GYMDER, L’APPLICATION POUR TROUVER DES TARGETS DANS TA SALLE DE SPORT

Ça fait déjà 2 ans que le healthy lifestyle est à la mode. Des comptes Instagram blindés de nanas qui font du Yoga en bikini en passant par les selfies aux Club Med Gym #workout. Les millenials sont tournés vers un niveau de vie plus sain et dans ce cas-là pas de problème ! C’est bon d’être beau, ça fait du bien, ça développe l’estime de soi. Là ou le bât blesse, c’est lorsque la culture du corps devient omniprésente et je crois qu’à l’heure où je vous parle, nous sommes en train de toucher le fond !

Une société allemande, basée à Munich vient de lancer le next level de l’appli de rencontre : GYMDER. Le nom résonne comme du déjà vu mais vous ne savez pas trop d’où ça vient? Il suffit de vous rendre sur l’interface pour vous redonner la mémoire en un coup de pouce. L’application utilise pratiquement la même interface que Grindr une application de rencontres pour les hommes qui aiment les hommes ;).

Grindr est connu dans le milieu gay pour être le juste milieu entre Tinder et Hornet : Tinder étant l’application assez soft pour rencontrer des « targets » avec un bon potentiel pour se mettre en couple et Hornet pour clairement rechercher des relations sexuelles de dernière minute.

 

 

Alors quand une application comme Gymder arrive sur le marché avec des codes graphiques similaires, une consonance en terme de naming de marque et des fonctionnalités similaires, on se dit que l’application n’a pas été créée QUE pour nous permettre de trouver des potes avec lesquels s’entraîner. Et puis pour la personne qui sort l’application, quel intérêt stratégique? FREELETICS est déjà bien en monopole sur le marché du sport gratuit et communautaire, il faut donc trouver une valeur ajoutée pour lancer ce nouveau produit.

On voit très bien les enjeux cachés de la société qui à travers sont clip ne montre que des bombes atomiques pour un homme un peu dodu qui se prend en selfie. La plupart des scènes montrent des femmes s’entraînant avec des hommes contre deux scènes de groupe pour noyer le poisson dans l’eau.

Et voilà la promesse de vente : Vous avez lutté pendant plus d’un an à vous entraîner jours et nuits pour avoir un corps parfait et pour devenir la meilleure version de vous même? Vous méritez le meilleur: quelqu’un comme vous.

Seul hic, pour créer du lien en  salle de sport c’est pas le top. Les filles ne sont pas trop dans le mood de papillonner des paupières alors qu’elles entament leur 3ème série de Burpies et ressemblent à des pommes d’amour dégoulinantes.

Outre le côté totalement narcissique de l’application, il y aussi une faille sur laquelle nous souhaitions attirer votre attention. Cette application demande un accès total à vos photos de smartphone on se demande alors ce qu’ils font de la Data collectée …

Alors bien sûr nos détracteurs nous dirons : « mais c’est super, ça va permettre à plein de personnes seules de se rencontrer. On voit plein de personnes timides à la salle de sport qui pourraient se connecter et vivre de belles histoires ». Ou encore « C’est super ça va motiver les gens à pouvoir créer des groupes au lieu de s’entraîner tout seul ».

C’est sûr, créer du lien c’est super, s’entraîner à plusieurs et développer des affinités c’est aussi super cool. Dans ce cas on te conseille de télécharger Freeletics car l’application est plus sûre et les entraînements beaucoup plus sains (c’est vraiment pour le sport et créer des communautés de sportifs).

Car, de la même manière que Tinder est un outil qui permette de créer des couples qui marchent, on ne peut pas dire que cette application ait donné aux nouvelles générations les meilleurs codes pour comprendre et apprendre à vivre l’amour durable. On ne peut pas dire que de telles applications donnent de l’espoir aux jeunes sur des valeurs telles que la fidélité ou l’amour qui dépasse le désir physique.

Aujourd’hui, la plupart des personnes sur ces applications sont complètement résignées. Soit parce qu’elles ont trop consommé, soit parce qu’elles seront désespérées de swiper à tout va sans tomber sur la personne qui leur convient réellement. On tombe dans le Fast Food de la relation « amoureuse » : « tu veux me consommer sur place ou à emporter? »

En définitive de Tinder à Gymder il n’y a qu’un pas, seulement on se doute que l’un sera plus excluant que l’autre de part le concept marketing qui lui a fait voir le jour. Mais n’oublions pas que les applications ne sont en soi que des outils et que nous choisissons nous-même comment nous devons interagir avec eux. Comment nous allons devoir nous protéger face à des personnes qui voudraient aller trop vite. Allez à votre rythme, ne subissez jamais celui des autres et ne vous découragez pas. Sachez démultiplier vos possibilités de trouver l’amour et vous donner les moyens de faire de belles rencontres en vrai et pas virtuellement. Partez en trek organisé ou offrez-vous un stage sportif pour découvrir de nouvelles personnes qui partageront vos passions.

