Jivin J’s Life Links 11-9-10
by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat
- Bonnie Erbe has a column in which she
arguesasserts the #ihadanabortion Twitter tag is the pro-choice technological answer to the ultrasound. Yeah, I know. She also blames CPCs for the rise in unwed motherhood. - Michael New bats down a Washington Post editorial by Brenda Major on abortion and mental health. I found this sentence interesting in Major’s piece:
Rigorous U.S. scientific studies have not substantiated the claim that abortion, compared with its alternatives, causes an increased incidence of mental health problems.
Note that Major says “U.S. scientific studies.” Does she do this to intentionally rule out the studies done on New Zealand women by David Fergusson?
- Thabiti Anyabwile provides a sample of how he would compare abortion and slavery if he were white.
- At a blog called Talking Philosophy, one guy is perplexed at why women are more pro-life than men after taking part in an interactive survey based on Judith Jarvis Thomson’s violinist thought experiment.
Nov.09, 2010 1:00 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 went through the philosophy survey that the Talking Philosophy guy is all perplexed about. Aside from being laughably canted over to the pro-choice side, the writers have managed to get miscarriage/abortion mixed up, as many pro-choicers seem to do. *sigh* Equating abortion to miscarriage is the same thing as equating murder to cancer. Why is this such a difficult concept?
The rise in unwed motherhood can only be attributed to pregnancy centers if you believe that motherhood begins at birth. Reliance on an unscientific premise… golly, I’ve never seen that from the abortion movement before!
I just donated another batch of baby clothes to a CPC this morning. Heh, heh, heh. It was Birthright, though, not a religiously-oriented one.
It’s been an open secret that women have always been more pro-life than men. Haven’t they noticed that it’s mostly extreme feminists that are “strange bedfellows” with acolytes of the Playboy Philosophy such as Bill Maher? Both groups are pro-choice for the same selfish reasons. They only seem to come from different directions. Kind of like Fascists and Communists meeting in the same place.
I realize that Anyabwile is trying to help… but can I say Thanks but no thanks?
The clock is ticking every day for these children. Every days some of them get closer to their mother’s abortion appointments.
Haven’t they noticed that it’s mostly extreme feminists that are “strange bedfellows” with acolytes of the Playboy Philosophy such as Bill Maher?
Sleazeballs like Larry Flynt and the “classier” Hugh Hefner, who see women as objects that can be “replaced” when they get older (you know, like 30), fatter, or pregnant, have always supported abortion on demand, Hans, and have donated to abortion-related causes. I don’t know why anyone is surprised by this.
Women are more prolife than men because it’s not MEN who are climbing on the abortion table and having their living children ripped from their bodies.
If men could get pregnant, childbirth would be a competitive spectator sport, and there’d be no such thing as abortion. Men would never stand for it.
Rigorous US studies – plural – and you seek out one little study which came up with not a whole lot at all.
Talk about searching for a needle in a haystack.
Cranium, I think you must find us threatening on some level, given the amount of time you spend here.
Not at all Marauder. I just don’t think you should be able to get away with presenting misinformation which may affect the choice of someone who is undecided.
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
cranium @ 5:04 PM,
It’s the same old thing every day. When will you start concentrating on the misinformation from “the other side”?
~ ~ ~
Keli hu,
The problem may be that they don’t teach basic biology in Women’s Studies programs.
“Cranium, I think you must find us threatening on some level, given the amount of time you spend here.”
Any movement with an end goal as hostile to personal freedom as this one’s should be treated as a threat, even if it currently poses no immediate danger. The FBI doesn’t wait for a known would-be terrorist to learn how to make bombs before keeping tabs on him.
“It’s the same old thing every day. When will you start concentrating on the misinformation from “the other side”?”
“The other side” is defending something that is already legal and socially accepted. For that reason “misinformation” spread in support of that goal is less objectionable. Your movement wants to drastically realign the social order for ideological reasons. That means you are on the offensive. Can you not see the value in combating misinformation spread in pursuit of radical social engineering?
“The other side” is defending something that is already legal and socially accepted. For that reason “misinformation” spread in support of that goal is less objectionable.
This should be tomorrow’s quote of the day. Really sums up the double standard.
I said it’s less objectionable because it’s not being used for a malicious, antisocial goal, not that it isn’t objectionable at all. There is no need to rely on misinformation whatsoever to defend the pro-choice position and so for that reason alone it should be avoided at all costs.
joan, you have GOT to be kidding! There is absolutely NOTHING more malicious and anti-social than spreading a woman’s legs eagle, inserting a speculum into her vagina, inserting metal dialators into a cervix until it is stretched open, dismembering and mutilating her unborn with a curette, suctioning out the body parts, and then piecing it back together to make sure you’ve “got it all”. You are sick, sick sick. You need serious help.
