Jivin J's Life Links 3-12-10

web grab.jpgby JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat

  • Tom McClusky lists the top 8 reasons abortion is in the health care overhaul.

  • A MI jury has rejected Harlan Drake's insanity defense and found him guilty of 1st degree murder for killing abortion protester James Pouillon and businessman Mike Fuoss.

  • Joe Carter examines how the Netherlands has become so enamored with assisted suicide and euthanasia...
  • Over a period of 40 years, the Dutch have continued the search for where to draw the line with euthanasia, shifting from acceptance of voluntary euthanasia for the terminally ill, to voluntary euthanasia for the chronically ill, to non-voluntary euthanasia for the sick and disabled, to euthanasia for those who are not sick at all but are merely "suffering through living."

    euthanasia.jpg

    While the initial impetus may have been spurred by a desire to give expanded rights to the person who faces extreme suffering or imminent death, the effect has been to concentrate power into the hands of state-sponsored medical professionals. And while the justification for assisted death is usually the supposed well being of the suffering patient, the Dutch have redefined natural dependency into an unacceptable or unwanted social burden.

    By conflating the duty to reduce suffering with the perceived necessity to eliminate all suffering, Dutch physicians have increasingly resorted to euthanasia as a novel form of sympathectomy... a medical procedure that is sometimes required after a localized trauma or peripheral nerve injury, when a person may feel a syndrome of pain and tenderness that can only be relieved by the excision of a sympathetic nerve. ... [T]he Dutch are resorting to the excision provided by euthanasia.

  • AUL has responded to the criticisms by Commonweal's Matthew Boudway of their legal analysis on abortion and health care.

  • David Christensen takes down the meme that the federal government already subsidizes abortion because the federal government doesn't tax employer-based health care plans:
  • There are several errors in this argument. First, the employer tax exclusion does mean that a business is being taxed less so they can purchase health care plans. Being taxed less by the government is different than the government making direct payments, through tax credits, grants or other expenditures. So the employer tax exclusion for health care is different than the Federal government pays someone to purchase of health plans. There is a difference between government spending of public funds, and the government taking less of your money.

    [Photo attribution: firstthings.com]


    Comments:

    Speaking of abortion in the health care takeover, did you catch Stupak's comments today? He says the Dems are saying that his amendment will result in more births and cost the nation more money. Since when are the Dems in the current congress concerned about spending our money? But since they claim to be concerned, I'd like to know at what point they think it's too costly to sustain already-born life.

    Posted by: Fed Up at March 12, 2010 6:54 PM


    Thanks for the link Fed Up.

    The war is raging. The pro death mob is employing its dirtiest tactics because the stakes are high.

    Ten's or even hundred's of thousands of babies lives hang in the balance.

    You gotta love Stupak though. Even his own guys are deserting him in the heat of the battle, yet he's standing strong.

    We need to pray.

    Posted by: Ed at March 12, 2010 11:14 PM


    Thanks, Fed Up. On Hot Air, Allahpundit says, "I don’t quite believe it, although that’s partly because I don’t want to believe it. It’s the abortion equivalent of death panels, essentially. It’s so sinister, and so perfectly matches the most ogrish caricatures of the pro-choice left, that it’s almost too bad to check. It’d be like Ron Paul claiming that pro-war Republicans told him to vote for Iraq because they were dying to get their hands on all that oil. They simply can’t be this cold-blooded."

    Posted by: Jon at March 12, 2010 11:52 PM


    I urge all of you to read Joe Carter's article. This is just so disturbing!!!

    From the article:

    Over a period of forty years, the Dutch have continued the search for where to draw the line with euthanasia, shifting from acceptance of voluntary euthanasia for the terminally ill, to voluntary euthanasia for the chronically ill, to non-voluntary euthanasia for the sick and disabled, to euthanasia for those who are not sick at all but are merely “suffering through living".

    This all happened in a mere 40 years! This is government health care at it's finest-NOT!!

    The article states 77% of the population supports non-voluntary euthanasia. Are these the families of the elderly, the infirmed? This is just sick!!

