(Prolifer)ations 6-11-10

Thumbnail image for blog buzz.jpg

by Kelli

  • ProWomanProLife reports on a jaw-dropper from Belgium: Almost half of all patients killed by euthanasia had not requested to die.

  • Albert Mohler addresses the link between IVF, abortion, and the idolatry of "self."

  • Andrew Haines at Ethika Politika points out the effectiveness of combating relativistic pro-abortion ideas by appealing to "natural law."...
  • ThePillKills.com has posted a wrap-up of a press conference it held on YouTube:
  • Disability Matters has a post about the federal sting operation in AZ and GA against the Final Exit Network, a euthanasia assistance group:
  • FEN advocates [were found] not even asking for proof that the victim had a terminal disease (or any disease, for that matter), and the... undercover agent was assured that once the assisted killing had begun, his FEN "guide" would hold his hands tightly enough so that he couldn't change his mind and rip the gas mask from his face.


    Comments:

    More teenagers die a year giving childbirth than do from the pill, stop posting unscientific theological propaganda.

    Posted by: Rarian Rakista at June 11, 2010 11:09 PM


    In 1973, America had an admirably low infant mortality rate and with advances in antibiotics and medical technology, mothers were safer than ever. Fewer died in childbirth than ever before in human history. Suddenly, after Roe v Wade, childbirth becomes frighteningly dangerous. The real reality check is that suicide is the leading cause of death among teenagers. Where abortion rates are high, suicide rates are high. More teenagers die by their own hand, suffering from post abortive symptoms, than die in childbirth, Rarian.

    Posted by: Ninek at June 12, 2010 12:34 AM


    The IVF thing is the most asinine story ever. 80 abortions in England after IVF--but it doesn't say why. Does anyone seriously believe that women are so evil and stupid that they'd shell out $20,000 for a painful procedure that rarely works, then change their minds? These women are almost certainly aborting for health reasons or severe defects. (Cue response: blah blah eugenics, blah blah women deserve to die if the precious fetus is killing them.)

    Posted by: Ashley Herzog at June 12, 2010 8:19 AM


    Ashley, the original story here: http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/article7144878.ece discusses the mentality of some of these women. I realize it seems crazy, but people actually DO crazy things sometimes.

    And WTH is up with your "women deserve to die if the precious fetus is killing them" comment? You *know* pro-lifers are not against saving the life of the mother if it is at risk, so for you to say that, after many of the seemingly pro-life comments you've made lately, is really strange, to say the least. You appear to be vascillating between hatred for pro-lifers and BEING a pro-lifer, as well as the desire to be pregnant and using terms to dehumanize the unborn child, like "precious fetus."

    But I digress. I wanted to point out two stories from the article: Victoria, a secretary from London, decided to abort her much-wanted IVF baby when it became clear her marriage was breaking up. “I couldn’t cope with bringing up a child on my own and I didn’t want any link that would force me to stay in touch with my husband,” she said.

    Jessica Rogers, a nursing supervisor at the Marie Stopes clinic in Bristol, said she recently dealt with a woman expecting twins through IVF who had discovered her husband was having an affair. Rogers said: “She was having his babies and she just didn’t want to continue with it on her own. I don’t think he even found out she had been pregnant.”

    Both situations (breaking up of a marriage and affair of the husband) were the same ones my mother found herself in when she discovered she was pregnant with me. Abortion was perfectly legal at the time, and she could have just as easily aborted me to not have to face my dad (who had been unfaithful to her) ever again. She raised me on her own, and I have a pretty amazing life. Being born in such a situation does not determine the course of one's future. Had my mother done what these women did, I wouldn't exist and neither would my 3 children. And my mother would have aborted her only pregnancy.

    Posted by: Kel at June 12, 2010 11:37 AM


    I don't understand why the term "fetus" is supposedly degrading. When I was a child, my parents didn't get all butt hurt by people refusing to call me an adult. It's an accurate term for a developmental stage.

    Granted, most people choose to call it "the baby," but using an accurate term isn't derogatory.

    Posted by: Ashley Herzog at June 12, 2010 3:32 PM


    It's not the term "fetus" that's degrading, Ashley. Fetus is a scientific term. But your use of the phrase "precious fetus" was clearly meant to imply that pro-lifers value the unborn over their mothers. Many pro-choicers like to call us "fetus worshippers." Your phrasing implied the exact same thing, and, since you are an intelligent woman, I'm pretty sure you were aware of that.

    Posted by: Kel at June 12, 2010 9:44 PM


    Yes, Ashley, your fetus was precious. Not more precious than you though. But not less precious either.

    Posted by: Praxedes at June 12, 2010 10:42 PM


    You *know* pro-lifers are not against saving the life of the mother if it is at risk, so for you to say that, after many of the seemingly pro-life comments you've made lately, is really strange, to say the least.

