I would like five, but I kind of started late… um, yeah.
We’ll see, we’ll see.
~ Celebrity Pink (pictured with daughter Willow), answering the question of how many children she would like to have, E! Online, September 18
Video at the link.
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
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.
Well, I just hope she’s happy regardless of how many she ends up with.
She is younger than me. She could have 5 if she wanted to. She has plenty of time. If she has one every other year she could fit them in before 40 even! For some reason 40 is the cutoff in many women’s minds.
40 is the new 30.
She is an animal rights supporter, but is extremely pro-abortion. Whatever.
Who gives a crap about celebrity babies & birth gossip? What does it have to do with protecting the right to life? If I wanted to read celebrity gossip, I’d read a tabloid magazine, I’m here to read about advances & setbacks in the pro-life movement. I mean c’mon,if you’re looking for filler materials on a slow news day, you can get better quality news material than this!
We have an amazing team of volunteers here at this site who give of their time, hearts, and efforts to make this website the best it can be. We appreciate all of their efforts. If anyone here would care to volunteer to serve rather than complain, please feel free to email us. You’ll find us in the sidebar under “Team.”
Also, the culture of life and the culture of death are warring in our celebrity gossip, too. It would not be relevant to discuss how many sizes Kim Kardashian grew while pregnant, but it IS relevant to discuss the possibility of a celebrity having a large family and remaining in the public eye. That has an impact on our culture and on how people perceive this fight.
I agree with your assessment one hundred percent MaryRose. We need more pro-life celebrities “show-cased” here. Please don’t remind me of Jen Aniston though…
Kel – nod to all of you behind the scenes. The 24/7 rotation is not at all that easy and I appreciate that from you.
I agree with Ladybug. If I want to read about the Kardashians I’ll pick up the Enquirer or People. I don’t get the celebrity worship around here.
I need another member in “Team Jolie” Len. You want to join?
Culture comes before politics.
I could personally care less about Pink, Kardashian, Donny and Marie Osmond, and whoever else wears the title “celebrity”.
HOWEVER…
These personalities command enormous attention from a significant portion of the population. Not having any scientific proof, I would submit that the majority of those pop-eaters voted for Obama; you know, the ‘low information voter’.
So while we’re duking it out in the courts, in congress, on the sidewalks, online, or wherever else, any affirmation of pro-life principles in the celebrity-obsessed culture is worthy of note.
And once again, for the record, Quotes of the Day are not Jill Stanek endorsements. They are simply conversation pieces. Here’s the quote, there’s the context…now discuss.
I’m here to read about advances & setbacks in the pro-life movement.
Ladybug,
There are no lack of pro-life blogs/websites that do just that. Jill is one of the first to feature pop culture along with that.
If it’s that offensive, do what others do and just move on.
”I’m here to read about advances & setbacks in the pro-life movement.”
Answer:
Christina Applegate and Pink – advances in the pro-life movement.
Jennifer Aniston – setback in the pro-life movement.
Ladybug: hope this helps clarify the reason those celebrities are “show-cased” here.
Perhaps we could categorize future celebrities appearing here in those two ways? LOL..
I don’t enjoy celebrity gossip, but I am glad to see it here.
We are always in danger of talking to ourselves too much…. it is important to see what the rest of the world is saying, and what the people who are not life- and abortion-activists are talking about.
The current issue of GLAMOUR Magazine has a long article about the dangerous new breast cancer that is afflicting young women. The article guesses at some possible causes — but hormonal birth control is conspicuously absent from the list. However, Debbie Wasserman Schultz is conspicuously present. (She’s a congressman from Florida, head of the DNC, a rabid pro-abort and Obama war-dog.) She talked about the need for greater government involvement in women’s healthcare.
If we don’t keep a finger on the pulse of pop culture and women’s magazines, we’ll miss out on the social conversation that we trying so hard to promote!
She’s a flaming liberal and pro abortion as well as a supporter of gay marriage. NEXT! Kids are only worthy of life if they belong to a pro abortion celebrity.
Wow, I didn’t expect this much defensiveness & hostility from my pro-life “allies” for having a dissenting view…I’m sorry if you all felt attacked, maybe I could have put it nicer, but there was no need for the verbal jabs & hostility. Apparently, judging from the number of likes my post receivedz, I’m not the only one who feels this way, but perhaps others are also hesitant to speak up after seeing the kind of response I received.
Carder,
I already supplement my pro-life reading with a variety of pro-life news sources including Live Action News, Jivin’ J’s blog, & other pro-life blogs. I found your comment for me to go elsewhere over one disagreement a bit crass, considering I’ve been an active reader & commentator here for several years.
Kel,
Thanks, if I had the time, I certainly would be glad to volunteer, although I’m not sure my secular & progressive pro-life views would be welcomed here.
Del,
I just wanted to thank you for writing out a well thought out response which gave the well-reasoned explanation I was looking for.
Well, I’ve said my piece, I guess I’ll just avoid this kind of post in the future & that’s all I have to say.
Ladybug,
Actually, I saw a lot of reasonable reactions. People responded by pointing out how they disagreed with your assessment of this QOTD as “filler material on a slow news day” and your question of “who gives a crap” with well-reasoned answers.
You were rather vicious in the way in which you addressed the subject matter to begin with, and Kel responded by pointing out that this material is chosen by a dedicated group of volunteers, and that there are more productive ways of addressing your disapproval. I then pointed out how ‘celebrity gossip’ is relevant because of the influence it has on our general culture. Thomas agreed and gave a nod to the volunteers. Carder made a couple of good points: one, that celebrity gossip, while it may not interest any of us personally, is a huge source of interest for the people we are trying to reach. Another, that these quotes are placed with the intent to spark conversation and not to endorse Pink or any other celebrity in question. And finally, that Jill’s blog is unique in that it acknowledges & addresses the influence of celebrities on those who we are trying to help. While he pointed out that you are not beholden to continue reading here, Carder didn’t say anything amounting to “Don’t let the door hit you on the way out” as you indicate. Thomas gave a quick summery of how it is relevant, and Del reiterated the importance of pop culture in the movement and gave a good example of why these sorts of QOTD are so important to our ministry.
Show me where, in all of that, there was hostility from anyone but yourself. Disagreement does not equal verbal jabs.
Hey, baby, peace and love. We’re all in this together.