is not pro-choice and in fact nobody is. I do accept that he then goes on the criticise Planned Parenthood, hence our conflicted interpretations.

    Christine – Nice try, but my argument is valid:

    1. What your government thought in 1932 is irrelevant to me (although it does support my words “There is much debate around whether abortion is wrong or not and it rather depends on the culture you are brought up in”).

    2. The tem commendments are not the basis for all civilised law. I doubt that your country has enshrined in law that enyone who works the sabbath should be put to death:

    King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
    “Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.”

    You may note the irony of your book stating “you shall not kill” shortly after this. Who kills those who work the sabbath ? It really doesn’t take much more than a casual glance at the bible to see the conflicts. Which is worse killing or working the sabbath ? (Working the sabbath is mentioned first.) Hence I stand by my comment that “the 10 commendmants are utter nonsense and irrelevant in today’s world”.

    If I opened a dictionary (I’ll use Websters although definitions from c. 2000 are not especially relevant to this ancient text, but you chose it)…..

    a) The definition of a person does not suggest that this includes a foetus, however, there is a definition of foetus which clarifies “an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically: a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth”. This is a developing human, not a human.

    b) The definition of malice is shown as:
    “i. desire to cause pain, injury, or distress to another
    ii. intent to commit an unlawful act or cause harm without legal justification or excuse”

    i. The foetus should not feel pain (although this may not be the case in late term abortions).
    ii. This is not unlawful.

    Interestingly, most people refer to the commandment as ‘thou shalt not kill’. In such a case, killing an insect would be relevant, however, this does get somewhat confused as the bible has been translated and corrupted over the many years.

    Hope this clarifies.


  • 2nd Amendment Rules

    Bod, your post is nonsense!

    #1, the “thou shall not kill” is actually “thou shall not MURDER” (as in pre-born babies)! Executing a murderer is JUSTICE and is not wrong.

    MANY of the things you called “10 commandments” are not!

    It was “legal” in Nazi Germany to kill Jews; would you have stood back and allowed them to die because it was “legal”??

  • mark a salois

    In response, you state that the correct designation is pro-choice; which, to me, means you’ve never been in a Planned Parenthood facility. They persuade women into having abortions, but they don’t mention adoption or any other viable options. Why? Because there is no money to be made. For profit or not for profit, as an organization, is immaterial; although I don’t want my tax dollars supporting a program that has more to do with women’s choices than with an actual health concern. According to Wikipedia, “The Federation opposes restrictions on women’s reproductive health services, including parental consent laws. Planned Parenthood has cited the case of Becky Bell, who died of a back-alley abortion in 1988 due to parental consent laws, to justify their opposition.[63][64] Planned Parenthood also takes the position that laws requiring parental notification before an abortion is performed on a minor are unconstitutional on privacy grounds.[65] The organization also opposes laws requiring ultrasounds before abortions, stating that their only purpose is to make abortions more difficult to obtain.[66] Planned Parenthood has also opposed initiatives that require waiting periods before abortions,[67] and bans on late-term abortions including intact dilation and extraction, which has been illegal in the U.S. since 2003.[68]

    Planned Parenthood argues for the wide availability of emergency contraception (EC) measures.[69] It opposes refusal clauses, which allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense drugs against their beliefs.” Where is the respect for the “choice” that takes a pro-life stance?
    Your comparisons of a Catholic founding a football team you like to the Church being founded by Christ, is nonsensical, at best. I had put forth a much more viable analogy of comparing the Catholic Church, having been founded by Christ, to Planned Parenthood being founded by Margaret Sanger. I have no qualms about remembering and being proud of my “founder” and the beliefs He espoused; so why is it that Planned Parenthood does all it can to distance itself from their “foundress”??? Could it be that their foundress makes Hitler look mild by comparison?

