We welcome your suggestions for additions to our Top Blogs (see tab on right side of home page)! Email Susie@jillstanek.com.
- Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life dismantles the arguments we often hear from pro-lifers who are planning to vote for pro-choice candidates in the election.
- At Live Action, Nancy Flanders makes the case that society has failed both the victims of rape and their preborn children.
- At National Review, Michael New says pro-choice advocates like Amanda Marcotte are fuming at pro-lifers’ refusal to blindly accept the recent Obstetrics and Gynecology study which claims free contraception reduces pregnancies and abortions. New lists even more reasons why we should be skeptical of the study’s methodology.
- Abby Johnson stresses the need for greater unity in the pro-life movement, contrasting it to the unity she felt among supporters of abortion when she worked for Planned Parenthood.
- At Moral Outcry, Danica Keeton writes about how a fellow Christian friend’s passion for the plight of the unborn helped to awaken her from her apathy about abortion.
- At Americans United for Life, Mary Harned writes on the “silver lining” to be found in the Seventh Circuit Court’s decision to block an Indiana law which attempted to defund Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.
- Albert Mohler comments on the controversy over candidate Richard Mourdock’s statements on children conceived as a result of rape, and adds that pro-lifers should support incremental abortion restrictions while continuing to fight for the full protection of all preborn children.
- At the LTI Blog, Serge takes on the pro-choice bodily autonomy argument:
If a pregnancy is considered a state of health for the child and mother, it seems the provision of pregnancy would be obligatory. “Continuing a pregnancy” would be amenable to continuing to provide what is otherwise necessary (nutrients, oxygen, a safe environment) to support the child’s good health. If pregnancy is a disease state for mother and/or child, then the child has no right to demand the continued use of the mother’s body, and withdrawing such support through abortion would be legally permissible and consistent with other optional parental provisions.
Clearly, the status of the vast majority of pregnancies is one of complete health for mother and child. In fact, the consequences of considering pregnancy a pathological state would be widespread and disastrous…. For this reason, the bodily autonomy argument fails to convince us that the parental provision of providing what a pregnant mother provides to her child is merely optional.
- Down on the Pharm shares the parody to the latest Obama campaign video about “your first time” voting:
[Photo via jasoncrandall.org]