How does a common medical procedure, undertaken by choice, constitute “malicious and anti-social”.
There are many medical procedures which are yucky and uncomfortable. That doesn’t mean they’re malicious or anti-social.
That’s simply a subjective and emotive statement.
Actually sicko cran my post was not to you. joan was the one who used the terms “malicious and anti-social” and I did respond to her pathetic reasoning. I try to avoid feeding arrogant trolls like you, don’t have a lot of time to waste on circular arguments. Working in healthcare gives me a great perspective on “medical procedures”, but as I stated I won’t waste my time.
Yes, and I responded to your comment because your statement was unreasoned and emotive.
Fergussen (the researcher from New Zealand) is pro-choice – and he was surprised by the research. He found quite a bit of clinical depression in women who had abortions – and he did the study in a sound scientific way.
Surprisingly, he had trouble publishing his findings, despite being a well-respected researcher and never having trouble publishing before.
And if abortion was so socially acceptable, we would not have Jill and others fighting to save the lives of so many.
The killing of innocents will never be acceptable – because it’s just plain wrong.
“And if abortion was so socially acceptable, we would not have Jill and others fighting to save the lives of so many” – how do you figure that then?
joan
November 9th, 2010 at 5:24 pm
“The other side” is defending something that is already legal and socially accepted.
Legal? Yes, in most of the countries (not all though). Socially accepted? Not a chance. If it was socially accepted women (and men) would talk about it left and right, never making a big deal of it. As it is – a lot of women don’t talk about their abortions for years, sometimes never. Why do you think the “tweeting” abortion was such a big deal? And why do you think there’s this stigma with abortion? No, don’t blame pro-lifers with that, it was always there. When a woman finds out she’s pregnant, what does she say? “OMG, I’m gonna have a baby!” Every single woman in her heart of hearts knows that pregnancy = baby. THAT’S why it’s such a big deal. I haven’t heard of a woman who after seeing positive pregnancy test would just yawn and say to herself – “ah, the clump of cells is there, I’ll go sort it out next week” and would go about her business without giving it a second thought. If abortion WAS so socially acceptable and such a minor thing as going to the dentist, THAT would be expected reaction from a woman, isn’t?
joan
November 9th, 2010 at 5:24 pm
Your movement wants to drastically realign the social order for ideological reasons. That means you are on the offensive.
As was every single social justice movement for any group ever given a group name in the history of EVER. This characterization is really sensational and…well….stupid.
“Bonnie Erbe has a column in which she asserts the #ihadanabortion Twitter tag is the pro-choice technological answer to the ultrasound.”
Prolifers rejoice: Ultrasound image is about to get 50 times better. See news release:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-11/uoc–nmv110910.php
In your face Bonnie
Vita, social acceptance is not mandated by being a popular topic of conversation. The stats provided on this site have shown that the majority of people accept abortion either under any circumstances or in certain circumstances.
and despite the ‘majority view’ – they would still be wrong.
The majority of Southerners thought slavery was just dandy. The majority of Germans thought that getting rid of the Jews would solve their economic and other problems.
The majority is wrong when it supports immoral behavior and actions.
Genocide is always wrong. Even when the majority does not recognize it.
That is merely your opinion, not most peoples.
The majority thought it was fine that women couldn’t vote, the majority thought it right that women were paid less for the same work, the majority thought it right that women be limited by their fertility and that men take advantage of that.
We got rid of slavery, we gave women the vote, we allow women to choose how their fertility is incorporated into their lives.
Abortion is only immoral in your eyes.
Abortion is not genocide.
Abortion is only immoral in your eyes.
Abortion is not genocide.
Perfect example of what I talked about on another thread. Absolutely nothing of substance added here. Opinion. No facts. Just “well, that’s YOUR opinion, but THIS is MY opinion, and MY opinion’s true, because I say it is!” Whatev, cranium. Same ol’ same ol’.
Cranium, do you not realize that you just accused the pro-life side of not being in the majority, only to point out immediately afterwards how the majority has been wrong in the past? Kinda self-defeating.
Oh but it’s fine for people such as joyfromIllinois to make blatant comments which can’t or won’t be substantiated is it Kel? Because you agree with it?
joyfromIllinois said “The majority is wrong when it supports immoral behavior and actions” yet has only personal opinion and belief that abortion is immoral.
I do not believe that abortion is immoral, nor do many others. That’s a fact for you.
Abortion is not genocide:
Definition: [n] systematic killing of a racial or cultural group
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=genocide
There’s another fact for you.
“well, that’s YOUR opinion, but THIS is MY opinion, and MY opinion’s true, because I say it is!”
I find your pot to be significantly blacker than my kettle.
Would you care to explain how you draw that conclusion bmmg39?
