Live tweeting abortion, Part VIII: Demystifying Angie’s mystification about her baby
Read Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, Part VI, Part VII, Part IX, and Part X. Pro-lifers can share their thoughts at #livetweetingabortion.
WARNING: Vulgarity ahead.
Live tweeting aborter Angie Jackson has repeatedly stated on her blog and to the press her aim is to “demystify” RU-486 abortions, as she told ABC News.
The problem is the 1st rule of demystifying is one must herself be demystified before attempting to demystify. If not, the result is the blind leading the blind, as a great person Angie doesn’t like very well once stated, adding, “When one blind person leads another, both will fall into the same pit.”…
With the everlasting hope no one is beyond climbing out of a self-created pit, I’d like to demystify Angie on a couple points, the 1st being the characteristics of the preborn baby she killed.
We have to start by accepting Angie’s premise, as she has written several times, that she was 4 weeks and 1 day pregnant. That said, she tweeted:
The scientific facts are that the fusion of the egg and sperm, each containing 23 chromosomes, creates a new 1-celled human with 46 chromosomes. The newly created human is unique. Gender, intelligence, eye color, shoe size, etc., are determined by the 46 chromosomes at fertilization. Never before in the history of the world has this exact individual human existed. Never again in history will another exactly like this human exist.
Angie also tweeted:
Because “facts matter kids,” Angie needs to correct that misstatement if concerned about intellectual honesty.
In fact, Angie’s baby’s heart began beating on about day 21, according to Wikipedia, which developed the illustration, right. Click to enlarge.
Angie, since your point seemed to be that having no heart or heartbeat made your baby less human, what does it mean that your baby did have a heart and heartbeat? Does this mean you think abortions of babies with heartbeats is wrong?
Angie also tweeted:
and…
We’ve already established Angie’s assertions about her baby’s heart were incorrect. What about the brain? What about his or her level of development? Here is a a chart of the prenatal development of a 4-week-old preborn baby, according to The Endowment for Human Development….
Angie’s baby in fact did have a brain. Her baby’s brainwaves would remarkably have been discernible when s/he was only 42 days old. Again, Angie, does your attempt to minimize the humanity of your baby by incorrectly asserting the fact s/he had no brain mean you disapprove of abortions of babies with brains, including your own?
Angie’s aforementioned tweets are also examples of repeated attempts to minimize her baby’s humanity because s/he was very small and was only “2 layers of cells.” In actuality, even at 1/8 inch in length, Angie’s baby was remarkably developed. Angie may not have watched the video I previously posted, so I’ll replay it.
So when does size and development matter, Angie? Because you apparently think they do. At what point in a baby’s preborn development does size become significant, in your opinion?
Finally, Angie tweeted:
and…
I wouldn’t have bothered with this point except that Angie attempted to mock pro-lifers to “[L]earn biology would ya?”
In fact, scientifically speaking, Angie’s baby was neither an “egg” nor a “fetus.” S/he was considered an embryo at this age, and would have been called so until the end of his or her 8th prenatal week.
Here’s hoping that in the spirit of demystification Angie will correct her false statements.
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.
Thanks for this post – when people keep repeating misinformation, all we can do is to keep repeating the truth.
It’s kind of amazing to me that she could believe that her unborn baby was only two layers of cells. A [i]hangnail[/i] has to have more than two layers of cells. Embryos are always developing and multiplying cells, so even if, theoretically, the baby had been two layers of cells when Angie found out she was pregnant, s/he wouldn’t have been two layers of cells by the time Angie got the RU-486.
Also, I would have thought that even kids could understand that egg + sperm does not = egg.
AMEN!!
Thank God for you, Jill. May he continue to bless you and fill you with the Holy Spirit as you witness and show people the truth.
I’ve been following this abortion saga on twitter, as well as, on this site with Jill’s commentary, and all I can use to describe it is, gut-wrenching. I’m so proud of Jill for responding to Angie on an intellectual level and hasn’t stooped to the level of some “prolifers” by insulting her or threatening her life. What good does that do? If there is one thing I learned growing up, it’s that two wrongs never make a right.
My heart goes out to this girl. She is an “antitheist”, by claim, which must be a miserable way to go through life. I can’t imagine living everyday with that notion. A wise person once said, “If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.” I think she is a prime example of this. She has fallen for the lies the media and society have told her about herself and her unborn baby. Angie says she feels fine now and there is no lingering depression or feelings of regret, however, I just wonder what will be going through her mind, weeks, months, or even years from now when the publicity hype is over and she left alone with her thoughts. I think she is in shock right now, as most are after they have an abortion. Research says, the effects of an abortion usually don’t hit the mother for 3-7 years after their decision. This isn’t in every case, but many, so it’s doesn’t surprise me a lot that she isn’t feeling much at the moment.
