(Prolifer)ations 6-25-09
by intern Anne Marie D.
Spotlighting important information gleaned from other pro-life blogs…
“Susan G. Komen for the Cure is no friend of women,” said Karen Malec, president of the CABC. “Komen perpetuates the breast cancer epidemic by withholding the truth that abortion increases breast cancer risk….
… [W]e challenge Komen to debate the abortion-breast cancer (ABC) link with us at the next Catholic Health Association meeting or another venue. Since science is on our side, we expect Komen will duck the debate, as others have….
Komen justifies its denial of an ABC link by using studies that were severely criticized in the medical journals, Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons and Ethics and Medics, for violating fundamental rules of epidemiology. No experts have ever challenged the conclusions reached in these journals. Komen must follow customary scientific procedure by sending letters to the journals proving that their conclusions are incorrect….
Komen should stop giving funds to Planned Parenthood, an organization that has inflicted considerable harm on women’s health through its sales of abortions and hormonal contraceptives with estrogen and progestin (acknowledged by the World Health Organization as cancer-causing).”
The CABC is best known for its groundbreaking research about the increased risk for breast cancer occurrence associated with induced abortion.
Run through Indiana University’s Kinsey Institute, the study will examine why “young, heterosexual adult men” take issue with condom use. According to Drs. Erick Janssen and Stephanie Sanders of the Institute:
The project aims to understand the relationship between condom application and loss of erections and decreased sensation, including the role of condom skills and performance anxiety, and to find new ways to improve condom use among those who experience such problems.
Disturbingly, the study purports to go beyond mere research, into active “skill-based intervention” to encourage young men to use condoms.
Geared towards 12- to 18-year-old girls, $7 is deposited each week into an interest-earning college fund, which girls receive upon completion of high school. According to founder Hazel Brown, “Our three goals are that they avoid pregnancy, graduate from high school and enroll in college.”
[Photo attributions: webershandwick.com; thetechlounge.com]
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.
I don’t really have a problem with setting up what is essentially a scholarship fund. The only downside I can see is that the girls might have abortions in order to receive their funding.
That’s one of the reasons I posted neutrally about it. I see the potential for this to be great, with more young women exercising self-control and essentially achieving the three goals highlighted by the founder. On the flip side, though, you make a great point, Lauren. Sadly, the means that are used to achieve those three goals…have not been specified as yet. With time, we’ll be able to see better whether this initiative is helpful or harmful.
I still think it’s kind of funny that they’re wasting so much money trying to figure out why guys don’t like condoms…. DUH
Q. What do Obama and Osama have in common?
A. They both have friends who bombed the Pentagon
A. Neither one is african-american.
A. They both blame America first.
A. They are both men without a country.
A. Neither one knows Jesus, but there is still hope for Osama.
A. Both attended muslim schools.
A. Both advocate ‘killing’ as a solution to societal problems.
A. Both men are ‘extremely religious’.
————————————————————
Add some more, it’s fun.
yor bro ken
Q. What do Obama and Osama have in common?
A. Neither one was born in the U.S.A.
In my own opinion, while abstinence is ideal, and it should be encouraged strongly (and the whole of Western culture should stop sending the “sex sells” message), condoms really aren’t evil. They aren’t one hundred percent effective by any means. But they can help reduce disease- especially diseases such as HIV/AIDS. That’s huge in terms of being pro-life.
Nothing works quite like abstinence, but if people really want to sleep together, then they’re going to do it. Birth control or not, but at the very least with condoms lives can be saved.
“Culture Campaign reports that the NIH is funding a $423k study of why men don’t like to wear condoms during sex.”
“Run through Indiana University’s Kinsey Institute, the study will examine why “young, heterosexual adult men” take issue with condom use.”
——————————————————
I tried smoking cigarettes, but I never acquired that habit either.
Rubber trees are an endangered plant; condoms kill.
I like to wear a bow tie when I have sex……. around my neck. Not the trashy ones, like the Chippendale dudes use’ with the funky elastic band, but the real tie ons.
I just can’t find a condom that will NOT clash with my bow tie.
What kind of shoes are should be worn with a condom?
I am latex intolerant.