  • Glo

    I hear your comments on the abort. clinic, but I have not heard a word about the hate crime on the grandmother that was attacked. It looked like a Rodney King beating to me. Where is the outrage, that barbarian women should be in jail now! She ran like a rat..

  • Dennis Duehning

    (1) Did the police look at Planned Parenthoods security tapes to see the identity of the attacker? (2) Did the police ask the PP worker who this attacker is? (3) Did the police believe the PP worker when she claimed to not know who this person is? (4) Do PP workers, who are normally paranoid, let people in and out of their building without knowing who they are? (5) Why would the attacker give the phone/camera to the PP worker? (6) Would it be reasonable to think that the attacker is probably a relative or friend of the patient in the ambulance? (7) Do the police really care if Grandma is assaulted? (8)Would the police care if a Planned Parenthood worker was assaulted? (9) Are prolifers naive to expect equal treatment?

  • Simon B

    This elderly person, if she’d been praying, she wouldn’t have been filming. I’ve watched the footage on YouTube, and she admits that she had been “threatened” earlier on. Yet she continued to film people entering and leaving the premises of the Planned Parenthood clinic.

    Then the person who warned her off came out, the elderly woman continued to film her, even when it was evident that the person was extremely angry, and continued to film her even as she came at her.

    I know this sounds crazy, but it seems to me that the elderly person wanted an incident to occur, so that she could portray herself as the innocent victim.

  • 2nd Amendment Rules

    NOBODY has the right to choose to kill the FATHER’s baby!

    If the mother can kill it the father has the same right.

    If the child it the woman’s exclusive property then women who allow their child to be born have no right to expect child support.

  • Bodski

    2nd Amendment Rules

    Please can you clarify for me. It seems to me that my posts make perfect sense. I am specifically interested in:

    You state “#1, the “thou shall not kill” is actually “thou shall not MURDER” (as in pre-born babies)! Executing a murderer is JUSTICE and is not wrong.”

    Which version of the bible are you referring to ? The ones I have seen to not refer to foetuses. This is to be expected because the men who wrote it would not be aware of embryology as we now understand it. Please provide a link or similar. What does your bible say about other human cells ? (When is a sperm or an egg a ‘pre-born baby’ ?, what about stem cells ? or other cells lost through saliva or sweat ?).

    You must be careful here not to play god. Either you take scripture as it is written or you are making it up – essentially playing god. For clarity, I don’t believe in your god (nor any of the 50,000 or so variants of it, nor any of the 2,000 or so other gods).

    Please also note that I didn’t say anything about executing a murderer (and nor does it in the ten commendements, although it seems that you have a different bible to mine, so perhaps you could clarify ?). What I do question is “Who kills those who work the sabbath ?” You still haven’t answered that.

    You also state: “MANY of the things you called “10 commandments” are not!”

    Can you please expend on this ? Please state which of the many things are not in the ten commandments and provide a link. I only mention two of them: thou shat not kill (which I accept is often written as thou shalt not commit murder) and remember the sabbath.

    Finally, I should claim a win in this discussion by invoking Godwin’s Law (google it if you are unfamiliar) but I’ll hope you return and maybe we can both learn something, or at least have fun in the discussion.


  • Bodski

    Mark A Solios

    You wrote in response to Trevor “despite your belief that you are “pro-choice”, that is not a true designation”. My comment should not be construed to suggest that the PP facility is pro-choice. I didn’t write that and have no knowledge either way. I simply state that for Trevor (and for myself) pro-choice is the correct designation because we believe in the choice to either abort or not (whereas pro-life does not allow for any abortion and using logic, pro-abort would not allow for any life).

    You have touched upon one of my bug-bears here: “Planned Parenthood argues for the wide availability of emergency contraception (EC) measures.[69] It opposes refusal clauses, which allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense drugs against their beliefs.” Where is the respect for the “choice” that takes a pro-life stance?”.