 

 

LES ANONYMOUS AVERTISSENT LE MONDE DE SE « PRÉPARER » POUR LA 3ÈME GUERRE MONDIALE

[SOUS-TITRES DISPONIBLES EN FRANÇAIS]

Le groupe hacktiviste Les Anonymous a publié une nouvelle vidéo incitant les gens à travers le monde à «se préparer » à la Troisième Guerre mondiale. Alors que les États-Unis et la Corée du Nord continuent de déplacer des « pièces stratégiques » sur l’échiquier de ce qu’il semblerait être une nouvelle bataille.

« Tous les signes d’une guerre imminente sur la péninsule coréenne apparaissent », a déclaré le groupe dans un clip de six minutes, publié sur YouTube au cours du week-end.

En utilisant leur personnage de signature Guy Fawkes, les pirates formulent plusieurs allégations concernant les mouvements militaires récents dans la région. Et les prétendus avertissements faits par le Japon et la Corée du Sud concernant des attaques nucléaires imminentes du Nord, délivrant une prophétie effrayante.

« Regardez, chaque pays met en place ses premières pièces stratégiques », déclare l’organisation, dans sa notoire voix robotique. « Mais contrairement aux guerres mondiales passées, bien qu’il y ait des troupes au sol, la bataille sera probablement féroce, brutale et rapide. Elle sera également mondiale et dévastatrice, à la fois sur les plans environnementaux et économiques.  »

Selon Les Anonymous, le test du Trump du missile balistique interministériel Minuteman 3 la semaine dernière – couplé avec un avertissement récent des responsables japonais aux citoyens, leur disant de se préparer à une éventuelle attaque nucléaire – est finalement la preuve que tous les signes indiquent un important Conflit entre les États-Unis et la Corée du Nord.

En outre, la Chine aurait exhorté ses citoyens expatriés à rentrer à la maison alors que les tensions continuent d’augmenter sur le programme d’armes nucléaires.

« C’est une véritable guerre avec de vraies conséquences mondiales », explique le groupe. « Avec trois superpuissances qui s’affrontent, d’autres nations seront forcées à choisir à côté de qui combattre ».

Ils prétendent que l’administration Trump a également travaillé en étroite collaboration avec les Australiens, en envoyant un déploiement en rotation de plus de 1 000 troupes américaines dans le pays, ainsi qu’une grande flotte d’avions militaires.

L’Australie est finalement considérée comme un « emplacement stratégique dans l’océan Indien», disent Les Anonymous.

« Le citoyen sera le dernier à savoir. Il est important de comprendre ce que font les autres pays », déclare le groupe.

Un autre signe infaillible selon lequel la guerre est imminente, selon Les Anonymous, sont les récentes discussions entre le président Trump et le président des Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte.

Ils auraient parlé il y a un peu plus d’une semaine de la situation avec la Corée du Nord et d’autres menaces de sécurité régionales.

« Lorsque le président Trump commence à joindre des personnalités comme le président Rodrigo Duterte des Philippines pour s’assurer qu’ils sont du même bord, il faut commencer à se poser des questions », disent Les Anonymous dans la vidéo. « Cependant, même Duterte a conseillé aux États-Unis de ne pas s’allier à Kim Jong Un ».

Le groupe conclut la vidéo avec un message étrange pour ceux qui regardent partout dans le monde. « Préparez-vous pour ce qui vient ensuite », disent-ils. « Nous sommes anonymes. Nous sommes la Légion. Nous ne pardonnons pas. Nous n’oublions pas.

LES NATIONALISTES HINDOU PROMETTENT DES BÉBÉS DE QUALITÉ SUPÉRIEURE

Une organisation nationaliste hindoue promet d’aider les couples indiens à concevoir des bébés «supérieurs» avec des QI élevés et une peau plus blanche que leurs parents, suscitant des critiques médiatiques.

Karishma Mohandas Narwani, chef du projet Garbh Vigyan Sanskar, a déclaré avoir conseillé aux futurs parents de se soumettre à un processus de «purification» pour s’assurer que leurs bébés naissent vierges de tous vices.

« Nous devons nous assurer que la semence est bonne, ce qui signifie que la qualité du sperme et de l’ovule doit être de première qualité », a déclaré mardi dernier Narwani, une praticienne de la médecine ayurvédique.

« Si tout cela est pris en charge, le bébé aura la qualité mentale, physique et spirituelle souhaitée ».

Elle a déclaré que les couples pourraient produire des « descendants supérieurs » en suivant les conseils de l’organisation, en partant du régime alimentaire jusqu’aux bonnes pensées.

« En fait, notre objectif est de produire des descendants supérieurs, plein de valeurs et de culture. Les secrets sont tous là dans nos anciens textes hindous », a déclaré Narwani.

Le projet, dont le nom se traduit par «la purification scientifique de l’utérus», est basé au Gujarat, l’état de l’ouest dirigé par le Premier ministre nationaliste hindou Narendra Modi. Un état composé d’environ 400 couples.