I only buy American. It is as difficult to find a condom made in America as it is to find a pair of shoes made in the USA.
yor bro ken
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOPDI03gmUw&feature=related
Plant a rubber tree!
yor bro ken
Reducing teen pregnancy is good. But, I too wonder whether a pregnancy ended by abortion would still permit the $1 per week to keep rolling in. Do they conduct random pregnancy tests? If not, this program will actually encourage abortions. Perhaps it would be more correct to say that they want the girls to avoid giving birth?–or, to avoid continuing a pregnancy long enough to look pregnant?
And by the way, is there really a big need to encourage girls to go to college nowadays??? Is this still 1960? Girls already make up the majority of many college campuses. It is BOYS who are endangered on campuses nowadays, not girls. Where are the special programs to help boys go to college?
Michael Jackson, if you haven’t heard has died today. RJ
So did Farrah Fawcett.
“Susan G. Komen for the Cure is no friend of women,” said Karen Malec, president of the CABC. “Komen perpetuates the breast cancer epidemic by withholding the truth that abortion increases breast cancer risk….”
Abortion rights are not about protecting women, they are about money and power.
We must keep saying this until it sinks in.
3,700 unborn children also died today who were never giving the chance to demonstrate their God-given gifts to the world.
None of will never know what the loss abortion has wreaked our our world excapt to say that it is incalculable.
Jasper’s QOTD:
“Women [who have been complicit in the homicide of their prenatal child] should be able to mourn the loss [murder] of an [their own] aborted [human embryo/] fetus without having to confess anything.”
[This is a generally true statement. The grief is not easily avoidable. The confession will come after the acknowledgement of what they have done to their own child.]
“God, unlike what the liturgy states [what does the ‘liturgy’ state?],
also rejoices
[and you know this, how? An epiphany, an angelic vistitation, GOD texted, Twitted or Tweeted you?]
that women facing unplanned pregnancies have the freedom to carefully choose the best option – birth, adoption or abortion – for themselves and their families..”
[Well, if the prenatal child is included as an equal member in the family, then choosing to kill her/him must get a little problematic, even for GOD. How do you think GOD would feel if the pregant mother waited till the child was born and bashed her/his brains out with a baseball bat?]
~ Episcopalian priestess, Rev. Nina Churchman, as quoted by Examiner.com, June 24
———————————————————-
Dear priestess church lady,
Doubling down on dumb and loosing money on the replay……..again is not a wise life strategy.
Please listen for the ‘pop’.
I am praying for you.
yor bro ken
ps: I find priestess Nina churchperson’s ramblings to be more troubling than abortionist Lerory Carhart’s testimony.
I can’t believe that Michael Jackson, Farrah Fawcett, and Ed McMahon are all gone. What a sad week in entertainment.
Rest in peace, all three of them. Lots of prayers to their families.
Ken:
Regarding Churchman, er…a….Church Lady…..uh…oh….uhmmm….
Can you spell b-l-a-s-p-h-e-m-y?
Can you spell h-e-r-e-t-i-c?
Can you spell a-p-o-s-t-a-t-e?
Hey, have you seen this news article?
New details about Michael Jackson’s Death Emerge
I was wondering if you were going to blog about this…
I pray that all 3 prayed for forgiveness for their sins, asked Jesus Christ for mercy and confessed to Him their desire to “be with him in paradise”, as the dying thief who was crucified with Christ did at Calvary. Jesus said “I am the way the truth and the life. No man comes to the father except by me”. Although this is not politically correct and would tick off Oprah who believes “there are many ways to God”, it still is the truth.
My family and I died laughing about the condom study. Are you kidding me? Who was it that said “Having sex with a condom is like going swimming wearing a raincoat.” FYI, I saw a study that said the longer sexual partners are in a relationship the less likely they are to wear condoms, after 3-4 months the odds are they will use them less, after 6 months they will use them even less. Do you know who has the best sex, more satifying sex and more frequent sex? Married committed couples. Read “Why Marriage Matters” by Glenn T. Stanton and “The Case for Marriage” by Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher (Broadway Books) excellent extensive research on 50 years of research. All these funds being wasted by NIH. Duh??? Married couples are happier, healthier, wealthier, live longer, less chronic disease and mental disease, less depression and suicide, less alcoholism, drug addiction and the sex is better too than singles, divorced, widows, or cohabiting couples.
