JivinJ’s Life Links 8-8-08
by JivinJ
According to a report released by The Humane Society in May, 3,656 cloned embryos, 319 egg donors and 214 surrogates were used to produce just five cloned dogs and 11 cloned cats who were able to survive 30 days past birth….
Most of the time, the twin goals of protecting the unborn and building a culture of life reinforce one another. On occasion, though, they appear to contradict each other.
[Photo of Pfupajema courtesy of CA Catholic Daily]
Aug.08, 2008 4:40 am |
Blogs |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
The fact that anybody could buy into the abortion history myths shows the power of delusion. “Facts” 2 and 3 are clearly contradictory! Why would legislators go to the trouble to “protect women” by banning a harmless and common practice that nobody objected to?
And the claim that the laws were just intended to squash midwives falls pretty flat when you look at how many men were being prosecuted. Yeah, they prosecuted midwives but they also prosecuted chiropractors (all male) and dentists (male) and a scrub nurse named Leobaldo Pejuan. And the among the doctors, I’m seeing prosecutions of Sven, Vincent, Anton, William, Cyril, and Milton in there with the occasional Louise or Helen.
They were doing a really lousy job of trying to attack female abortionists if that was the intention of the laws.
Come to think of it, the abortion lobby’s version of history sounds pretty adolescent, like a kid who protests that Mom won’t let him go off in a pickup truck full of his friends to a kegger because “You just never want me to have any fun!”
Doug,
I swear Mr. Dellapenna wrote that book after having a conversation with you! PLEASE read that article (if not the book) and NEVER use the argument that abortion was legal and acceptable throughout all of history…even if you add up to a point in gestastion.
Cuz I’ll just pull out, cut and past from this article. I knew I should have asked you to cite sources for your claims. Instead I just accepted what you said as true, and got on the ol’ carousel trying to disprove you…From now on when you make assertions like that, I’ll be asking for sources.
You know, abortion and contraception have only been legal in this country for the last 70 years or so…makes you wonder what the heck we did before that! I keep hearin’ how people just had illegal abortions, but considering how “dangerous” this was, I doubt that 49 million abortions resulting in at least half that many deaths or injuries if not more took place.
Either the prochoice side did a GREAT job of covering up 49 million abortions, or they just didn’t happen. If they didn’t happen then, I doubt they would happen if abortions were banned today.
70 years ago, when people knew they would HAVE to carry a child to term, when they understood that there were CONSEQUENCES for their behavior, when they were FORCED, not to have babies, but to take RESPONSIBILITY for their actions, women were a lot more careful. And they didn’t have the pill, or IUD, or “Ring” to prevent these pregnancies.
I guess they must have relied on (*GASP*) self control. What a novel concept.
If they didn’t happen then, I doubt they would happen if abortions were banned today.
”
MK, times have changed. At least one generation of Americans have grown up with the idea they have a right to legal abortions. Not “permission,” but a “right.” I don’t think many would just accept that they could no longer have abortions. Those who are against abortions are already not having them (with some exceptions) so your target is those who are not opposed to abortion. I don’t think they would accept a ban. Of couse, some abortions would be prevented by a ban. But it would be so easy to find a way to get around the ban, much easier than 50 years ago.
that must have been BEFORE the foundation of the Birth Control League, aka the future Planned Parenthood. Large families weren’t uncommon a hundred years ago. My dad’s mom (RIP Grandma) was one of at least 10 kids.
“I guess they must have relied on (*GASP*) self control. What a novel concept.
Posted by: mk at August 8, 2008 7:08 AM”
—————————————
Golly, MK, that must have been a stroke of genius…but, that would mean…that would mean… (gasp!) people now-a-days have no sense of self-control.
I don’t think the PC/ pro-abort people would want to hear THAT. They would demand the right to have no self-control…with the “my body, my choice” mantra…
The wish of several posters on this site, to go back to 1940 – 1955, before the pill, legal birth control, the sexual revolution, Roe v. Wade, etc. is curious, since in order to have been an adult in that era, and old enough to understand what was going on, you would have to be between 75 and 90 years of age today.