Narwani a nié ses rapports à Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS), une organisation hindoue de droite influente considérée comme la source idéale du parti Bharatiya Janata de Modi. Mais elle a dit qu’elle travaillait avec l’aide d’Arogya Bharti, un groupe souvent décrit comme l’aile de santé du RSS.

Ashok Kumar Varshney, un activiste RSS et secrétaire d’Arogya Bharti, a déclaré que les méthodes du groupe permettaient aux « parents ayant un faible QI d’avoir une progéniture avec un QI élevé ».

« Il est également possible pour un couple à peau sombre d’avoir des bébés plus clairs », a-t-il ajouté.

Le programme a été critiqué dans les médias indiens, avec un rapport affirmant qu’il s’agissait directement « d’une vision nazi ».

L’eugénisme – la croyance controversée selon laquelle on pourrait améliorer la race humaine par une sélection génétique – était une idée populaire dans la première moitié du 20ème siècle et était particulièrement utilisée par les nazis.

Mais Varshney a déclaré que l’organisation était simplement engagée dans une intention purement liée à la motivation du peuple :

« Un agriculteur n’aura de bon rendement que s’il prépare correctement le sol. Et en ce sens, la purification des spermatozoïdes et des œufs est très importante », a-t-il déclaré par téléphone.

Nous  pouvons nous demander jusqu’où cette folie va continuer? Je me rappelle avoir lu un livre pendant ma scolarité qui positionnait comme un fait très clair la notion suivante : « chaque bébé naît avec le même cerveau ». Alors qu’arrive-t-il aux parents? Se sentent-ils trop démunis pour pouvoir donner toutes les chances à leurs enfants, se sentent-ils trop préoccupés par eux-mêmes pour pouvoir consacrer le temps nécessaire à l’éducation de leur enfant? Comment pourrait-on grandir en se disant que nos parents ne voulaient pas vraiment de nous tels que nous sommes, mais de la meilleure version de nous-mêmes?

Le produit parfait qui reflète les meilleurs gènes qu’ils avaient à nous offrir?

On a du mal à penser qu’une population aussi « spirituelle » et proche de la nature que l’est la population indienne puisse se lancer dans une telle quête transhumaniste, c’est désolant.

BEING PRO-LIFE GOT ME BOOTED FROM MY FEMINIST CLASSROOM’S DISCUSSION GROUP

It was like any normal day in my feminist classroom.

Translation: we were “problematizing” and “nuancing” concepts that had already been problematized and nuanced to the nth degree.

On this particular day, we were discussing the importance of language and the power of words. For the first time in what seemed like forever, I found myself feeling relaxed.

The importance of language, I thought to myself. Now this is a topic that is genuinely fascinating.

Admittedly, I should have known better than to let my guard down. While feminism is by no means inherently hostile, the path that radical feminists have been on over the last couple of decades has caused even simple, uncomplicated subjects like the importance of language to become war zones.

It didn’t take long for my professor to snap me out of my calm reverie. As she was discussing the various aspects of language that she wanted to highlight as part of the class, my professor decided to provide an example to illustrate her point. She explained that the power of words could be clearly seen in the abortion debate.

I sat up, instantly on high alert. Forgive my cynicism, but I have yet to attend a feminist lecture (and believe me, I’ve attended many, many feminist lectures) where the topic of abortion was discussed from any perspective other than the pro-abortion worldview.

My professor continued: « This is why I am always careful to refer to those who oppose abortion as ‘anti-choice’, since they stand in opposition to a woman’s right to choose.”

She went on to explain that she also intentionally uses the word “fetus” when referring to the unborn child, no matter what the stage or the scenario. My professor stated that, even at baby showers, she congratulates the mother-to-be on the health of her fetus and asks questions pertaining to the fetus, not the baby.

Setting aside the massively insensitive and dehumanizing nature of this obsession with the word “fetus” (which, as a side note, references a stage of development, not a state of being – this is why there are dog fetuses, cat fetuses, and yes, human fetuses), there is something incredibly problematic about labeling the majority of the population “anti-choice”.

(I say “majority of the population” because most individuals in society do not agree with the abortion-on-demand rhetoric, which, in the opinion of my professor, means that they support restricting women’s choice, hence the “anti-choice” label.)

After debating with myself for a number of minutes as to whether I should say something, I raised my hand and made eye contact with the professor. She nodded, and I tried not to let my voice waver as I explained in kind yet firm tones that those who opposed abortion were actually very supportive of choice. They are not “anti-choice”, I explained calmly, but rather they oppose a specific choice that harms the life of another human being. Trying to reason with the class, I explained that we would never say that everyone who was against murder or rape was “anti-choice” simply because they opposed the so-called right of a murderer or rapist to do what he/she wants with his/her body. In the same way, I argued, those who oppose abortion are not “anti-choice”, since they support most choices, so long as the choice doesn’t interfere with the rights of another human being.

I was not surprised when other students began throwing their hands forcefully into the air halfway through my explanation. I was also not surprised when every single student who spoke after me vehemently argued that every person who opposed abortion was discriminatory towards women and sought to enslave women’s bodies by restricting their reproductive choices.