Oh but it’s fine for people such as joyfromIllinois to make blatant comments which can’t or won’t be substantiated is it Kel?
Did I say that?
joyfromIllinois said “The majority is wrong when it supports immoral behavior and actions” yet has only personal opinion and belief that abortion is immoral.
What did the groups whom you mentioned earlier have, other than personal opinion and subjective belief, that THOSE things were immoral? (And bmmg has a great point, btw.)
You can find my pot to be blacker than your kettle, but sadly, that is an opinion as well.
Here’s what you said, which is what bmmg was referring to: The majority thought it was fine that women couldn’t vote, the majority thought it right that women were paid less for the same work, the majority thought it right that women be limited by their fertility and that men take advantage of that.
And now, today, you are claiming that the “majority” feel abortion is just fine. Your point?
Abortion is not genocide:
Definition: [n] systematic killing of a racial or cultural group
Ah, I see now. So, if we don’t classify the unborn as a cultural “group” – or as anything at all, for that matter, other than a “clump of cells” – then we don’t have to call it genocide. For this statement to be correct, you’d have to be able to prove that the unborn are not human beings. Isn’t it convenient that you get to define what a “group” is and then say it doesn’t fall under the genocide category? The same arguments are made the world over in places where genocide takes place. The unborn are no less human than the born.
Oh, and in case you’d like to try and say that last sentence is merely “my opinion” please consult a biology text first. Goodnight.
I’m still not clear on what exactly you and bmmg39 are saying Kel. I think we may be at cross purposes linguistically speaking.
The point I was making was that joyfromIllinois was claiming that allowing access to abortion was as bad as slavery and the holocaust.
I was saying that preventing access to abortion is as bad as not allowing women to vote or not having equal pay for women.
It wasn’t really about the whole ‘majority’ thing. That’s what joyfromIllinois kept alluding to with her invalid comparisons. I was responding to her attempt to draw parallels that I see as inaccurate.
That is my point.
The unborn may be human but they are certainly not a ‘cultural group’ in any axiomatic sense or term. So I don’t need to prove they aren’t human, and I won’t just claim them to be a “clump of cells”.
You however, may wish to attempt to prove they are a ‘cultural group’ or ‘race’.
Since not as many human beings died during American slavery as have been killed by abortion, and since not as many human beings died during the Holocaust as have been killed by abortion, then abortion is statistically WORSE than either the Holocaust or American slavery.
Interesting also to note: women fought for the right to vote and gained it in 1920. Women fought for equal pay for equal work, but the feminazi’s at NOW and elsewhere sold them out, sold women out so they could spend their time promoting abortion instead of equal pay. What happened to the ERA? Hmm? It’s not even a meme that the Y generation understands, but we have had over 50 million (that we know of) murdered children.
Since these dead children all have something in common (the status of being pre-born), their mass murder absolutely qualifies as genocide.
ninek, the point that you, and others, keep avoiding is that while you claim abortion fits into the same category as slavery I believe it fits into the same category as women obtaining the vote. You think the introduction of abortion was a negative while I think it was a positive move forward.
Abortion does not meet the criteria of ‘genocide’.
Cranium: “Would you care to explain how you draw that conclusion bmmg39?”
I’m trying to figure out how, without repeating exactly what I wrote. You asserted that “most people” don’t share the pro-life view — i.e. the pro-choice view is (according to you) in the majority — and then immediately after that you listed times when other majorities favored things we all oppose now (slavery, women being denied the right to vote, unequal pay for equal work). That’s a strange list to post right after claiming your side is in the majority.
cranium: “ninek, the point that you, and others, keep avoiding is that while you claim abortion fits into the same category as slavery I believe it fits into the same category as women obtaining the vote.”
Ah-ha. Did any human beings die so that women could obtain the vote?
Abortion does not meet the criteria of ‘genocide’.
cranium,
Perhaps you are just nit-picking, but call it what you will. Try foeticide (feticide)- killing of a fetus, infanticide – more general, encompassing born infants too, and gendercide (usually girls – although it could apply to both aborted fetuses and newborns, IMHO). Here is an article (with several sources) which uses all three terms.
http://www.gendercide.org/case_infanticide.html
if abortion ends human life, and those lives are in significant number then it is indeed an act of genocide. Just in America alone – abortion has stunted the growth of the African American population. see http://www.blackgenocide.org
And right now the Black American community is missing about 16 million of its members, with only 36 million remaining. That is nearly 30% missing.
World-wide we are missing about a billion people and PP celebrated that.
I can’t imagine any government, business or entity celebrating the demise of so many humans.
This is not about semantics – this is real life; or more accurately, real death.
Abortion does not meet the criteria of genocide.
“This is not about semantics – this is real life” – ergo, abortion.