I doubt many of the posters are 75-90, so I would be interested in their basis for determining that this era was the “ideal”.
PPC…would you know what the nickname they had for the people that lived during the 1940 – 1955 timeframe?
Before the dawn of so many STDs (including one that can lead to CERVICAL CANCER), to the days when the divorce rate wasn’t 50%? When children weren’t raised by the television?
“Before the dawn of so many STDs”
I’m afraid there were already many STDs prevalent by that era.
Sure, PIP…but not as deadly as AIDS.
PPC @ 11:40,
So, you don’t understand anything that happened in 1955 and before? What about history books, verbal history passed down from generations, etc….Many of us knew our ancestors (some of us have parents and grandparents who were alive then).
And who said those days were “ideal”? If you mean because of fewer abortions, then that was a better time in that regard.
Hal:10;43: MK, times have changed. At least one generation of Americans have grown up with the idea they have a right to legal abortions. Not “permission,” but a “right.” I don’t think many would just accept that they could no longer have abortions.
We don’t all accept something just because it’s legal. We also know that abortion is not a right, that’s a fallacy created by lawyers who had a pro-abortion agenda.
But Janet, there are two groups of American women; those who oppose abortions and those who don’t. Those who oppose abortions are theoretically not having any. A ban wouldn’t help you there. Those who favor legal abortion believe it’s a woman’s right to choose. Most won’t change that belief if the law is changed. A ban wouldn’t do much there either.
MK’s point was that if abortion were illegal like it used to be, it would be rare like it used to be. I don’t think we can put the genie back in the bottle (even if we wanted to). Legal fallacy or not, a generation of Americans believe that abortion is a “right”
Which group am I in? Had an abortion, regret it and will shout it from the rooftops that ABORTION HURTS WOMEN!! Can’t I form my own? *whine*
There is no genie in a bottle. Roe v Wade and Doe V Bolton are based on lies. They are just bad law. They can be overturned. Someday I am praying that every citizen in every state gets a chance to vote and have their say about abortion.
They are based on lies: and exagerated information. Bernard Nathanson (who is now anti abortion) ADMITTED to inflating the #s of illegal abortion deaths to get abortion legalized.
Carla, women who want abortions (even it that’s only 49% of the population and they can’t protect their legal rights) will continue to have abortions. Abortion has been viewed as a “right” for too long by too many people for a simple ban to change anything.
Regarding your every citizen in every state getting to vote on an abortion ban, surely you know that many states would allow abortion if put to a vote. Even conservative South Dakota didn’t want a complete ban. Abortion would be legal in CA, WA, OR, NY, and probably many other states if it goes to a vote. What then?
Hal:
Don’t you think inconvenience has an influence on peoples’ choices? A ban on abortion would change the availability, therefore the number of abortions certainly would go down. I’d consider these women the third of the groups you refer to. They may prefer abortion to be legal, but when they become pregnant, they decide to carry the baby to term.
Abortion has been viewed as a “right” for too long by too many people for a simple ban to change anything.
Smoking inside a public building used to be viewed as a “right”. Having slaves was viewed as a “right”. Carrying a gun anywhere used to be a “right”. Those practices have been banned effectively. Times change.
perhaps.
I see no evidence, however, that the anti-abortion movement is gaining ground.
You see what you WANT to see, Hal.
And believe what you want to believe…
LOL RSD,
Reminds of a little movie I saw back in the seventies…The Point by: Harry Nilsson.
Oblio meets the Rockman and gets a little sage advice…
Rockman: You see what you want to see and you hear what you want to hear. You ever been to Paris?
Oblio: No
Rockman: You ever seen a dinosaur?
Oblio: No
Rockman: You ever want to see a dinosaur?
Oblio: No
Rockman: Well, there you have it. You see what you want you want see…and you hear what you want to hear…
Janet,
I remember when I could smoke while grocery shopping or in a movie theater.
Bottom line is, we won’t be forcing pregnancy. We’ll be forcing CONSEQUENCES.
If I lit up a Newport in Piggly Wiggly today, I’d have to pay the CONSEQUENCES. No one forcing me not to smoke…but there will be CONSEQUENCES.