I was, however, shocked at the open hostility that I received from one of the students. I knew that she stood firmly in the pro-abortion camp: she had made a number of posts on our class’ Facebook group, one of which boldly declared that anyone who had the audacity to call themselves a “pro-life feminist” was not truly a feminist. As she had written and was now repeating in class:

“Saying you’re a pro-life feminist is an oxymoron.”

The rest of the class went downhill from there. A number of things were said, most of which were targeted not-so-discreetly at me, and the whole situation culminated into a two week long series of events that ended with me being eliminated from the class’ Facebook page due to the fact that my comments made other students “uncomfortable”. After I was eliminated from the Facebook group, I was then asked to apologize to the classroom, and, upon issuing an apology for any feelings of offense or judgment that might have been taken from my comments, my apology was criticized, dissected, and subsequently deemed insensitive and insincere.

Let’s focus in for a moment on two specific issues with this situation that unfolded:

Firstly, there is the disturbing fact that I was told, directly and indirectly, that it was my responsibility to censor myself so as to avoid making other people uncomfortable. If this was not possible, as one student so tolerantly suggested, I should remain silent and keep my “offensive, discriminatory beliefs” to myself.

Allow me to make myself perfectly clear: it is not my responsibility to make other people comfortable. If my opinions make other people uncomfortable, while I undoubtedly should try to be sensitive to their feelings, it is their choice to stay and listen to what I have to say. It is one thing if someone is saying something sexual or otherwise inappropriate. It is something completely different if someone is calmly disagreeing with a point that was made previously.

I cannot help but think that radical feminists have truly become so fragile that the very expression of dissention threatens their existence. This is why they use such ridiculous, intolerant methods of silencing the opinions of those who disagree; for example: eliminating me from a Facebook group.

This leads me to the second specific issues with this situation. I admit that I find it profoundly disturbing that the radical feminists in my classroom who were unable to handle the existence of a differing opinion used eliminating my existence from a social community to cope with their worldview being challenged. What does it say about the state of our world that we consider it acceptable to literally remove someone with surgical precision from an entire community, online or otherwise? How fragile have we become in our beliefs that we cannot tolerate the existence of an alternate perspective?

Even more concerning, what implications does this have in the real world? Being eliminated from a Facebook group is not a big thing. I did not spend the next few days crying incessantly into the phone, begging my parents to shelter me from the existence of differing opinions. However, the facts remain: I was eliminated from an online community specifically because of my pro-life stance. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is discrimination.

The problem is, where is the line drawn? And who draws the line? What happens when disagreements become more heated? What happens when it is no longer an online community? What happens when a dominant group is having their worldview challenged? Will we accept a response that involves widespread murder or genocide in order to eliminate the differing perspective? If, as I desperately hope, we wouldn’t condone the physical elimination of an individual who stands in disagreement to popular opinion, why then do we condone the virtual elimination of an individual who stands in disagreement to popular opinion?

What frightens me most is that eliminating dissention is exactly what Hitler did during the Holocaust. He silenced the voices of anyone who dared speak out against him and the Nazi regime. It is a simple way to live, really: there is one worldview, and whoever disagrees, dies. The issue is that it flies in the face of everything we as a society hold near and dear: human rights, freedom of speech, tolerance, and the list goes on. And, amusingly enough, it is precisely these concepts that radical feminists claim to be fighting for.

Oh, the irony.

However, that student’s statement still remains:

“Saying you’re a pro-life feminist is an oxymoron.”

It is an interesting statement, to be sure. This argument is part of a much larger question, one that I will explore in the second part of this two-part series. Until then, I leave the question with you.

Is it possible to be a pro-life feminist?

Lia Mills first stepped onto the stage of activism at the age of twelve, when a video of her presenting a speech about abortion went viral on YouTube. Now nineteen-years-old, Lia is undeterred in her goal to make abortion both unnecessary and unthinkable. Her autobiography will be released in later this year. For more information, visit her website.

NURSES WITNESSING BABIES BORN ALIVE AFTER ABORTIONS

Often when a baby is born alive during an abortion procedure, the child is kept in the abortion clinic until he or she dies. In rare cases, the abortionist himself takes action to kill the baby. But sometimes the baby is transferred to a hospital, where he can be given medical care. Unfortunately, it is the policy of many hospitals simply to allow these babies to die.

Nurse Kathleen Malloy, from Jacksonville, Florida, witnessed the death of one baby who was born after a saline abortion and transferred to her hospital. Melanie Green of Last Days Ministries quoted Malloy in her pamphlet “Children: Things We Throw Away?“Malloy tells her story:

I worked the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift, and when we weren’t busy, I’d go out to help with the newborns. One night I saw a bassinet outside the nursery. There was a baby in this bassinet – a crying, perfectly formed baby – but there was a difference in this child. She had been scalded. She was the child of a saline abortion.

This little girl looked as if she had been put in a pot of boiling water. No doctor, no nurse, no parent, to comfort this hurt, burned child. She was left alone to die in pain. They wouldn’t let her in the nursery – they didn’t even bother to cover her.

