(Prolifer)ations 9-6-11
by Kelli
We welcome your suggestions for additions to our Top Blogs (see tab on right side of home page)! Email Susie@jillstanek.com.
- The FRC Blog links to Abby Johnson’s latest post which reveals the morbid “dead baby jokes” she encountered daily while working at Planned Parenthood.
- Paul Pauker at Live Action concedes Cecile Richards’ contention that ultrasound legislation is “cruel” and “dangerous” – to the abortion industry, that is:
How is looking at a “clump of cells” a burden? It’s not as if the expectant mother will be looking at a human life with arms, legs, a head, a beating heart, etc. Oh, wait…
But how is providing this information dangerous? … Planned Parenthood would lose a lot of abortion money. So I concede this, in fact, is dangerous.
- Created Equal shares a new video demonstrating the slippery slope and sloppy reasoning pro-choice advocates must espouse in order to keep their beliefs consistent:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOraCSKcRUw[/youtube]
- Abolitionist Society discusses the controversial, yet life-affirming movements of the past in light of our present-day responsibilities in society and wonders, “What side of history would I be on?”
- Mark Crutcher notes how Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun used value judgments from Dred Scott to render his verdict in Roe v. Wade, and also notes how abortion law starkly differs from other laws in America:
… [I]f we were to apply the same logic to capital punishment that America’s death merchants apply to abortion, our position would be that when a man is charged with a crime, the state has no obligation to prove that he is guilty, it is his responsibility to prove he is innocent. So at the end of a trial, a judge could say to the defendant, “Since the court has been unable to determine whether you did or did not commit the crime, we’re just going to go ahead and execute you.”
As outrageous as this sounds, it is exactly what the pro-choice lobby is saying every time they defend abortion by claiming that there is some question about whether the unborn is or is not a living human being.
- Coming Home has a post examining the ethics of treating the effects of Down syndrome using medication.
- The Culture Vulture describes the “face lift” and catchy pro-abortion slogans (“Children are important. Every child needs to be loved and wanted”) now being used on the ALRANZ (Abortion Law Reform Association of NZ) website.
- Down on the Pharm reports on the latest concern regarding sperm donation: possible accidental incest.
- Generations for Life discusses the story of a woman who has chosen life for her conjoined twin daughters, whom she has named Faith and Hope.
- Moral Outcry writes on the importance of taking back the arts for life and of sharing pro-life media via Facebook, Twitter, and other social networking sites.
- Accepting Abundance links to an article by Jennifer Hartline on the “gospel of tolerance,” which so often misuses the verse, “Judge not, lest ye be judged”:
It should be edited, however, to read more accurately, “Judge not me nor anything I say, do, or want, lest ye be judged intolerant.” In the vocabulary of the Gospel of Tolerance, sin has no meaning. It has no concept at all…. The real goal here is submission. It’s not enough to “get along” or tolerate quietly. You must approve.
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.
I give the kid in the video some credit – he’s consistent w/in his standard. Chillingly so.
Much more consistent than people who recognize that there is no standard that allows the fetus to be killed that doesn’t put other human beings on the chopping block. With them instead of standards you get gems like “whatever the standard is (and I refuse to define it), it is so self-evident as to be objective.”
In the book Won by Love by Norma McCorvey she describes the same behavior. The constant morbid jokes to try and deal with their involvement in the abortion industry. Or should I say to try and NOT deal with it???
“Gallows humour” has been around for a long time. It happens among people who work in all kinds of professions, like EMT’s, veterinarians, etc. It is especially loathesome among abortionists, however, because abortion kills so many healthy children in wombs of healthy mothers. It is not a coping mechanism in the face of necessity, but rather a coping mechanism in the face of feticide.
A vet will try and save your dog, an EMT will try to save your neighbor, and when they fail, it’s very stressful for them. But abortionists aren’t trying to save anyone, they’re earning money.
In the book Won by Love by Norma McCorvey she describes the same behavior. The constant morbid jokes to try and deal with their involvement in the abortion industry. Or should I say to try and NOT deal with it???
Carla, McCorvey is a nutjob, in my opinion. She had a hellish childhood, and it’s no surprise to me that she ended up where she did. She may want to sell books now, but she’s a fraud now just as she was back farther in time.
