Image 01 Image 03

Pro-Abortion Doctor: ‘Abortion is Normal and an Act of Love’

Pro-Abortion Doctor: ‘Abortion is Normal and an Act of Love’

You are the lowest of the low if you ever think abortion is positive, especially describing it as an act of love.

“Dr.” Colleen McNicholas, Chief “Medical” Officer from “Planned” Parenthood St. Louis, thinks abortion is normal and an act of love.

I use quotes because describing abortion in any positive way I won’t fully call you a doctor and “Planned” Parenthood is anything but that.

Whatever happened to rare and safe? I thought the “pro-choice” crowd wanted to keep it rare. Whatever happened to teaching about safer sex?

Nope. Now they want you to normalize abortion and make you think allowing a doctor to murder your unborn child is an act of love.

McNicholas also indulges in the fear that women will become handmaidens and we’re no longer people.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


2smartforlibs | July 12, 2022 at 3:30 pm

Your mom didn’t love you if that’s the case.

    Peabody in reply to 2smartforlibs. | July 12, 2022 at 7:39 pm

    That is correct. For if they would’ve had sex that was “normal and an act of love” in the first place, they wouldn’t need an abortion.

Under “safe, legal, rare, and early”, I’m reluctantly pro-choice.

Once you start celebrating abortion as a moral good, I’m staunchly pro-life.

These ghouls don’t realize how many pro-choice people they’re alienating.

    chrisboltssr in reply to jhkrischel. | July 12, 2022 at 3:41 pm

    Being pro-life is being pro-choice. You have the choice to:

    1) Not have sex
    2) Practice safe sex by using birth control
    3) Giving birth and becoming a mother
    4) Giving birth and giving the baby up for adoption
    5) Get your tubes tied and then you can have as much sex as you want without murdering your child.

    The “pro-choice” people as we know it is only about death. Death of the baby as a positive good. “Safe, legal and rare” has always been a scam to keep folks like you supporting the murdering of unborn babies.

      Milhouse in reply to chrisboltssr. | July 13, 2022 at 12:08 am

      None of that helps in the case of rape. When a woman becomes pregnant from a rape, she didn’t choose that in any way. So that argument for why she shouldn’t be allowed to hire a hit man and have it killed won’t work. Unfortunately, she still can’t be allowed to do that, for the simple reason that the poor kid didn’t do anything to her. She deserves all the sympathy in the world, but not a free pass to commit a murder.

        MattMusson in reply to Milhouse. | July 13, 2022 at 7:43 am

        What is Rape? We must have an exact definition or anything you call ‘rape’ is grounds to terminate a life.

        Dimsdale in reply to Milhouse. | July 13, 2022 at 8:17 am

        Well, #5 would have, at least from the pregnancy standpoint. That said, rapists should be castrated with a rusty spoon, by the woman herself or a designated “spoon wielder.”

        chrisboltssr in reply to Milhouse. | July 13, 2022 at 8:59 am

        It’s not solar to help in the case of rape. Nearly all murders of unborn babies are because mothers are using it as a form of birth control. Abortionists always throw out that veneer to mask all the murders happening because it is being used as a form of birth control.

        Voyager in reply to Milhouse. | July 13, 2022 at 11:48 am

        Rape is a unique situation. As it is a reproductive strategy, the state condoned execution of those conceived by it is a method of disincentivizing it. In the case of rational actors, it removes the rational reason. In the case or irrational actors, it allows them to be limited from the gene pool.

        However, it also run in conflict with Western legal history that generally argues one should not be lawfuly punished for the actions of another, especially not horrifically, so the compromise seems to be only allow it up to a point where the person conceived by it would be expected to be aware of what’s happening to them.

        And yes, the entire debate is pretty horrific. Congratulations, the natural world is pretty horrific on a routine basis. We’ve only been able to rise above that because we’ve got cheap and abundant enough energy that we can afford to spend tons of it figuring out ways to square circles. Maybe we will figure out a way to square “rape should not be a viable reproductive tactic” with “we’d rather not kill people just because their father raped their mother” but right now this seems to be the best we’ve got.

        Just do not lose sight of the fact that that *is* the trade we are making here. You can have one, or the other, but they are currently mutually exclusive states.

        Of course that also requires a legal system that can operate in a timeline less than it takes for said person to grow up and die of old age, but that is a different problem. Still horrific in its own way, but a different problem.

      Fatkins in reply to chrisboltssr. | July 13, 2022 at 9:08 am

      Why does the right insist on calling embryo’s and fetus’s babies. It’s so stupid.