    It was only a few days ago that I saw so many posters here show support for the bishop who excommunicated the nun who allowed a woman to abort in order to save her life.

    I struggle with whether or not I am truly "pro-life." What if someday I were to die, leaving my existing children motherless and my husband widowed, because I was in this woman's shoes and was not allowed an abortion?

    I can not speak for Ashley, but I don't *know* that all pro lifers will allow an abortion to save the life of the mother. I've seen many people on this blog with the attitude of "no exceptions."

    Posted by: len at June 13, 2010 5:48 PM


    It's obvious some "pro-lifers" think the virtuous thing to do is leave your children motherless so as not to harm the precious fetus. Even if you're dying and it can't survive outside the womb--meaning you get two deaths instead of just one.

    But we already know fanatics for any cause tend to worship death and martyrdom.

    Those are the REAL anti-abortion extremists, though. Pro-choicers have their small group of extremists too--like that ProChoiceGal character who admitted she supports elective abortion on the due date. She refused to say there was anything wrong with Tiller botching an abortion on a full-term girl who survived the procedure, but was neglected for 24 hours. Those people are clearly as evil as someone who thinks women should die for a non-viable fetus.


    Posted by: Ashley Herzog at June 13, 2010 7:45 PM


    I know that both sides have extremists. It's hard to figure out just how "extreme" the norm is. And how extreme are pro-life politicians?

    And I have to admit, it is discouraging to be told I'm not "pro-life" because I don't agree with everyone pro-lifer about every issue.

    Posted by: len at June 13, 2010 9:19 PM


    I think you need to draw the line somewhere. And yes, it IS extremely difficult to decide whether a fetus has rights at 21 weeks, 22, 26...etc. But my feeling? The unborn should gradually move from having no rights (like the 4-week embryo aborted by the Live Tweeting Abortion woman) to having the same rights as a child. The closer you get to being a baby, the more rights you have. That means you can't abort in the third trimester just because you feel like it.

    Posted by: Ashley Herzog at June 13, 2010 9:31 PM


    So the right to life should be based on age? Do we all get more important the older we get? All unborn humans deserve to live.

    What rights did your precious fetus have Ashley?

    Isn't it getting difficult balancing on that fence of yours?

    Posted by: Praxedes at June 13, 2010 10:07 PM


    maybe Praxedes should get a life and go harass Carla or something. She had an abortion too, so I think the Bible-beating anti-abortion people are only motivated by a hatred of sexually active women, not women who had abortions. You seriously need help for your hang-ups and hatred and disgust of sex.


    Posted by: Ashley Herzog at June 13, 2010 11:34 PM


    If a woman's life is in danger the intent is to save TWO lives. The unfortunate result is that sometimes the child dies while trying to save both the mother and the child.

    The intent of an abortion is to KILL the child.

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at June 14, 2010 7:50 AM


    I have a friend who had an infection when she was 14 weeks along. The pregnancy would kill her. Her precious boy was delivered and died in her arms. If you told her she had an abortion you would most likely get a slap in the face.
    What a heart wrenching situation to be in!!!

    Oh, and removal of an ectopic pregnancy is NOT an abortion.

    Trying to save lives is what real doctors do.

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at June 14, 2010 8:02 AM


    Oh and Ashley?

    I understand that you seem to be on the fence about some things. I am glad that you continue to post here. I appreciate honest questions.

    Praxedes can harass me all she wants. :)

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at June 14, 2010 8:12 AM


    Ashley,

    I didn't say anything about sex or the Bible. I was defending the value of ALL unborn children not just those who reach the age that you want to rationalize they magically become human. Pointing out where I believe you are very wrong does not constitute harassing behavior.

    You've said your BF is very Catholic and therefore a believer in the Bible. You've also said he is against abortion. And then you state, "I think the Bible-beating anti-abortion people are only motivated by a hatred of sexually active women." Do the math.

    Oh and Carla -- Na, Na, Na, Na, Na!! (my tongue is out and my hands are waving by my ears) Hey, Carla, don't flip me off! Ashley told me to and what was I s'pose to do?!!!


    Posted by: Praxedes at June 14, 2010 10:11 AM


    I'm telling Jill!! :P

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at June 14, 2010 10:23 AM


    What matters is intention, and the woman who had the abortion at the Catholic hospital wasn't doing it because she just didn't want to be pregnant. She had life-threatening complications. In this case, people defending the excommunication are objectively pro-death.

    Posted by: Ashley Herzog at June 14, 2010 10:57 AM


    Can someone please point me to an article regarding this nun's excommunication which lists the actual condition of the woman? I've not been able to find one.