    Peoiple are free to believe whatever they like, however, if they choose a profession then they must be able to do all of the work required of that profession. It may seem a silly analogy, but the logic is correct: if my religion prevented me from flying, I wouldn’t get a job as a pilot and expect to hold down the job despite refusing to fly. Similarly, if someone believes that contraception is wrong and takes a position as a pharmacist and then refuses to dispense contraception, they should not expect to hold down the job. Your argument of respecting choice is exactly the same in each scenario. For clarity, and for many, many resons I am strongly in favour of contraception.

    You state: “Your comparisons of a Catholic founding a football team you like to the Church being founded by Christ, is nonsensical, at best.” This is not at all what I wrote, please re-read. I make the comparison of my football team being founded by a catholic and the PP facility being founded by Margaret Sanger. This is so long ago as to be irrelevant (I presume that you don’t investigate the founder of every product and service you use to confirm that their ethics are in line with yours). Forclarifty, I am not disputing that her ethics were poor, I have no real knowledge of her. What is relevant is how the facility (or football team) operates today. We are inagreement that there are clear issues here. I could also invoke Godwin’s Law here, but won’t.


  • Cheri


    Thank you for taking the time to contribute to the discussion in a rational manner.

    That being said, I feel the need to correct a couple of misconceptions in your previous posts.

    “This is a developing human, not a human.”
    A toddler is a developing human. A teenager is a developing human. Humans develop all the way into adulthood, many years after that brief journey through the birth canal (or surgical intervention of a C-section). Our development is integral to being a human. The act of developing does not make one “not human.” To argue that the passage from prenatal to postnatal status alters one’s humanity is absurd. What makes one a member of the human race is determined biologically, not philosophical beliefs founded on shifting and conflicting opinions. Scientific evidence confirms that the biological life of each and every human individual begins at the moment of fertilization between egg and sperm.

    “Pro- choice is the correct designation. It supports the choice of a woman to abort or not. Pro-life only allows no abortion. Logically, pro-abortion would only allow abortion, no life ! Pro-life allows both.”
    “Pro-choice” is merely a euphemistic title arguing for the right to one specific choice: abortion. Your statement, “it supports the choice of a woman to abort or not,” confirms this. There is no such thing as a “right to choose.” No one has that absolute right. Those who label themselves as “pro-choice” frequently throw in a myriad of other issues to divert attention away from the abortion debate. This is dishonest and happens too often.

    Yes, you ARE pro-abortion. In the same way that second amendment supporters are pro-gun and LBGT activists are pro-gay marriage. Pro-gun and pro-gay marriage people believe in the RIGHT to have one. No one ever counter-argues that the pro-gun lobbyists want to force everyone to have guns or that the LBGT groups are trying to force everyone to have only homosexual relations. The same argument applies for those who claim they want to keep abortion “safe and legal”: they believe in the right to have one. The only issue of contention that divides all pro-lifers from all pro-choicers is abortion. Therefore, pro-choice is really pro-abortion and pro-life is really anti-abortion.

    If, as a society, we can excuse the killing of innocent humans in a particular class (prenatal or unborn) based on personal preferences (unwanted, inconvenient, handicapped, gender, ethnicity, etc), then we are merely repeating the same pattern of injustice of past massacres. I look forward to the day when each and every biological human is upheld as equal and protected by the law, not property or obstacles to be discarded.

  • Clint

    Those violent conservatives! They be so crazy!

  • Clint

    It seems we have a couple ‘elitist’ among us – ideologists that fit Brodski’s very description of countless gods and religions. Whether you talk of religion vs spirituality, Mother Nature or Mother Earth, agnosticm or atheism, we can prabably agree that most all of us accept the fundamental basis of the Ten Commandments? After all, the laws – municiple, county, state and federal (as well as most around the globe) are based loosely on these very precepts, including respect for life. Where do you suppose our Conscience comes from? Love? Sympathy in hearing a human interest story?

