Jivin J’s Life Links 4-14-09
by JivinJ
This makes me wonder what Gore would have done with the stem cell issue if he had run in 2008 and been elected.
I’m not a hard-line anti-abortion campaigner. Given the state of public opinion, the best we can hope for at the moment is a compromise – but unrestricted access up to 24 weeks, paid for by the taxpayer, is not a compromise, it’s a law drawn up by an ideologically-driven minority.
Denying the humanity of a 20-week foetus is as unscientific and irrational as denying the beef on your plate is a cow because you can’t hear it moo.
Apr.14, 2009 2:30 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.
Has anyone here seen this video that argues against personhood amendments? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3X4_p3yAC8&
Just curious.
“Denying the humanity of a 20-week foetus is as unscientific and irrational as denying the beef on your plate is a cow because you can’t hear it moo.”
Love it!
Alexandra,
I’ll have to wait ’til later to view it. The topic is interesting…
This is a great comment from West as well.
“In fact, the reason I object to abortion is not because I’ve been indoctrinated by Christianity but because I fear that this life is all there is, in which case that’s a pretty rotten deal for the unborn. Abortion is presented in this country as an issue only of interest to Catholics to Muslims, the most despised and most hated minorities in the country respectively – but the atheist and humanist argument is even stronger. ”
Alexandra,
The video makes some interesting arguments – I feel totally unqualified to comment since the cases are of a medical nature. There are many details that have been left out. What’s your opinion?
Not sure, Janet, since I’m dumb as a pile of bricks when it comes to medical things. On the one hand I googled the woman who died and that was from like 1988 or something ridiculous like that, so I wonder what the deal was since to my knowledge there weren’t personhood type things at that point so it’s just hypothetical, and if the video makers went back that far then what does that say.
Then again, if the fetus has rights that are legally considered equal to that of the pregnant woman, it isn’t implausible that women could be coerced into doing certain things, or prosecuted for refusing certain things, etc. I think there’s often pressure already on women to “go along” with things that are basically easier for doctors because they make labor more “controlled” — pitocin, c-sections, etc. And so I think that if there was some legal grounds for prosecuting or coercing women who refused to go along with these things — well, that would be less than awesome.
Mostly I’m just curious what the other side of the issue is. Things like this are usually not very simple.
More controlled is not better. I didn’t watch the video, but I can tell you for sure that induction or C-sections are not best for the woman or the baby as a default.
The video is total nonsense. I honestly doubt the cases they cite are real, or reported accurately. But let’s assume for the sake of argument that such cases actually did happen. To oppose personhood on that basis would be like saying that there are innocent people in jail, so we should do away with all criminal laws and all jails.
Unborn human beings deserve the dignity and protection of our laws just as much as born people. To say otherwise is to agree with proaborts that unborn humans are not morally worthty.
On another subject, I’m glad to see that Al “Inventor of the Internet” Gore, is investing in adult stem cell research. At least we know there is one foaming at the mouth proabort who is not fixated on killing embryonic babies just for the sake of giving abortion more “respectability”.
Doyle, do you think many pro-choicers thought that women would want to harvest their dead son’s sperm, hire a surrogate, and create grandchildren to replace their child? People do crazy things with laws that allow them to. If the law regards an unborn child as having equal rights to its mother, then why should a hospital or the state not step in to speak for those rights when they feel that the mother is infringing on them?
But let’s assume for the sake of argument that such cases actually did happen. To oppose personhood on that basis would be like saying that there are innocent people in jail, so we should do away with all criminal laws and all jails.
Is that your answer, then? That a few women being forced into surgery against their consent is okay? Do you not see the implications of that?