I was ashamed of my profession that night! It’s hard to believe this can happen in our modern hospitals, but it does. It happens all the time. I thought a hospital was a place to heal the sick – not a place to kill.

I asked a nurse at another hospital what they do with their babies that are aborted by saline. Unlike my hospital, where the baby was left alone struggling for breath, their hospital puts the infant in a bucket and puts the lid on. Suffocation! Death by suffocation!

A saline abortion is performed by injecting the caustic saline solution into the amniotic fluid that surrounds an unborn baby in the second trimester. The baby breathes in the fluid, which burns her lungs and scorches her skin, causing her to die within several hours. The mother then goes through labor to give birth to the dead baby. This type of abortion is seldom performed today because it led to so many live births and because it was dangerous to women; it had the potential to cause severe damage to the woman’s body if the saline was injected into her bloodstream. A similar procedure where poison is injected into the baby’s heart, or, in some cases, the amniotic fluid, still takes place today and is used in the late second and third trimesters.

The baby Malloy watched die never had a name and never had a chance to live. In a similar situation, Gianna Jessen, who was also aborted by the saline method, was given medical care and survived. She is now a pro-life activist, and her website can be found here.

A 2002 article in The Journal of Clinical Nursing seems to indicate that nurses encounter babies born alive after abortions with some frequency. According to the article:

In the case of late termination, the death of the fetus before delivery, though usual, is not inevitable except in rare cases of extreme physical abnormality[.] … At times the fetus will actually attempt to breathe or move its limbs, which makes the experience extremely distressing for nurses. Also, whereas the woman will probably go through this process once in her lifetime, nurses may go through it several times a year or even in the same week. (1)

The article quotes author and lecturer Annette D. Huntington, BN, Ph.D. saying that abortion live births are a “regular occurrence.”

Another nurse who found herself in the terrible position of caring for an aborted baby told her story in the newsletter of Friendship Pregnancy Center (now called Women’s First Choice Center) in Morristown, New Jersey. Her story, which can be read in its entirety here, is heartbreaking. On the night the aborted baby came in, three premature babies from a nearby hospital were being taken care of. Two of the three were in danger of dying, and doctors struggled to save their lives. While the doctors were engaged in the struggle to help these two wanted babies, the aborted baby was brought in:

The nurse from Labor and Delivery walked into our unit carrying a blanket and stating “This is a prostaglandin abortion. He has a heartbeat so we brought him over.” The baby was placed under a radiant warmer and I was told the rest of the facts. The gestational age of the baby was given to be 23 weeks by ultrasound. The mother had cancer and had received chemotherapy treatments before discovering that she was pregnant. The parents had been told that their baby would be horribly deformed because of the chemotherapy.

I looked at the baby boy lying before me, and saw that from all appearances he was perfect. He had a good strong heartbeat. I could tell this without using a stethoscope because I could see his chest moving in sync with his heart rate. With a stethoscope I heard a heart pumping strongly. I look at his size and his skin — he definitely looked more mature than 23 weeks. He was weighed and I discovered that he was 900 grams, almost two pounds. This was almost twice the weight of some babies we have been able to save. A doctor was summoned. When she arrived the baby started moving his tiny arms and legs flailing. He started trying to gasp, but was unable to get air into his lungs. His whole body shuddered with his efforts to breathe. We were joined by a neonatalist and I pleaded with both doctors saying, “The baby is viable — look at his size, look at his skin — he looks much older than 23 weeks.”

It was a horrible moment as each of us wrestled with our own ethical standards. I argued that we should make an attempt to resuscitate him, to get him breathing. The resident doctor told me, “This is an abortion. We have no right to interfere.” The specialist, who had the responsibility for the decision, was wringing his hands and quietly saying, “This is so hard. Oh, God, it’s so hard when it’s this close.” In the end, I lost. We were not going to try to resuscitate this baby. So, I did the only thing I could do. Dipping my index finger into sterile water and placing it on his head, I baptized the child. Then I wrapped him in blankets to keep him warm, and held him. These were the only measures I could take comfort the baby under the circumstances, no matter how much I wanted to do more. I held this little boy, who was still gasping for breath, trying to stay alive on his own. As the tears flowed down my face, I pray to God that he would take this child into his care, and that he would forgive me for my own part in his death. After a while, he stopped gasping. His heart continued to be, but the beating became slower and weaker until it finally stopped. He was gone.

Ironically, all the while the nurse was holding the dying aborted child, doctors were struggling to save the life of another premature (but wanted) child in the very same room, less than 5 feet away. Sadly, this baby died as well – but she was given every possible medical treatment, while the aborted baby was completely ignored.

Another nurse, Joan S. Smith, told the following story:

It was a night I’ll never forget. It was 11 pm and my colleague Karen and I “scrubbed in” at the beginning of our shift in the Special Care Nursery of a large teaching hospital….Without warning, a harried nurse rushed into the doorway.

