Life Links 1-31-12
by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat
- Abortionist Steven Brigham’s defense for his New Jersey to Maryland abortion caravan and the killing of unborn children past the age of viability? Maryland can’t charge me because I killed the fetuses while in New Jersey:
His attorneys argued in a motion filed last week that the arrangement protects him from criminal prosecution in Maryland because Brigham administered drugs that killed the fetuses while the patients were in New Jersey. He then extracted the fetuses at his clinic in Elkton, Md.
- In case you thought Canadian abortion advocate Joyce Arthur was anything other than either a liar or an ignoramus, here’s evidence that she has trouble getting her facts straight:
In the United States, where fetuses do have legal personhood rights in at least 38 states (mostly through “fetal homicide” laws supposedly aimed at third parties who assault pregnant women), the laws are used primarily to prosecute pregnant women for drug or alcohol abuse, refusing a caesarean, or even experiencing a stillbirth. These unjust and cruel prosecutions tend to scare pregnant women away from prenatal care or even push them to have an abortion. They also turn pregnant women into third-class citizens whose rights are subordinate to those of their fetus.
There’s a reason she provides no evidence for this ridiculous assertion, especially considering a number of the laws in question expressly exempt pregnant women.
There’s also this great tidbit which highlights why you won’t see Arthur agree to debate abortion:
To come back to Woodworth’s challenge about whether the fetus is human, he completely misses the point because he’s confusing the medical/biological aspects of “what is a human being” with the legal/social aspects of personhood. The biological status of the fetus is irrelevant since women need and have abortions anyway.
You silly thing, who cares if the unborn are human beings? Women need abortions.
- The Raw Story has a longer video of the Occupy Pro-Choice protesters who interrupted a pro-life event during the March for Life. Who signs up to continuously repeat lame, decades-old chants?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHPSaM5Kq1Q[/youtube]
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.
Stop brainwashing them!!
Now that is amusing. That is precisely what the responsive chant is meant to do.
sad
Why does Ms. Arthur keep asserting that protecting the unborn implies that pro-lifers don’t trust women?
What does trusting women have to do with whether or not a pre-born baby is deserving of human rights and protection under the law! Ms. Arthur’s alarmist rhetoric does not serve the interests of women or the preborn.
She is also wrong to say that the humanity of the pre-born is irrelevant and that rights granted to the pre-born negate the legal rights or personhood of the pregnant Mother. Pregnant women have, and will always have, legal personhood status. Abortion will simply be denied as one method of dealing with a pregnancy. The morality of the abortion procedure is what is in question!! This procedure is immoral due to what is being aborted!!
Her argument that abortions will be done anyway even if they were made illegal under the guise of “miscarriages” is the reasoning of anarchist.
Tyler: What does trusting women have to do with whether or not a pre-born baby is deserving of human rights and protection under the law!
Well, Holmes, the law is what you want changed. How old are you, hoss? I admire your stick-to-it-iveness, but you seem to be confusing a generally-acknowledged “deserving” with personal choice.
No offense meant, and you’re an energeic poster. That means a lot. :)