FULL ABORTIONS SHOWN ON SPANISH TELEVISION – FIRST IN HISTORY

For those pro-abortionists who seem to believe that it is all about the women and not the babies. This post is related to my previous post regarding questions about rampant abortion’s, Right To Choose.

MADRID, December 14, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – For what is probably the first time in history, a television network in Spain has shown an abortion on national television.

The video, shot during a hidden-camera exposé on Spain’s abortion industry, shows a nurse injecting deadly poison into the fetus through the vagina of a pregnant woman, who then expels her dead child, about five months old. The doctor immediately covers the body.

“The baby is born dead. His cradle: a trash can,” says the commentator in voice-over on the tape. An abortion of the baby of a second woman is also shown.

After showing the second abortion, the commentator remarks. “As soon as the baby is born, the doctor must cover it up. No one looks at it. No one examines it.”

Later, the undercover reporter examines one of the dead children. “Hands, feet, a face. The cadaver of a human being,” the commentator notes. The doctor, a woman, remarks that the baby is 21 months old, but says she “never” looks at the bodies of the fetuses.

“Never?” asks the undercover reporter, who is posing as a doctor looking for work at the clinic. “Never,” the woman repeats “Never, never, never again!” When asked why, the doctor says “Because I don’t like it.” “Of course, you are a mother, I assume, right?” the reporter asks. No answer is given.

All of the patients preparing for abortions were over five months pregnant, “a period in which the fetus is completely formed and in possession of all of its senses,” notes the voice-over. One of the patients is only 15 years old.

The doctor explicitly acknowledges in the video that many of the patients have no valid reason for their abortions. However, she assures the reporter that the clinic has a psychiatrist who will automatically sign the necessary forms to authorize it because of “psychological” need as required under Spanish law.

Read the rest of the article here, footage is also available …

Advertisements

21 thoughts on “FULL ABORTIONS SHOWN ON SPANISH TELEVISION – FIRST IN HISTORY

  1. The point is that a human being is destroyed and disposed of. Abortion is one of many symptoms of feminist evil. Feminists are so stubborn and delusional. I’ll be so glad when God punishes them.

  2. That’s great.

    But I’ve just come up with this amazing idea!
    How about actually try and read the articles! And commenting on the subject matter! I know it sounds crazy, because then you would have to come to terms with facts! And your PC brainwashing will find that difficult but it’s worth a try eh!

    Go on. Rockefellers admitted funding Women’s Lib to break the family home apart, tax another half of the population and get the kids into State school to be brainwashed.

  3. “Finally, you keep making comparasions to hilter and nazism, godwin’s point has been attained, I win. Learn rethorics please.”

    “I Win?” How old are you?

    And fuck Godwins Law, that is just another way of avoiding subjects. Where are all of the comparisons to Hitler? And incase you didn’t know, Fascism is alive and well.

    Your comment was a waste of time. You also didn’t answer anything Rob Fedders has asked, just attempts to dismiss his questions with highly researched comments like “there is no point discussing with you as you are obviously not interested in hearing differing point of views”.

    But you’re right, there is no point. Be gone with you.

  4. There’s some thing you should try to understand about evolution and the relationship between men and women: Why in the world would women have to “evolve” to make up for the physical superiority of males? Last time I checked, human males never preyed on females…

    Anyways, there is no point discussing with you as you are obviously not interested in hearing differing point of views but only bent on formulating crazy, paranoid theories about some huge conspiracy against men of some sort and spend all your time inventing things about people with different values than you. Plus, you seem to be ignorant about lots of things as you constantly mix different ideologies.

    You seem very angry and threatened by women, I take that as a angst for them rejecting you maybe?

    Finally, you keep making comparasions to hilter and nazism, godwin’s point has been attained, I win. Learn rethorics please.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

  5. Jasmincormier,

    Furthermore, since you believe in both abortion and euthenasia, one would naturally assume that you discredit both Creationism and Intelligent Design, and fully embrace the THEORY of Evolution.

    I myself, don’t discount the effacy of Evolution, although, I do admit great interest in Intelligent Design…

    However, since you marched in here as a defender of “Women’s Rights,” please tell me, pray tell, according to the Theory of Evolution, as according to other beasts of the field… if Evolution is real, would it not make sense that women would evolve to have different abilities to compensate for male physical supremacy? Yes or No?

    Don’t backwash, now. The Theory of Evolution demands that women would evolve to have different tactics of survival than males. Just like evolution demanded that not all furry four legged carnivores get their food from the forest in the same way – like foxes and bears.

    Now, pray tell, exactly what kinds of of supremacy would NATURE have given females over males, to counter male physical supremacy, according to the Theory of Evolution?

    Hmmm?