Her white uniform seemed out of place in the area of the hospital where only surgical scrubs are worn.

“Here, take this,” she said, thrusting into my hands a small silver specimen pan covered with a paper towel.

“What is it?” I asked, realizing by the look on her face that something was very wrong.

“It’s an abortion at 22 weeks gestation, delivered on our floor. But it’s alive,” she explained, then turned on her heel and was gone. I removed the paper towel to see the perfectly formed body of a baby boy curled up in the cold metal pan….Karen came over to help. “This happens every so often,” she explained sadly. She had trained at the hospital and worked there for over 15 years.

[After a doctor Joan called simply told her to do nothing but fill in the time of death for the baby] Stoking his tiny arm, I tried to sort out my jumble of emotions. I felt powerless, angry, and overwhelmed by sadness. How could our medical system be so full of ironies? Here I was surrounded by medical technology, which was of no avail to this tiny child. I wondered if the parents even were told that their son had been admitted to the hospital as a live birth with footprints taken, and identification number and band given, a physician notified of his birth- yet all of this merely an unpredicted complication of a routine abortion. It took nearly four hours until that tiny heart slowed to a stop. With tears in my eyes, I wrapped his body for the morgue. This was all of a life this child would ever know. He would never know the warmth of a mother’s embrace. No one would ever celebrate his birth. He would never even be given a name.

It is not unheard of for a baby born at 22-23 weeks to survive with medical treatment. Little Amillia Taylor was born at just 21 weeks and six days and weighed less than 10 ounces. She survived and is a healthy toddler today. Amillia’s mother actually had to lie to get the doctors to treat her baby – they had a policy of not treating children born before 23 weeks.

A German baby born at 21 weeks and five days also survived. Her story can be found here. The article also cites the example of a Canadian baby who was born before 22 weeks and survived.

Cases of late-term abortions blur the line between abortion and infanticide. Clearly, when a baby can survive on its own, even for short while, it becomes obvious that abortion is the killing of a human being. In reality, life is a continuum from conception to natural death – although babies aborted at later stages of development are more fully developed, abortion is murder from the very beginning. But stories of babies born alive and then denied medical care are heart-wrenching and a terrible indictment of our society, which permits such atrocities.

1. “Working with Women Experiencing Mid-Trimester Termination of Pregnancy, the Integration of Nursing and Feminist Knowledge in the G

THE DREADED RAPE EXCEPTION : WILL YOU COMPROMISE?

Over the last six years, I have met many different kinds of people. I have met the radicals, the impartials, and the unsure. I have met people who range all across the spectrum between ‘choice’ and life. A common trend I have seen, both in those who consider themselves pro-life and those who advocate for abortion, is the inclusion of the rape exception in their beliefs. I often hear people say things such as, « I think abortion is wrong, except in extreme cases like rape. »

Let me begin addressing this issue by summarizing what we know about the unborn: they are alive and they are human. These are not religious beliefs but scientifically proven facts. Society’s laws also clearly consider human life to be of value. Therefore, the only reasonable conclusion we can reach is to say that, since the unborn are human, the unborn are intrinsically valuable.

Keeping this in mind, we now come to the rape exception. The rape exception, ignoring the foundational truths stated above, says that the lives of those conceived in rape are somehow less valuable because of the circumstances surrounding their conception. The issue is that, if this reasoning were extended and taken to its logical conclusions, not only would the unborn child conceived in rape be less valuable than other humans, but the infant, toddler, teenager, and adult conceived in rape would also be less valuable.

In adopting a pro-life position, an individual is agreeing with science when it says that human life begins at the moment of conception. A pro-life individual is also agreeing with society when it says that human life is valuable. By making these agreements, a pro-lifer automatically eliminates the viability of the rape exception within his or her beliefs. He or she agrees that every unborn child deserves life. There can be no exceptions.

I understand why people adopt the perspective: women’s rights, personal experience, compassion. But the fact still remains that, no matter how compassionate it may be portrayed as being, the rape exception ignores the humanity of the unborn child conceived in rape, which therefore ignores the humanity of the born child. A child like Isabella.

Above is a picture of two beautiful young women. Lauran and Isabella have a very unique story, one that you can read about here. What I want to highlight here is not the fact that Lauran is courageous or that Isabella is adorable, although both of those statements are true. What I want to highlight is the fact that, if the rape exception were drawn out to its full conclusions, Isabella would be considered less valuable than every other little girl her age. If the rape exception were drawn out to its full conclusions, someone would be able to kill her at any stage in her life because of the circumstances of her conception.

I am not condemning those pro-lifers who believe in the rape exception.

As individuals, they can believe in the rape exception if they so choose. What I am saying, however, is that they cannot believe in the rape exception and remain intellectually honest.

I have always held the belief that, in the pro-life movement, we must be all-in or all-out. As Rebecca Kiessling would say, « No exceptions. No compromise. » If you are still uncertain as to where you stand in regard to the rape exception, talk to Lauran and Isabella. I’m sure that they will have a thing or two to say about it.