    If this woman's condition was immediately life threatening and the ONLY way to save her was to abort her child, then this was not an elective abortion. It would be in the same vein as a tubal pregnancy.

    Elective abortion is a grave evil and injustice inflicted upon other helpless human beings who happen to be in a stage of lesser development than their mothers. I do not agree with abortion even for reasons of fetal abnormality, rape or incest. I do not agree because the life of the mother is not in immediate danger, and therefore, ruling that someone else's life should be terminated so that another person's life can be made somehow "better" is inexcusable.

    I hope that's clear enough.

    Posted by: Kel at June 14, 2010 11:16 AM


    Kel @ 11:16,

    Dr. Nadal wrote several articles/posts on the topic you are referring to on his own blog, ComingHome.

    Posted by: Janet at June 14, 2010 11:34 AM


    Hi Kel,

    There seems to be controversy surrounding whether or not the mother's condition was immediately life-threatening. The word 'immediately' is a key word and does make all the difference in how this situation is viewed. The proaborts jumped all over this in attempts to rationalize their own pro-death mentality.

    Two sites I found that give a more balanced look at the situation are:

    http://www.ncregister.com/blog/what_are_the_true_facts_regarding_the_abortion_approving_nun/

    http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=36604

    Posted by: Praxedes at June 14, 2010 11:41 AM


    Thx, Janet and Praxedes.

    I see this quote in one of Dr. Nadal's posts, here http://gerardnadal.com/2010/05/23/more-debate-with-dr-becker-on-the-phoenix-abortion/:
    “2 – An abortion early in the pregnancy of a patient like this is far safer than taking a wait and see
    attitude.
    3 – To deny this mother lifesaving medical care at the time of the admission denied her access to long term therapies that might save her life.”

    However, Catholic bioethics and morality requires that every effort be made to save both patients’ lives. Your approach in #2 is a direct contravention of this principle and practice.

    I agree with Dr. Nadal. In this situation, it appears that perhaps only one patient was treated (the mother), and the other obviously was not (the unborn child).

    Kelli (Kel)

    Posted by: Kelli Author Profile Page at June 14, 2010 11:52 AM


    Praxedes, that 2nd link was *excellent*. Thank you so much for posting it. It really outlined the situation well, as I had the same reaction that another physician in the article had when I read "pulmonary hypertension."

    Posted by: Kelli Author Profile Page at June 14, 2010 12:10 PM


    Yeah, two blog posts and an article from "Catholic.org" are totally credible.

    Posted by: Ashley Herzog at June 14, 2010 12:59 PM


    Ashley, if you know of a "more credible" link you could post for me, I'd welcome it, as I didn't specifically request links that were Catholic in nature. (FYI, I'm not Catholic.) Thanks.

    Posted by: Kelli Author Profile Page at June 14, 2010 1:01 PM


    "Yeah, two blog posts and an article from "Catholic.org" are totally credible."

    Posted by: Ashley Herzog at June 14, 2010 12:59 PM

    Your anti-Catholic bias is showing. Should Catholics, such as myself, crawl into our little holes and be silent about everything secular???

    Posted by: Janet at June 14, 2010 2:15 PM


    I am Catholic as well, and while I wouldn't have been as blunt as Ashley was in pointing it out, those articles really don't give a "balanced look at the situation" at all.

    Not that they are required to. They are Catholic publications, after all. Of course they are going to give a Catholic viewpoint.

    Posted by: len at June 14, 2010 4:36 PM


    Len,

    Are these articles not balanced and credible because they are from a Catholic viewpoint? Please let me know of articles that you believe give a more balanced, credible look at this situation.

    These circumstances do however entail a Catholic hospital, a nun and a bishop and I realize that Planned Parenthood, an abortionist and a proabort will have differing viewpoints than the Catholic Church. This only means that their views differ not that they are more credible sources for facts.

    The question remains on whether or not this woman's condition was IN FACT IMMEDIATELY life threatening.

    This situation hits close to home because 13 plus years ago a large tumor was found near our fetus that could not be tested for cancer without aborting. Abortion was strongly recommended if I wanted to be on the safe side.

    It ended up not being a cancerous tumor but a non-cancerous cyst. My 13 year-old son just left for baseball practice.

    I personally don't believe this mother's condition was immediately life-threatening but do deeply sympathize with her and her family. However, if you can find someone who knows for a fact that the mother would have died if an abortion was not immediately done, please lead me in that direction. Thanks.


    Posted by: Praxedes at June 14, 2010 6:00 PM


    Len wrote:

    I am Catholic as well, and while I wouldn't have been as blunt as Ashley was in pointing it out, those articles really don't give a "balanced look at the situation" at all.