    Posted by: Lovethemboth at March 13, 2010 7:39 AM


    So under David Christenson's logic, he'd be quite fine with a tax deduction on our federal taxes for abortion - person pays for it themselves, but then gets to claim that money as a deduction - because heck, if a person paid for it with their own money first and foremost, it is better than a direct payment from the government.

    I don't buy that logic.

    Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at March 13, 2010 9:18 AM


    "The lives of tens of thousands of babies lie in the balance?"
    You're making it sound as though you can stop women from having abortions,like all anti-choicers.
    Women are going to find a way to have abortions no matter what. And I'm disgusted by the sheer
    hypocrisy of anti-choice DINOS (democrats in name only) who want to deny poor women the right to have an abortion but don't give a you-know-what
    about what happens to poor unwanted children who are born to mothers who lack the means to take decent care of them.
    Right to life? What about the right to decent food,shelter,clothing education and medical care?
    If poor women can't provide these necessities for their unborn children abortions will continue to be common.
    And please don't give me all this self-serving garbage about conservatives contributing more to charities than liberals, and the need for adoption.
    Charities don't even come remotely close to being able to provide enough care for all poor children, and adoption is NOT a realistic alternative to abortion. Yes, we ought to do more to prevent unwanted pregnancies and to create social conditions in which women will be much less likely to seek and obtain abortions.
    But what you anti-choicers advocate,which is merely making abortion illegal will not solve the abortion problem but only mske the situation far,far worse.
    Making abortion illegal can never stop it; this only makes it much more dangerous.
    When will you anti-choicers get it?

    Posted by: Robert Berger at March 13, 2010 10:53 AM


    Robert,

    Why don't we just wait until we know for sure that the mothers are in financial needs and THEN kill their children? Let's make sure that they are in a situation where they can't provide and then take care of the problem (by killing their kid). Let's be scientific about this and not try and do guess work about whether or not they will be in financial trouble in the future. Let's wait until they are actually in financial trouble and then BAM... off with the kid's head. this would have been very helpful during the economic meltdown of last year. Many people who were seemingly well off found themselves in huge financial trouble. They need a way out, a way to start over. Sure, it would have been nice if they could have had abortions when they were pregnant with the children that they THOUGHT they could always provide for, but we can't go back in time and give them their much needed abortions. They had no way of knowing! Thus, a better solution would be to be able to "take care" of your children whenever you need to.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at March 13, 2010 11:01 AM


    Robert,
    Instead of writing such long-winded comments just boil it all down to your core belief, please.

    THE POOR DESERVE DEATH!!

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at March 13, 2010 11:17 AM


    Robert Berger,
    You should run for political office. You'd be a shoe-in. You could tax all of us hypocrites to death. Then you could print abortion vouchers and drop them from airplanes into the poor neighborhoods. Then you could close their best schools to ensure that the poor stay poor. With fewer births over time, eventually their sorry lives could be eliminated from this earth. It's all for the best, right?

    Posted by: Janet at March 13, 2010 1:53 PM


    Robert,

    Is your knowledge of women dying horrible deaths from illegal abortion real or anecdotal?

    Posted by: Janet at March 13, 2010 2:05 PM


    "You're making it sound as though you can stop women from having abortions,like all anti-choicers."

    We have Robert Berger, hundreds of them.

    You're right though, if a woman is bound and determined to kill her child, and she will not listen to reason, there is only so much we can do, even after we criminalize it. Much like if you are absolutely resolute in your rejection of Christ, there is only so much we can do to keep you out of Hell.

    You make a great point however. When we are successful criminalizing abortion, we, all of us, have an obligation to hold deadbeat dads accountable and to help provide for mothers and their children.

    I'm sorry Robert, I will never "get" your justification for the wholesale slaughter of innocent children.

    Posted by: Ed at March 13, 2010 6:40 PM


    The following is my attempt at a parody of Robert Berger. I think it's fair.

