Buy your March for Life t-shirts now
The “official” March for Life t-shirts have just been made available from ProLifeWorld.com. Only $15 each. Order now for yourself or group. The graphics and messages are great.
Someday these will be collectors’ items in remembrance of a day of infamy that no longer holds meaning: January 22, 1973, when the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion on demand by judicial fiat in all 50 states throughout all 9 months of pregnancy by its Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions. Click to enlarge.
Nov.21, 2008 3:00 pm |
Apologetics |
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.
Doesn’t the “no exceptions” and “no compromise” message of this shirt undermine you recent columns?
Cool shirt though.
I heard there could be as many as 4 million in the DC area for O’s inaguaration. The timing for this could not be better.
Hal
Grow Up.
Hal: Doesn’t the “no exceptions” and “no compromise” message of this shirt undermine you recent columns?
That was the first think I thought as well.
Hal
Grow Up.
Posted by: shirt designer at November 21, 2008 3:30 PM
Okay, I wasn’t trying to be smarmy. I stay out of that whole thread debating tactics. It actually was an honest question for Jill.
She is trying to help us with the March for Life t-shirts. Why can’t you just chill and let her help the March without attacking. The shirt has a no compromise message so just lay off.
Yet compromise is essential. Pro-Choicers are often willing to seek a middle ground. Those who are on the “no exceptions” bandwagon are ruling themselves out. Wearing such a shirt would get you a lot of head-shaking, like, “Why don’t you live in the real world?”
I don’t care about the message on the shirt. I really don’t. As a support of abortion rights, I would prefer the pro life movement take the “no compromise” position, but I see both sides of the debate.
It doesn’t matter to me. What I am interested in is Jill’s view of this shirt in light of her recent comments. Not as an attack.
Jill pointed out that it was those who belive so strongly in “No Compromise” that caused a huge loss in SD for the pro-life movement. I think the message is a huge deal
Hal, you are so right. That’s the first thing I thought of too.
I think the message is strikingly beautiful! And “Personhood!” Yay Nellie Gray!! American Life League is holding a Personhood Conference the day after the March for those of you who are interested.
Hal, I thought of the same thing – as you said – not to be snarky, but as a sincere question.
I hope to see you all at the March for Life!
I’m thinking personhood at conception amendments simultaneously in all 50 states is simple enough for everyone to grasp.
We could then do some real community organizing from neighborhood on up.
One great aspect of this – you’ll definitely find out where people truly stand.
I say, let the human weeds Sanger spoke about come up and choke her organization out of existence!
And Hal – we have nothing – absolutely nothing, to lose.
And everything to gain.
You have things to lose Chris. You can lose supporters or most importantly lives. Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t the point of the Pro-life movement to save as many lives as possible?
Wow Hal I thought the exact same thing when I looked at this shirt.
I don’t think Hal is being facetious. I, too, thought about the timing of this post, so soon after Jill’s WND column.
I hate to bandwagon with Hal and/or Jess and/or Will and/or Josh, but I must admit that I thought the same….
Is it too late to do a slight tweak to the shirt? It sends slightly confusing signals considering the debate.
Since everyone’s putting their two cents in……I think the message is confusing, there are too many messages.
Maybe they could change “Personhood” to “PERSONHOOD FOR THE UNBORN” . Then eliminate “No Compromise” and replace with “SUPPORT FOR MOTHERS-TO-BE. (or) “SUPPORT FOR PREGNANT WOMEN”.
Give those who read the message something they can related to in a positive way.
Why black? It’s the color of death. Maybe a medium green color would be better since green signifies life.
Oliver I get the fact that you think I’m a stupid disgusting waste of flesh but isn’t Will D. Will Duffy, the famous pro-life activist?
I’m told wearing green brings out the color in my eyes Janet. And since green is the opposite of pink (pink being Planned Parenthood’s color) I think it would work well. Also green symbolizes life, think of an evergreen tree or other plants that live all year around.
Somebody want to tell me what is wrong with the no compromise message? No compromise on saving life anywhere possible. I’m all for it and I would have voted to for the ban in SD if I lived there.
The best pro-life message I’ve seen is
“CHOOSE LIFE” and it would be nice if they were offered in colors other than black but I plan on buying the shirts to support them in either case. .
Well truthseeker my favorite is “Life is the Natural Choice” or some variation.
Jess: “Oliver I get the fact that you think I’m a stupid disgusting waste of flesh but isn’t Will D. Will Duffy, the famous pro-life activist?”
Will D uses faulty analogies to justify his opposition to laws that protect any babies. Then, when called on it, he just doesnt respond. I dont care if he is famous.
Re: the message of the shirt. The end goal is to save all of babies slated for abortion, no exceptions.
You don’t understand the meaning of the word “compromise,” which is, “settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions.”