      That aside sure it can be a positive to have an abortion because fundamentally its about the patient and their particular circumstances. Who the hell are you to decide for them what’s best.

        Peabody in reply to Fatkins. | July 13, 2022 at 1:29 pm

        Why does mark311 keep posting here? It’s so stupid.

        Arminius in reply to Fatkins. | July 13, 2022 at 8:07 pm

        Why does the right insist on calling embryo’s and fetus’s babies. It’s so stupid.

        Fetus literally means “offspring” or “child” in English. Why do you abortion enthusiasts pretend fetus is a Latin word that doesn’t translate into English?

        Who is the stupid one? Americans of Italian descent, particularly those in the restaurant industry, commonly refer to pizzas as pies. And we’ll get corrected by ignoramuses who insist it’s not a pie, it’s a pizza. Pizza is the Italian word for pie.

        By the same token fetus is Latin for child. There are other Latin words for child just like there is more than one English word for child depending on sex and stage of development. But fetus means child nonetheless. Deal with it.

        That aside sure it can be a positive to have an abortion because fundamentally its about the patient and their particular circumstances. Who the hell are you to decide for them what’s best.

        We have an entire medical specialization named obstetrics that was developed (and indeed was the very first medical specialty taught when medical schools were founded in the mid 1700s at colleges such as Harvard in the British North American colonies) due to the reality that a doctor dealing with a pregnant woman has two patients. Not one. And for the same reasons we have laws against murder getting killed is never a positive outcome for either one of those patients.

        Fatkins, do you jump down women’s throats when they refer to themselves or family members as being “with child?” Or how about when a pregnant woman is involved in some accident (or is the victim of a violent assault) and in addition to worrying about her, family and friends also are concerned she’s going to “lose the baby.” That isn’t some “stupid reich-wing” turn of phrase knuckle dragging primitives are just now trying to impose on everyone else (all the stupid wing-nut artificial expressions such as “pregnant people” or “birthing parent” are coming from the bats*** crazy looney bin that is the left). Such phrases are how people in the English speaking world have been talking about their yet-unborn children ever since what we’d recognize as the English language has existed. And no doubt even before then.

        Milhouse in reply to Fatkins. | July 14, 2022 at 1:18 am

        Why does the right insist on calling embryo’s and fetus’s babies. It’s so stupid.

        Because that’s what they are. It’s stupid to deny it.

        That aside sure it can be a positive to have an abortion because fundamentally its about the patient and their particular circumstances. Who the hell are you to decide for them what’s best.

        Sure, abortion can be positive for the mother, in the same sense that rape can be very positive, for the rapist. If it weren’t a positive experience for rapists, they wouldn’t do it. And we don’t get to decide for them what’s best for them. But we do get to decide that they should be forcibly prevented from doing it, no matter how positive it is for them, because it’s not very positive for their victim. And that’s the only person whose experience concerns us. Even if the benefit to the rapist far exceeds the harm to the victim, we will still not allow it, because we are not utilitarians. And the same is true a fortiori for abortion, where the harm to the victim is absolute.

    Paul in reply to jhkrischel. | July 12, 2022 at 7:07 pm

    I totally agree. You want to take “Plan B” to prevent your nascent embryo from implanting in the wall of the uterus? Knock yourself out.

    You want to abort your baby in the first 3 months? Now I’m not feeling so good about it, but I’m willing to compromise because I do believe a woman should control her own body, as long as she’s not harming another person in the process.

    But as soon as that baby becomes viable outside the womb you’ve definitely gone well past the line, in my estimation.

    And when you start “shouting your abortion!” and “tweeting your abortion!” and running around acting like the death of a baby is something to celebrate, well you’ve just turned into an evil monster at that point.

      Well said!

      The Gentle Grizzly in reply to Paul. | July 12, 2022 at 7:30 pm

      You’ve about described my position.

      Milhouse in reply to Paul. | July 13, 2022 at 12:04 am

      1. 3 months isn’t even nearly viable outside the womb.

      But 2. What’s so special about “viable outside the womb”? How does it make any sense to draw the line there? Wherever you do draw the line, why there? Did anyone before 1973 ever use that as a line? In fact that’s one thing that the Dobbs decision decisively rejects; there’s simply no basis for it in law or reason.

        Dimsdale in reply to Milhouse. | July 13, 2022 at 8:19 am

        Also, consider that some of these “women” (yes, I am a biologist) consider up to 2 years after actual birth to be within the parameters of “non viable.”

        Of course, they are crazy, but so is late term abortion.