If I get pregnant and have an abortion when they are illegal, I will suffer the CONSEQUENCES. No one will force me to carry to term, just as no one forced me to get pregnant, but if I have an abortion there will be CONSEQUENCES. Just like getting pregnant after having sex is a CONSEQUENCE.
What a concept. CONSEQUENCES for ones actions. Responsibility.
It’ll never catch on.
I don’t think many would just accept that they could no longer have abortions.
Three words: Learn to adjust.
Just because people have become petulant, spoilt brats doesn’t mean we need to continue to structure society to suit their whims.
Hal, if you think the only women getting on the abortion table are hardcore feminists with a strong ideological bent toward abortion, you’re living in a dream world.
It’s more that there are two types of women: Abortiphiles, who have an ideological infatuation with the idea that they have life-and-death power over their unborn, and normal women who love their babies and don’t want them to die. Both types are getting on the abortion table, the former because “It’s my RIGHT! It’s my CHOICE!” the latter because “I don’t have a choice!”
Legal or illegal, as the abortiphiles are so fond of pointing out, those women who are enthusiastic about abortion, who consider it a RIGHT, will manage to arrange death for their fetuses. But the rest of us can be spared getting fed down the chutes into the abortion mills.
Recriminalize and you get rid of the social workers who can browbeat into abortions, the teachers and school counselors who arrange abortions secretly because they’ve got it into their heads it’s a good idea, the doctors and genetic counselors who terrify parents into aborting at the first sign of maternal or fetal problems. And you make life harder for boyfriends, bosses, and all the other people who are putting pressure on women to abort.
We can set up society to support women who hate fetuses, see them as uninvited parasites and gory in their “right” to exterminate them. Or we can set up society to support NORMAL women. And I for one am sick to death of living in a society that gives the whining, sniveling, petulant, spoilt bitches everything they want no matter what it costs the rest of us.
Carla, women who want abortions (even it that’s only 49% of the population and they can’t protect their legal rights) will continue to have abortions.
Hal:
1. I doubt that it’s as many as 49% of women who want abortions. Stand outside an abortion clinic and ask the women going inside if they want to be there and you’ll get a tearful “No!” out of most of them.
2. The current “legal right” to kill unborn babies can and should be taken away. As you’ve said, the woman who really are that enamored of abortion can arrange it anyway. Why do they need us saying, “Good girl!” when they do it? Why do they need our approval? Let them arrange their clandestine abortions and leave the rest of us out of it.
Christina,
Way to tell it like it is!
mk:
Right! CONSEQUENCES, RESPONSIBILITY, ….. ADULTHOOD!!!
“What a concept. CONSEQUENCES for ones actions. Responsibility.”
MK, you seem very against the concept of sex without consequences. I understand that you don’t want a baby to be killed if it is the consequence of sex, but are you also troubled by–let’s say–two unmarried people who have been sterilized have lots of sex? Are they being irresponsible?
“1. I doubt that it’s as many as 49% of women who want abortions”
I think that at least that many want it to be a legal option. I agree that they don’t actually plan on having an abortion, or even “want” to have one. But, I think they might prefer it to their other options at that time.
Hal:
1. I doubt that it’s as many as 49% of women who want abortions. Stand outside an abortion clinic and ask the women going inside if they want to be there and you’ll get a tearful “No!” out of most of them.
2. The current “legal right” to kill unborn babies can and should be taken away. As you’ve said, the woman who really are that enamored of abortion can arrange it anyway. Why do they need us saying, “Good girl!” when they do it? Why do they need our approval? Let them arrange their clandestine abortions and leave the rest of us out of it.
Posted by: Christina at August 8, 2008 5:53 PM
……………………………………….
Could you explain to me your involvement with my or any woman’s pregnancy termininations or continuations? Exactly who brought you into a woman’s reproductive decisions that you feel you should be left out? Exactly how are you being left out when it is you that is butting in?
That’s right, Christina, women get abortions because they are “whining, sniveling, petulant, spoilt bitches”.
Here’s what you should do: make a big sign that says “If you have an abortion then you are a whining, sniveling, petulant, spoilt BITCH!” and carry it outside your local abortion clinic.