I believe that God has a plan and a destiny for Angie’s life, all I can do is pray that one day she will realize it and embrace it. I pray that one day she will be able to see herself as God sees her, no matter what decisions she makes or has made. He is still flat in love with her. He is there with his big, loving arms wide open, waiting for her to come running to them. Our precious Jesus is so amazing! I’m so grateful in all His infinite power He still takes time to love and care about each and everyone of us individually, and has the remarkable ability to seperate the sin from the sinner. He hates the sin, but is madly in love with the sinner. For that, I owe Him my life b/c the only thing that seperates me from Angie is “Christ in me, the hope of glory.”
Well done Jill! But I’d rather dismiss her rationalizing away the humanity of her baby simply re-stating what the LORD informed us of first in Genesis 9:4, that the life is in the blood. I believe that the blood type is determined by the father, (which is why Jesus had the blood of God in his veins–Mary’s couldn’t cleanse us); hence life begins at conception.
I couldn’t BEGIN to respond to Angie’s ‘tweets’, because I’ve lost FOUR babies at the exact stage that Angie has aborted hers. She is extremely ignorant of even basic facts of humanity/biology/anatomy when it comes to pre-born babies. All we can do is PRAY that THE HOLY SPIRIT will ‘get ahold of’ this poor, lost soul and wake her up to not only her BABY’S worth, but her own in God’s eyes.
Ted, blood type is genetic, just like hair or eye color. One of the two genes comes from the mother, the other from the father. Due to recessive genes, the father’s blood type may predominate, but it’s not related to the parent’s gender.
Maybe her embryo only had “heart-tones.”
“But I’d rather dismiss her rationalizing away the humanity of her baby simply re-stating what the LORD informed us of first in Genesis 9:4, that the life is in the blood.”
If she doesn’t believe in God or the Bible, though, that doesn’t do anything to convince her that her misinformed comments are wrong.
Maurauder, you’re exactly right.
Ted, I think it’s not only your biology that’s lacking, but your theology as well.
First of all, God doesn’t HAVE blood, so it’s a bit strange for you to say say that Jesus’ blood came from his Father.
Second, the reason Jesus was able to save us was that he paid the price in human flesh and blood for Adam’s sin, while at the same time he made the perfect sacrifice as God. The only way he could have had human flesh and blood was by his human descent from Mary. No, Mary’s blood itself couldn’t save us, but the blood in the Son descended from her did.
Mark Shea, an evangelical turned Catholic, wrote a marvelous trilogy of books about this, called “Mary, Mother of the Son,” which explains the meaning of Mary for Christian theology, and how Evangelicals generally fail to understand it (especially vol. 2). It makes for great reading.
Of course, I don’t know whether you are an Evangelical, but others misunderstand this too.
Thanks for this post, Jill. For all their vaunted “progressiveness,” it always astonishes me how plainly anti-intellectual the pro-bad-choice crowd is when it comes to the facts of life.
Lori, the theory that Jesus had “divine blood” originally comes an evangelical physician named M. R. de Haan, who wrote a book titled “The Chemistry of the Blood” back in the 1940s, in which he argued that human blood was donated to offspring by the father, and hence Christ’s blood had to have been divine rather than human.
I don’t believe de Haan was deliberately trying to write pseudoscience, but this was prior to the discovery of DNA and medcine was still “stone knives and bearskins” compared to today. Unfortunately, even today his views carry a great deal of weight with many fundamentalist Christians.
Still, his view of genetics is still pretty advanced compared to the downright medieval views of embryology I’ve seen from some poor-choicers.
Cranky Catholic – ROFLOL @ “heart-tones”!!!!
Thanks, Scott, that was very interesting. Mark Shea’s book didn’t mention Haan’s idea, but he had many similar ones from some evangelicals about how Mary merely served as “incubator” for the Christ — who by that account would not really be a human descendant of Adam, which would completely destroy Christian theology on the redemption.
Someone congratulated her today for fitting back into her skinny jeans.
Isn’t it hypocritical to claim to have an abortion to save your life and protect your son, and then to continue this insanity after receiving death threats against you both?
Death threats are wrong, but I could never put my child at risk for 15 minutes of fame/infame.