At this point the other side has everything it wants. It has no need or desire to concede ANYTHING. It fights EVERY attempt by our side to take back ground, EVERY ATTEMPT, even saving abortion survivors. And why shouldn’t it? It is currently king of the hill. The pro-life movement is in no position to strike a compromise, even if we wanted to.
Look at this as a war, which it is. Our side lost everything in 1973. We’re now trying to take ground back and eventually win. Neither of our sides has any interest in a truce (compromise). We both want to win. Through 35 years the pro-life movement has gained ground back against insurmountable odds. We won’t stop until we get it all back. This great March for Life t-shirt says all that.
Jess at November 21, 2008 7:37 PM
You have things to lose Chris. You can lose supporters or most importantly lives. Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t the point of the Pro-life movement to save as many lives as possible?
I meant all lives Chris. I mean the lives of babies, the lives of their mothers, fathers, sister, brothers, grandparents, ect… Isn’t pro-life about giving them all life?
Oliver – he just doesnt respond.
I have responded to everything from you. Everytime you say, “he hasn’t responded”, I already have a response waiting for you.
“Neither of our sides has any interest in a truce (compromise). We both want to win”
Jill, I can’t speak for the pro-choice “movement” because I’m not a member of any organization. For me, however, and I think our next President, compromise is possible and desirable. For example, I’d accept a truce that outlawed all abortion in the third trimester in exchange for no restrictions in the first (which we already have anyway). This is really what the Roe court was thinking, I believe The second trimester could have some restrictions, as long as there were exceptions.
Hal,
I’ll compromise too and say no no abortions period unless the life of the mother is threatened by continuing the pregnancy.
Will :I have responded to everything from you. Everytime you say, “he hasn’t responded”, I already have a response waiting for you.”
Alright, I havent seen your response to my critique of your analogy, maybe I overlooked it. Lets do it here then.
You are trying to equate the incremental approach to a voluntary sacrifice of unborn babies. This is ridiculous because we are not suggesting anyone volunteer their baby to be sacrificed to save others. What we are doing is cutting back on the current abortions, step by step. You may disagree with this approach, but your analogies are off base to say the least.
Jess at November 22, 2008 11:05 AM
How about the generations that come from the lives that are aborted Jess? Children’s children?
So abortion-choice against one also aborts future generations from that one who might be born.
How many lives might that be?
It could be an infinite number of lives that abortion changes, erases. Giving birth to a child can change an infinite number of lives. My uncle didn’t want to take a certain class in college but my Grandma convinced him to. He meet his wife, my aunt, there. They got married and ended up having three children. Three children that wouldn’t have existed if my uncle chose a different class. Maybe I would have had more cousins?
Oliver, having posted with Will about this myself I think I understand and therefore can speak somewhat for his position. The problem comes in because MANY people in the US actually look to the law to gauge the morality of their actions. What is your opinion of this concept?
Sorry Oliver, that was actually Robert’s position. WIll says it is against God’s law to vote for any laws that allow the killing of anybody.
I can understand and respect Will’s choice even though I personally would not vote against anything that places additional restrictions on abortion.
Jess at November 22, 2008 6:18 PM
Right – the number is unknowable – and even when we touch each other in certain ways, that makes our lives invaluable – without a known value.
But being pro-life doesn’t turn on one’s ability to pro-create. Every human is of infinite worth, because we can’t comprehend the value each person adds to other’s lives over a span of time and generations.
Aborting a child says that all those generations or all those who might be impacted by that human person is of less worth than what is desired by the powerful one who holds those lives in their hands.
In Genesis 3, when Adam and Eve wanted to know what it was to have knowledge of Good and Evil and be like God, do you think they imagined that the outcome would be children?
Doesn’t the power over life and death of our own children give us God-like power over the generations to follow?
It’s interesting that you mention that Chris because abortion issue aside there are some people who feel having children is narrcasistic. Some people have children for the main reason that they want to pass on their genes, in a way having children is like playing God, creating new life, but God told us to be fruitful and multiple so it’s alright.
Now on a personal note, I get nervous when someone says they want to have a child to pass on their genes. Sure your biological child has your DNA but they are a separate person. You like football, they might like painting. I feel that the best reason to have a child is for the mere fact that you want a child to love and care for forever, no matter what. Alright sorry to derail the topic…
Jess,
I feel that the best reason to have a child is for the mere fact that you want a child to love and care for forever, no matter what. Alright sorry to derail the topic…
No need to apologize, Jess. That’s a beautiful thought!
Look at this as a war, which it is. Our side lost everything in 1973. We’re now trying to take ground back and eventually win. Neither of our sides has any interest in a truce (compromise). We both want to win. Through 35 years the pro-life movement has gained ground back against insurmountable odds. We won’t stop until we get it all back. This great March for Life t-shirt says all that.
Posted by: Jill Stanek at November 22, 2008 7:04 AM
It makes sense when you explain it!