        CommoChief in reply to Milhouse. | July 13, 2022 at 9:31 am

        Viability as a concept for where to draw a line regarding what ie and is not life seems valid. The problem is where that point occurs. The usefulness of concept of viability, expressed another way as the ability to survive outside the womb with a little help, is that it delineates differences and exposes the underlying philosophy of those in the debate.

        Where someone argues in favor of abortion for a viable baby they are no longer arguing for reproductive choice but for euthanasia. A given trauma victim in the ER can’t live without help. A person on dialysis can’t live without help.

        The underlying philosophy of those promoting denying that help and instead supporting the euthanasia of viable babies would equally apply to any other person unable to sustain life without help. Whether they understand or admit it that’s the logical reality of their reasoning.

        As a legal argument this distinction didn’t need to be addressed in Dobbs to overturn the tortured reasoning in Roe and Casey. That doesn’t undermine it as useful as tool in public policy debates or kitchen table discussions.

        Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | July 13, 2022 at 2:26 pm

        There’s definitely a rational basis for drawing the line at viability and it definitely touches on law. At least the law as the rogue Biden administration is attempting to rewrite it in the face of the Dobbs decision.

        The Biden administration is simply continuing it’s string of blatant, knowing violations of the Constitution (Federal farm relief for minority farmers only in violation of the equal protection clause, CDC eviction moratoria with absolutely no authority in statute or the Constitution, etc.) by having the HHS through its Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issue “clarifying guidance” on the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). EMTALA provides that health care facilities that operate an emergency room must provide emergency, life saving stabilizing care regardless of the patient’s ability to pay. If it’s beyond the capability of initial treating facility to provide that care then it must transfer the patient to a facility that can.

        But then Becerra’s agency pulls a sleight of hand after providing background on EMTALA. It then slips in the word “health” into the discussion, as in “life and health” of the “pregnant person” (I guess there are no biologists at HHS). “Health” can mean anything; it can mean something as frivolous as a woman is sad and angry because she got pregnant a few months before a long-scheduled Hawaii vacation and now this kid is going to ruin her beach body (anyone who thinks I’m making this up hasn’t learned a thing from the abortion industry). Since she’s emotionally distraught by being confronted with the consequences of her own actions, her “emotional health” is threatened. EMTALA says nothing about this vague, catch-all category of “health” that means all things to everyone in the abortion industry. EMTALA only requires emergency room operators to provide the stabilizing care that will prevent someone from dying before they’re discharged. If that means open heart surgery you’re getting open heart surgery. But if they discover you have cancer, you’re leaving the emergency room with cancer. You’re not going to drop dead from it no matter how badly the news of the diagnosis hurts your feelz.

        HHS is attempting to rewrite EMTALA in order to provide a backdoor for abortionists to provide elective abortions regardless of state law and claim that Federal law, EMTALA, required the procedure and of course Federal law supersedes state laws due to the Supremacy Clause.

        This is exactly the kind of legislating the SCOTUS ruled in West Virginia v. The Environmental Protection Agency that executive branch agencies can’t engage in. So the Biden administration should win some sort of award for not only trampling on the Constitution but also flouting two Supreme Court rulings.

        In order maintain the lie that the Dobbs will kill women CMS packs its guidance with the usual component lies that procedures to correct ectopic pregnancies or remove fetal remains after an incomplete miscarriage are somehow abortion procedures that are illegal now in some states. These are absurd lies; using the example of Catholic hospitals, a woman requiring a salpingectomy to treat an ectopic pregnancy in the 1930s could have gotten one; decades before Roe v. Wade when abortion was illegal in every state. Likewise removing fetal remains in the case of an incomplete miscarriage. The Catholic objection was always to killing the unborn child. When the child is already dead there is no moral issue.

        The CMS memo goes on to mention other supposed life-threatening conditions that doctors supposedly would have to treat with a life-saving abortion such as “preeclampsia with severe features” or placenta previa. The former is essentially high blood pressure which in severe cases may be dangerous or even life threatening, while the latter is a condition where the placenta covers the uterus preventing natural, vaginal delivery.

        I’m familiar with preeclampsia because it became something of an anti-Catholic battle cry among anti-birth abortion enthusiasts about 10 years back. A woman being treated at a Catholic hospital in the Tucson diocese was suffering from it and at approximately 11 weeks gestation her doctors said an abortion was medically necessary to save her life. It wasn’t; it was simply easier for the doctors to abort the fetus at 11 weeks than treat the mother for her condition. The fact of the matter is that preeclampsia can be treated without aborting the child. What caused the uproar was that nun who was the hospital’s chief medical ethicist signed off on the abortion, and she was swiftly excommunicated by her bishop. Or, as her bishop aptly expressed it, she had excommunicated herself from the teachings of the Catholic church by approving a direct abortion.

