(Prolifer)ations 8-30-11
by Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN, and Kelli
We welcome your suggestions for additions to our Top Blogs (see tab on right side of home page)! Email Susie@jillstanek.com.
- Leslie Hanks of The Passionate Pro-Lifer is frustrated not only by the HHS taxpayer funded birth control mandate, but by news media’s feigned impartiality – a case in point being a recent interview with Hanks (representing CO Right to Life) in which crucial information on contraception and breast cancer was left out of the final pro-Planned Parenthood piece.
- ProWomanProLife reports on a string of lawsuits against Bayer for failing to report the potentially life-threatening side effects and risks of Yaz and Yasmin birth control pills. So much for the HHS idea of “ensuring good health” via contraception.
- Women’s Rights without Frontiers notes the Obama administration’s attempts to “walk back” Joe Biden’s recent statements on China’s brutal One-Child Policy. Reggie Littlejohn responds by asking, “If China’s forced abortion is ‘repugnant,’ why are you funding UNFPA?”
- ProLife Wisconsin announces Planned Parenthood Wisconsin’s plans to keep with the “children are sexual beings” mantra with their upcoming sex education workshop which PLW says “smacks of pedophilia.” The “five circles of sexuality” – sensuality, intimacy, identity, behavior and reproduction – will be discussed. Sounds like a workshop right out of the Kinsey playbook.
- ProLife NZ discusses the UK’s plan to “introduce a mandatory obligation on abortion clinics to offer women access to independent counseling, which is run on separate premises by a group which does not itself carry out abortions.” Surely these are regulations everyone can support – except for those who profit from abortion.
- Secular ProLife advertises the need for pro-life submissions to the secular, pro-life, non-partisan Life Matters Journal.
- Stand for Life reports on the large participation in CareNet’s recent pro-life walk in Albuquerque, New Mexico – home to one of the few late-term abortion clinics in the US.
- ProLifeBlogs links to a Lake County Right to Life article on the creation of animal-human hybrids.
- Suzy B has video of OH Republican Rep. Steve Chabot answering a hostile question in a succinct manner before a pro-abortion crowd:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta9SQVBS73M[/youtube]
Aug.30, 2011 3:30 pm |
Blogs |
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.
Newsflash, anti-Chabot Ohioans: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood
Despite your moanings and groanings, Chabot is RIGHT. PP is the largest abortion provider in the country, and they do perform more than 300k abortions per year.
Moaning and groaning are really a poor substitute for educating oneselves, no?
Hello, if your son is a drug addict and asks you for money, then you give him money with the strict condition he NOT use it for drugs. He says okay, then hands your cash over to his landlord. This then relieves his rent obligation and frees up his other money to use on drugs.
Hence, “fungible”.
Good point, CC. And some state govts are even starting to fund CPCs.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/us/14ttpregnancy.html
I am against government funding of CPCs.
Oh, and the day that homeschoolers and parochial schoolers stop having to pay for public schools on top of the expenses they pay to educate their own children, you all be sure to let us know.
??Good point, CC.
No, CC doesn’t really have any good points, since she can’t seem to make one without foaming at the mouth about religion.
Abortion fans unite! And Heil Hitler! /sarc
Yeah. I’ll be damned if my atheist tax dollars were going to go towards teaching kids sh– like “Love thy neighbor.” 9_9
“Abortion fans unite! And Heil Hitler! /sar”
Shock jock Howard Stern, even at his most outrageous, wouldn’t touch that “sarcasm” of yours with his grubby philandering hands. In the real world, we believe that profiting off the sufferings of Shoah victims is a violation of basic decency. I guess the folks at Bob Jones University consider berating pregnant women with juxtaposed images of unborn fetuses and Auschwitz victims to be savvy social marketing. And then you wonder why the rest of the world thinks of your lot as a bunch of tactless, opportunistic ghouls…
By since we’re on the topic, did you know that in Nazi Germany, women were considered primarily as breeders for the country? There are some definite parallels between the Third Reich’s pro-natalist agenda and some of the beliefs espoused at this website. Maybe the constant comparisons between abortion and the Holocaust are some kind of smokescreen for what the pro-life agenda’s really all about: exerting power over (other) women.
Megan,
What in the world are you talking about??!!
“By since we’re on the topic, did you know that in Nazi Germany, women were considered primarily as breeders for the country?”
True that. When it came to the “volke,” Hitler was very “pro-life.” He outlawed abortion for German women and encouraged them to breed – a position that dovetails nicely with the “pro-life” movement which, Kel, is fed by a patriarchal, religious all males club (and sovereign nation) which sees women as happy and complacent breeders.