Who cares at what ticks off Oprah.
She’s responsible for leading many people to destruction and she too will have to face the living God someday, a God teh bible describes as a “consuming fire”.
Gid is not mocked.
And by the way, is there really a big need to encourage girls to go to college nowadays??? Is this still 1960? Girls already make up the majority of many college campuses. It is BOYS who are endangered on campuses nowadays, not girls. Where are the special programs to help boys go to college?
Posted by: Scott Johnston at June 25, 2009 8:21 PM
just wanted to say that US colleges are now discussing an affirmative action plan for boys. No kidding.
In med school, girls outnumber boys but men still dominate the profession. Why? Women last about 10 years in practice trying to juggle job and children. You would think this might work well for the medical profession but apparently not.
I think we need to change the way we teach boys in the class. School is boring enough these days but it must unbearable for young boys.
sorry don’t want to hijack this thread.
carry on, ladies and gents!
Let’s hear from “reality” and the other trolls about this one: yet another lie from the anti-life crowd has been exposed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/25/AR2009062501931.html
Nice find on the article, Gerry.
It was NEVER about just experimenting on “leftover” embryos.
It was NEVER about just experimenting on “leftover” embryos.
It was NEVER about just experimenting on “leftover” embryos.
That is ALL we heard before. Now it is about creating human beings for the sole purpose of destroying them and harvisting their parts for our purposes. Oh, and let us not forget about how poor and vulnerable women will be exploited by donating their eggs, risking their life, health, or fertility. Donating eggs (which means selling) is akin to selling a kidney; something that should be condemned by both pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike. But the obsession with the “promise” ESCR blinds so many people.
I have a visceral reaction against the program paying girls $1 a day not to get pregnant. I certainly would encourage girls in that age range to avoid pregnancy, but there seems something degrading about paying young girls off for their sexual choices. Besides, I think that girls who are aiming towards college already have a strong incentive to avoid pregnancy. If a college-bound girl winds up pregnant anyway, it seems to me that she will need MORE support for her college dreams, not less.
As for the article Gerry links, I can’t tell what “lie” has been exposed. Personally, I don’t have a position on paying women for eggs. It just has never been an issue that has interested me that much, so I don’t know much about the arguments pro and con. I guess I lean pro, but I wouldn’t die on that hill.
Heh. Bobby, I think that a lot, perhaps most, prochoicers WOULD have problems with women being paid for their eggs. (This is a little different than donating sperm which is a medically risk free procedure.) I think I lean pro because I will admit I feel some temptation to donate my eggs for $10K — and I am neither poor nor vulnerable. I could use $10K though.
Well, I hope you’re right, PCer. But have you looked into the world of egg donation? This might be a good place to start if you’re curious http://handsoffourovaries.com/
Women already are compensated for donating eggs(not the eggs themselves but for the time and discomfort), and actually most of the donors are well educated women who are informed of the risk. I think forbidding women from being compensated out of fear they are too stupid to make a well thought out decision is insulting. They provide a service. As long as they are aware of the risks and are of sound mind, why should they not be able to decide?
Libertarian, Your reasoning reflects my inclination on this issue.
Bobby, thanks for the link.
“As long as they are aware of the risks and are of sound mind, why should they not be able to decide? ”
For the same reason that we outlaw drugs like cocaine and heroin, as well as for the same reasons we do not allow selling a kidney. For the first point, regardless of how informed someone is about a particular action, there will always be people who wish to do it anyway. Part of government’s role is to protect people and not allow a dangerous substance or procedure to be freely sold or performed within it’s boundaries. Hence, if the government allows a particular substance or procedure, it implicitly approves of it as being OK for public health and safety, which is not the case with egg donation.
The second point is that it will indeed exploit poor women. The woman in college needing to pay the rest of her tuition will always have the option of undergoing the dangerous procedure of hyper-ovulation and selling her eggs, again, possibly at the expense of her health, fertility, or life. It is precisely the same reason that we don’t sell kidneys or other human body parts. It is dangerous and it treats human beings as means and not ends in and of themselves.