Oops, I wanted to add: they do this in order to try to deny the doctrine that Mary is the “Mother of God,” which is a doctrine of the early Church proclaimed at the Council of Ephesus in 431, but which many Evangelicals think is a Catholic aberration. But in denying it, they go so far in the other direction that they deny the Incarnation.
By the way “poor-choicers” – great joke!
I’ll shut up about theology now.
I’ll preface this by saying that tweeting is the goofiest thing. You have to read backwards to follow a conversation! Forgive me if the answers to these questions are obvious to everyone but me.
Not to be gross, but what day did Angie say the abortion was completed? (Or is it still going on?) Did she rate the pain? Where’s her family during all of this? Have any eye- witnesses come forward? Does anyone doubt this actually happened?
Her Planned Parenthood counselor must be very proud. Why hasn’t Cecile Richards given her a thumbs up or at least made a comment in the media?
“Isn’t it hypocritical to claim to have an abortion to save your life and protect your son, and then to continue this insanity after receiving death threats against you both?”
StacyForLife,
Has Angie actually given evidence of “death threats”?
I have just started giving fetal development/abortion fact presentations to youth groups in my area. We discussed how to deal with a situation where the mother’s life was truly in danger (like Michelle Duggar’s case).
Obviously you can induce labor at a certain gestational age, and though the baby may not survive, you would have at least allowed s/he to pass on with dignity and love.
What are possible non-violent alternatives if still in the first trimester or early second trimester? Is a D & C the only solution if a pregnancy really is life-threatening at such an early stage?
Posted by: Heather M at March 1, 2010 4:11 PM
——
Heather, the only life threatening situation that’s a sure death for the woman (virtually no possibility of survival) is an ectopic pregnancy. These are found 1:18,000 so they are rare. Prior abortions (particularly D&C’s) may damage the uterus making an ectopic more likely.
Most other conditions can be monitored or treated, but there are some rare cases where it’s not a matter of election. In such cases, the principle of double effect comes into play. This moral principle basically says, you are not intentionally killing the child, but saving the life of the mother. The side effect is the child does die from removal, but it is better to save one life than to lose both.
Such conditions are not, and never have been under the term elective or “choice”, and every state recognized that need and honored that principle. Doctors who are pro-life will do everything they can for both their patients until all options are exhausted.
Also realize that hopeless looking cases can sometimes turn.
Courtney: Thanks for the reproof. I did name the condition that it was my belief (rather than a biblical truth) that the blood type was determined by the father–but you are right, it’s genetic and “type” is determined by the dominant type, etc. However this doesn’t take away from the biblical definition of life being in the blood, nor of the cleansing power of Jesus’ blood. A laymen’s search on the topic shows that the instant of blood cell formation to be a mystery, so we should of course consider the matter settled as occuring with conception.
Chris,
Read William Saletan’s article on Slate.com about the Tebow abortion controversy for examples of other pregnancies that are high risk.
“Isn’t it hypocritical to claim to have an abortion to save your life and protect your son, and then to continue this insanity after receiving death threats against you both?”
StacyForLife,
Has Angie actually given evidence of “death threats”?
Posted by: Janet at March 1, 2010 3:43 PM
Yes, but then again, she hasn’t even really come up with anything to verify that she actually had the abortion to save her life, either. If you’ll kill your own child, you won’t hesitate to lie.
Posted by: Jake at March 1, 2010 5:39 PM
—-
I’m aware of many high risk variations and conditions, however, these hard cases, where the mother’s physical life is in imminent danger, constitute less than 2% of the total number of annual abortions in the US.
Also, these cases were never the basis for Roe, Doe, Casey etc., (no matter how much Justices Stephens or Kennedy fail to understand the timeliness of medical intervention as related to specific procedures).
There are some who hold that such hard cases should intervention if the child dies – basically declaring that the mother and child should die together. However, that position avoids showing mercy towards the mother.
In cases where abortion is electable (that is – it’s not an imminent danger hard case) continuing the pregnancy is merely a matter of liberty vs the life of the child.
The hard cases come down to life vs life, and given that both are infinitely valuable, then one shows mercy towards the one most likely to live.
From what I can tell she’s stating the stage of pregnancy, whIch is measured from the start of the last menstrual period. That would make her baby 15 days old, at which point he/she would be an inner and outer layer of cells, one for the embryo and one for the rest.
I highly doubt she was the early on, as that is literally the day of implantation, and would be the very first day of her missed period.