Also hand out cards that say the same thing.
Carry the sign when you picket the Democratic Convention. Try to get shown on TV with it.
Think how many babies you could save!
(1) that abortion was always a common practice in human history;
What’s “common”? I haven’t seen any statements that “X amount of people had abortions.” Meanwhile people have had abortions going way back in time, thousands of years.
……
(2) that voluntary early abortions were not crimes until the nineteenth century;
It depends on what area, what country one is talking about. No doubt it was a crime some places on earth, and in others it was not.
……
(3) that the nineteenth-century abortion statutes were designed to protect the life of the mother rather the life of the child;
I hadn’t even heard that one.
…..
(4) that the statutes were enacted through a conspiracy of men to accomplish several nefarious purposes
MK: I swear Mr. Dellapenna wrote that book after having a conversation with you! PLEASE read that article (if not the book) and NEVER use the argument that abortion was legal and acceptable throughout all of history…even if you add up to a point in gestastion.
MK, he makes some interesting points, but you are misstating what I’ve said. I don’t see that he contradicts what I’ve said. Personhood was never attributed before birth – that is what I’ve said extends back through history. I have no doubt that abortion was illegal in some countries, going back into time, and I’ve never said anything differently.
……
Cuz I’ll just pull out, cut and past from this article. I knew I should have asked you to cite sources for your claims. Instead I just accepted what you said as true, and got on the ol’ carousel trying to disprove you…From now on when you make assertions like that, I’ll be asking for sources.
Well, english Common Law is not any “big secret,” and before quickening it was okay to have abortions. That Law didn’t change much over a very long time – centuries – but again, I’ve never said that it was that way “for all time.”
Sally @ 7:20,
The fact that abortion is legal makes it our responsibility to fight it!
We are obligated as Christians to change the laws.
SoMG @5:49,
That’s not what Christina is saying at all. She’s not calling anyone a B***ch. All she’s saying is let the women who want other alternatives have a chance to find them. **Many are at a loss for the help they need and turn to abortion when it’s not what they want. Why does that make you angry?**
Have a good weekend, SoMG and Sally. God bless you.
You know, abortion and contraception have only been legal in this country for the last 70 years or so…makes you wonder what the heck we did before that! I keep hearin’ how people just had illegal abortions, but considering how “dangerous” this was, I doubt that 49 million abortions resulting in at least half that many deaths or injuries if not more took place.
MK, abortion was legal from 1776 to sometime in the 1800’s, generalizing, depending on which state it was, and then legal again from 1973 (or a little earlier in a few states). I don’t know what the history of contraception is in the US, but for most states it’s really about 50/50 for the number of years of abortion being illegal/legal.
……
Either the prochoice side did a GREAT job of covering up 49 million abortions, or they just didn’t happen. If they didn’t happen then, I doubt they would happen if abortions were banned today.
You’re acting like there were as many illegal abortions as there were later legal ones, and nobody’s telling you that.
……
70 years ago, when people knew they would HAVE to carry a child to term, when they understood that there were CONSEQUENCES for their behavior, when they were FORCED, not to have babies, but to take RESPONSIBILITY for their actions, women were a lot more careful. And they didn’t have the pill, or IUD, or “Ring” to prevent these pregnancies. I guess they must have relied on (*GASP*) self control. What a novel concept.
Yet they didn’t have to carry to term. There were plenty of girls and women who “went to a sanitarium” or “went abroad to visit a cousin, ” or “an aunt,” etc. Agreed that there were a lot less abortions when it was illegal, certainly, but there was no “having to.”
As for self control, I’d say it’s a good thing when people control their impulses to impinge on the rights of others, be it as far as taking away many freedoms, as with the slaves, or with the freedom that women have in the matter of continuing or ending pregnancies.
That’s not what Christina is saying at all. She’s not calling anyone a B***ch.
Really? Who, then, does this refer to:
And I for one am sick to death of living in a society that gives the whining, sniveling, petulant, spoilt bitches everything they want no matter what it costs the rest of us.
that would mean… (gasp!) people now-a-days have no sense of self-control.
RSD, there will always be some who wish that some others would act differently.
