Jivin J’s Life Links 3-31-11
by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat
- Rep. Mike Pence has a must-read op-ed in National Review, dispelling misinformation on the Pence Amendment and Planned Parenthood:
… [T]he Pence Amendment does not reduce funding for cancer screenings or eliminate one dime of funding for other important health services to women…. If the Pence Amendment becomes law, thousands of women’s health centers, clinics, and hospitals will still provide assistance to low-income families and women. [It] would simply deny any and all federal funding to Planned Parenthood….
- Numerous media outlets are carrying this AP story about pro-life efforts to prevent people from deducting the cost of an abortion from their taxable income:
The House Ways and Means Committee is scheduled to vote on a bill Thursday that would prevent taxpayers from deducting the cost of an abortion from their taxable income. It would also prevent small businesses and taxpayers from using tax credits in the new health care law to provide or pay for insurance policies that cover the procedure.
If women pay for an abortion using tax-free income that had been set aside in a health savings account, the money would have to be reported as taxable income….
By law, taxpayers can deduct medical expenses that exceed 7.5% of their adjusted gross income, a threshold that increases to 10% in 2013. They can also set side tax-free money in health savings accounts, and spend it on approved medical expenses. The Internal Revenue Service currently lists the cost of an abortion as an approved medical expense.
- In the Dominican Republic, a 59-year-old woman has been carrying the remains of a dead unborn child for at least 30 years:
The mummified remains of the fetus, which weighed 3 pounds and 12 ounces, were found during an X-ray exam of the woman. Miladys Roman, the chief gynecologist at Luis Eduardo Aybar Hospital in Santo Domingo, said the woman told doctors she had long experienced pains but never received adequate medical attention.
- Advocates of human cloning for research in Minnesota are claiming opponents of human cloning are being deceptive because those who are anti-human cloning are calling a ban on human cloning… a ban on human cloning. As usual, reporter Jenna Ross has some difficulty explaining what human cloning actually is:
Actors in this scientifically complex debate define “human cloning” differently.
The U emphasizes that it has not and will not attempt to clone a human being, a process called reproductive cloning. Think Dolly the sheep, the first cloned mammal. “We have been crystal clear on this,” said Dr. Aaron Friedman, the U’s vice president for health sciences and medical school dean.
Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life’s broader definition of “human cloning” also includes one kind of stem cell research called therapeutic cloning. In that process, a scientist would extract stem cells from a 5-day-old embryo and then destroy it in a test tube. This bill would ban that too.
Why doesn’t Jenna mention how the 5-day-old embryo is created? Is it through human cloning?
- A new study on horses reveals that female horses often abort their pregnancies if they are impregnated by a horse from another stable and not allowed to mate with horses from their home stable:
The strange sexual behaviour may have evolved because of the risk of infanticide – seen in many species that live in male-dominated social groups, where a male will kill offspring of other males in a struggle for dominance….
[Dr. Ludek Bartos from the Institute of Animal Science in the Czech Republic] believes that zebras and domestic horses have both evolved similar “abortion strategies”. He thinks it is possible that horses “make the decision” to terminate their own pregnancy.
Natural chemically triggered abortion is a well-known phenomenon in biology. It is known as the Bruce effect, and has been observed mainly in rodents, where the scent of male urine causes a pregnant female to abort.
[Images via foxnews.com and bbc.co.uk]
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.
Here’s an article about notorious abortionist Stephen Brigham from the Philadelphia City paper, an “alternative” paper:
http://www.citypaper.net/cover_story/2011-03-31-steven-brigham-abortion-clinic.html
The British article about horses is absolutely awful in this: using the word “abort” instead of “miscarry.” Also, it uses human speculation to conclude that a horse MAY willfully miscarry. That’s not backed up by the research: it’s human speculation. If the mare miscarries, that IS NOT WILLFUL ABORTION. If, on any planet in our solar system, a female mammal were able to induce miscarriage by force of will alone, there would never have been a single abortion clinic or aborting doctor in all of human history, much less would there have been a Roe V Wade. Many women who miscarry indeed feel survival guilt, but this in no way proves or suggests that a woman was actually responsible for a naturally occuring miscarriage.