And you’re right. American Jews are offended by the comparison of the Shoah to abortion. But I suspect that the reason why the “pro-lifers” don’t really care is that they feel that their overwhelmingly conservative Christian views are the only “true” ones which is why they resent the American Jewish community which is, apart from the small Orthodox group, very pro-choice. The ADL’s Abe Foxman has opined on what he sees as some anti-Semitism in the extremes of the anti-choice movement.
And BTW, the Romanian dictator Ceaucescu criminalized abortion and that’s why there were so many impoverished Romanian babies who ended up abused and malnourished in Romanian orphanages. Some were lucky enough to be adopted by foreigners. Others ended up as drug addicts and prostitutes. This is the kind of country we will have if the pro-life movement gets its way.
Megan and CC,
Mmmmmmmmmmkay.
Yeah. You two could go a couple rounds about how ALL prolifers are Nazi’s. Hardly sounds nuts at all.
You both seriously need a blog break.
Megan: By since we’re on the topic, did you know that in Nazi Germany, women were considered primarily as breeders for the country?
Yes, Hitler and the Nazi policy felt this way – that “Aryan” women should not be allowed to do anything but continue pregnancies, and that other women should not be allowed to do anything but end pregnancies. Anti-Choice, all the way.
CC,
Does this mean we get to finish our debate about truth now? Please? The four points that I made are still standing unanswered.
I guess Kel’s bit of “Hail Hitler” snark was a typo, then. She literally fell onto her keyboard and out popped a mean-spirited, crude attack on both CC and I. Whooopssssss!
But to clarify, I don’t imagine that many of you spend the weekends at white power rallies. It is apt to note, however, that leaders of the Third Reich were very concerned with women’s reproductive capacity, to the point of obsession. And if I’m not mistaken, I’ve seen several postings on this blog lamenting how “the West” is collapsing because not enough women (read: white women) are having babies. The logic is similar: women are responsible for bearing children for their country. And they can’t handle the responsibility of deciding when to reproduce and give birth without state intervention.
Welp, time to go practice my eugenics/have an abortion so I can buy an I-pad/get duped by the liberal media. Byeeeeeeeeee!
Megan and CC, spare me your hyperventilating.
You people actually killed your offspring and encourage others to do the same.
If you want to find something appalling, look into your own actions instead of picking apart sarcasm (which was labeled as such).
Carla is right. Take a very long blog break.
RCJC, you’re kidding me. CC skipped out on your debate to talk about offended Jews again?! Shock of all shocks.
have an abortion so I can buy an I-pad
Having an abortion so you could finish your education unbothered isn’t any better.
You’re absolutely right.
My reasons (more complex than I could be bothered to talk about here) weren’t any “better” or “worse” than anybody else’s. The one thing we truly own in this life is the vessel our minds/souls exist in. It is a sacred, inviolable space, even if it happens to be carrying developing life. Sorry you disagree, and that you’re caught up with bizarre guessing games about what friends your kids would have had if all those evil liberal feminists hadn’t destroyed the world with abortion.
Megan: ” and that you’re caught up with bizarre guessing games”
LOL
As if pro-choicers don’t traffic in counterfactuals all the time. ”Better an abortion than an unwanted child” — comparing something that doesn’t exist to its non-existence(sic).
What a hypocrite (counting you as proxy for pro-choicers in general).
Nah, I don’t give you permission to use me as a proxy because–yes, unlike many pro-choicers–I think the “unwantedness” argument is merely a second-line justification for abortion. I only care so much as the pregnant woman in question is concerned about bringing an “unwanted” child into the world.
Heck, I’m going to stick the proxy thing to ye anyway — you have the vote of them lamers on your side. ;-)
BTW, I don’t buy the “unwanted” thing at all. The problem isn’t the child’s existence — it’s the unwanting parent(s) who choose/coerce abortion. The child exists, and the attitude about it exists. The thing that needs aborting is the attitude.
Haha, is it pirate hour, rasqaul?
Yeah. Dealing in hypotheticals must suck when you know you’ve killed your own child. Nothing will ever make up for that, no matter how high you keep stacking that pedestal you’re placing your “mind vessel” on.
Megansays:
The one thing we truly own in this life is the vessel our minds/souls exist in. It is a sacred, inviolable space, even if it happens to be carrying developing life.
This is a very confusing statement. You believe the human body is sacred and inviolable, yet you support destroying that other sacred, inviolable human body that is carried for a time within yours?
The logic is similar: women are responsible for bearing children for their country.
No, the logic is opposite but very easy: women and men are responsible for bearing children that they choose through sexual intercourse to conceive.
To kill your child after you made a choice to conceive him/her is irresponsible. The government should not condone irresponsibility nor the killing of humans. That is what the nazis did and we should learn from history.
Kel,
I know! It is just so strange!
Seriously though, it would be nice if CC could at least explain why she didn’t answer. We were talking about the possibility of truth in religion. She thinks that there isn’t any. (Apparently not even atheists can be right.)
When I read these posts by Megan and CC, I feel sad. Such mean people diminish the well-being of all and make this a more miserable world. Thank God, there are children still in it to point out the joy that still exists where they are allowed to be children.
CC’s trial balloon (seeking out some association in brains between Hitler and pro-lifers) is inept indeed. Hitler valued one kind of life enough to urge its proliferation; he devalued others enough to kill them.
Pro-lifers aren’t interested in perpetuating just one race at the expense of others — life for all unborn is the rule.
But we do know of an organization that’s strategically singled out blacks for disproportionate elimination in utero. And they adopt the newspeak of calling this “services,” of course motivated by compassion.
“This is a very confusing statement. You believe the human body is sacred and inviolable, yet you support destroying that other sacred, inviolable human body that is carried for a time within yours?”
No, it’s not that confusing, since I don’t believe anybody has an inherent right to life that allows them to use somebody else’s body without their consent. And sorry you don’t like the term, or think I’m being cold and mean, but at the most basic level, a fetus uses the mother’s body. The mother’s body provides half the genetic material for creating this new life, as well as the resources to sustain and deliver it. This is a beautiful process if a woman consents to it happening.
Also Praxedes, it wouldn’t matter to you if a woman didn’t consent to sex in the first place, since you apparently don’t believe in an exception for victims of rape. In your book, having a vagina and a working reproductive system is tantamount to implied consent. Oh, and let me pre-empt your whining about how few children are born to victims of rape in the US. Why limit your analysis to the US? Think about all the women in Congo who are assaulted every day, every hour, every minute, and how many children are born as a result.
Thank you Barb for your kind assessment of my character. Really, since you’re so charitable with other people’s bodies and lives, why don’t you offer up your uterus for some frozen embryo implantation? If you think they have an inherent right to life, then shouldn’t you have a moral imperative to do something about it?
No matter how much a Jew might dislike the comparison; it is no les true that Hitler and Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger were very much alike in their attitudes and pursuits to wipe out races of peoples they saw as inferior.
“The mother’s body provides half the genetic material for creating this new life, as well as the resources to sustain and deliver it. This is a beautiful process if a woman consents to it happening.”
I agree Megan, a person’s responsibility is to sustain and deliver her baby because she consented to and contributed to the child’s beginning and the placement of that child in her womb.
Megan says:
“No, it’s not that confusing, since I don’t believe anybody has an inherent right to life that allows them to use somebody else’s body without their consent.”
Still confusing. What do you mean by “sacred and inviolable”?
Think about all the women in Congo who are assaulted every day, every hour, every minute, and how many children are born as a result.
What are you doing, Megan, to prevent the objectification and rape of women in Congo and around the world? What are you doing, Megan, to teach men that women and children are not playthings to use for sex and then abandon? What are you doing, Megan, to help women support the children they love who had a right to life irregardless of the circumstances that surround their conception and irregardless of your fist-banging that they would be better off dead?
I don’t believe anybody has an inherent right to life that allows them to use somebody else’s body without their consent. And sorry you don’t like the term, or think I’m being cold and mean, but at the most basic level, a fetus uses the mother’s body. The mother’s body provides half the genetic material for creating this new life, as well as the resources to sustain and deliver it. This is a beautiful process if a woman consents to it happening. Also Praxedes, it wouldn’t matter to you if a woman didn’t consent to sex in the first place, since you apparently don’t believe in an exception for victims of rape. In your book, having a vagina and a working reproductive system is tantamount to implied consent.
I don’t know about other pro-lifers, but that’s not where I stand. Consent has nothing to do with anything. The only time a child is required to have “consent” from their parent(s) in order to not be killed is abortion. This exception must be eliminated.
Lrning,
I think Megan means that HER “vessel” is “sacred, inviolable space”. Everyone else’s? Not so much.
Maybe. But what she said was “The one thing we truly own in this life is the vessel our minds/souls exist in. It is a sacred, inviolable space, even if it happens to be carrying developing life”
If she believes the human body is sacred and inviolable, how can she support the destruction of the sacred and inviolable bodies of the unborn? I’d really like to know what she means by “sacred” and “inviolable” because if she defines those words the same way I do, her statement makes no sense. In fact, abortion is bodily violation unto death.
Lrning, perhaps the belief is that ensoulment occurs at a later time than conception, etc.
Maybe. I hope Megan comes back to shed some light on what she meant.