    Still here to defend “women’s rights?”

    Do you believe it is possilbe that women are equal in sin to men? And if not, is it not fair to say that you don’t really believe in equality?

    Please explain these perplexing issues, which I am sure you have pontificated upon enormously, given your obvious rational train of thought.

  6. Jasmincormier said:

    “You folks have to realize one thing: That an unborn baby is pretty much just an outgrowth of the pregnant woman’s body and nothing else. It’s not murder but only ablation. The fetus is not self conscious and therefore is not to be considered as a living human being.”

    Jasmincormier, not all of “us folks” are rabid lunatics that need to be cornered as rabid misogynistic mini-Hitlers. Some of have probably spent a lot more time researching this stuff than many of the wimmin’s studies zealots you seem to admire.

    Most are very concerned with the Stalinist Totalitarian tendencies of “you far leftists” who continually twist the definition of things to suit whatever agenda you are pushing at the moment. Yes, I am talking about how “you folks” use the Dialectical, with a pre-determined outcome, to make every argument disempower heterosexual relationships and break down the family, and thus society’s foundational core. All very Marxist.

    For example, if a fetus is just an outgrowth of a woman’s body, and not considered a human being, then how come YOU could be charged with TWO murders for killing a pregnant woman, yet a woman gets a pat on the back from you and your communist ilk for killing that pesky outgrowth when she decides it is just a non-conscious outgrowth?

    http://www.talkleft.com/story/2004/04/05/272/03039

    The state Supreme Court strengthened California’s fetal-murder law Monday, declaring that the killing of a pregnant woman counts as two homicides even if the perpetrator was unaware the victim was pregnant. The 6-1 decision overturns a 2002 lower court ruling that said a killer must know the victim was pregnant to be guilty of murdering the fetus.

    —-

    All you have to do is google “Fetal Murder” and let your critical thinking save your left wing brain from being run by Big Sister. There have also been people charged with murder/manslaughter for causing a woman’s fetus to miscarry alone. That one piece is literally one of the first that comes up in google, among the thousands. Perhaps your critical thinking can also explain why such court decisions are not made widely public?

    Here is another article that should keep your two marbles from clanking together for the next couple of days. It is much more to the liking of “us folks,” the neanderthal misogyinists who apparently are not PC enough to be considered intelligent enough by “you folks”:

    http://www.angryharry.com/esRantAgainsttheCSA.htm

  7. Feminists studies? No thanks, But would that have been a bad thing? You make it look so.
    This is just MY OPINION, that I reached myself from critical thinking and experience I guess.
    It is very disapointing that you people keep using ad hominem attacks.

    “Not self conscious? So when someone is comatose, they are no longer considered a ‘living human being?’ So it would be okay for me to kill that person?”
    Well for one I am for euthanasia. So yes, it would be okay.

  8. From Informed Medical Opinion on the Humanity and Personhood of the Unborn Child

    Five main problems exist with the pro-abortionist’s position on personhood.

    (1) FACTUAL: The pro-abortionist view of personhood is objectively, scientifically and medically inaccurate – existing merely as a subjective, philosophical concept.

    (2) OBJECTIVE: The pro-abortionist definition of ‘personhood’ is subjectively stage-managed to promote the opinion of a biased party (i.e. the abortionist) who factually lost the debate about when life begins. Their theory is constructed on the grounds that the unborn child’s rationality has not yet attained a level whereby it can be classed as a ‘person’ by a group of people who have a vested interest in making sure that unborn children get neither the rights nor their status they are entitled to. Indeed, in our postmodern world, no one has the right to set ‘a credible level of rationality’ and then proceed to judge the rights and status of others by it.

    (3) DISABLIST: Its implications are very dangerous. If the pro-abortionist definition of ‘personhood’ is followed through to its disablist conclusions; then those with emotional impairments and mental illnesses are not classed as persons (as well as those of us who enjoy a good sleep at night), and are subsequently deemed unequal in status to everyone else.Singer, expounds his de facto pro – Nazi views thus: “Mental defectives do not have a right to life, and therefore might be killed for food – if we should develop a taste for human flesh – or for the purpose of scientific experimentation.”

    In addition, many people would argue that if personhood were to be determined by rationality, then some teenage adolescents could not be considered persons – perhaps the pro-abortionists would like to exterminate them too? Its ridiculous! – where does the domino effect of blood stop?

    (4) AGEIST: The pro-abortionist’s definition of ‘personhood’ is ageist because they don’t class an unborn human being in its first nine months of life as being equal to everyone else.

    (5) PHILOSOPHICAL: Unlike the animals, man was ‘made in the image of God’ (Genesis 1:26). The Lord Jesus Christ, moved by the Holy Spirit (2nd Timothy 3:16 and 2nd Peter 1:21) clearly taught that man is superior to the animal kingdom saying: “Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are ye not much better than they?” (Matthew 6:26).