    I could cover chapters on each of the issues – social engineering failure, the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God, tragic and horrible cases of ‘back-alley’ clinics and upscale facilities partially tax-funded and the wrongness of forced confiscation of funds to pay for propositions which most disagree with, et al. And at the core of it? A continually increasing moral decadence that’s grown from a growing lack of self-responsibility, helping ourselves, our own families and our neighbors and a growing dependence on what is now – Again! – an oligarchy of “cunning, ambitious and unprincipled” men and women with self-serving ambitions (commandments 1 & 2).

  • This was racial, too. Anyone who knows body language and facial expressions could see the highly presumptuous attitude before she hit the white woman. You really should pursue this on both grounds.

  • Bodski

    Cheri, thankyou for your kind words of introduction. We clearly disagree, and as I’m not entirely certain where I fall on this one, it is interesting to discuss and perhaps we’ll both learn ? Although I’m pretty certain that we won’t reach agreement, let’s at least find out what we do disagree on.

    Firstly, as I have been doing a little digging around I should like to introduce a couple of new variables, I will come to your points later, but I think my pre-amble may set the scene.

    Absolute or relative Morality

    In simple terms, if you are absolutist who thinks that no abortions are acceptable then we may never agree. I can imagine the most suitable case for abortion being a pregnancy as a result of a rape where the foetus has complications such that it is unlikely to survive birth and in any event would live only a few hours in pain and presents a threat to the mother’s life. In that case, I clearly support the mother’s right to abort (in fact I would prefer that this decision is a medical one taken on her behalf by the doctor in charge).

    If you do not agree to any circumstances where abortion is acceptable, i doubt that you will get me to agree, however, I will consider anything you write. However, if your position is absolute for religious reasons, then you should expect that I will not respect that. You cannot impose your religion onto me.

    I am a relativist, in that I think there are some circumstances in which abortion is acceptable. If you are also a relativist, then this discussion may well be useful.

    In relative terms, I think that there are two important factors to consider:

    1. Time

    Time should be one limiting factor. The arguments range from no time allowance (except in exceptional cirumstances such as rape) to shortly after birth. My personal position is that abortions should be allowed at come time prior to birth. I’m not sure when, but elements like when a human life is created, the ability to feel pain, consciousness, etc., are good elements to consider.

    2. Impact

    The impact should also be a limiting factor. Elements I have considered here can all be summarised by the word ‘suffering’.

    A Developing Human, or a Human ?

    OK, there is disagreement here. When you state “Scientific evidence confirms that the biological life of each and every human individual begins at the moment of fertilization between egg and sperm”, this is simply not true. It takes more than a quick google search since the first few hits seem to be religious sites, but there is clear scientific ambiguity, or at least, the prevailing scientific view is that life does not begin at the moment of fertilisation. In the case of twins, two people develop when the egg splits, which one’s life began when the egg was feritlised ? Interestingly, a split egg can also recombine, so what happened to the other human ?

    Pro-choice is a Debatable Designation

    I think that much of our disagreement here is semantics, and although semantics are important, I’m happy if you want to define my ‘right for a woman to choose in some circumstances’ as pro-abortion then that’s fine. I am by your definition pro-abortion.

    So, what do you think ? And why ?

  • 2nd Amendment Rules

    Killing a kid via abortion is no different then a man on the roof of a school shooting kids on the playground. Stopping EITHER OF THEM saves lives!

  • 2nd Amendment Rules

    Pro-abortion and pro-choice are EXACTLY THE SAME THING.

    If you say I have the right to choose to beat my wife then you are in favor of wife-beating.

  • Bodski

    Clint, if I may just pick up on something…..