        Doctors can keep the hypertension under control until the fetus reaches viability since it’s too small to place any real demands on the mother. Once it starts placing strain on the woman’s body the fetus can be delivered via C-section with very good chances of survival.

        For CMS to include Placentia Previa in a group of conditions that would possibly require the oxymoronic “abortion care” is even more absurd. The reason a woman can’t give birth if she has this condition is very simple; rupturing the placenta would result in life-threatening hemorrhaging. But for the same reason attempting an abortion would be insane. A surgical abortion via the vagina would also result in life threatening bleeding. Ultrasound usually detects this condition at around 20 weeks or later. This is just prior to viability given current medical technology. These cases usually resolve themselves (as do most ectopic pregnancies) before delivery and in any case there has never been a reported case of severe bleeding before viability. It just doesn’t happen.

        The only safe method doctors have available to intervene if the condition doesn’t resolve itself is to deliver the child via C-section.

        The Biden administration is simply lying through its teeth to do an end run around the Supreme Court and the Constitution to please its base and illegally provide medically unnecessary abortion on demand nationwide. They have to because the simple fact is that abortion is simply never necessary before viability and a C-section is actually the better option post-viability. You can’t get an abortion at a Catholic hospital (barring nuns gone wild). If Catholic hospitals had worse maternal health outcomes because they won’t perform abortions PP, NARAL, and the entire Democrat party would gleefully hound them out of business. But they can’t because the facts aren’t on their side. Abortion isn’t health care; it’s the opposite of health care.

        So they just lie, shred the Constitution, and give the finger to the SCOTUS. Why wouldn’t they? The crowd that makes up 10 y.o. rape hoaxes in order to indulge in their passion for dismembering living children in the womb will stop at nothing.

chrisboltssr | July 12, 2022 at 3:42 pm

Demonism on display.

Fat_Freddys_Cat | July 12, 2022 at 3:48 pm

Why did anybody ask her? And “act of love”…for whom?

    Mark Cohen in reply to Fat_Freddys_Cat. | July 12, 2022 at 5:08 pm

    I’m all for full term abortion…

    But only if the mother is allowed to watch them sticking a trocar through the baby’s skull with it screaming, and then made to eat the torn off limbs.

I’d say I don’t know why that reminds me of this, but I do, so I won’t…

“When you have enough EXP, your LOVE increases. LOVE, too, is an acronym. It stands for “Level of Violence.” A way of measuring someone’s capacity to hurt. The more you kill, the easier it becomes to distance yourself. The more you distance yourself, the less you will hurt. The more easily you can bring yourself to hurt others.”


There really are no words to describe how sick these immoral pieces of shit are.

I don’t think she knows what that word – ‘love’ – means. I doubt she ever will.
At least until she faces judgment.

Birth control doesn’t always work.

    gonzotx in reply to rhhardin. | July 12, 2022 at 4:59 pm

    Really? It’s like 99.9% effective of used appropriately

    That said, men must use a condone every freaking time and it’s past time that men have to take a birth control pill. For too long the onerous has been on the woman alone.

    As a woman, I wouldn’t trust any of them

    Just saying

      CommoChief in reply to gonzotx. | July 12, 2022 at 6:25 pm

      There is a female condom available along with 14 other types of contraception for women to prevent pregnancy. Plan b is another option the next day or two.

      The onus isn’t on women alone unless they are engaging in casual sexual activity outside their marriage or a committed relationship where the possibility of children has been discussed and accepted by both parties.

      For a one night stand? Yeah that’s on the woman because she controls access to sex not the man. She also bears the most risk from the casual hook up so it’s in her best interest to use contraception or demand her partner do so or both. Then use plan b the next morning to prevent pregnancy.

      As for trusting some random guy met at a bar, party or out with the girls? Agreed, that’s a bad idea but one that some women continue to engage in because well Chad was so hot or muscular or whatever else got her motor humming enough to break her normal rules for him.

      rhhardin in reply to gonzotx. | July 12, 2022 at 8:30 pm

      99.9% is for once. Do it 692 times and it’s 50%, even with your figures. (log(.5)/log(.999))

    Camperfixer in reply to rhhardin. | July 12, 2022 at 6:50 pm

    Yeah, but NOT having sex always works. I guess in a world with little to no self control then aborting the result is the lazy way out of one’s responsibility. Character trumps feelings.