    The attitude that an unborn is merely an outgrowth is a pathetic cop out. The age of lifestyle abortions etc will go down as a dark age in history. The unborn child is alive. It is also human.

    Not self conscious? So when someone is comatose, they are no longer considered a ‘living human being?’ So it would be okay for me to kill that person?

    Where did you get that definition from? Womens Studies class?

    This blog is full of information regarding feminists and their bullshit myths, use the search engine, that’s what it’s there for.

  9. “Jasmincornholier ( I have no clue if that’s supposed to be an insult? If so, I’ll take it as a sign of your inability to be rational and objective)

    How is FMW making the woman’s movement go back 50 years? He is simply showing the truth about what happens.

    It’s not like he’s doing something that feminists often do and lie or make up statistics.”

    Okay, there are showing the truth, that I agree on with you. It’s the intent that’s backward and demeaning to women who choose to use abortion. I would not react the same way to an objective documentary on the abortive (?) process, but it doesn’t seem to be the case.

    Okay, feminists lie and twist statistics? Prove it, or else you’re just throwing empty words in the air.

    If my “sex” defines abortion as progress? What sex are you referring to exactly? Do you think I am a woman, for I am not. But that’s a really sexist and uncalled for comment that does not bring anything constructive to the subject at hand right now.

    As to whether I am afraid of abortions (as implied by you “tastefully” calling me a coward) I will tell you, in all honesty, that I would assist to an abortion if it was to prove you how serious I am in my support for the “pro choice” cause.

    You folks have to realize one thing: That an unborn baby is pretty much just an outgrowth of the pregnant woman’s body and nothing else. It’s not murder but only ablation. The fetus is not self conscious and therefore is not to be considered as a living human being.

  10. Jasmincornholier

    How is FMW making the woman’s movement go back 50 years? He is simply showing the truth about what happens.

    It’s not like he’s doing something that feminists often do and lie or make up statistics.

    All he is showing is the reality of abortions.

    EVERY and I state EVERY woman should view this before she decides to have an abortion, it should be mandatory. Just as planned parenthood has the right to counsel women about abortions, right to life and others have the right to also show women what they are really doing.

    You see women do this type of thing often to escape the guilt for doing something horrendous, very often they lie to themselves.

    Here you can see what really happens, and you should.

    Are you a coward Jasmincornholier? Face up to whatmurderous women like you do.

    Killing innocent creatures isn’t something to be proud of and is no sign of “progress” in any type of movement.

    If your sex defines progress by abortion then you have a LONG way to go before you understand the world.

  11. Well actually the number of registered abortions worldwide since 1920 is around the 1 billion mark.

    Yes, 1 billion.

    At the bottom of my article Right To Choose it is included in the research links.

    Jasmincormier: I don’t know what you’re trying to say, whether you’re being sarcastic or not. I guess highlighting what actually happens it bad right? Let’s sweep it under the carpet in fear of offending ’empowered women?’

    Remember folks, feminists campaigned for the right to kill. Not the right to choose. Women already had the ‘choice’ of having babies, in fact, abortions were available too, it was that abortions were looked down on by society.

    It also forced women to accept responsibility for their sexual behaviour, which is where the ‘sexual freedom’ farce came from. In the UK, over 95% of abortions are lifestyle abortions. That is, because the woman couldn’t…

    1. Keep her legs together or;
    2. Ensure contraception was used.

    This is an issue that needs illumination. If people find images and video of unborn babies torn apart and discarded offensive, well then they better realise that what they are seeing IS REALITY and is happening at a rate of over 1 million a year.

    Just a thought…

  12. I agree with Rob V. Not to undermine the holocaust in any way, but 45 million souls have been killed and not one little, innocent face has been shown. Everyone thinks of just the word and I guarantee if people see the horrible, REAL side of abortions, they might change their minds.

  13. Unfortunately, the reporter will probably be chastised for violating privacy; and people will express outrage that it was shown for its shock value. A brief examination of facts would convince a rational person that this is horrid, but people are more worried about privilege, control, and choice, so they can’t view this issue rationally.

    Thanks for the post.

  14. It is a new trend that’s happening, showing the graphic side of abortion, rather than just words. I think it will work.

    Think about the holocaust, how the pictures and films horrified the world – and that was “just” 6 million. It’s been over 45 million abortions in the U.S. alone, since Roe v. Wade in 1973.

  15. Excellent. It is about time that people actually see with their own eyes the horrors of abortion. No longer will it be just about “a woman’s choice”… the faces of the little dead babies will speak volumes.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s