Peter Baklinski

Video of mom who refused abortion for disabled son approaches staggering 10 million views

Peter Baklinski
Peter Baklinski

WOODBURY, Tennessee, May 16, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A video of a young mom who says she did the right thing by choosing life for her severely disfigured son has been viewed by almost 10 million people around the world. The viewer count is shared between YouTube, where the video has been watched 1.5 million times, GodVine, which has recorded 8 million views, and GodTube, where the video has 76,000 views.

In her video Lacey Buchanan from Woodbury, Tennessee chronicles the story of her baby Christian, who was born with an extremely rare condition known as Tessier cleft that caused severe deformity of his mouth, soft palate, and bony elements of his face. He was also born blind with soft fleshy spots covering his eye sockets.

“This video is about my son Christian, and the decision I made to give him life, when others were telling me to abort him. He is an amazing little boy who has God all over him and I want to share him with the world!,” she writes in the description of the video.

In the low-key video made using her iphone, Lacey holds up written messages to the camera. Christian is resting on his mother’s chest with his back to the camera. At the end of the video, a beaming Lacey turns the sleeping Christian around for the viewer to see him for the first time.

Click ‘like’ if you want to END ABORTION!

Lacey wrote on her blog that she was inspired to make the video after watching a similar video on YouTube about a young woman named Lizzie, who had a rare syndrome that distorted her facial features and interfered with her ability to gain weight. Lizzie used flashcards to cover her face during the video and only revealed her face at the end.

“This video inspired me so much because I can relate to knowing how it feels to look different,” wrote Lacey on her blog. “It may not be me that looks different, but the stares at my son hurt no less than if they were at me. I thought about how devastated I would be if someone said something to my Christian like they said to Lizzie, that the world would be better without him in it.”

The judgmental comments and stares that Lacey and her son received when they travelled together in public is what convinced the mom to make a video that showed people how seeing through the eyes of love can change everything.

“So I decided that I have a story to tell, too,” she wrote.

One day during her lunch break at work, Lacey sat down and wrote out the messages on pieces of paper cut from a notebook.

“The plan rolled around in my head for the rest of the day, and when I got home that night, I sat down at my computer and ran through a practice video once. Then I grabbed my Christian and we made the video that I posted.”

Lacey first posted the video on YouTube where it reached 600 views the first night. Then, after a friend’s suggestion, she uploaded the video to GodTube where it received 20,000 hits before midnight.

In the next four days the hits doubled to 40,000 hits.

Last Saturday, the video had received over 6 million hits.

“When I was sitting at Vanderbilt Children’s 14 months ago, I thought my life was over,” wrote Lacey. “Little did I know that it was only just the beginning.

“I was so wrapped up in my own problems that I couldn’t see what God was unfolding. Now that it is unfolding, I am just sitting back and being in awe of everything.

“I don’t think I’ve done anything special, and I am definitely not special. It is Christ in me that is so special. He is the one who gives me my joy, my happiness, my love, my peace. Without Christ, I’m positive that I would not have been able to handle everything I’ve been through this past year. I give all the credit and honor to God! He has sustained me for the last 2 years through the pregnancy, birth, and raising of Christian. How awesome is that God we serve that He has not only seen me through this, He has made us victorious.”

Lacey says that she has received messages from people around the world who say that they will now choose life if ever faced with a decision similar to hers.

“God is using Christian to save people!,” she wrote.

“I have had people tell me that they felt sorry for themselves until they saw the video, and now they are thankful that their life was brought into prospective. God is using Christian to bring true joy to people and show them to throw off self pity!”

Lacey wrote about how she used to worry about bringing Christian out in public. She worried about putting him into a baby show. But now with her son in the spotlight, her worries have vanished.

“You better believe now that I will walk Christian out on that stage with the biggest smile on my face and be the proudest mama you’ve ever seen. God is using Christian to show what true beauty is!”

Lacey believes that God his using her son to spread the message of the Gospel across the entire world.

“I have had national news media contact me for interviews, one station planning to follow me around next week to film a day in the life of me and Christian, we are on multiple online news outlets, and our video has been watched over 6 million times. God has shown me that if I will listen to Him, He will do exceedingly more than I could imagine!”

“I am absolutely blown away by the response that the video has had,” she wrote. “I never imagined it would be this big, but I have definitely learned a lesson in not underestimating God’s ability to use people.”

“I am humbled and awestruck with the fact that God is using my son to fulfill His purpose! I just can’t wait to see how He uses Christian in the future!”