The worst part of this article, I predict, is that Miss Dr. Tiller and her friends will spread this story like the proverbial wildfire to “prove” that “abortion” is “natural.” When in fact, the truth is most likely that the mares miscarry and it is beyond their own willful control.
Attributing human motivation to animals is known as anthropomorphism; and while it may make good children’s literature, it does not make good science.
Jenna Ross is being quite deceptive. As Jill alludes to, the process of cloning whether it be “therapeutic” or “reproductive” begins the same way; that is, by taking an enucleated oocyte and fusing it with a skin cell of a person to obtain an embryo which is a genetic replica of that person from whom the skin cell was taken. The difference now is what do we do with the cloned embryo? Do we extract its stem cells and kill it? Or do we implant it and allow it to live? Although cloning is evil in and of itself, it is actually worse to create a human being for the purposes of killing it. At least in reproductive cloning you are creating a new human being and allowing it to live. The kind of cloning that Jenna is defending involves bringing a new human being into existence solely for the purposes of killing him.
Search engines appear to show that ‘spontaneous abortion’ and ‘miscarriage’ are interchangable terms. So I guess it’s matter of choice as to which term one uses.
The ‘Bruce Effect’ makes for some interesting reading.
I didn’t notice anything about “Attributing human motivation to animals” Eric? Did it say so?
Bobby is right. You can find more coverage of the Minnesota human cloning debate here: http://prolifemn.blogspot.com/2011/03/star-tribune-gets-everything-wrong.html
What you’re failing acknowledge is that abortion does not have to be performed surgically, in humans or in animals. Herbs like penny royal and chamomile have historically been used, rather successfully, to cause pregnancies to abort in women. Of course, this has varying results, is not always safe, and is only successful in very early stages of pregnancy. Other ways of self-induced abortion include various other herbal concoctions, applying pressure to the uterus and of course the now legendary coat-hanger type method. Some women have even reported successfully self-aborting by ingesting certain herbs and meditating. In animals, hippos, armadillos and rabbits have all been know to suddenly miscarry when their environmental conditions are unfavorable, or because they are such that giving birth would potentially kill them. The reason that scientists choose to call this a self-induced abortion instead of a miscarriage is because the pregnancies are typically lost before the mother animal begins to feel negative effects from the strain of carrying a pregnancy in a hostile environment.
Ultimately, what these sorts of studies accomplish is that they challenge the long held belief that a “mother” only acts in certain ways, and that to act in a way that is not considered “motherly” is to defy nature. In fact, it is completely natural for mammal mothers to abort, abandon or even kill their offspring in order to protect or better the lives of themselves, their current offspring, or the future of their bloodline. Now, certainly human beings are different from animals, but human history is filled with examples of societies where abortion or even infanticide was considered normal or acceptable. For some reason, though, many people in the United States seem to think that the fact that a woman may genuinely want to have an abortion is impossible, indeed unnatural.
Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion about the morality of abortion. However, it’s important that we lay to rest any misconceptions about what is a “natural” mothering act and what is not. The reality is that there is no universal in regards to mothering. Wanting to abort is a perfectly understandable and acceptable response to an unplanned, unwanted, or unfavorable pregnancy. That is indisputable. Now, whether or not women should be allowed to act on those desires, that is up for debate.
“Wanting to abort is a perfectly understandable and acceptable response to an unplanned, unwanted, or unfavorable pregnancy. That is indisputable.”
Who ever said that something being natural makes it a good thing? Animals constantly tear each other to pieces, often for no good reason. Animals constantly rape each other. The supposedly super-intelligent dolphin participates in gang rape. The super-cuddly not-quite-so-endangered polar bear behaves in a horrific fashion. If a male polar bear finds a female polar bear with young cubs, he will kill and eat the cubs so that the female desires to have a new baby to replace the dead ones. Then he’ll have his way with her so that his genes will be passed on. Hilariously, the environmentalists tell us that the polar bears do this because they’re starving since we’re ruining the Earth. Actually they do it because they are bloodthirsty, vicious monsters. But they’re animals – they don’t know any better.
