Jivin J’s Life Links 11-13-09
by JivinJ
Wendy Norris is now claiming money was another probable reason for the Catholic bishops’ support of the Stupak amendment. Despite the vast majority of abortions being performed in abortion clinics and not hospitals, Norris thinks the bishops wanted to exclude federal subsidies for abortion so they could “omit a competitive advantage secular hospitals… can use to simultaneously market their services to the expected influx of newly insured patients….”
Jill from Feministe apparently has no clue what a moral objection is. I think she really has no idea that there is a difference between preference claims and moral claims.
Law professor Marci Hamilton thinks the Stupak amendment “violates the Constitution’s separation of church and state” because pro-lifers are religious and the U.S. bishops pushed for it.
At National Review, John Pitney points out a rather large problem with this argument.
“Think about it. The only way we got this far with IVF is because there was research in the past,” she said. “There were sacrifices to help families like us have kids…”
And which sacrifices were those? That’s right. Human embryos. So it’s okay to sacrifice some children so you can have kids? And then because others sacrificed their children, it’s your duty to sacrifice children you don’t want back to research.
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.
It’s not really accurate to say that pro-lifers are religious. Not all of us are. X and I stand on a secular boat and you don’t need religion to support human rights.
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele has called for the removal of abortion coverage from their health insurance plan after Politico discovered that abortion was covered….
…FOR YEARS !!!!
The the odds are at least one RNC staffer took advantage of that coverage.
A solid secular argument against abortion. No religion here. mshlblog.blogspot.com
Sometimes I love the surprise I see after showing them that a real person is under that straw man they build.
Gee I wonder if Marci Hamilton would find the civil rights movement unconstitutional. After all an ordained minister, Dr.King, led the movement. People involved were religious. Churches were hotbeds of political activity on behalf of civil rights.
Yes, I would think it could be argued that the black civil rights movement definitely violated the seperation of church and state and was therefore unconstitutional.
Marci,
How silly it is to expect a person to take off their religion like it were a coat.
“like it”… “as if it” (?)
Dear Ms. Hamilton,
As an atheist, a woman, and a legal abortion adversary, I find your article to be highly flawed. I would caution you against using the caricature of all “anti-choice” individuals which legal abortion advocates are so often wont to do. Stereotyping the other side does your message a huge disservice in that, when you finally do cross one of the many people who oppose abortion yet are not religiously affiliated, those of your ilk tend to be left without a leg to stand on, and it’s highly unbecoming and definitely counterproductive to debate (not to mention it renders your entire article a false assumption).
As for what losing this “right” to abortion would do to womens’ rights as a whole, I’ve learned that legalized elective abortion is not necessary for the well-being of any woman, least of all the daughters killed in the procedure. I do not require any medical intervention to be every bit as productive, respected, and powerful as a man in my society. Being able to ignore the humanity of our children and dispose of them as so many men do by simply walking out of a door rather than killing does not make a woman equal to a man, but a lesser.
I am very much looking forward to a return email from this woman.
oh, and also:
“Marci Hamilton, a FindLaw columnist, is the Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law and author of Justice Denied: What America Must Do to Protect Its Children”
I-RON-EEEE!
How about…oh, I don’t know…NOT KILL THEM?
“I do not require any medical intervention to be every bit as productive, respected, and powerful as a man in my society.”
Thank you, Xalisae. High five, my fellow secular pro-lifer. :)
And I looked at your website, Scott. It’s excellent!
How the silliness escalates! The pro-aborts are desparate to find something or someone to blame their loss on. That the church needed this to maintain a competitve balance in Catholic hospitals is really quite creative. Talk about wing nuts!
I earlier said that the RNC’s healthcare plan through CIGNA had covered terminations for years. I just didn’t know how many years. They had it in their plan for 18 years. That’s half my lifetime.
They have switched to a CIGNA plan that does not include coverage for terminations. But they’ll still be writing checks to CIGNA for that modified policy, and CIGNA is still offering abortion on its plans – which means their premium dollars are funding abortion, right? At least, according to the Stupak amendment….
The only way to be sure you are not providing any funding for abortion is to stop paying taxes and drop your health insurance. Think about it. At the very least, your tax dollars maintain public transportation and/or public roads that are used by everyone – bankers, criminals, doctors, and patients alike. Where do you draw the line in refusing to provide any support in allowing legal abortions to take place?
Perhaps moving to a country where abortion is illegal is an option. Out of about 40 countries than ban it, only 3 are industrialized – Ireland, The Philippines, and Brazil. Israel is expected to legalize abortion for any reason through 22 weeks. And Ireland is expected to one day align their laws to comply with EU standards (legal for any reason through 22 weeks).
