Pro-life news brief 5-30-13
by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat
- Andrea Mrozek writes about the death of notorious Canadian abortionist Henry Morgentaler:
Abortion is the “choice” in that critical moment in a woman’s life when hope went on holiday.This is Morgentaler’s legacy: The death of a child, renamed a choice, and without limit in Canada.
He deserves neither all the credit nor all the blame, of course. When the Supreme Court of Canada heard the now infamous Morgentaler case in 1988, their intention was not to bestow abortion as an unfettered right. Instead, the court went so far as to acknowledge a legitimate public interest in restricting abortion, and then threw the question back to Parliament — which has been holding the ball ever since.
- The Supreme Court in El Salvador has denied the petition of a woman with a high-risk pregnancy who requested an abortion by noting that the threat to her life is not immediate:
The court recognized that Beatriz has lupus, but it said that her disease was currently under control and that the threat to her life “is not actual or imminent, but rather eventual.”It ordered that her health continue to be closely monitored, saying that if complications arose that put her right to life in imminent danger doctors “could proceed with interventions.”
According to CNN, “Beatriz” is now 26 weeks pregnant with a child who has been diagnosed with anencephaly.
While a number of abortion advocates have acted like Beatriz is knocking on death’s door and the court ruling is a death sentence for her, an article published yesterday in the New York Times reveals that’s not the case:
But the case has its medical detractors as well. José Miguel Fortín Magaña, director of the Institute of Legal Medicine, which evaluates medical issues for the Supreme Court, acknowledged Beatriz’s medical problems but said that her health was currently under control and that she was not in danger at the moment.I believe abortion advocates have jumped on this case largely because Beatriz’s child has a serious birth defect, with the goal of helping to legitimize all abortions (regardless of whether the woman has health issues or if her child has defects).
- At the LA Times, Patt Morrison has a puff-piece interview with Alan Trounson, the president of California’s stem cell institute. The first sentence is patently absurd:
In 2004, with President George W. Bush dead set against stem cell research, California just went ahead and did it.
[Photo of women protesting in body paint via New York Times]
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.
As a Canadian I am very ashamed by this man. Dr Morgentaler learned his lessons very well from Hitler on how to murder innocent lives all in the name of freedom and choice. May God have mercy upon this man.
It’s time to flood the Social Networks. Everyone i want u to put pro life pictures everywhere.
Even go for graphic pictures. People need to see.
Such a sad story. After experiencing the horrors of Auschwitz, where his family and millions of other people were murdered, the lesson that Henry Morgentaler eventually learned was that it’s compassionate to kill “unwanted” children before they are born. And he dedicated himself to accomplishing something great, which was bringing abortion on demand to Canada and building 16 abortion clinics. Pitiful man.
So Jill, should a woman be “knocking on death’s door” before she can get an abortion? How close to death does she need to be?
One can terminate a pregnancy without performing an abortion. To undergo a late-term abortion, at minimum of three days is needed. If her life was truly in danger, no self respecting physician would put the mother through that.
I read elsewhere that the court ruled that doctors could do a caesarian whenever it was necessary. Thus, mother and baby can both be saved. Albeit, the baby may be premature and die of natural causes. Nonetheless, the intent was not to directly and cruelly kill the child.
So Jill, should a woman be “knocking on death’s door” before she can get an abortion? How close to death does she need to be?
Do you see the byline up there? Jivin J? You might want to ask him, since he wrote the content of the post.
MoJoanne – YES to everything you said. Absolutely. If a mother’s life is truly at immediate risk, the child can be delivered and every effort made to save both mother and child. That is true medical care.
Megs,
I guess you didn’t watch the video of Dr. Levatino the former abortionist who aborted 1,200 babies up to 24 weeks? He testified in court how abortion is NEVER medically necessary to save the life of the mother.
Remember intent, intent, intent.
The intent of an abortion is to kill the child. The intent of delivering a baby is to save two lives.
Little female girls in utero will be very close to death today.
So close that they get to experience it!!
To Denise: I’m not sure which news article your comment is referring to…. Morgentaler?