That kid in the video has my respect for at least being consistent, which is something most pro-choicers aren’t. Sure, I disagree (and vehemently so) with what he said, but at least he’s holding to his arguments instead of discarding them as it suits him to do so.
Oh, nutjob, huh? I haven’t completed a psychiatric exam of Ms. McCorvey, but I bet if she were still an abortion advocate, then she’d the abortionists’ version of Rosa Parks and no one on your side would disparage her character. You only sling names at her now because she converted to saving lives instead of ending them.
Do tell us what a nutjob Bernard Nathanson was, too. I’m all ears.
She was a flake, Ninek – false claims of rape (she later admitted it), tried to scam an illegal abortion, lied to her attorneys, then later claimed they were trying to take advantage of *her*…. Oh Brudda…
Nothing to do with her later activities, necessarily. she was a nutjob then. No surprise she’s a nutjob now, but that doesn’t change the facts of her earlier life.
Nathanson, an old fraud then and later.
Your humble opinion Doug is of no consequence to me.
Odd how Nathanson could have been a fraud taking lives and also in defending them. Quite an accompishment. What are you talking about? Tax fraud? Can’t be abortion fraud. He was either right then or after he changed. It can’t be both.
Your humble opinion Doug is of no consequence to me.
Carla, McCorvey is known for eating multiple bowls of Cocoa-Puffs, Count Chocula, and Franken Berry, all at one sitting.
Here’s hoping all pregnancies from here on out are wanted. How ’bout that?
P.S. There are also rumors of Boo Berry….
Hans, Nathanson “gilded the lily,” so to speak, all along. Granted he overstated some things in the past, and that he overstated the import and impact later on.
Doug,
I’ll give you Nathanson’s “Silent Scream”. That was a yawn. But by a “clump of cells”, no less.
Cocoa-Puffs don’t bother me The others are more troubling. But everyone knows that Corn Flakes and Cheerios are the best. :)
Cocoa-Puffs don’t bother me
Okay, Hans, but you know the drill – just as long of you’re not coo-coo for them….
She may want to sell books now, but she’s a fraud now just as she was back farther in time.
So Roe v. Wade is based on a fraud! Now we’re getting somewhere…
Doug: “Here’s hoping all pregnancies from here on out are wanted. How ’bout that?”
Sure. So how about advising women to want them, Doug? How about giving them reasons to value their unborn child?
What a cheap pose for the camera, Doug — as if you’re in the least willing to lift a finger to change a woman’s mind if she wanted an abortion because she didn’t want a child.
Good grief.
Sure. So how about advising women to want them, Doug? How about giving them reasons to value their unborn child?
Rasqual, depends whether or not those reasons really apply to the women.
____
What a cheap pose for the camera, Doug — as if you’re in the least willing to lift a finger to change a woman’s mind if she wanted an abortion because she didn’t want a child. Good grief.
Oh please. That’s like saying it’s “cheap” to not place the woman’s wishes above all. The question remains as to what is really the best for the individual woman, if nothing else.
No, it’s a cheap pose because it apparently entitles you to respect for ostensibly supporting an ideal you’re not really willing to work for — not willing to work for because the acts involved in the work are at variance with your non-interventionist regard for women whose unborn children are not wanted.
You can’t claim to want that ideal but simultaneously believe acts that would lead women in that direction are not proper acts.
Your ideal is salutary but you can’t claim credit for really wanting it. If you wanted it, you’d deem acts in support of it proper — especially when, Doug, you and I have agreed that those acts are entirely consistent with a pro-choice outlook. They’re merely not consistent with something else you bring to the table.
Christians here will remember Ananias and Saphira — courting others’ respect while belying it with their actions.
I don’t think you’re actually mugging for others’ respect. Instead, I think you don’t see the disjunct in yourself. You believe there’s cake to be both had and eaten.
Exactly: Every conceived child IS a wanted child!
Only in the twisted philosophy of abortionism would a living creature be considered not a member of it’s own species if one of the parents was too immature to take responsibility for caring for the offspring. We can most clearly see the disconnect in the abortionists’ view when a woman concieves children on purpose but then kills some of them because twins or triplets are just not what she wanted, poor little narcissist. Both twins are equally human beings but because on whim she doesn’t want two stollers, bam! one dies by legal murder and all the abortionists celebrate her “right to choose to kill.” Woohoo. Go you.
Gee golly, I wonder why the pro-life movement is growing so quickly?