    The lives of tens of thousands of Germans lie in the balance?"
    You're making it sound as though you can stop Nazis from gassing Jews,like all Zionists.
    Nazis are going to find a way to gas Jews no matter what. And I'm disgusted by the sheer
    hypocrisy of anti-Aryan SSINOS (SS in name only) who want to deny patriotic Germans their civic duty to gas Jews but don't give a you-know-what
    about what happens to blood-contaminated children who are born to Jewish mothers who continue to breed in our proud Aryan homeland.
    Right to life? What about the proud German tradition of quality manufacturing! Since all our medical research so far proves Jews can't be changed into Aryans, the gassing of Jews will continue to be common.
    And please don't give me all this self-serving garbage about Jew-lovers being more patriotic than Nazis, and the need for a refugee program.
    Refugee programs don't even come remotely close to being able to efficiently disburse all the Jews in Germany to all parts of the world, and anyway the Jews will continue to be a problem wherever we put them. Yes, we ought to do more to prevent mixed-race marriages and to create social conditions in which Nazis will no longer be forced to gas Jews.
    But what you Zionists advocate,which is merely making Jew-gassing illegal will not solve the Jew-gassing problem but only mske the situation far,far worse.
    Making Jew-gassing illegal can never stop it; this only makes it much more dangerous.
    When will you Zionists get it?

    Posted by: Jon at March 13, 2010 11:13 PM


    well, yeah to the jury rejecting the insanity defense of killer Harlan Drake.

    He wasn't insane. He was angry. And weird.

    Posted by: angel at March 14, 2010 8:53 AM


    Rovert Berger,
    And I'm disgusted by the sheer
    hypocrisy of anti-choice DINOS (democrats in name only) who want to deny poor women the right to have an abortion but don't give a you-know-what
    about what happens to poor unwanted children who are born to mothers who lack the means to take decent care of them.
    Right to life? What about the right to decent food,shelter,clothing education and medical care?

    Riigghhtt. And that's why pro-lifers operate and volunteer in over 4,000 pregnancy resource centers in the united states and other countries, which provides parenting and childbirth classes; nutritional counseling; material items (see Earn While You Learn program below); and referrals to public and private agencies for assistance such as Medicaid, the Woman, Infants, and Child (WIC) program, Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF), homeless and battered women shelters, and for health care. Most centers feature clothing rooms, which are a department store-like resource center for supplementary material goods such as baby furniture, car safety seats, diapers, hygiene items, blankets and crib bedding, formula/baby food, and new and gently used infant/toddler clothes. Clients are able to make purchases by using "Mommy Money" that is earned by attending 'Earn and Learn' classes. 'Earn and Learn' classes include pregnancy, prenatal development, delivery and postpartum care, the emotional needs and physical care of a newborn/toddler/school-aged child, first aid, foundations of discipline, financial management, job preparation and other life skills. Not only does this program provide clients with the material things they need for their babies, but also teaches them valuable life skills and gives them independence and a sense of self-worth.

    Or how "We offer—and deliver—concrete, here-and-now help. Groceries, clothing, cribs, "safe haven" places to stay as long as they need (like my own home, for instance, in my guest room), baby supplies for their other young ones, even medical care for them and their unborn babies." - http://afterabortion.blogspot.com/2004/07/ive-gone-back-finally-as-some-of-you.html

    Or how pro-lifers pitched in and worked together to help pay a 15 week pregnant woman's $1950/month mortgage payment when she couldn't work due to pregnancy complications and was at risk of loosing her home:
    http://thesiclecell.blogspot.com/2005/12/question-arose-from-someone-interested.html
    http://afterabortion.blogspot.com/2005/12/need-has-been-met-god-bless-you-all.html

    And on a personal note, my best and closest friend is a single mom to a school-aged child. I was there for her through her pregnancy and her daughter's childhood. I've been there to provide emotional support when she went to the hospital, provide transportation to doctor's offices and Medicaid appointments, provided childcare for her daughter while she was at work or needed an evening off, but most of all continue to giver her support and encouragement. Also, I've been volunteering at a local soup kitchen, where we distribute hot meals and sack lunches to low income and homeless individuals and families, for the last eight years, off and on, as times allows. And I'm currently creating and distributing basic care bags, with information on local resources, to the indigent homeless in Indiana.

    Care to say that again??

    Posted by: Rachael C. at March 15, 2010 12:25 AM


    *Sorry, Robert Berger, typed too fast :p

    Posted by: Rachael C. at March 15, 2010 12:28 AM