In an interesting twist, animals sometimes even try to mate with humans. This has comically happened when people have gone to swim with dolphins. Doesn’t that throw a monkey wrench into the whole “homosexual marriage should be allowed because homosexuality is natural” argument? Because apparently, bestiality is “natural”, too.
If a human being behaved as an animal does, he would be ostracized at best and jailed at worst. You can’t justify bad human behavior by pointing to animals.
Pharmer, being pharmer, just can’t pass up such hot issues as animal husbandry (that’s breeding livestock… ok).
The BBC horse article also makes mention of the Bruce effect which has been observed in mice and a few other rodent species, but that is pretty different from what is observed in the equine species. It only occurs up to the time of implantation, or about 3 days or so in mice. The production of a functional corpus luteum is stopped by introduction of strange males. The Bruce effect is abated by the presence of familiar males, even if they didn’t breed with the female mice.
As for horses willing themselves to abort………. that’s no more whacko an idea than man made global warming, I guess.
Regarding John Lewandowski’s comments, yes we can certainly improve on what is “natural behavior” and civilization absolutely requires it. Some of these hilarious abortion supporters, who point to what occurs in nature as being a yardstick for what is good, could not survive for a half day out in the wild.
If we’re going to play the ‘natural’ mothering game, then women (human) should be allowed to eat her young because some animals do. I’m wondering, though, who would ever argue that wanting to eat your child is a perfectly understandable and acceptable way of dealing with giving birth to a child you might not have wanted simply because some animals do?
As some have already pointed out, we need to be a little bit more nuanced by what we mean by natural than simply “it happens in nature.” We should understand an act being natural if it acts in accordance with nature or essence; to use Aristotelian-Thomistic language, that which acts in accord with the final ends of a being si considered natural. Now, what is the essence of being pregnant? The body is functioning properly, and growing a human being that will eventually be born and go through all stages of life that human beings go through. An abortion acts directly against that nature and proper function of being pregnant. The end result of pregnancy is not arbitrary. You don’t go through pregnancy so that you can birth a shoe or spontaneously combust or fall through the earth or freeze. The ends of pregnancy is to give birth to a child, and interfering with that is unnatural precisely because it acts directly against the nature of pregnancy i.e. what-it-means-to-be-pregnant. The fact that some people treat pregnancy and think of pregnancy differently in no way undermines this. For suppose I eat something and then throw it up. Does this show that tehre is no objective reality to eating? That when you eat, you wish to digest the food and use it as nourishment, and when I eat I wish to vomit up the food and both points of view are legit, neither one is natural, and one choice is as good as another? Of course not. Just like there is a natural and proper purpose for eating, so there is a natural and proper purpose for pregnancy. Thus, it is not at all a misconception to claim that there are natural actions involved in motherhood or pregnancy.
Furthermore, as John L. pointed out, the idea that there is no natural objectivity to what motherhood is proves to much. For then a mother who tortures her child is no different than a mother who loves her child. If there is no standard for what motherhood should and should not constitute, how a mother should and should not behave towards her child, then any and all forms of mothering are permitted. I believe this position is a bit more than anyone would care to defend.
Reality, re: Mar 31, 2011 at 7:34 pm
“Dr. Ludek Bartos… thinks it is possible that horses “make the decision” to terminate their own pregnancy.”
Just like the female praying mantis “makes the decision” to eat the male after mating with him. This ”learning human morality from animal behaviour” stuff sounds like a great plan! ;oP
Planned Parenthood in Texas offers mammograms.
The Texas Department of State Health Services says so.
http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/bcccs/Breast-and-Cervical-Cancer-Services-%28BCCS%29-Clinic-Locator.doc
I read the horse article, folks, and the word “spontaneous” in front of abortion is MISSING. And yes, it does anthropomorphize animals by supposing that the mares are doing it intentionally.
And as far as your herbal abortions, then why isn’t Planned Parenthood using them? Because it’s a modern myth supported by almost no archeological evidence. Archeology in fact supports INFANTICIDE which is historically the way parents got rid of their unwanted children. Infanticide was practiced right up until, oh wait, it still is in practice.
Yes, we are placental mammals, but no we obviously should not eat humans, neither our offspring or anyone else. Someone named Dahmer went to jail for such an offense. Now, if you’re in a plane crash in the Andes, well, as long as you make sure they’re dead first… ok, bad humor.
@mp: It doesn’t say that PP does do mammograms, necessarily. It lists them under groups that provide “screenings,” which might not mean mammograms.
Planned Parenthood Of Central Texas Pays For Patients To Get Mammograms. In a statement to Media Matters, Felicia Chase Goodman, CEO of Planned Parenthood of Central Texas said:
PPCT provides referrals and pays for mammograms and diagnostic follow up treatment for our patients at area radiology and surgical clinics.
In other words, Planned Parenthood does not provide them. Rather, they send people to other places that do. And sometimes pay for them.
Bottom line, PP still doesn’t do mammograms.
“Bottom line, PP still doesn’t do mammograms.”
Here’s what Jill Stanek wrote on February 24, 2011:
“Cecile Richards misleads: Planned Parenthood does NOT provide mammograms”
Clearly, Planned Parenthood does “provide” mammograms to needy women, even if they don’t “do” them. You’re playing word games.
If you’re going to lie, learn how to do it convincingly.
Bzuh? Planned Parenthood has repeatedly implied, multiple times, that mammograms are among the services they provide. They are not. The best PP does is offer funding for that service, but it is other locations, not at risk of loosing government funding, that actually provide those services. No PP in the United States–that we have so far been able to account for–actually does mammograms despite repeated statements that deliberately suggest they do. And it’s the people calling this deception out who are lying?
I must have woke up today in Opposite World. That’s the only way that that statement would make sense.
They do not “provide” them because they do not do mammograms. Giving a referral to a provider is not the same as doing a mammogram. Period.
If my family physician refers me to a specialist in obstetrics, but does not actually DO the work himself – only refers me to a different doctor who will provide me with specialized care – does that mean my family physician “provides” obstetric care?
“They do not “provide” them because they do not do mammograms.”
Quote from Texas Department of State Health Services:
“Breast and cervical cancer screening services are available through health care providers [emphasis- mp] across Texas. A list of clinic locations organized alphabetically by city can be found in the spreadsheet below:”
BCCS Clinic Locator
Clearly, the State of Texas considers Planned Parenthood a health care provider. Further, the “BCCS Clinic Locator” shows that Planned Parenthood provides the services in the State of Texas. Even more, Planned Parenthood pays for mammography services as referenced in the Planned Parenthood statement reproduced above [1:16 PM comment].
If you don’t like the terminology, if you want to play word games, take it up with the State of Texas.
mp, are you aware that a breast exam and a mammogram are not the same thing? PP does Pap smears, I’m sure, and most likely breast exams (palpation), just like any regular GYN. But not mammograms.
I’m sure PP is listed as a health care provider, because they do provide some health care (along with abortion, of course, which is not “health care.”) Paying for a service and providing a service are not the same thing. You’re probably aware, too, that PP is not a free clinic. They do charge for all their services, and they’ve admitted (on video) that local health departments offer their services at a lesser cost to the patient.
The clear implication on the part of Planned Parenthood is that you can get a mammogram done THERE, not that they will give you some of the Susan G. Komen money to go get a mammogram done at a REAL medical facility. Why don’t we just cut out the middleman? Susan G. Komen should give the cash directly to the actual medical facilities rather than to Planned Parenthood. That would certainly save time and money.
RE: “PPCT provides referrals and pays for mammograms and diagnostic follow up treatment for our patients at area radiology and surgical clinics.”
Change that “and pays” to “PLUS pays for mamograms … at area radiology and surgical clincs”. It is not “provides mammograms and referrals PLUS pays for diagnostic follow up treatment … “.
It is advertising double speak much like calling a used car a pre-owned car. Get real!!!