Planned Parenthood has a video about the Abortion Pill here: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/abortion/abortion-pill-medication-abortion-4354.htm
This whole episode with this public execution of a mother’s baby is so sad. Only God will end this slaughter.
Planned Parenthood has a video about the Abortion Pill here: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/abortion/abortion-pill-medication-abortion-4354.htm
I hope there will never be another public execution like this by a mother and a blogger. Jill needs to stick with science not sensationalism. It’s not charitable. This is Lent.
Posted by: Nina at March 1, 2010 8:07 PM
——
Everything Jill provided is solid science and can easily be referenced. Meanwhile, holding Planned Parenthood up as source of credible information where there are obvious conflicts of interest is pretty sad.
You have a strange sense of charity – and may want to reconsider “the weightier matters of the Law”.
Chris,
Thanks for the info. I may just be typing in the wrong words in my search, but I’m just trying to have the most accurate information for those who ask questions.
If death without ending the pregnancy was imminent, and I was in that situation, I would have a very difficult time allowing a healthy child to be aborted by the usual means. I was just curious if there was any alternatives.
Would pitocin work in the first trimester to allow the baby to be born whole and die naturally? Anybody know? How bout with an ectopic?
I realize that this is a exceedingly rare circumstance, but I’m just trying to find answers for the inquiring minds. Any links you could provide would be great, (or even just key words to type in. :) )
well done Jill Stanek! Very well done.
I think Angie may be getting confusing information from PP. They probably told her something like this about a 1-week embryo (” By 1 week, cells of the inner cell mass form two layers called the hypoblast and epiblast.”) and Angie latched on to that and decided it meant her baby WAS two layers of cells.
Of course, she could just be spouting nonsense.
I was struck at the change in tone between her hostile twitterfeed and the PP press release sounding talking points in the interviews she’s given (like ABCNews).
She’s clearly a narcissist. I pray to see her on the 700 club in 5 years attempting to atone. Otherwise she just created her own personal hell on earth, and by the time she realizes it her supporters will want nothing to do with her.
(I only had time to skim the other comments, I apologize if I’m redundant)
To Chris Arsenault: I am not in any way supportive of Planned Parenthood. I put it there to show how popular it is. I expose Planned Parenthood as often as I can to educate people.
You may find out if you click my name what I’m about before passing judgment.
Here is why this piece is not science.
Jill admits in the first paragraph above that we have to accept Angie’s premise that she is pregnant. Angie could be lying. Thus, we have to use non-scientific speculation. We have to take her word for it. That’s NOT science.
As a nurse, Jill ought to know better.
Nina,
This “piece” is a thread of science on the gestational developement of the human being. It is the same for everybody so Angie’s premise, true or false, does not change the validity of the science being presented.
And thank you for your work exposing PP.
Did it ever occur to anyone that maybe god’s plan for Angie was to show the women of the world that abortion isn’t something to be feared or ashamed of?
V, this would be God contradicting himself since in Genesis he told Adam and Eve to go forth and multiply, filling the Earth.
Never mind that your notion is ridiculous. ;)
@Nina, Jill is not engaging in sensationalism here. If any one is, it is Angie.
Jill is pointing out that baby John was not just two layers of cells (this is a take on the old “blob of tissue” idea).
Baby John was a real living human person at a very early stage of development.
He was murdered. By his mother.
For no reason except possibly by Angie to keep her “useless” boyfriend. Who will likely leave her anyway. :(
Posted by: Heather M at March 1, 2010 9:27 PM
—-
With an early ectopic pregnancy detection the procedure which you want to study is a salpingotomy, which is a lathroscopic incision into the fallopian tube to remove the embryo using a water-based cutting jet. This is a minimally invasive procedure aimed at maintaining the fertility of the woman, but it also quickly and honorably removes the child.
Failure to remove early usually leads to internal hemorrhaging, and the final procedure is very dependent upon to gestational age.
There are other conditions that are quite serious and require constant monitoring, however they don’t pose the same risk as an ectopic. IANAD. Each human is unique, and each condition should be treated as such – so that’s the final qualifier.
In every state, pregnancy is a medical diagnosis. So whether a woman reaches a regular delivery, suffers a miscarriage or aborts, pregnancy is not something to be taken lightly.
Posted by: Nina at March 1, 2010 11:41 PM
Violet says “Did it ever occur to anyone that maybe god’s plan for Angie was to show the women of the world that abortion isn’t something to be feared or ashamed of?”
See Exodus 20:13.