Lia Mills, 18, is the founder and director of True Choice, a pro-life organization that aims to protect and empower those facing an unplanned pregnancy.

WHAT IT MEANS TO BE AN EMPOWERED FEMALE?

 

Over the past three years, I have taken many feminism courses. I have sat in on dozens of lectures about the supposed joys and so-called accomplishments of radical feminist theorists and activists. I have been required to listen to presentations about how to use sex toys, about how human trafficking is a nonexistent phenomenon, and about how prostitution could secretly be my calling in life. But the most upsetting thing of all is that I paid for an education and received this indoctrination.

The one benefit of my extremist program is that it has presented me with key questions that I have used to strengthen my own beliefs about social justice issues and human rights. One such question is this:

What does it mean to be an empowered woman?

If radical pro-abortion feminists are to be believed, an empowered woman is one who will grow up with easy access to prostitution, pornography, and abortion.

If radical pro-abortion feminists are to be believed, an empowered woman is one who is willing to sacrifice motherhood in order to avoid being fired, being kicked out of her home, or being unable to finish her education.

If radical pro-abortion feminists are to be believed, an empowered woman is one who is able to freely access reproductive services — and by “services,” they mean exclusively abortion-on-demand, of course. Why? Because no empowered woman would expect a so-called “women’s healthcare” organization like Planned Parenthood to offer mammograms or prenatal care. Please. While Planned Parenthood has consistently promised that it offers these services, they really don’t. And an empowered woman would know this. Because an empowered woman does not need prenatal care. All she needs is abortion.

This is the radical pro-abortion feminist caricature of the empowered woman, a series of falsehoods that are sold to me over and over, whether in my feminist classrooms or in mainstream media.

But, thankfully, I know better than to believe their rhetoric. Because, thankfully, I am an empowered woman, not a radical pro-abortion feminist.

So let us examine this question from the perspective of a young pro-life woman:

What does it mean to be an empowered woman?

I believe that an empowered woman is one who is able to recognize both the privileges that she holds and the responsibilities that she must uphold as a member of society.

I believe that an empowered woman is one who is able to pursue her dreams — whether it be starting up a new business or finishing law school — without being asked, expected, or required to sacrifice her motherhood and allow someone to end the life of her child.

I believe that an empowered woman is one who is able to make a true choice when it comes to key issues, whether it be prostitution or abortion.

I believe that an empowered woman is one who is able to access all manner of reproductive services, including mammograms and prenatal care.

I believe that an empowered woman is one who is able to respect the differences between reproductive rights and human rights.

I believe that an empowered woman is one who is able to see that women deserve better than abortion.

I believe that an empowered woman is one who is able to choose life or choose adoption.

Because I believe that an empowered woman is one who is able to demand her rights as a woman without requiring that the rights of others be sacrificed for her sake.

This is my definition, at least when it comes to key social justice issues related to sex and reproduction. It is not a complete definition, and it is constantly expanding as more women push against the constraints that have been placed on them by radical feminists and challenge those ridiculous feminist assumptions about what is best for women. But as imperfect or incomplete as this definition may be, it is the one that I am working with.

So today, these are the empowered women that I want to honor.

I want to honor the birth mothers who made immense personal sacrifices so that their children could live.

I want to honor the women who face crisis pregnancies and choose life in spite of the overwhelming pressure to abort.

I want to honor women like my mother who have overcome the trauma of an abortion experience and now resist the feminist rhetoric that says abortion is the only option.

And I want to honor the original feminists, those empowered pro-life women who fought for authentic equality and true choice.

I am proud to be a woman, and I love my fellow women.

So today, I want to honor them. Not in order to perpetuate myths about abortion as being a cure-all solution to women’s problems; rather, in order to advance a pro-life message of truth, justice, and equality that gives women the opportunity to live as empowered mothers, to live as empowered women who give the gift of life and, in doing so, change the world.

Lia Mills first stepped onto the stage of activism at the age of 12, and she has continued being a voice for the voiceless. Her most recent video addresses the question: Is it possible to be pro-woman, pro-choice, and pro-life? 

HER BOYFRIEND BEGGED THE ABORTION CLINIC STAFF TO TELL HER HE HAD CHANGED HIS MIND: BUT THEY REFUSED

One year ago, I had just finished the final leg in a 212km walk from Montreal, Quebec to Ottawa, Ontario. I was the youngest member in a team of 25 women who participated in the Back to Life Walk. The purpose of the walk was to empower women who have been personally affected by abortion in some way by giving them back their voices. Over the course of the 3-week journey, I had the privilege of getting to know the women and hearing their stories. Their stories opened my 16-year-old eyes to the reality that, thanks to abortion, women’s choices are being restricted.

Out of the 25 women on the walk, 10 of them were post-abortive. Eighty percent of those post-abortive women had been coerced into ‘deciding’ to abort, and 100% felt like they had no choice other than abortion at the time of their crisis pregnancy. The stories that these women shared with me made me realize that, in the name of choice, women in Canada have lost true choice.