You look back through historical writings, and to the times of the ancient Egyptians, Assyrians, etc., and there were those who basically wrung their hands and thought the world was going to hell in a handbasket.
I’m not sure when handbaskets appeared on the scene, but anyway….
I don’t think you really need to control people in the matter of abortion nor that they do what you wish for, there. I leave it to the pregnant woman – why would I want you to be able to tell her what to do?
I don’t know your age nor if you’re female, but to generalize – if you were pregnant I don’t see that anybody should be able to tell you to end the pregnancy against your will nor to tell you to continue it against your will.
Alexandra@ 10:31,
I didn’t see that, what time was it?
Alexandra,
Never mind. OK, I stand corrected!
Janet, maybe you need to work on your reading skills?
Christina wrote: “We can set up society to support women who hate fetuses, see them as uninvited parasites and gory in their “right” to exterminate them. Or we can set up society to support NORMAL women. And I for one am sick to death of living in a society that gives the whining, sniveling, petulant, spoilt bitches everything they want no matter what it costs the rest of us.”
That most certainly DOES call women who get abortions bitches. And it most certainly does NOT say what you said it said: “All she’s saying is let the women who want other alternatives have a chance to find them.”
You need to use your eyes more and your imagination less when reading.
SoMG,
See my comment to Alexandra at 10:43 AM. I stand corrected. (I didn’t read the post above it. Hmmm, neither did you. :)
Hal,
Using Christina’s definition of abortiphiles and normal women, which category would you place you and your wife at the time of your abortions?
Besides, how could women in the USA possibly be MORE aware of other pregnancy options besides abortion than they already are? There are more CPCs than there are abortion clinics.
Hal,
Using Christina’s definition of abortiphiles and normal women, which category would you place you and your wife at the time of your abortions?
Posted by: carder at August 9, 2008 8:46 PM
Neither. We did not have an “ideological infatuation with the idea that they have life-and-death power over their unborn,” nor did we feel we had no choice. We felt like we had a choice, and we felt we made the right choice for us. Under my definition, we were normal. It wasn’t taken lightly, nor was it a big deal.
Using Christina’s definition of abortiphiles and normal women, which category would you place you and your wife at the time of your abortions?
carder, that’s like if I were to say, “There are two types of Christians. Those who love talking about how superior they are and condemning others, and those who just go to church because they’re scared not to. Using that definition, which type of Christian are you?”
Obviously you would say, “Neither.” Because it’s an absurd thing for me to say.
Abortiphiles?
What about abortionados?
Sally @ 7:20,
The fact that abortion is legal makes it our responsibility to fight it!
We are obligated as Christians to change the laws.
………………………………
As Americans, we are obligated to keep our religious beliefs out of legislating our country. Surely you remember when patriotic Americans wouldn’t dream of passing legislation based on religiosity. Do you think that JFK was making a joke when he assured Protestant ministers that he would not take orders from the Pope while in the White House any more than they would preach politics from the pulpit?
I don’t really think you want Christianity to rule this country Janet. You might not belong to the brand of Chrisianity that might be allowed to take control.
Sally, 6:49,
As Americans, we are obligated to keep our religious beliefs out of legislating our country. Surely you remember when patriotic Americans wouldn’t dream of passing legislation based on religiosity. Do you think that JFK was making a joke when he assured Protestant ministers that he would not take orders from the Pope while in the White House any more than they would preach politics from the pulpit?
I don’t really think you want Christianity to rule this country Janet. You might not belong to the brand of Chrisianity that might be allowed to take control.
Those are complex questions, I’ll try to answer as best I can. The core of Christian religious beliefs require moral behavior. There’s no reason we shouldn’t base legislation on moral behavior. I’m not expecting people to go to church on Sunday, pray before every meal, or abstain from alcohol if they don’t want to. What all Americans have an obligation to do is stand up for what is moral. One could argue that abortion is wrong for moral reasons, not for religious ones alone.
I don’t know enough about the JFK presidency to comment much on his politics. I don’t think it was right of him as a Catholic to publicly vow “not to take orders from the Pope”. He should have known that as long he didn’t disobey Church teaching he would never be put in that position. The statement wasn’t necessary, unless he knew he had a good chance of causing friction with the Catholic hierarchy. It was most likely a political ploy to get more votes, but disrespectful of the Pope’s Authority over his Catholic Church as well.