Prochoicer, I once read an article on what goes into those “donate your eggs to this couple and get $10,000” things. It was actually in some ridiculous magazine like Glamour (ah, waiting-room reading: without you, how would I know all those beauty tricks I never use?). There was a lot of sucky stuff that went into it — medications to stop the menstrual cycle, hormones to stimulate a bunch of mature eggs, etc. Bloating, weight gain, some amount of pain. Pretty sure you have to abstain from sex. And the long-term risks are not fully known, obviously.
A friend of mine is currently going through everything she can to have kids — just finished IUI, unsuccessfully, and is moving on to IVF. It’s quite similar to egg donation, and even though she is doing this specifically to have a baby, it’s so hard on her that she routinely breaks down in tears and wonders if she shouldn’t just give up. (I think she should but I keep my opinions to myself unless they’re requested.) The whole thing makes me so sad (for a variety of reasons; that’s just one of them).
It’s interesting, to say the least.
As far as paying women for eggs, I don’t know that it’s necessarily the same as paying for a kidney. A kidney is an organ, vital to the function of the human body; eggs are not. We pay people for plasma donations. But plasma is something the human body replaces; eggs are not. Eggs seem to be their own little class, as far as ethics of donating goes (even leaving spiritual objections out of it).
Something about the involved process of egg donation makes me LESS comfortable with paying people to do it, even though I suspect that’s at the root of offering compensation. It’s not like donating plasma, or even donating sperm (which I recognize has a moral/spiritual dilemma, but which is more similar to plasma than to eggs as far as the body replacing donations goes) — it’s weeks of physical discomfort, of hormones and medications. It’s surgery — non-invasive, but surgery nonetheless. I have a problem with this like how I have a problem with women “outsourcing” gestation to India (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22441355/) — it is an extended use of a human being’s body for purposes that only benefit the person financially. I think that if someone is unlikely to choose to volunteer to undergo the physical affects without compensation, then perhaps it’s unethical to coerce people into choosing it via compensation.
Alexandra, I was just thinking about the womb outsourcing today. I was reflecting on the fact that we outlaw selling our bodies for sex, but not for gestating someone elses child.
Very odd.
Drugs such as cocaine are illegal period, and for reasons of public safetly. Drugs to stimulate ovaries are perfectly legal and used by women who aren’t donating their eggs to someone else. It’s no business of the government or general public if an informed woman is compensated or not unless you’re of the belief that the government should be protected adults from their own choices(which is flat out paternalistic) when they do not inlict on the rights of others. In a free society things like this are left up to the patients and doctors involved. There’s a demand for eggs, and women who choose can provide the supplies after weighing the facts. That is the free market. Anyone who doesn’t agree with it doesn’t have to donate eggs or use them.
Also, donating eggs is not comparable to selling organs. First of all, the eggs are not going to be used anyway and their absense is not going to affect the way a woman lives her life the way donating a kidney would.
Just another thought, because I looked into egg donation at one time in my younger years (actually, I got an article on it from my mother after baby #4 with a hand-written note that said, “Share the wealth”. My mom is … odd…. )
Anyway, I didn’t qualify because I weighed 10 pounds too much for my height. I had four healthy children, the eldest had already proven to be highly gifted intellectually, I went to college, I played viola in Carnegie Hall, toured Europe as an opera singer, had off the charts IQ and other standardized test scores… I was told that I was otherwise the “perfect” candidate, but that the extra ten pounds made me ineligible because women wouldn’t want to risk having “obese” children. Oh, and I only had six months to lose the weight and start the process because otherwise I would “age out” of consideration. Um, yeah, glad I didn’t go through with that.
So, these are the six children born to this otherwise “ineligible” egg donor. I’m glad they’re all mine… and can’t wait to meet #7!
Thanks Elisabeth!! Did you create that yourself? Very pretty!
Elisabeth,
The picture was so cute, I had to comment before reading your post. I didn’t know egg donation was taken so seriously. Hard to believe that ten pounds would make a difference. In this day and age, that would eliminate over half the women in America, and it’s mostly not due to genetics, just too much fat in the diet. I wouldn’t qualify due to weight either. :( That said, I don’t like the idea of egg-donation either.
I had a newborn in the house, so I didn’t get too upset about told I was over the weight limit… but even so, I’m glad it didn’t work out. (I was being idealistic and I do truly ache for those in my life who have troubles conceiving. At the time I thought it was a way to help them.)
Yes, I made that using scrapblog.com.