Advertisement
Featured Image
A Nazi extermination camp. Pete Baklinski / LifeSiteNews
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

Imagine the outrage if anti-Semites were crowdsourcing for gas chambers

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski
Image
A Nazi oven where the gassed victims were destroyed by fire. Pete Baklinski / LifeSiteNews
Image
Empty canisters of the poison used by Nazis to exterminate the prisoners. Pete Baklinski / LifeSiteNews
Image
Syringe for Manual Vacuum Aspiration abortion AbortionInstruments.com
Image
Uterine Currette AbortionInstruments.com
Image

Imagine the outrage if the Nazis had used online crowdsourcing to pay for the instruments and equipment used to eradicate Jews, gypsies, the handicapped, and other population groups — labeled “undesirable” — in their large industrialized World War II extermination facilities. 

Imagine if they posted a plea online stating: “We need to raise $85,000 to buy Zyklon B gas, to maintain the gas chambers, and to provide a full range of services to complete the ‘final solution.’”

People would be more than outraged. They would be sickened, disgusted, horrified. Humanitarian organizations would fly into high gear to do everything in their power to stop what everyone would agree was madness. Governments would issue the strongest condemnations.

Civilized persons would agree: No class of persons should ever be targeted for extermination, no matter what the reason. Everyone would tear the euphemistic language of “final solution” to shreds, knowing that it really means the hideous crime of annihilating a class of people through clinical, efficient, and state-approved methods of destruction. 

But crowdsourcing to pay for the instruments and equipment to exterminate human beings is exactly what one group in New Brunswick is doing.

Reproductive Justice NB has just finished raising more than $100,000 to lease the Morgentaler abortion facility in Fredericton, NB, which is about to close over finances. They’re now asking the public for “support and enthusiasm” to move forward with what they call “phase 2” of their goal.

“For a further $85,000 we can potentially buy all the equipment currently located at the clinic; equipment that is required to provide a full range of reproductive health services,” the group states on its Facebook page.

But what are the instruments and equipment used in a surgical abortion to destroy the pre-born child? It depends how old the child is. 

A Manual Vacuum Aspiration abortion uses a syringe-like instrument that creates suction to break apart and suck the baby up. It’s used to abort a child from 6 weeks to 12 weeks of age. Abortionist Martin Haskell has said the baby’s heart is often still beating as it’s sucked down the tube into the collection jar.

For older babies up to 16 weeks there is the Dilation and Curettage (D&C) abortion method. A Uterine Currette has one sharp side for cutting the pre-born child into pieces. The other side is used to scrape the uterus to remove the placenta. The baby’s remains are often removed by a vacuum.

For babies past 16 weeks there is the Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) abortion method, which uses forceps to crush, grasp, and pull the baby’s body apart before extraction. If the baby’s head is too large, it must be crushed before it can be removed.

For babies past 20 weeks, there is the Dilation and Extraction (D&X) abortion method. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist uses forceps to partially deliver the baby until his or her head becomes visible. With the head often too big to pass through the cervix, the abortionist punctures the skull, sucks out the brains to collapse the skull, and delivers the dead baby.

Other equipment employed to kill the pre-born would include chemicals such as Methotrexate, Misoprostol, and saline injections. Standard office equipment would include such items as a gynecologist chair, oxygen equipment, and a heart monitor.

“It’s a bargain we don’t want to miss but we need your help,” writes the abortion group.

People should be absolutely outraged that a group is raising funds to purchase the instruments of death used to destroy a class of people called the pre-born. Citizens and human rights activists should be demanding the organizers be brought to justice. Politicians should be issuing condemnations with the most hard-hitting language.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Everyone should be tearing to shreds the euphemistic language of “reproductive health services,” knowing that it in part stands for the hideous crime of annihilating a class of people through clinical, efficient, and state-approved methods of destruction that include dismemberment, decapitation, and disembowelment.

There’s a saying about people not being able to perceive the error of their day. This was generally true of many in Hitler’s Germany who uncritically subscribed to his eugenics-driven ideology in which certain people were viewed as sub-human. And it’s generally true of many in Canada today who uncritically subscribe to the ideology of ‘choice’ in which the pre-born are viewed as sub-human.

It’s time for all of us to wake-up and see the youngest members of the human family are being brutally exterminated by abortion. They need our help. We must stand up for them and end this injustice.

Let us arise!


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Paul Wilson

The antidote to coercive population control

Paul Wilson
By Paul Wilson

The primary tenet of population control is simple: using contraception and abortifacients, families can “control” when their reproductive systems work and when they don’t – hence the endless cries that women “should have control over their own bodies” in the name of reproductive health.

However, in much of the world, the glittering rhetoric of fertility control gives way to the reality of control of the poorest citizens by their governments or large corporations. Governments and foreign aid organizations routinely foist contraception on women in developing countries. In many cases, any pretense of consent is steamrolled – men and women are forcibly sterilized by governments seeking to thin their citizens’ numbers.  (And this “helping women achieve their ‘ideal family size’” only goes one way – there is no government support for families that actually want more children.)