Brazil and The Philippines. You Catholics would love them. Low wages. Little or no healthcare subsidies. Little or no social security programs. Huge inequalities in wealth. Lots of crime. Enjoy.
Dhalgren, you talk about these countries like they’re inhabited by animals. I try to ignore the trolls because all that you really want is attention and you’re desperate to infuriate someone, but really you’re such a classist, racist prick that it’s impossible to take you seriously. You don’t even get anyone infuriated- you just make us realize how people like you view the world, as a place where some people are not worthy. Brazil is struggling but abortion will not fix anything. But the Brazilians are strong and I think with help and support from the rest of us around the world, they can pull through and fight poverty.
There’s more pulling together as a group of people in an individual country than joining the European Union or legalizing abortion- there’s taking care of all people, even unborn ones. I’m sorry that you don’t know that.
Vannah–THATS RIGHT! I want to quote you all over the globe!”how people like you (pro-aborts) view the world, as a place where some people are not worthy.” Thats their entire mindset in a nutshell. The scary thing is, what will Dhalgren say when he/she becomes the unworthy one?
Dhalgren, why don’t you just continue worrying about the important things like sports, cars, and license plates and leave the trivial things like trying to protect peoples’ lives to people who actually care about other peoples’ lives? Just because “civilized” countries hide their violence behind uterine walls doesn’t mean that those murders are not occurring. Now…which country is really the more civilized? The one that has problems just like every other country which are more visible, or those countries which have encouraged what is supposed to be one of the last few safe places on earth-the mother’s womb-into killing fields of a different kind?
Hey, that’s what a liberal education can do to you.
I really wish I could go on her site and make this comment, but I’ve been banned multiple times. It’s crazy how fast that happens on feminist blogs as soon as you criticize them.
Thanks, Sydney. I don’t think that Dhalgren fully comprehends the lives of anyone different from himself, but I’ll leave it at that and hope for the best.
Xalisae:
Sorry, I’ve been really meaning to get back to on your discussion about socialism, health care, and abortion. I’m sorry that I haven’t. I’ll try and make a long post on it when I’m not so far behind in my schoolwork and French study.
Thank you for your patience, though. :P
Jill from feministe has some other issues too. Apparently, she doesn’t seem to know what “pro-life” means. Listen to what she says at 22:40:
“I would hope that what we could do is put up somebody in a primary, a democratic contender, who is either pro-choice or, maybe to please his constituency, identifies as pro-life, but is pro-life in the way that he supports decreasing the number of [induced] abortions through [abortifacient] contraception, through sex education, not through being the lead on an amendment that limits women’s rights. There are lots of ways to be pro-life.”
I’m willing to bet that such a democratic “pro-lifer” would not only support abortifacient contraception, but would have absolutely no problem whatsoever with the massive number of embryos from IVF who are discarded every year. Those sorts of pro-lifers are only opposed to innocent human beings being killed when it is inconvenient to someone else to have to go to the trouble of killing them. This is not what it means to be pro life. This is what it means to be pro choice. We need to be more vocal about this.
When it comes to clothes,we do have certain preferences.It feels like on the top of this world when we get to have something which is so smart yet elegant.So,try out once and wear with that outfit.You will feel on the top of this world.
If women cannot be ‘equal’ to men without availing themselves of an elective surgical procedure, then they by their own twisted logic never been and never will be ‘equal’ according to their arbitrary standard of ‘equal’.
What the feministas want is to estblish their inherent ‘superiority’ to men.
In a way women are superior to men in that they alone can become pregnant. But that is not the only advantage they enjoy.
But the feministas do not view this as an advantage, but as a dis-advantage.
Either they have to blame God, and thus acknowledging HIS/her/it’s existence, or they have blame the randomness of evolutionary probabilities.
If they blame God then they have to acknowledge a BEING greater than them and the inherent probability that they might be accountable to this BEING, even if this BEING is female.
If they reject the ‘god’ thing and embrace the evolutionary worldview then their value as humans and as females is as transient and unreliable as the winds of public opinion.
I like the notion propagated by the authors of the Declaration of Independence that says all humans are created equal and endowed by their Creator with ‘certain unalienable rights’.
Meaning these rights are inseparably wed to our humaness.
When will you feministas come to the revelation that you are being manipulated, used and abused by the one who hates you, not because of your gender, but because of your mere existence.
The bent one hates you because:
1. he hates GOD.
2. God loves you.
3. You are made in the image of God.
3. God destined both women and men to be set above all of creation, including the most powerful of the angels, one of whom is the bent one.
But “An angry Eve beats her breasts and shakes her angry clenched fists at God and protests, “Why have you made me thus?!?!”
yor bro ken