Pro-life blog buzz 11-13-12
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.
- Live Action looks at Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards’ post-election interview with the Huffington Post. She suggests that the Republican party return to former President Richard Nixon’s family planning program initiatives.
Interestingly, audio tapes have now made public the knowledge that Nixon was a racist and saw family planning as a way to control the African-American population. Others have reported that Nixon was pro-choice in his thinking, and he shared the same eugenic agenda at the root of Planned Parenthood and Margaret Sanger.
- Americans United for Life cites some state level pro-life election victories that give us reason to celebrate.
- Fletcher Armstrong writes that the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform’s graphic abortion photos appeared in London’s Sunday Times, reaching one million readers. The article quotes CBR’s UK director Andy Stephenson:
The atmosphere in the UK is changing…. The abortion lobby has had it easy for too long with no accountability, no consequences and very little meaningful opposition — but there is a new generation of pro-lifers emerging and disillusioned, battle-weary pro-lifers being reinvigorated because they have seen the fruits of what groups like ours are achieving with very little resources.Efforts appear to be making a difference among abortion-minded women, but pro-choice groups, have stated, “If the police won’t stop them [pro-lifers], we will have to.”
- Culture Campaign says San Francisco plans to use taxpayer dollars to treat gender identity distress issues – not only with counseling and hormonal treatments, but with surgical interventions such as mastectomies and genital reconstructions.
- At Ethika Politika, Peter Lawler gives his post mortem analysis of the election with some thoughts from Alexis de Tocqueville.
- FRC Blog discusses a Salon article in which the author expresses her shock (and pleasure) at being treated like a lady instead of like a one-night stand by a man she dated. One can only hope that romance begins making a comeback to edge out no-strings casual sex.
- Big Blue Wave shares a video of women voicing their appreciation for the presence of sidewalk counselors outside abortion clinics:
Nov.13, 2012 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.
I see there was a win for commonsense with a few places moving forward on gay marriage and the decriminalizing of pot.
What is it that Leviticus says again?
“When a man lieth with another man he must be stoned”
Reality I think you got it right. No man in his right mind would want to do that unless they were high!!!
Nice try Tyler :-)
This is now one of my favorite threads, even with only three comments lol.
I was very happy about the gay marriage and legal pot statutes. One bright spot of the election.
Here’s something even funnier Jack, if you know of Bobby Jindal:
“We’ve also had enough of this dumbed-down conservatism. We need to stop being simplistic, we need to trust the intelligence of the American people and we need to stop insulting the intelligence of the voters.”
My irony meter broke!
“This is now one of my favorite threads, even with only three comments lol”
Yeah it’s pretty cool, and they didn’t even get to the part about gay orgies yet. LOL
Lol Reality that’s too much.
Haha, JDC, remember I only have gay orgies with women I am married too. ;)
“Haha, JDC, remember I only have gay orgies with women I am married too. ”
The best sentence ever constructed.
One too many ‘o’s in ‘too’ there Jack. Is that some sort of freudian slip? ;-)
Lol, you caught me Reality! Haha.
But not really, if I were really a closeted gay man I would be screaming “It’s not Adam and Steve, it’s Adam and Eve!!” and beating up men for hitting on me lol.
S’oright, just jesting.
If Eve was made from Adam’s rib then they would have the same dna etc. So it would have to be Adam and Steve, no two ways about it.
You might be wandering on the edge of blasphemy there, just to warn you. It might get deleted.
That’s fair enough Jack, I’m happy to stick to the rules.
It is exactly the same science which regularly gets thrown around in defence of the anti-choice case though.
” It is exactly the same science which regularly gets thrown around in defence of the anti-choice case though.”
I am “anti-choice” but I am not seeing the correlation.
All the science on human genetics etc. is sometimes used as part of the argument. I just figured if it’s right when it suits the argument…
Lol, well you have to remember. Biblical arguments aren’t necessarily bound by actual science. If their God is all-powerful, he could create some woman out of some dude’s rib. The same way he somehow repopulated the earth after the Flood, all scientific issues can be explained away (sediment making it impossible for plants to grow, etc).
The science used to support the pro-life position is extremely basic and undeniable. The fetus is a human organism with human DNA, etc. You can’t really deny that. You just disagree that it’s a person deserving of human rights like any other. I don’t think such a distinction can be drawn.
I think you have done a very fine job of distilling the debate Jack, thank you.
The Flood – http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/top-ten-reasons-noahs-flood-is-mythology/
Don’t link that liberal claptrap here! Lol.
But seriously. I don’t bother getting into the scientific debates over whether this or that event could have happened in the Bible. No matter how scientifically unlikely it is that something literally happened, there’s always the “get out of science free” card of an all-powerful creator, who could (if he’s truly all-powerful) change things at a whim. It’s unfalsifiable and a waste of time to argue about, imo.
Yes, what I call the ‘convenience principle’.