In countries where medical conditions are subpar and standards of care and oversight are low, the contraceptive chemicals population control proponents push have a plethora of nasty side effects – including permanent sterilization. So much for control over fertility; more accurately, the goal appears to be the elimination of fertility altogether.

There is a method for regulating fertility that doesn’t involve chemicals, cannot be co-opted or manipulated, and requires the mutual consent of the partners in order to work effectively. This method is Natural Family Planning (NFP).

Natural Family Planning is a method in which a woman tracks her natural indicators (such as her period, her temperature, cervical mucus, etc.) to identify when she is fertile. Having identified fertile days, couples can then choose whether or not to have sex during those days--abstaining if they wish to postpone pregnancy, or engaging in sex if pregnancy is desired.

Of course, the population control crowd, fixated on forcing the West’s vision of limitless bacchanalia through protective rubber and magical chemicals upon the rest of the world, loathes NFP. They deliberately confuse NFP with the older “rhythm method,” and cite statistics from the media’s favorite “research institute” (the Guttmacher Institute, named for a former director of Planned Parenthood) claiming that NFP has a 25% failure rate with “typical use.” Even the World Health Organization, in their several hundred page publication, “Family Planning: A Global Handbook for Providers,” admits that the basal body temperature method (a natural method) has a less than 1% failure rate—a success rate much higher than male condoms, female condoms, diaphragms, cervical caps or spermicides.

Ironically, the methods which they ignore – natural methods – grant true control over one’s fertility – helping couples both to avoid pregnancy or (horror of horrors!) to have children, with no government intervention required and no choices infringed upon.

The legitimacy of natural methods blows the cover on population controllers’ pretext to help women. Instead, it reveals their push for contraceptives and sterilizations for what they are—an attempt to control the fertility of others. 

Reprinted with permission from the Population Research Institute.


Advertisement
Featured Image
United Nations headquarters in New York Shutterstock.com
Rebecca Oas, Ph.D.

New development goals shut out abortion rights

Rebecca Oas, Ph.D.
By Rebecca Oas Ph.D.

Co-authored by Stefano Gennarini, J.D.

A two week marathon negotiation over the world’s development priorities through 2030 ended at U.N. headquarters on Saturday with abortion rights shut out once again.

When the co-chairs’ gavel finally fell Saturday afternoon to signal the adoption of a new set of development goals, delegates broke out in applause. The applause was more a sigh of relief that a final round of negotiations lasting twenty-eight hours had come to its end than a sign of approval for the new goals.

Last-minute changes and blanket assurances ushered the way for the chairman to present his version of the document delivered with an implicit “take it or leave it.”

Aside from familiar divisions between poor and wealthy countries, the proposed development agenda that delegates have mulled over for nearly two years remains unwieldy and unmarketable, with 17 goals and 169 targets on everything from ending poverty and hunger, to universal health coverage, economic development, and climate change.

Once again hotly contested social issues were responsible for keeping delegates up all night. The outcome was a compromise.

Abortion advocates were perhaps the most frustrated. They engaged in a multi-year lobbying campaign for new terminology to advance abortion rights, with little to show for their efforts. The new term “sexual and reproductive health and rights,” which has been associated with abortion on demand, as well as special new rights for individuals who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transsexual (LGBT), did not get traction, even with 58 countries expressing support.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Despite this notable omission, countries with laws protecting unborn children were disappointed at the continued use of the term “reproductive rights,” which is not in the Rio+20 agreement from 2012 that called for the new goals. The term is seen as inappropriate in an agenda about outcomes and results rather than normative changes on sensitive subjects.

Even so, “reproductive rights” is tempered by a reference to the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development, which recognizes that abortion is a matter to be dealt with in national legislation. It generally casts abortion in a bad light and does not recognize it as a right. The new terminology that failed was an attempt to leave the 1994 agreement behind in order to reframe abortion as a human rights issue.

Sexual and reproductive health was one of a handful of subjects that held up agreement in the final hours of negotiations. The failure to get the new terminology in the goals prompted the United States and European countries to insist on having a second target about sexual and reproductive health. They also failed to include “comprehensive sexuality education” in the goals because of concerns over sex education programs that emphasize risk reduction rather than risk avoidance.

The same countries failed to delete the only reference to “the family” in the whole document. Unable to insert any direct reference to LGBT rights at the United Nations, they are concentrating their efforts on diluting or eliminating the longstanding U.N. definition of the family. They argue “the family” is a “monolithic” term that excludes other households. Delegates from Mexico, Colombia and Peru, supporters of LGBT rights, asked that the only reference to the family be “suppressed.”

The proposed goals are not the final word on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). They will be submitted to the General Assembly, whose task is to elaborate a post-2015 development agenda to replace the Millennium Development Goals next year.

Reprinted with permission from C-FAM.org.


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook