Jivin J’s Life Links 7-1-11
by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat
- The Missourian has a long article on pro-life groups in the Show Me State.
- Joe Carter points out Mara Hvistendahl’s obviously inconsistent beliefs about abortion and sex-selection abortion:
So why does she accept the first form of the argument but not this one? Because that is the outcome she wants. She believes that (A) a woman should have the right to an abort a fetus and that (B) a woman should not have the right to abort a fetus if she knows it is a female. Logic and consistency be damned, the two beliefs must be compatible because she wants them both to be true at the same time.
It truly is amazing how pro-choicers who are opposed to sex-selection abortion can’t see how the premise of their pro-choice position (women should be allowed to choose for themselves whether they should remain pregnant) is wholly inconsistent with saying women shouldn’t be allowed to abort because they don’t want a female child. I guess “Trust women!” only goes so far.
- Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri has been granted a license to perform abortions in Kansas:
Shortly after 4 p.m. Thursday, state health officials notified Planned Parenthood that it would be the only abortion clinic to get a license under controversial new rules that take effect today….
The state’s two other abortion clinics – Aid for Women in Kansas City, KS, and the Center for Women’s Health in Overland Park – are without licenses and unable to provide abortions.
Both will be in federal court at 3 p.m. today to challenge the new rules. Neither clinic had any abortion appointments scheduled for today.
- A Detroit man has been charged with the killing of his girlfriend and their unborn child:
Jomiah Washington has been charged with 1st-degree murder, willful killing of an unborn child, mutilation of a dead body and felony firearm, the prosecutor’s office said.
According to the prosecutor’s office, the girlfriend was killed and her body was burned May 28 in the 14000 block of Abbington in Detroit.
The video from MyFoxDetroit.com has more details:
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.
Love the article in the Missourian. It shows the pro-life movement in a true light: faith-based and secular, men and women, coming together to end abortion in a law-abiding, peaceful, compassionate way. We need more balanced articles like that. Thanks for sharing!
Looks like a judge stopped the Kansas rules from taking affect today – so those clinics remain open.
Pro aborts are not opposed to sex selection abortions.
They would prefer sex selective abortions went something like this:
There are two couples at the clinic today.
One couple has a boy and wanted a girl. So, they are aborting their little boy.
Another couple has a girl and wanted a boy. So they are aborting their little girl.
Killing their own child is a small price to pay to create the family of their dreams.
They have a perverse fascination with an unnatural level of equality.
Murder is fine in the service of achieving this absurd objective.
I could be wrong. They might actually prefer that more boys be targeted for destruction. Some are sick enough for that.
The dirty little secret of ”pro-choicers” is that most (not all, but MOST) are very much in favor of targeting girls in the womb because it means less “breeding females” in the next generation which will further reduce the population which, of course, is their primary goal. Now Mara Hvistendahl may be one that supports one, but not the other. However, she fails to understand is that all of these “evils” go hand in hand in the pro-abortion way of thinking. Most of those who want abortion-on-demand with no restrictions are marxist, anti-human, overpopulation zealots who will gladly skew the sex ratio to fulfill a larger purpose. And believe me they do not care at all how bad the consequences are for women! This is the mindset we are up against and 95% of pro-aborts will never seriously tackle this problem!
Ms. Hvistendahl is going around in interviews trashing pro-lifers and the pro-life cause trying so hard to separate sex-selection from abortion, but there is no separating it when 99% of the world’s missing girls are from abortion! Also, if you read her Slate column she concludes by saying that sex-selection will soon move away from abortion to IVF sex selection and I think she is saying that this is where our focus should be. But, Mara, we can ban that, too!!! It’s not like we have to make one illegal while keeping the other available. Does Mara understand that it is usually those in the Pro-Life movement who warn of the dangers and ethics of artificial conception? And who does she think NEVER wants any limits on embryo research or any reproductive “choice”? Is it Pro-Lifers? I don’t think so!!!! And another thing if we do ban all non-abortion types of sex-selection, but keep abortion restriction free then we will be right back to where we started because those seeking not to have a baby girl will still have the cheap, accessible way via abortion. Mara has got it all wrong and we seriously need a book about this subject from a true “pro-life” perspective.
Denise – can you post something to support your first sentence?
I first read about it in an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer in the mid 90’s. Reading other pro-abortion literature and also my personal interaction with pro-aborts I have come to the conclusion that “less breeding females” is exactly what the overpopulation zealots want.
Ex-RINO,
After speaking at length with MANY pro-choice individuals, they VERY OFTEN cite overpopulation as one of their principal if not primary reason for supporting abortion.
I’m not trying to be a pain here – I’m just struggling to find any sort of statistic, poll, anything that cites overpopulation as a reason women get abortions. The standards “not ready – financially or otherwise” is all over the place – I just find it very, very hard to believe, logically, that there are women out there that get pregnant and say “I’d probably have this kid, but you know, that one extra person in the universe is so bad that I’m going to sacrifice in this area”.
Ex-GOP,
I’ve heard this quite often! Overpopulation, population control, whatever you want to call it….this, from PPFA’s 2008 Tax return:
FORM 990, PART III, LINE 1 – ORGANIZATION’S MISSION ===================================================
THE PURPOSE OF THE FEDERATION IS: (A) TO PROVIDE LEADERSHIP:
– IN MAKING EFFECTIVE MEANS OF VOLUNTARY FERTILITY REGULATION, INCLUDING CONTRACEPTION, ABORTION, STERILIZATION, AND INFERTILITY SERVICES, AVAILABLE AND FULLY ACCESSIBLE TO ALL AS A CENTRAL ELEMENT TO REPRODUCTIVE HEALTHCARE:
– IN ACHIEVING, THROUGH INFORMED INDIVIDUAL CHOICE, A U.S. POPULATION OF STABLE SIZE IN AN OPTIMUM ENVIRONMENT; – IN STIMULATING AND SPONSORING RELEVANT BIOMEDICAL, SOCIO-ECONOMIC, AND DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH;
– IN DEVELOPING APPROPRIATE INFORMATION, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING PROGRAMS. (B) TO SUPPORT AND ASSIST EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE SIMILAR GOALS IN THE UNITED STATES AND THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.
Sometimes you have to read between the lines…in this example, not so much.
I might have misread Denise’s initial claim – I thought she was talking about why individuals seek abortion – not why organizations provide abortion. My bad.
Ex-GOP,
I have to apologize. I read Denise’s claim the same way as you did. I didn’t mean the personal “you” in my statement about reading between the lines(I should have used the word “one” instead of “you”), and I was referring to the content of PP’s mission statement, not Denise’s comment. Sorry I didn’t make myself clear!
When the country’s largest abortion provider promotes these ideas, they are going to permeate the culture to a degree. Some women may not admit out loud that they think there are too many people in the world, but surely that idea influences many decisions to abort an unplanned pregnancy. It would be easier to find an opinion piece supporting this than a poll or statistics, but I’ll post it if I find one. :)
I might have misread Denise’s initial claim – I thought she was talking about why individuals seek abortion – not why organizations provide abortion. My bad.
Yes, I clearly meant that overpopulation was the goal of the “pro-choice” movement NOT that individual women who seek abortions have that goal. At first I was a little baffled that you wanted a citation. I have read and heard about the strong links between the pro-abortion movement and the overpopulation “crisis” so much over the years that I assumed that it was common knowledge at least on a pro-life blog like this. Also, I see now how my poor wording may have made you think I meant individuals. Sorry.
After speaking at length with MANY pro-choice individuals, they VERY OFTEN cite overpopulation as one of their principal if not primary reason for supporting abortion.
This is my experience as well.
After speaking at length with MANY pro-choice individuals, they VERY OFTEN cite overpopulation as one of their principal if not primary reason for supporting abortion.
I’ve had this same experience, especially with environmentalist friends I’ve spoken to about Planned Parenthood and abortion. “Can you imagine what the world would look like if Planned Parenthood didn’t provide their services? The world is so overpopulated already.” That’s the reaction, in a nutshell.
Women who get abortions typically have different reasons, though I have heard of some individuals who want to be sterilized so they can never produce children for environmental reasons (that’s their choice, as far as I’m concerned, since no one is being killed in that instance).
There was an article recently about couples “choosing to remain childless” for life and it outlined a whole bunch of selfish ME ME ME reasons why couples are doing so (as pros of course) and ended with 2 short sentences why that might not be a good idea in the long run, and in the comments section of the article there were MANY MANY (ok ALL but 12) comments to the gist of;
“My partner and I have also chosen to remain childless because children are icky and hard to train and I like to party too much, but mostly I like to consider my choice to be a benevolent one because then I can say I’m not contributing to overpopulation and global warming while looking down my crunchy nose at breeders (insert hateful Dugger smear here)”.
So yeah….. there ya go. I was a member of a livejournal group where another member posted pics of her BF after the vasectomy he got (her) as a Valentines gift because, “We don’t want children and there are too many people in the world anyway and we figure this is better than the more invasive surgery for me. Isn’t he great? *smoochy squishy sounds here*”
I’ve even read a few comments here and there where someone has said something like, “I have thought about kids and think it might be nice to be a mom, but there are just too many problems in the world with overpopulation and global warming and war and stuff so I figure my not having kids can only help that situation. It’s something I can do (or not do! *snicker*).”
Just a couple generalized examples of my personal experience on the theme.