Ashley’s story

One of the post-abortive women, Ashley, shared how she at first received support from her boyfriend when she got pregnant at the age of 17. Thrilled, Ashley started preparing to have their child, and together they brainstormed different names for their little girl or boy.

Things changed, however, when Ashley was about four months pregnant. Her boyfriend told her that he would no longer help support her, and he counseled her to have an abortion. As the day for the abortion drew closer, Ashley felt that she could not go through with the abortion “decision”. She told her boyfriend as much, and he told her that she had no choice in the matter and she would have the abortion, regardless of what she wanted.

He drove her to the abortion clinic and waited in the outer room as Ashley was prepped for the abortion procedure. Out of nowhere, her boyfriend had a change of heart and rushed to the staff at the front desk. He explained to them that Ashley didn’t want to have the abortion and that she was only going through with it for his sake. Ignoring his pleas that they ask her whether she really wanted to go through with the abortion, the medical staff told Ashley’s boyfriend that it was her body, her choice, and that he should stay out of it. After the first step of the abortion was completed, a nurse told Ashley what had happened with her boyfriend. Ashley was devastated.

Ashley recounted this story to us with tears streaming down her face. Not only had her boyfriend coerced her into having the abortion, but the medical staff had also played a part in taking away her true choice. She alone was left to suffer all the negative after-affects of the abortion. As tragic as her story is, she was not the only one on the walk who had been coerced.

 

Lisa’s story

Lisa, another post-abortive woman on the walk, told her story about having 3 abortions. She became pregnant when she was 15 years old and felt immense pressure from her family to have an abortion. She became pregnant a second time at the age of 16. She lived on her own at the time, so her family didn’t mind her decision to keep the child. This time the pressure to have an abortion came from her boyfriend’s family, who said that she was being selfish if she kept the child and that she would ruin their son’s life. She became pregnant for a third time when she was 18 years old. By this time, Lisa was suicidal and made the abortion decision on her own.

But not only was Lisa coerced into having the first two abortions by others, she was also being fed lies, since medial personnel told her that her babies were “just tissue”. When she had her two children later and saw the ultrasounds, she realized how untrue that statement was. Lisa was also never told that there were negative after-effects, both emotionally and physically. She was never told that, as a direct result of her abortions, she would have difficulty bearing children later on, since an abortion thins the lining of the uterine wall and makes the womb less able to sustain a child. She was also never told that she would struggle with endometriosis and another condition that has no cure apart from a hysterectomy.

What these stories showed me is that there is a desperate need to redefine “choice” in our society. In Canada, the government pours its resources into abortion. In Canada, society does not condemn coerced abortion. In Canada, medical staff have no requirement to tell women the truth about all the negative after-effects of an abortion. Is this truly empowering women?

I will never forget the women on the walk or the stories that they shared. With tears in their eyes they said, “I felt like I had no choice.” The statistics say that over 64% of abortions are coerced. Research also shows that 80% of women who have abortions would have carried their child to full term if they had better circumstances or more support from others.

It can be easy to ignore statistics. You can dispute their reliability, question previous biases, etc. But a story is different. You cannot look at a post-abortive woman who is telling you that her abortion caused her deep pain, regret, and physical harm and tell her that she’s wrong or unreliable. You can argue with a statistic, but you cannot argue with a woman’s story.

The dark underbelly of the abortion industry

A few years ago, I came across the story of Carol Everett. A post-abortive woman herself, Carol Everett owned an abortion clinic and occasionally participated in performing the abortions. In an interview for the movie Blood Money, the former abortion clinic owner says this:

“We had a whole plan that sold abortions and it was called sex education. Break down their natural modesty, separate them from their parents and their values, and become the sex-expert in their lives so they turn to us. When we would give them a low-dose birth control pill they would get pregnant on, or a defective condom, because we didn’t buy the most expensive condoms, we bought the cheapest condoms. Our goal was 3 to 5 abortions from every girl between the ages of 13 and 18.”

This is the hidden underbelly of the “pro-choice” movement. This is what abortion truly is: an industry, a business, a political agenda. It isn’t about choice. It isn’t about women’s rights. Abortion is about money and flawed ideologies. Plain and simple. Carol Everett herself says that her plan was to open three more abortion clinics in her area, not because she wanted to help women in crisis pregnancies or advance women’s rights, but because she wanted to be a millionaire by the following year.

This should come as no surprise.

Fact: Planned Parenthood makes millions off legal abortion and the belief held by women that abortion is the only solution to unplanned and crisis pregnancies.

Fact: When someone has a vested, monetary interest in the legality of something like abortion, they cannot be trusted to make an unbiased decision on what it is truly beneficial for women.

There is only one way to counter this reality: redefine choice. If choice doesn’t involve presenting women with more than one option, protecting them from the coercion and manipulation of others, and giving them all the information, then we have failed women. But, if we can start to discuss what true choice really looks like, then there is hope for women and for future generations. Until then, society must face the ugly truth about abortion: it kills a child, harms a woman, and the only ones who benefit are those profiting from it.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the abortion industry.