Jivin J’s Life Links 11-10-08
by JivinJ
Frustrated advocates adopted an “Oregon-plus-one” strategy, believing that if only a second state legalized assisted suicide, it would put the winds back into their sails. That theory is about to be tested.
Investigators say 26-year-old Stephanie Collins single-handedly delivered a healthy baby boy in the bathroom at her home…. She then allegedly smothered it to death and dumped the body in a trash can out back.
Collins allegedly told authorities she planned the act during her pregnancy. Collins already has a nine-year-old son and has reportedly had an abortion, but told investigators she didn’t want to go through another procedure like that.
check if a politician is pro-life or not.
[Photo courtesy of wjhg.com]
Nov.10, 2008 1:50 pm |
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 link for the McCormack piece is missing
What does this have to do with abortion? It was an actual alive kid fully delivered outside the womb. Abortion does not equal this kind of murder no matter how far you want to expand your reality.
Yo,
She had one abortion, didn’t want another one, so she had her baby and then killed it. Do you see how this story might be relevant to a pro-life blog? Do you see parallels to BAIPA?
Yo la tengo: the abortion mentality leads to the kinds of things Stephanie Collins did.
What is the difference in killing a 24 week old unborn baby and her newborn baby? NONE.
Try expanding your reality. Both babies are viable at the very least. Both are human persons. The only difference is location.
Collins allegedly told authorities she planned the act during her pregnancy. Collins already has a nine-year-old son and has reportedly had an abortion, but told investigators she didn’t want to go through another procedure like that.
So the alternative was to do the dirty deed herself. How pathetic. And how sick.
Maybe Prez Obama will intercede for her. I hardly think that Obama believes this woman did anything wrong. How could this be different from the partial birth survivor who is suffocated or left to die in a utility room?
Jack – thx. Fixed.
YLT,
Explain how a newborn is significantly different from a preborn?
a pre-born by definition is not born so its significance is less than none, because whatever form “it” takes, it most certainly isn’t alive.
a pre-born by definition is not born so its significance is less than none, because whatever form “it” takes, it most certainly isn’t alive.
Posted by: Yo La Tengo at November 10, 2008 4:57 PM
Silly medical people, hooking a mother about to give birth up to all those monitors to track…apparently nothing according to your post.
“a pre-born by definition is not born so its significance is less than none, because whatever form “it” takes, it most certainly isn’t alive.”
Define alive.
YLT : “a pre-born by definition is not born so its significance is less than none, because whatever form “it” takes, it most certainly isn’t alive.”
You really are the master of circular reasoning. I always have a very hard time coming up with circular reasoning examples for my class, yet you seem to weave them so fluently.
You claim that a preborn is significantly different, because it is a preborn. How very intelectual of you! Im sure you meant this sarcastically and are planning to return and give a proper explanation as to WHY birth gives a significant difference to a newborn.
Physically speaking, there are no ontological differences. A newborn is not self-aware nor is it more inteligent than many other mammals and some birds. If we “earn” the right to not be capriciously killed, then it would be argued that we “earn” it when we are self-aware. This happens around 8 months or so. So again how is it any different?
Oh snap, I forgot, its different because if we look at it, we would see that its different. Good argument dude!
Also, not alive? Are you kidding me? Pick up a biology text book friend before you start lecturing people on what definitely is the case and what is not.
YLT — I felt my oldest niece HICCUP in the WOMB at least a month before she was born. Don’t tell me that she wasn’t ALIVE before birth!
A pregnant woman was repeatedly pressuing her physician to given her an abortion.
He finally told her to get a baseball bat and when her child was born bash it’s brains out herself.
Now, you’re incensed and saying to yourself, ‘Rubbish, no self respecting physician would ever do that.’
Of course, you’re right. But an abortionist would!
An embryo or fetus isn’t alive, Yo La Tengo?
Does the band know you’re using its name in vain, and assigning stupidity to it?
That FL woman clearly has problems. Makes no sense to me why she would find it easier to carry to term, deliver a baby and then kill it rather than to abort a fetus… no matter how badly she may have been treated by pro-lifers outside the clinic. Neither are easy choices by any means, but abortion is legal and, depending on your religious beliefs, not murder.
What she did is absolutely horrific.
As for Obama’s reversing Bush’s stem-cell and pregnancy clinic aid decisions – these are samples of the changee voted for. Good to see.
embryonic stem cell research has NOT produced a cure. Adult Stem cells are available and have helped many patients. Why can’t people stop obsessing over ESCR and realize it won’t cure anything? Especially giving people false hope with diseases like Alzheimers. The Alzheimers society has even said that the disease is a whole brain disease and they don’t believe human stem cells would help.
ESCR may have not produced a cure because under the Bush Administration you can only work on the first 60 lines. Obama wants to open it up.
My words exactly Josephine. People who don’t understand scientific research should be careful of making a fool of themselves. Another example: Sarah palin mocking fruit fly research during her special needs policy speech during the campaign. That was a big Doh!
Hi Josephine.
“ESCR may have not produced a cure because under the Bush Administration you can only work on the first 60 lines. Obama wants to open it up. ”
I have to disagree with this. As far as we know, once you have an embryonic stem cell line, it can “go on forever.” In other words, we can never run out of embryonic stem cells to experiment on. So if we have only ONE stem cell line that can go on forever, why not just have the one who has the rights to it share it with as many scientists as they can so that they can all work on it and someone will be able to find a cure sooner? Why do scientists want their own stem cell lines? Because these scientists would be willing to experiment on nascent human life, this shows that their ultimate motivation is not finding cures, but money. If you find a “cure” using ESC, you get a patent, and we are talking hundreds of millions of dollars, possibly billions. so if these scientists were *really* interested in cures, they would have no problem sharing their embryonic stem cell lines. But it’s all about obtaining a patent and becoming disgustingly rich and famous.