Those are complex questions, I’ll try to answer as best I can. The core of Christian religious beliefs require moral behavior. There’s no reason we shouldn’t base legislation on moral behavior. I’m not expecting people to go to church on Sunday, pray before every meal, or abstain from alcohol if they don’t want to. What all Americans have an obligation to do is stand up for what is moral. One could argue that abortion is wrong for moral reasons, not for religious ones alone.
I don’t know enough about the JFK presidency to comment much on his politics. I don’t think it was right of him as a Catholic to publicly vow “not to take orders from the Pope”. He should have known that as long he didn’t disobey Church teaching he would never be put in that position. The statement wasn’t necessary, unless he knew he had a good chance of causing friction with the Catholic hierarchy. It was most likely a political ploy to get more votes, but disrespectful of the Pope’s Authority over his Catholic Church as well.
Posted by: Janet at August 10, 2008 7:43 PM
…………………………………..
You have expressed having knowledge of earlier generations and the times they lived in. I’m surprised that you don’t know that a Catholic running for president was a serious concern for Americans in the 60s. People still remembered where they came from and how they got here. The RCC’s morality brought about 500 years of Inquisition. Many of our citizens were refugees of the fallout if not from the direct effects of Papal influence if not absolute control of governments. No one wanted that type of influence involved in American government. Witness our Consitution.
Do you know how you came to be an American Janet? Do you know why your ancestors left other parts of the world to come here? I doubt if it was to recreate past history.
By the way, Janet was my favorite Lennon Sister.
SoMG,
You can’t assume I don’t know something because I haven’t written it down. If I wanted to prove that I’d never stop writing. :)
Of course I know Americans weren’t comfortable with electing a Catholic president. I didn’t fall off the turnip truck yesterday. It was a completely unfounded concern, IMO. Catholics have been looked down upon for various reasons throughout history so it’s not surprising people were leary. They still are as seen by comments on this blog. Interesting fact you may not know: I recently read that more people died in the first few days of the French Revolution (I believe that’s the right war) than in all the years of the Inquisition, but no one remembers that! Enough about the Inquisition already! Should I start naming all the problems atheists/agnostics have caused since the beginning of time?
Hey, no one claims that a requirement of Catholicism or any religion is perfection. You don’t have to be perfect to be an atheist/agnostic do you?
Our Constitution was not created to keep religious people from attaining office, that’s a ridiculous notion made up by people who fear something (religion) they don’t understand. How much religious persecution have we had in this country since 1776? If the Pope had free reign over the USA that would be one thing, but he doesn’t.
Do you know how you came to be an American Janet? Do you know why your ancestors left other parts of the world to come here? I doubt if it was to recreate past history.
I like this questions, it would make an interesting question for a high school essay. Yes I know how I came to be an American, some of my family stories are better known than others. I believe my ancestors had a great sense of adventure; they had mostly positive parts of their lives that they wanted to re-create. I’m certain there were some bad aspects they preferred to leave behind. War, famine, to name a few … typical of many families, I presume. How about your family story?
SoMG:
Lennon sisters? Are you old enough to remember them? I saw them maybe once or twice on TV. I was not named after a Lennon sister, but named after a different “sister”, my mother’s favorite teacher in grade school, Sister Janet. (Until just a few years ago, I thought I was named after Janet Gaynor or Janet Lee.) Not so!
Good night, SoMG.
Janet, I didn’t bring up the Lennon sisters. You are replying to posts I did not write with my name.
When I hear “Janet” I think of Rocky Horror.
“Janet, I didn’t bring up the Lennon sisters. You are replying to posts I did not write with my name.”
I think she meant Sally.
Right, Bobby. Thanks.
SoMG, Sorry. I think maybe I had just read a comment of yours somewhere else and was thinking of you….or maybe I was half asleep! You don’t seem the Lennon sisters type now that I think about it!
SALLY,
My posts above @ 3:40 and 3:46 are for you!