But you are right: Violence begets violence, not only in specific families but also in our culture. We can see that our abortion culture is one of tolerating and encouraging violence — and so we are not surprised when young people become school shooters. Soon there will be random bombings as well, like the plot recently thwarted in Albany, Oregon.
Obama and Planned Parenthood will say that we are nutters and extremists for linking abortion to shooters and bombers. But violence begets violence…. it’s as simple as that.
Okay Carla, and the testimony of one physician in the US should supersede the team of doctors working on this individual case.
Now Beatriz is going to undergo a C-section, and the baby will likely die because it’s missing a brain. How precious.
“Little female girls in utero will be very close to death today.”
And their mothers are sentient human beings who should have the right to decide what purposes their bodies are used for.
Now Beatriz is going to undergo a C-section, and the baby will likely die because it’s missing a brain. How precious.
As opposed to being killed earlier in the baby’s life? How exactly is that any better, Megs? Do tell.
Tell me why it would’ve been better to rob my aunt of the 3 days she was able to live with her family after being born without a complete brain.
And their mothers are sentient human beings who should have the right to decide what purposes their bodies are used for.
Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t realize there were different classes of human beings and their level of importance and protection of their rights was dependent upon how cognizant they are.
Wait. That’s not true at all, and it’s just something you’ve formulated to make you feel better about having sent your first child to the grave just cuz mom’s decision whether or not her child lives or dies is like, the most important thing EVAR, and f- their children.
Our decision is important. I’m sorry you have no respect for other women. By the way, I can assure you that the three days your aunt had were of more benefit to your family than to her.
Struggling to gain equal rights for a teratoma doesn’t make you a better person, just a crazier one.
..”no respect for other women”. Were you looking in a mirror when you typed that, BV?
Obviously, Xalisae-
BlueVelvet is so in love with DEATH that she doesn’t CARE about what precious time a child gets to spend with her/his family((or vice versa).
Love, compassion, caring, memories..
these are foreign words/concepts to someone like BV.
Struggling to gain equal rights for a teratoma doesn’t make you a better person, just a crazier one.
And Megan reaches into the bag of psycho and pulls out this little gem! Ha! No one here has done that, and you’re well aware of this.
How is fighting for the rights of an in-utero human being causing disrespect to women?
Protection of the life of the mother as an excuse for an abortion is a smoke screen. In my thirty-six years in pediatric surgery I have never known of one instance where the child had to be be aborted to save the mother’s life.
When a woman is pregnant, her obstetrician takes on the care of two patients—the mother-to-be and the unborn baby. If, toward the end of the pregnancy complications arise that threaten the mother’s health, he will take the child by inducing labor or performing a Caesarian section.
His intention is still to save the life of both the mother and the baby. The baby will be premature . . The baby is never willfully destroyed because the mother’s life is in danger.
former Surgeon General of the United States, Dr. C. Everett Koop.
We’ve been over this Megs!!
We do not kill others because they may soon die.
PS Are you calling a child with anencephaly a teratoma?
Seriously??? I prefer to call the little girl I met by
her name. Grace.
Megan would fit in well with the red arm band crowd.
BlueVelvet says: Struggling to gain equal rights for a teratoma…
Wow. This reveals a lot about you, Megan. Get well soon.
By the way, I can assure you that the three days your aunt had were of more benefit to your family than to her.
Yeah, and if she had been aborted, no one would have benefited. Why are you so opposed to people helping people?
Looks like the lady is having a c-section next week, this was linked in the Pro-life news brief today: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/elsalvador/10090459/El-Salvadoran-woman-denied-abortion-despite-illness-to-undergo-premature-Caesarean-section.html
“Now Beatriz is going to undergo a C-section, and the baby will likely die because it’s missing a brain. How precious.”
How dare we endure a situation where the baby will likely die, when we could rip it apart and make SURE it dies.
http://babyfaithhope.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2009-04-25T15:59:00-03:00&max-results=150
None of us parents know how long we will have with our children. Sadly, some parents bury their children, although we believe that children should bury their parents.
