Pro-life blog buzz 10-30-12
by Kelli
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]
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.
If Abby Johnson wants unity in the pro-life movement maybe she should stop threatening to sue other pro-lifers and stop bad-mouthing pro-life organizations that are out there trying to save babies.
What pro-lifer is Abby trying to sue Sydney? I havent heard about that.
A woman also named Abby. I forget her last name at this exact moment but she talks about how abortion is tied to the occult and many workers worship feminist goddesses and Abby threatened her with a lawsuit and sent harassing emails.
Abigail Seidman??
The main reason we are so diverse is that being pro-life is right, and is our biological default setting. People must be talked into abortion advocacy; even small children understand that abortion kills a baby. Humans are cooperate primates; we have evolved to this. We are not hermits by nature, we do not live solitary, unconnected lives. Abortion advocacy seeks to separate us from our closest relatives, seeks to separate children’s lives from their parent’s lives, as if it is a biological option to expel one’s offspring. They are bound together by their goal, which seeks to separate humans from each other.
We are not. We have no bonds to tie us to one another. We are pro-life because it’s healthy, it’s natural, and it’s optimal. We DO need to work better together, BUT: I believe that the pro-life movement is reaching critical mass, similar to the anti-smoking movement. Were all folks who didn’t like cigarette smoke unified? Nope. Do people light up at the office or in most restaurants? Nope. So, we should work together, but we should not be afraid of our diversity. Our diversity is what proves the anti-lifers wrong when they try to put us in boxes and stereotype us. Are we all control-freaky woman-hatin’ white Christian men? Nope.
That being said, I do really admire and look up to Abby Johnson. It was extremely brave of her to leave her job and become a pro-life activist. I understand where she’s coming from and I hope her ministry, And Then There Were None, is a huge success. We love you Abby, but sometimes organizing pro-lifers can be like herding cats. LOL.
I have to say I think the opposite of Abby re: Protestants and Catholics and the pro-life movement.
I have found the pro-life very unifying and ecumenical. As a Protestant I’ve never felt ostracized by Catholics, who make up the larger percentage of pro-life activists. I’ve even received an award from the Association of Catholic Publishers (http://www.forministry.com/USILRCATHACPAC/09.dsp). I’ve even spoken at a Catholic Church during homily (which i was later told was a no-no, but hey, the pastor asked me!). Catholics tell me they want me to mention I’m Protestant at their events so the group doesn’t think I’m just another one of them preaching to the choir.
At any rate, moving on, I loved the video parody!
I have to agree with what Jill said – if anything – the prolife community is an unifying community in my opinion. It helps to find common ground for Catholics, Protestants, and Atheists. I would probably never had the opportunity to online meet folk like Jack, xalisae, Mary, Rasqual, etc…. Although I have disagreed with these people and many others, it has always been for the search for further common ground. The unifying element of the prolife community is one of the qualities that has kept my interest in the prolife community. In fact, I think an exploration of the philosophical reasoning that undermines the prolife position could help explain why each of the various groups share the prolife commitment. However, I think Abby’s article was fair minded piece and identified some parts of the community who have lost sight of the objective. She admonished with sensitivity.
Christ unifies us by his blood. It’s not our achievement through coming to terms with this or that real difference that divides us institutionally.
We “separated brethren” may be separated, but we’re brethren. And with the ecumenical creeds, we believe in one holy catholic church — however sundered in a sinful world whose redemption contract is inked in blood but not yet fully executed.
Pro-life is just one thing such people naturally do together.
Those who find it unnatural… well, more’s the pity.
I thought you were Catholic, Jill. I guess you learn something new every day.
Speaking of voting, under no circumatances would I vote for Obama but I am reluctant to vote for Romney Ryan because I am afraid they will cut programs for the needy, such as SNAP, the food stamp program. Many of the people that use food stamps are the elderly and the working poor, people that work every day at low wage jobs and run out of food at the end of the month. We need to care about people after they are born, too!
I thought the MCCL blog post was excellent. Definitely the best article on voting principles I’ve read.
The PL community is severely divided!!! Especially in regards to voting. Both of these really address the issues.
This might help ease some confusion:
http://www.cogforlife.org/2012/10/28/thirdparty/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRjL7Am_Fhk
Please share far and wide! Too many people are voting 3rd party! They don’t seem to understand that
1) 3rd party members are so far behind they are not even in the race and have no chance of winning
2) The race is so close that any vote that is not for Romney is a vote for Obama. Troy Newman just reported in Ohio, the most critical state to the race is O 49% R 49%
I looked up Abigail Seidman and found this on their website. I think the radical left is very good at dividing US with language.
Abigail is the daughter of a witch and here she is talking about the difference between the “core” abortion advocates and those who are merely interested in it as an option and not promoting it’s ‘merits.’
“AS – I say that they are the “core” because they are the ones who will stop at nothing to abort their children and any others they can get their hands on. They are the ones who are truly pro-abortion. Most pro-choice people are actually pro-choice, not pro-abortion, and they don’t fully understand the moral issues involved, or they have a slightly warped moral sense. If abortion were outlawed, they might bemoan it, but they would obey the laws. The core – the abortion-worshippers – would not obey the law, just as they did not obey the law prior to Roe v Wade. There were radical feminist groups like the Redstockings, like Margaret Sanger’s Birth Control League, I’m sure countless other unknown local groups, who worked to teach each other abortion techniques and practice abortions on themselves and other women, for hundreds of years.” - Abigail Seidman
I certainly hope abbey johnson is not wasting her time by with lawsuits against other pro-life Christians.
I do think that, unless your nestled within a strong pro-life group, family, or religious organization, and especially if you have been deeply personally hurt by abortion but have not actually had one yourself, it is easy to feel like an outsider… because your already alone, and many of the groups, I hate to say it, are just spread too thin. Because of the nature of the issue, there’s also not alot of money to fuel energy.
I like Stanek’s site because it does allow people from all different groups a free and high-profile voice on the top emerging issues.
Dialog is also under appreciated. We need way more dialog-maybe more parties and banquets!!
I liked this from blisseki’s post:
“Some have gone so far as to quote from the Papal Encyclical Evangelium Vitae, section 73 to determine that it is wrong to vote for a candidate whose position on abortion is one that would allow exceptions only in the cases of rape or incest. But abortion is not the only major moral issue facing voters. There are in fact, five “non-negotiables” in our voting considerations of which one presidential candidate has failed miserably in all five. They are: abortion, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, euthanasia and same-sex marriage. So if one is going to look at that lesser evil argument there is a lot more on the table to consider.”
Also see:
Breezy Point Virgin Mary