      Milhouse in reply to Camperfixer. | July 13, 2022 at 12:06 am

      Not having sex doesn’t always work. There’s always rape.

        GWB in reply to Milhouse. | July 13, 2022 at 9:04 am

        Ummmm, that’s a dumb way to state that argument, Milhouse. Rape is sex, even if non-consensual on one side.

        “Consensual” being the operative word.

          Milhouse in reply to GWB. | July 14, 2022 at 1:26 am

          Being raped isn’t “having sex”. A woman can choose not to have sex and still be raped. She may fall pregnant by it, and it’s understandable that she may want to get rid of the baby. Unfortunately we can’t allow that. We can offer her sympathy, but we have to protect the baby, who has done nothing wrong.

    n.n in reply to rhhardin. | July 12, 2022 at 7:36 pm

    Sex or abstention, birth control in depth, adoption (i.e. shared/shifted responsibility), compassion (i.e. shared/personal responsibility), and an equal right to self-defense through reconciliation.

    That said, there is no mystery in sex and conception, the Pro-Choice ethical religion denies women and men’s dignity and agency and offers safe sanctuary to the wicked solution (i.e. human rites) for social, redistributive, clinical, and fair weather causes.

So does anybody remember the last so-called professional who testified in front of Congress while wearing a political t-shirt?

    Paul in reply to georgfelis. | July 12, 2022 at 8:17 pm

    No, but I remember one who spoke in a fake Minnie Mouse voice and hurled completely unhinged lies about a SCOTUS nominee.

God is coming and it’s not going to be nice for a whole lot of people

Josef Mengele agrees.

The left is the enemy of our Republic. They will soon become increasingly violent.

There cannot be accommodation.

    The Gentle Grizzly in reply to Mark Cohen. | July 12, 2022 at 7:33 pm

    So many use Mengele as their reference point. I think you can throw far more doctors on that pile.

    ANY of them who are agreeing to doing transition surgery and treatments, especially on the young, is right there. And, there are plenty of them.


    Roe’s regrets. Ruth’s remorse.

    Women, men, and “our Posterity” are from Earth. Feminists are from Venus. Masculinists are from Mars. Social progressives are from Uranus.

Another homely, miserable woman wanting the company of women who can do better.

Massinsanity | July 12, 2022 at 5:39 pm

One has to wonder what happened to a person like this who has the mental capacity to make it through med school only to turn into a complete monster without one iota of compassion and a true science denier.

    Dathurtz in reply to Massinsanity. | July 12, 2022 at 6:15 pm

    She had an abortion when she was younger and cries into her coffee mug full of wine when she is alone. This person hates themselves.

    “mental capacity to make it through med school”

    You don’t have to be highly intelligent to be a doctor/complete med school. You just need a decent memory.

    Doctors are the 2nd dumbest group of educated people in this country.
    In first place are the lawyers.
    Sure, there are exceptions. Some are quite brilliant. If you question my opinion just recall how many docs told you a mask would stop an airborne virus. Any old mask.

We need Elon Musk to build an automated, adult sized womb at his Tesla facility. Then everyone who believes in abortion can be sent there to be aborted.

As Parag Agrawal says, “Musk know how to pull the plug.”

These are the people seeking to legalize “peri-natal abortion”. The normal term for that is infanticide.

Satan love you, long time,

There have always been evil people in the world. Sometimes they put theirselves on display.

What a classy person wearing a political statement on her tee-shirt under the jacket! Checkout which restroom the dyke uses on her way out….

Capitalist-Dad | July 13, 2022 at 8:52 am

Dr. “Mengele’s” t-shirt demonstrates the problem. No honest discussion is happening or can happen with leftist ideologues who want abortion right up to the moment of birth (and even beyond if they can manufacture a sophistry to permit it). They hide behind euphemisms, lies, and deflections. The right under discussion should be the right to life (first natural right named in the Declaration of Independence), not a “right” to abortion. Is it right or wrong to kill an innocent human being? (No deflection into the weeds of when a child in the womb becomes a “person.”). We have to agree the answer to this is, “Wrong,” then an honest discussion can be had about possible exceptions (like the minuscule percentage of abortions that represent rape and incest). This explains why the left is so frantic to avoid any such honesty.

Steven Brizel | July 13, 2022 at 9:01 am

Abortion i “normal and an act of love” and presumably without a tinge of guilt or appreciation of consequences when sex is divorced from marriage