Convenience principle, faith, whatever. It’s just not worth it. I don’t mind having philosophical discussions but the scientific ones are generally worthless. Everyone just ends up mad lol.
I thought half of them came to the argument already in that state :-)
Jack: “there’s always the ‘get out of science free’ card of an all-powerful creator, who could (if he’s truly all-powerful) change things at a whim.”
Heh. Functionally, much of science itself works the same way nowadays. Take dark energy, for example — a placeholder name for whatever is causing the universe to accelerate in its expansion, contrary to everything we thought just 25 years ago.
It’s ridiculous to chuckle at how theists have an explanation for things that they may claim contrary to appearances in this universe, when science itself frequently fails to have explanations for amazing new things they must acknowledge are contrary to what we seem to know about the universe.
One is forced, in the case of science, to accept that 50 years from now, much that we cherish as “fact” will be proven little different than flat-earth superstition.
Science knows the universe is magical. That’s because it carefully reads God’s very first book.
Case in point. Good night Jack :-)
“One is forced, in the case of science, to accept that 50 years from now, much that we cherish as “fact” will be proven little different than flat-earth superstition. ”
That’s…. literally the point of scientific inquiry. To get to know the world better. I don’t know any scientists who claim that they know it all now. People get Nobel prizes for disproving previously accepted scientific theories! It’s nice, that they don’t have to be tied down to previously accepted explanations of how the world works.
Good night Reality.
*repeats to self* I will not get drawn into this discussion further. I will not get drawn into this discussion further.
“One is forced, in the case of science, to accept that 50 years from now, much that we cherish as “fact” will be proven little different than flat-earth superstition” – yeah, but the answer will still be science, not god.
“Science knows the universe is magical. That’s because it carefully reads God’s very first book.”
Seriously, rasqual … Thank you for that one. It’s a keeper.
Jack: “I don’t know any scientists who claim that they know it all now.”
You’re not disagreeing with any proposition I’ve affirmed, since I asserted that particular propositions confidently asserted are later repudiated by new evidence. I did not claim that all propositions for which no better explanations than current theory are available, are set forth as some kind of canonical truth by science. You’re burning a straw man.
Reality: “but the answer will still be science, not god.”
Is that prognostication empirically verifiable? No. I didn’t think so. An article of faith on your part. Not necessarily an unreasonable one. Which is interesting — that an unempirical article of faith can be reasonable.
;-)
I don’t even understand what we are disagreeing about now rasqual!
“Science knows the universe is magical. That’s because it carefully reads God’s very first book.” – who says science knows the universe is ‘magical’? The universe reads ‘god’s book’? This is nothing more than a slightly poetic faith based homily.
Science keeps postulating, testing, theorizing, discovering and doing it repeatedly. Certain aspects of the various scientific disciplines are verified, consistently repeatable and certain.
Nothing any scientist has yet done, discovered, or successfully tested has shown so much as a glimpse of a possibility of any potential for a whisper that anything in and of the universe may be attributable to any god.
I see there was a win for commonsense with a few places moving forward on gay marriage and the decriminalizing of pot.
What is it that Leviticus says again?
“When a man lieth with another man he must be stoned”
Well, I see Reality keeps it on topic as usual. (sarc) And everyone jumped in on the anti-religion bandwagon, so that’s always fun.
How about this: In order for the entire thread to not have to be deleted, please refrain from the anti-religious comments from here on out. Thanks.
Sorry Kel. I really wasn’t trying to be anti-religious. Probably still annoyed by being told I’m ruining the country by not believing in God-given rights and that I shouldn’t be allowed to vote. But that’s not all of you, I should try to remember that.
“Nothing any scientist has yet done, discovered, or successfully tested has shown so much as a glimpse of a possibility of any potential for a whisper that anything in and of the universe may be attributable to any god.” Except for the very fact of existence itself, or an ordered universe. Why should anything exist, or be ordered Reality; how can anyone even conceive of the concepts of order and chaos? Truly Reality, if you lived up to your name, you would realize we all are limited beings with various versions of “turtles all the way down.” An infinite stack of peer-reviewed journals can never explain anything about existence, one must either believe in a truly ordered world or that everything is paltry chaos, and order is a mere illusion.
Hi Kel. The Ethika Politika article on outcomes of the election spoke of same sex marriage. Since one of the outcomes of the election was the advancement of same sex marriage and also movement in regards to pot, I created a link between the two. Whilst this may have used religion as the platform, it was not aimed at religion per se.
“Except for the very fact of existence itself, or an ordered universe” – I disagree.
“Why should anything exist, or be ordered Reality; how can anyone even conceive of the concepts of order and chaos?” – but we do. That’s why science investigates, postulates, tests, theorizes and seeks evidence. And the body of knowledge grows daily.
“An infinite stack of peer-reviewed journals can never explain anything about existence” – well actually it can.
“everything is paltry chaos, and order is a mere illusion” – this one, except its far from paltry.