    You wrote “we can prabably agree that most all of us accept the fundamental basis of the Ten Commandments? After all, the laws – municiple, county, state and federal (as well as most around the globe) are based loosely on these very precepts”

    Without being unreasonable I hope, I really don’t agree. I think that your view is broadly accepted, but let’s look at the evidence. Here is a summary of the ten commandments:

    1.I am the LORD thy God Thou shalt have no other gods
    2. No graven images or likenesses
    3. Not take the LORD’s name in vain
    4. Remember the sabbath day
    5. Honour thy father and thy mother
    6. Thou shalt not kill
    7. Thou shalt not commit adultery
    8. Thou shalt not steal
    9. Thou shalt not bear false witness
    10. Thou shalt not covet

    Well, the fist four are not really lawlike, just religious superstition. 5. looks good, but isn’t really about law. 6. is a good one and an important part of any legal system, although few would take an absolute morality on that. 7. looks good but really isn’t a matter of law (in many areas). 8. same as 6. 9. (How I wish). 10. is a proposed thought crime (this cannot be policed).

    So, we have the first four as religious superstition, three (5, 7, and 9) as good moral guides but not absolutes and not in law, one (10) as a thought crime and two useful legal crimes: murder and stealing (but these are not really sensible as absolutes).

    No mention or rape.

    No mention of torture.

    No mention of causing bodily harm.

    No mention of child abuse.

    No mention of the right to bear arms (or otherwise), sorry, couldn’t resist !

    No mention of slavery.

    I really don’t see this set of rules as being so great.

    If we really are in moral decline, and I may agree with you on that, what we need is a discussion on morality. Religious superstition does not help in such a discussion. You might find this interesting…


  • Cheri


    Moral relativism is the very reason why abortion by some is considered permissible. These responses to moral relativism pretty much sum up why I am not a moral relativist:

    ~Relativism, however, is seriously flawed for at least three reasons. First, it is self-refuting. That is to say, it cannot live by its own rules. Second, relativists cannot reasonably say that anything is wrong, including intolerance. Third, it is impossible to live as a relativist.~

    You state that consciousness and the ability to feel pain are determining factors for when abortion should be permissible. Yet for such a permanent act with only nine months to work with, you haven’t bothered to set a timeframe. The problem with this belief is that now it seems you no longer support that the woman has the “right to choose” whatever she wants to do with her body at any time during her pregnancy. If you set limits for abortion, then you are not 100% pro-choice/abortion (what pro-aborts like to label as “anti-choice”). Also, there are a variety of other humans that are neither conscious (roughly half of the entire world population is asleep at a time) nor can they feel pain (such as lepers and coma patients, etc). Due to the absence of any sensation whatsoever being (presumably) one of your deciding factors, you’ve now widened the pool of humans that are okay to destroy by several billion. Including yourself.

    Pregnancy via rape:
    Rebecca Kiessling, conceived in rape and having escaped abortion twice due to its illegal status during her mother’s pregnancy, expertly refutes the claim that abortion should be allowed in cases of rape:
    Juda Myers, also conceived in rape, passionately (albeit religiously) argues for the protection of such children; even points out that aborting a child conceived in rape is tampering with evidence of a crime (which is illegal):

    On suffering:
    ~It is never right to intentionally kill an innocent person, even if it does relieve another’s emotional or physical suffering. We should not kill an unborn baby to alleviate the suffering of the mother any more than we should kill her infant to alleviate her suffering. Neither should we commit an abortion of a malformed fetus in order to prevent his or her suffering later in life.~

    I’ve always been puzzled by arguments appealing to suffering as a reason to abort. We don’t advocate to kill poor people to alleviate poverty. Or to kill malnourished people to end world hunger. It’s true that they would no longer be suffering, but they would be unjustly robbed of their lives and bodily autonomy. Suffering is not a crime nor should one be killed for it or for the possibility of having to endure it.

    In a case of competing rights, around which the abortion debate centers, the one who has the least to lose must yield to the one who has the most to lose. I found this premise through an essay on competing rights on the Libertarians for Life website. My internet connection is wonky, otherwise I would find the link for you. Overall a very good source.