    Er... Len: that's very pluralistic-sounding of you, but there are two problems with your comment:

    1) Ashley dismissed the articles as "not credible"; she didn't talk about their "balance". Are you as willing to admit that any article in a Catholic publication is utterly unworthy of belief?

    2) Are you suggesting that pro-lifers must necessarily be "merely partisan" in their outlook? Is it not possible that they hold such views because they are, in fact, TRUE? (As a Christian, surely you believe that the right to life of the unborn child is TRUE, and not simply a partisan position which individual pro-lifers must accept through "party allegiance"?) When I say that "2 + 2 = 4", I suppose you could call it "partisan" against those who insist that 2 + 2 = 5, but I *would* have the advantage of being *right*. Do you follow?

    Not that they are required to. They are Catholic publications, after all. Of course they are going to give a Catholic viewpoint.

    Here, again: you insinuate that the "Catholic viewpoint" is merely one valid option among many (apparently independent of "balance" or "credibility"), much like my taste for sour cherries may differ from someone else's tastes. Is that all Catholicism (or the Catholic position on the dignity and value of every human life, from conception until natural death) is, to you? A matter of mere taste?

    Could you clarify your position, here? I hope I'm misunderstanding you...

    Posted by: Paladin at June 14, 2010 6:11 PM


    Sorry, Praxedes. I know that Ashley only questioned the credibility of the articles. I was addressing your statement that the articles gave “a balanced look.” Journalistically, it is almost impossible to give a balanced look at a controversial subject. Every writer is biased, and it’s going to come through in his or her writings. Articles published on a Catholic website are most definitely going to lean toward the opinion held by the church.

    The author of the first article knows so little about what actually happened at the hospital that the phrase “at some point” is used no less than five times, along with “presumably, “perhaps,” “as far as we can tell,” and even “the facts of the case are not entirely clear.” The author does not even know when the abortion occurred or what kind of abortion the patient had. How can someone who admittedly knows SO LITTLE about the facts and the medical condition of the patient be certain that an abortion wasn’t the only possible way to save the woman’s life? He’s not even a doctor, much less a cardiovascular specialist who had examined the patient. But the author makes it pretty clear that facts aren’t important when it comes to being objective. I don’t believe that this particular article is the least bit credible on any level.

    The second article is more informative, but I am disturbed by the fact that the patient’s doctors are quoted as stating, "If there had been a way to save the pregnancy and still prevent the death of the mother, we would have done it," the letter says. "We are convinced there was not." The doctor quoted by the author who disagrees had never even examined this patient. He can give opinions based on his experiences, but even he “emphasized that he was not commentating on what the woman's particular treatment should have been under the circumstances, given that she is not his patient.” If a specialist does not feel that he is in a position to judge if an abortion was necessary to save the woman, then how can a bishop?

    In judging the articles based on the fact that they were published on Catholic websites, perhaps I was too hasty. I’ll admit I assume that a Catholic organization is going to immediately back up the bishop’s decision despite what the patient’s doctors had to say. The whole situation terrifies me, as I mentioned in an earlier post, so I’m having a difficult time grasping the bishop’s decision.

    Posted by: len at June 14, 2010 8:01 PM


    Thanks Len for pointing out things in the articles that I missed. I appreciate your views.

    I am concerned though that this woman's doctor is probably a proabort based on his statement where he refers to saving the pregnancy, not saving the fetus.

    I do believe that the proabort medical personnel that were involved in my situation would have stated that my situation was life threatening as well. I don't say this to anyway downplay the seriousness of pulmonary hypertension (I've been reading about it and it sounds absolutely horrendous!)

    Anyway, I was completely stressed and thank God for a sister who went to my appointments with me. Even someone who loves me and is prolife told me I needed to think about my two other children and abortion would be OK in my situation. However, I would have rather died trying to save their brother than live having killed him.

    I know my faith and my own situation have influenced my views on this case but I fully agree with the Bishop when he states, "An unborn child is not a disease. While medical professionals should certainly try to save a pregnant mother's life, the means by which they do it can never be by directly killing her unborn child. The end does not justify the means."


    Posted by: Praxedes at June 14, 2010 9:45 PM


    I know my faith and my own situation have influenced my views on this case but I fully agree with the Bishop when he states, "An unborn child is not a disease. While medical professionals should certainly try to save a pregnant mother's life, the means by which they do it can never be by directly killing her unborn child. The end does not justify the means."


    Posted by: Praxedes at June 14, 2010 9:45 PM
    *********************************

    I agree with this, Praxedes, even as a non-Catholic. Not because the Bishop says so, but because what he said here is TRUE.

    BTW, still waiting for those "non-Catholic" sources that can explain the situation to me better than the Catholic sources did. Anyone? Bueller?

    Posted by: Kel at June 15, 2010 10:31 AM