This mother, at the link above, was able to live with her child for over three months post-delivery. Her child had anencephaly. As far as it can be discerned from the blog posts, this child did not have the liberal’s poster-child-for-abortion hammer: the life of misery.
This woman was pressured to abort her child. It is very sad that she did not get her “patient-centered care” from the medical providers.
Lupus? Nine times out of ten, that means you have an elevated ANA titer, and a handful of symptoms, and they don’t know what you have. Of course it is under control.
This woman wants the fetus out of her body. That should be enough reason to end the pregnancy; all this hand-wringing about the stability of her condition, how close she is to “actually” dying is – that’s insane. Do you understand the definition of torture?
The pregnancy will be terminated Megs.
Via c-section.
Do not worry your pretty little head about it anymore.
Maybe you could petition the courts that when the life or health of the mother is not threatened all a woman has to do is say, “I WANT THIS FETUS OUT OF MY BODY!! IN PIECES!!”
You would have to ask women that carried their beloved children despite a poor prenatal diagnosis if it was “torture” for them. Otherwise you are projecting.
http://benotafraid.net
I know *you’ve* stopped worrying about it because the fetus will be born!!! At all costs, even if it means that a very sick woman has to undergo surgery that she doesn’t want!!! Maybe the El Salvadoran Ministry of Health can dress the corpse up in pink bows and pose it with mom – I’m sure it would make for a lovely blog photo. Praise!!!!
Maybe…..just maybe…..this mother will look upon her child and see a beautiful little person. And in the time they have together to say hello and goodbye she will convey her love to her baby before he/she passes away. And quite possibly name her child. OR if Mommy cannot bear to see the child that she carries SOMEONE will cuddle him/her until he/she dies.
I am praying to that end Megs. I do not worry. Not like those who have no hope.
Lest you forget I have personal experience with anencephaly through close friends. A baby with anencephaly lives safe and sound inside her mother. Once born they may not live long. But keep talking. Calling living little ones “corpses” does so much for your prodeath cause.
As well as believing this baby would be better off chopped into pieces and killed that way.
“very sick” does not mean life threatening btw.
You can’t use people as a means to an end. This point is all the more acute here, where the child will die shortly after birth. Women are not incubators. They are people with rights.
I’m sure that some of the children born if raped Bosnian women are very much loved – that doesn’t justify the rape.
Women will not be used as a means to an end.
You can’t use people as a means to an end. This point is all the more acute here, where the child will die shortly after birth. Women are not incubators. They are people with rights.
*Children use people as a means to an end *everyday. – fixed for ya.
They’re called “parents”, and every child has “used” their parent(s) as means to reach adulthood, and it’s been legally DEMANDED of every parent with default custody of their children that they facilitate that end sufficiently.
Pregnant women are not incubators, they are mothers. They are people with rights, but so too should be their children in utero, legally.
I was just about to type the same thing X!!!
Megs,
We are not talking about Bosnia. Or rape in Bosnia. Or justifying rape of women in Bosnia. Or women that conceived in rape in Bosnia. Or those children conceived in rape being loved by their mothers. In Bosnia.
Please email me. Your comments only point to the fact that you could very well use a friend and I will always be here for you!!
carla@jillstanek.com
My teen just came home and said, “I’m hungry.”
I told him I have rights and that I refused to be used as a means to an end! I told him better luck with the neighbors! I’m done being used.
All four of mine came home hungry too!!!
What do they think we are??
Little parasites. . . . . (:
Well Carla, we also weren’t talking about benotafraid.net or mothers with wanted pregnancies.
Right, X. Which is why pregnant women have the choice to opt out of that obligation.
Right, X. Which is why pregnant women have the choice to opt out of that obligation.
Currently, yeah. And when they do, it’s just as heinous as a mother of a newborn infant “opt[ing] out of that obligation” by tossing her child’s car seat out on the freeway with her kid still in it. And one day, those two “opt[ing] out”s will be equally illegal.
I’m just wondering if you’re this supportive of other parents “opt[ing] out” of their parental obligations by killing their children, of if it’s just women doing so through aborting their children.
*or if