    In the vast majority of pregnancies, the woman (gravida) is healthy and her body is temporarily, albeit naturally, altered. Uncomfortable? Yes. Painful? At times. Deadly? Very rarely. In the vast majority of abortions, the baby (fetus) is forced to die a cruel and undeserved death, sometimes within a matter of minutes, sometimes over the course of several days. Both mother and child being equal, the mother has the least to lose and her prenatal offspring has the most to lose. Therefore, the mother must temporarily yield her rights to the child’s constitutional right to live.

    “the prevailing scientific view is that life does not begin at the moment of fertilisation.”
    This statement assumes what has not been proven. Your argument regarding the development of twins does not validate the above premise. Conjoined twins do not have two separate bodies nor are they one individual, but they are most assuredly human. Until it can be absolutely proven without a doubt that the life of a human does not begin until birth, or 20 weeks of pregnancy, or whenever you think it is, it is only logical and ethical to err on the side of caution and abolish abortion.

    Although the pregnancy may be aborted, the child of such a pregnancy sometimes evades death. Abortion survivors:
    (Melissa Ohden)
    (Gianna Jessen)
    (more extensive list)

    I’m reading a lot of ambiguity in your response. It may just be that you prefer not to be definite in your views. Unless they pertain to Christianity, which you seem to make painstaking efforts to deconstruct in your comments to others here. You even go so far to address me specifically, “You cannot impose your religion onto me.” Not once in my original post had I made a mention of religion. One need not be religious to be 100% opposed to abortion, and one need not be atheist to be present secular pro-life apologetics. Just because religious beliefs inspired the abolitionists of slavery to free slaves, does not make their goal a religious imposition. Rather, their goal was a restoration of human rights.

    Earlier you admitted to knowing little of Margaret Sanger and considered it irrelevant due to her absence, but seem to believe that Planned Parenthood, at the very least, is a substantial organization today. Since religion is mere superstition to you, I see no reason why you continue to discuss it. And if Planned Parenthood is so relevant, why are you ignorant of its founder? I implore you to research her background and eugenic motives.

  • Bodski


    Thankyou for your detailed response. Rather than attampt to point out all of the logical fallacies in the blog on moral relativism, I think that it may be boiled down a little. If I play devil’s advocate for a second and accept that there is some absolute morality, who decides which of these positions is correct:

    1. It is absolutely wrong for a child who has been raped to be forced to run a full pregnancy to birth; or
    2. It is absolutely wrong to ever have an abortion.

    This is not straightforward but I am interested in your response. Sam Harris touches on how we may move towards this in the link I posted in response to Clint. Did you watch it ? Here it is again if you would like to take a look.

    I will also pick up on some points you specifically address to me:

    1. Your paragraph three (determining factors)

    Your interpretation of my position is something of a straw man logical fallacy.

    •I did not set a timescale which is consistent with my position that abortions are acceptable in some cases. “My personal position is that abortions should be allowed at some time prior to birth. I’m not sure when….”. Simply because I do not state when during the nine months (2 weeks, 2 months, 8 months ?) does not mean that a limit cannot be set, simply that I do not currently know what a sensible limit is.
    •I am not 100% pro-choice as you describe and never stated that I am, my position is not that a woman can do whatever she wants with her body, simply that there are some circumstances in which I see abortion as acceptable. There is no conflict in my position here, adopting this position seems entirely sensible to me.
    •The ability to feel pain is one factor which I think is worthy of consideration when contemplating whether or not it is acceptable to abort. I clearly state “some time prior to birth” so your interpretation is again incorrect. I do not believe that it is ok to kill billions of humans.

