by Susie Allen, TN pro-life activist
Disability Matters wonders why the pro-euthanasia, pro-assisted suicide British press is “all atwitter” about the bizarre and tragic story of a mother now on trial for murdering her teenage son. Thomas Inglis was injured in an accident, and although doctors said he would regain some function, Frances Inglis became obsessed with killing him. She eventually succeeded after 2 bold attempts….
At his blog Coming Home (subtitled, “Science in service of the pro-life movement”). Dr. Gerard Nadal has an excellent post, “When scientists lie: The breast cancer-abortion link held hostage”:
Abortion is held out by women as an absolute good for women. If the epidemiological data suggest that abortion harms women, then why are these data being downplayed?…. Scientists are slow to relinquish their orthodoxies, especially those which have become woven into the fabric of the body politic.
Big Blue Wave asks a provocative question: If a mother finds she is pregnant in the 3rd trimester but doesn’t want children, is she entitled to an abortion? This was asked in response to the ABC News story of a MI mother of 3 who didn’t realize she was pregnant until delivering a healthy 9# boy in her bathtub. Hear the 911 call.
LiveAction.org is looking for skilled writers to contribute to its blogs. Interested prospective bloggers should inquire to davidschmidt@liveaction.org
MInTheGap examines the story of Jacob in Genesis 32 and reminds us that sometimes when we stand for righteous, we stand alone:
Simply because there is a majority does not mean that the majority is right. Do we stand for what’s right, regardless of whether or not it’s popular?
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.
1 Tim 2:14-15 15 But women will bepreserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. NASU
1 Tim 2:15 15 Nevertheless [the sentence put upon women of pain in motherhood does not hinder their souls’ salvation, and] they will be saved [eternally] if they continue in faith and love and holiness with self-control, [saved indeed] through the Childbearing or by the birth of the divine Child. AMP
Oh, the vagaries of translation, not to mention trying to bridge 2000 years of culture gap.
This is another one of those passages that is difficult to understand absent the whole context in which the author wrote it.
But it must make feministas and humanistas apoplectic however they choose to mis-understand it.
Is this passage relevant in the context of the elective abortion/breast cancer connection?
Somewhere in the book GOD sets ‘life and death’, the ‘blessing or the curse’ before us and commands us to choose.
Then HE recommends that we choose life and the blessing that we might live.
But HE says if you choose to choose death and the curse then here is what you lot will be….
I believe today we call that informed consent.
But the ‘no brainer’ that the correct answer is, we humans still choose to make the wrong choice.
[Free will can be a dangerous because humans are stupid.]
Should we be surprised that there is a connection between death [elective abortion] and a curse [cancer]?
yor bro ken
ps: ‘never a GOP’, my remarks were original. I only cut and pasted the relelvant passages from the ‘book’.
I think that phone call is amazing!
Asked about the concept[Haiti operating under a ‘curse’], White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said, “It never ceases to amaze that in times of amazing human suffering somebody says something that could be so utterly stupid. But it like clockwork happens with some regularity.”
—————————————————-
Gibbs would be the foremost example of someone saying something both ‘stupid’ and ‘stupidly’ with clockwork regularity. Joe Biden would come in a incementally close second place.
yor bro ken
“If a mother finds she is pregnant in the 3rd trimester but doesn’t want children, is she entitled to an abortion?”
I would take this even further. There’s that show on TLC “I didn’t know I was pregnant” which reenacts scenes when mothers gave birth to children without knowing they were pregnant (apparently based on real-life stories). Now according to the bodily autonomy argument, the fetus, though a person, is an intruder in the woman’s body if she does not wish him to be there, and hence, has the right to deal a lethal blow to him if that is what it takes to stop the assult on her body, much like she is allowed to deliver a lethal blow to a rapist if he is violating her body. Now the question is this: if you end up giving birth to a child that you didn’t know about and did not want invited into your body, shouldn’t you have the right to punish the child who used your body for 9 months without your knowledge and consent? This is akin to drugging someone so that they are unconscious and then raping them so that they never know. Using someone’s body is punishable by death, so why not punish them for using their body without their knowledge and consent? Justice demands that the newborn baby be punished for using her body.
I would really like to see how SoMG would answer this question because he does indeed hold to the hypotheses that I stated about a fetus using a woman’s body, it being justifiable homicide, etc.
Wow, that 911 call was something else!
Karl Rove just called the MA Senate race for Brown.
BO gave it his best shot at the end there, pulled out all the stops, flashed that big smile of his.
I thought he had a gift?
A harbinger of things to come, no doubt.