Hal: Jill, I can’t speak for the pro-choice “movement” because I’m not a member of any organization. For me, however, and I think our next President, compromise is possible and desirable. For example, I’d accept a truce that outlawed all abortion in the third trimester in exchange for no restrictions in the first (which we already have anyway).
I agree with Hal here, except I’d go into the second trimester.
….
This is really what the Roe court was thinking, I believe The second trimester could have some restrictions, as long as there were exceptions.
Hal, not “the second trimester” but after viability.
I feel that the best reason to have a child is for the mere fact that you want a child to love and care for forever, no matter what. Alright sorry to derail the topic…
Posted by: Jess at November 23, 2008 12:23 PM
I mean Chris that some people only assume they are a parent to their child for a few years, when the child reaches their teens the parent thinks they can just be a “friend” or when the child is 18 the parent thinks the child doesn’t need them anymore. No matter how old or mature or tall your child gets they will still be your child and you will still be their mommy or daddy : ) Even now that I live on my own and am generally self sufficient I still call my parents when I feel sad, I still give them hugs and look to them for advice. They will always be my parents, as your parents, no matter what, will always be your parents.
Jill – You don’t understand the meaning of the word “compromise,” which is, “settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions.”
Someone who doesn’t believe a Jew is a person is not pro-Jew, they’re evil. Someone who doesn’t believe a black man is a person is not pro-blacks, they’re evil. Someone who doesn’t believe an unborn baby is a person is not pro-life. Anyone who holds the exceptions does not believe the unborn child is a person, therefore they’re not pro-life.
When SD conceded to add the exceptions to satisfy the requests of the pro-choice with exceptions voters, the pro-lifers “settled differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions” with the pro-choicers.
I don’t know if I would call them evil Will. Say they are raised to believe Jew’s are not people, the school tells them, their families tell them, and they have nothing telling them otherwise and no contact with Jews personally I would call them misinformed or uneducated. They could also be sick. It depends. If you have never meet a black person and your parents tell you they’re actually animals wouldn’t you just believe that?
Hal asked:
“Doesn’t the “no exceptions” and “no compromise” message of this shirt undermine you recent columns [Jill Stanek]?”
Exactly what I was thinking when I saw the shirt!!
Looks like you’re gonna have to deal with a bunch of horrible “purists” at the March For Life and also deal with even more people wearing shirts that espouse the “purist” thinking Jill.
Ezek @ 1:16AM,
Looks like you’re gonna have to deal with a bunch of horrible “purists” at the March For Life and also deal with even more people wearing shirts that espouse the “purist” thinking Jill.
Did you read Jill’s post from 7:04 AM?
“Re: the message of the shirt. The end goal is to save all of babies slated for abortion, no exceptions.”
She LOVES the shirt AND the message. Same as you. So what’s your problem? Try and have a good day, OK?
I think I will have to pick up a tshirt at The March!! Getting my ticket this week! Whooo Hooo!
Jess – I don’t know if I would call them evil Will. Say they are raised to believe Jew’s are not people, the school tells them, their families tell them, and they have nothing telling them otherwise and no contact with Jews personally I would call them misinformed or uneducated. They could also be sick. It depends. If you have never meet a black person and your parents tell you they’re actually animals wouldn’t you just believe that?
Jeeeeeeeees….(soft “e”)
I’m talking about educated grown adults and I’m talking about TODAY. Today, if someone doesn’t believe a Jew or black man is a person, they’re evil. If Bush and/or McCain said they didn’t believe a Jew or black man is a person, not one pro-lifer would vote for them. They BOTH believe the unborn child is not a person and pro-lifers vote for them.
That’s wrong and inconsistent. My post to Jill was proving that they did compromise with pro-choicers.
Sad to say, the “no exceptions” and “no compromise” make the shirt-wearers really walking away from life, rather than for it, since that approach guarantees that pro-life legislation does not pass.
Yes it’s a person Will D. but so is the woman.
Anyone who holds the exceptions does not believe the unborn child is a person, therefore they’re not pro-life.
Posted by: Will D at November 23, 2008 7:32 PM
Not true. I believe the unborn child is a person and I would vote to restrict/limit the killing of these children (eith the goal being to eventually restrict sll.
truthseeker – Not true. I believe the unborn child is a person and I would vote to restrict/limit the killing of these children (eith the goal being to eventually restrict sll.
That’s not what I said. You can’t believe in the personhood of the unborn and the exceptions. You’d basically be admitting you;re okay with murder. Jill and others have made it clear on the site that they would vote for the exceptions even though they disagree with them. That’s why Bush opposed the pure SD bill. He doesn’t believe the unborn child is a person.
Jess – Yes it’s a person Will D. but so is the woman.
Agreed. Only one is recognized by the government as a person and therein lies the problem. There both “persons” and one group is being legally slaughtered.
No, Hal, I don’t think you “see both sides of the issue”. Not like your murdered child knows your side.
Silly talk of “murder” just makes you look ridiculous. You want to clown around, be my guest.