    2. Pregnancy via Rape

    Rebecca is alive because he mother did not abort. At no point have I stated that a mother must abort, which seems to be the implication of Rebecca’s post. You and I should be grateful that we are here, as Rebecca is. I am pleased that my parents decided to have sex that night and that that particular sperm made it through, but here aren’t any versions of you or I regretting that our parents didn’t have sex four weeks earlier or a different sperm was successful, or regretting the contraception they used earlier in their relationship. Rebecca would have no knowledge of her non-existence any more than the ghost versions of us which never existed. I don’t say that she shouldn’t exist, simply that her mother should have the choice (within limits to be established). Rebecca would not be sad if her mother elected to abort, she would simply not exist, much like the ghost versions of us.

    I’ll not respond to Juda Myers as it would take too long to point out all of her logical fallacies and points of disagreement. I really thought it was a poor presentation, perhaps too much passion and too little logic ?

    3. The Prevailing Scientific View

    Here you have interpretted my text incorrectly. “Interestingly, a split egg can also recombine, so what happened to the other human ?”. You refer to this as conjoined twins (who are not one individual as you correctly state), however, I was referring to when the egg recombins into one person (you can google chimerism for more details). Whilst this is rare, it does ask a relevant question “What happened to the other human ?”. Much of the pro-life argument stems from human life being created at the moment of conception. Which is simply not the case all of the time and that is the prevailing scientific view (once you move past the many religious / pro-life psuedo-scientific pages).

    4. My Ambiguity and Religion

    My posityion is not 100% clear on this, hence my involvement in the debate. Rather than preaching a particular position, I am throwing out some variables to examine the “abortion in some instances Vs no abortions ever” positions.

    I am clear on Christianity though. The point I made that you cannot impose your religious view on me, does not need you to be Chrisitan (or of any religion), I am simply saying that if your (or any) position comes from religion, you cannot impose it upon me. This makes my initial question on morality more difficult. It is deliberately so.

    For interest, and outside of this discussion, I think that you probably are christian, probably american and probably female. But none of that is especially relevant, just a sense of you that I pick up from our discussions.

    5. Margaret Sanger

    I previously expressed my position here, but will re-state for clarity. What is important, is not what happened and why in the past but how this manifests itself (or not) now. If you are telling me that the ethos established by Margaret to deliver her eugenic motives is still prevelent then that is an issue worthy of discussion with someone (although not me as I prefer to keep matters at the level we have been discussion i.e. the relative (or absolute) morality of abortion rather than cases of individual institutions).

    To continue my football analogy. If your team was founded 100 years ago by a slave owner, would you argue that the team should no longer exist ? Probably not, unless there was a prevailing racism within the organisation today. I am sure that there are issues within PP, however, individual organisations are not my concern and we could keep picking out organisations who are better or worse indelivering abortions but I have no interest in this.

    Finally, thanks again for your repsonse. We may never agree on this, but I am hopeful that I will continue to learn and that maybe our positions, which at the moment seem diametrically opposed, may move slightly closer.



  • this is no reason to shut the clinic down. It needs to be investigated first. Abortion shouldn’t be illeagalized because of this, it should be made safer.

  • 2nd Amendment Rules

    Joebob: There is a reason to shut ALL abortion death house down.. MILLIONS of unborn babies!

    These mothers died while murdering their baby and deserved death; the babies are innocent.

  • joebob,

    Abortion is never safe. It always kills a child, it hurts mothers psychologically if not physically, and it causes grief and guilt for family members too. Killing someone safely does not make it okay.

  • Leif

    Is “Illeagalized” a word? There is no safety when it comes to morality. Just ask Lot’s wife.

  • Amyparson12

    I think everyone agrees this assault was unfortunate, but it’s time for protesters to reconsider their actions. If you want to protest abortions, protest outside a politician’s office, they are the ones who can make the changes you wish for this country. Video taping a patient being wheeled into an ambulance is a severe intrusion into an extremely private moment of her life. If you want to make a change, do it the right way, make people hear and understand you…not fear and despise you.

  • Mary


  • Bunya

    How compassionate. “Let those mothers die!” Exactly what we expect from “chrischuns”. You must’ve been ecstatic at the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Iraq.