Did it ever occur to you that maybe it was Satan’s plan for her to do the same? Abortion seems much more in the realm of the one who comes to “steal, kill, and destroy.”
Hey, at least I don’t claim to know what God’s plan is for ANYONE. I’m just throwing a thoughtful question out there. Last I checked, only God could know his plan. Not you, not me, not Jill. So who are we to say Angie’s not doing EXACTLY what God wants her to do? Or that she isn’t?
After all, it’s the bible, in Psalms 137, that also says “Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.”
Hi Violet.
Are you claiming to be able to interpret that passage correctly? Are you saying that a thoughtful exegesis of the passage is that it is saying that one can only find true happiness by killing infants? Or is there context to the passage? Is there a genre? Should we take into account the time and customs and way of life of the people who wrote this? Or should we interpret it in a 21st century American point of view?
These are all things one needs to take into careful consideration when exegeting a passage. You can’t simply throw a passage out there isolated from its context and the rest of the bible and understand it as a 21st century American would. The Hebrew culture were a different people with a different way of life. They got their points across differently than we do and used many different types of genres to illustrate said points. Given the fact that this passage is coming from psalms, one can easily deduce without even thinking that this is going to be highly symbolic or even hyperbolic.
So those are just a few thoughts that one should consider before quoting a bible verse without any kind of in-depth analysis of it.
Thanks again Chris. I have never heard of that procedure but I will go look it up. :)
“Hey, at least I don’t claim to know what God’s plan is for ANYONE.” Voilet
I know this is getting way off topic but God did reveal Himself through Jesus Christ. Through His word, we have a pretty good idea what God’s plan is for everyone (ultimately).
I have to agree with Bobby Bambino when it comes to quoting scripture. As someone who has been studying at a seminary for a couple of years, I have come to learn what it takes to begin to unwrap scripture properly.
There is a lot more to it than I ever imagined. It’s a labor of love to study the written word of God.
I look back now on how ignorant I was when it came to scripture and many other areas of my faith (Catholic).
KushieIsMoon, is that you? Have you forgotten already what I told you about liars? Do you still think God doesn’t care if you lie if it’s on a blog or twitter? lol
If I remember correctly, the psalm was addressing Jerusalem’s fall because of foreign invaders and the psalmist was using that to express intense grief. Sorry violet, you have to read it in context.
Basically he wanted to get back at the invaders. God isn’t the one saying that.
Lori Piper said to Ted,
“First of all, God doesn’t HAVE blood, so it’s a bit strange for you to say say that Jesus’ blood came from his Father.”
Lori,
What Ted was pointing out to you is that Jesus bled, and Jesus came from the Father. And wherever Jesus is by necessity so is God there and also the Holy Spirit. Our finite understanding can never completely comprehend the unity of the triune God. And Jesus is God and Ted was speaking the truth.
Violet,
Let’s look at the entire psalm:
Psalm 137
1 By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept
when we remembered Zion.
2 There on the poplars
we hung our harps,
3 for there our captors asked us for songs,
our tormentors demanded songs of joy;
they said, “Sing us one of the songs of Zion!”
4 How can we sing the songs of the LORD
while in a foreign land?
5 If I forget you, O Jerusalem,
may my right hand forget its skill .
6 May my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth
if I do not remember you,
if I do not consider Jerusalem
my highest joy.
7 Remember, O LORD, what the Edomites did
on the day Jerusalem fell.
“Tear it down,” they cried,
“tear it down to its foundations!”
8 O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is he who repays you
for what you have done to us-
9 he who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.
Psalm 137
In this context, to me, what this psalm is saying is that the daughters of Babylon are doomed to destruction cause they have forsaken God. And part of their destruction will include psycopathic sociopaths (modern day abortionists and RU48 pushers) who laugh even as they kill your babies. Woe to those who would interpret this psalm in such a deceitful way Violet. Woe to you who would try and lead God’s children astray. Woe I say! Woe, woe woe!
Unfortunately for Angie, if looked at in relation to Psalm 23, it places her squarely in the shoes of the daughters of Babylon.
Angie,
The contempt you show for the life conceived inside you is a “wall” you put up to block any pain. I will pray for that wall to come down that repentence and healing may find it’s way to you. In Jesus name I pray:
Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be Thy Name.
Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one. Amen
Hail Mary, full of grace,
the Lord is with you.
Blessed art thou among women.
And blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
Pray for us sinners,
now and at the hour of our death. Amen
Glory be to the Father,
and to the Son,
and to the Holy Spirit.
As it was in the beginning, is now,
and shall be forever. Amen