MOD's first 2007 WalkAmerica fundraiser is tomorow. Pro-lifers need to know that money they donate to MOD may go to support the culture of death.
In addition to the information I blogged yesterday is this and more, in today's column:
MOD claims, "MOD policy states that abortion is not the solution to the problem of birth defects. The MOD has long maintained its neutrality on the issue of abortion," which is to say MOD was opposed to abortion before it went neutral on abortion.
But elsewhere MOD betrays its ambiguous PR attempt. In a fact sheet about fertility treatment and the risks of carrying multiples, MOD states, "The fertility treatment program... should follow the professional and ethical guidelines of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine...."
The professional and ethical guidelines of ASRM include testing embryos for defects before implanting them during the in vitro fertilization process and "multifetal pregnancy reduction," i.e., abortion, when pregnant with two or more babies.
MOD has also conducted at least one workshop on "preimplantation genetic diagnosis" for defective embryos.
So, one way MOD accomplishes its mission statement of "preventing birth defects and infant mortality," is by destroying preborn humans with birth defects, who incidentally might have grown into infants who died - killing two birds with one stone.
MOD also supports federally funded embryonic stem cell experimentation and itself funds fetal tissue experimentation.
MOD has also given grants to Planned Parenthood, although it says these were not for abortion but for "preconception health services and for prenatal education services." The term "shell game" comes to mind....
Finish reading my column today, "EXTRA Stanek 4-27 column: "March of Dimes marches for death," at WorldNetDaily.com.
I notice in the debate last night that not even one of the cowardly democrats supported the SJC decision against Partial birth Abortion.Posted by: jasper at April 27, 2007 9:34 AM
Jaspter, I didn't watch it. Did the question come up?
I've been wanting to blog on something Obama said recently juxtaposed to his statements against the pba ban. Just can't get to it.Posted by: Jill Stanek at April 27, 2007 9:48 AM
These are some of the other corporations and businesses that give/donate to the abortion industry. Bed Bath and Beyond,Walmart,Payless shoes,and the Susan G. Komen Foundation.Yeeesh...where can a person shop these days?Posted by: Heather4life at April 27, 2007 9:52 AM
Yes the question came up. They all were against it. I believe Obama has a bad record. I think he tried to defeat the born-alive act in Illinois. I'll wait for your postPosted by: jasper at April 27, 2007 10:05 AM
We know... there either with you or against you... god forbid someone put aside a preoccupation with the unborn in order to save the lives that they can.
Campaigning against march of dime, opposed to plan b, opposed to contraception education, opposed to single mothers... etc...
Considering the futile attempts to actually ban abortion, Prolife is killing far more babies than they would save.
God job! With enemies like you all, Planned Parenthood is certain to remain prosperous and busy for some time to come.
Posted by: Cameron at April 27, 2007 10:36 AM
"So, one way MOD accomplishes its mission statement of "preventing birth defects and infant mortality,is by destroying preborn humans with birth defects, who incidentally might have grown into infants who died - killing two birds with one stone."
They are selecting the healthiest embryos, among many embryos, and it's not just the genetic defect ones getting rejected, as only one of the dozen or so embryos can be implanted.Posted by: Cameron at April 27, 2007 10:40 AM
Well, honestly, I'd HOPE they'd figure out which embryos were the healthiest to implant. If I was going for IVF, I wouldn't want them half-*ssing the procedure and implanting embryos with genetic defects. I fail to see how this is wrong in any way. Why implant something that very likely will end up a miscarriage anyway? Jeez.Posted by: Alyssa at April 27, 2007 10:50 AM
I really appreciate the fact that everybody here thinks they're God and can determine for themselves who lives and who dies.
Count me out....Posted by: Andrew at April 27, 2007 10:52 AM
Andrew,congratulations on you and your wife's upcoming baby.Posted by: Heather4life at April 27, 2007 10:53 AM
"Well, honestly, I'd HOPE they'd figure out which embryos were the healthiest to implant. If I was going for IVF, I wouldn't want them half-*ssing the procedure and implanting embryos with genetic defects. I fail to see how this is wrong in any way. Why implant something that very likely will end up a miscarriage anyway? Jeez."
This actually raises some interesting questions.
Is it morally abhorent to select the best among embryos, like the unwholesome aspects of eugenics? What of the alternative? If they randomly select an embryo and embrace chance/God/fate is that actually morally better??Posted by: Cameron at April 27, 2007 11:05 AM
I'm looking at it from a health standpoint. I want the embryo that has the greatest chance of surviving and is the least likely to cause complications during a pregnancy. I don't care about hair color, eye color, intelligence, gender, etc. I care about how healthy an embryo is. Not eugenics.Posted by: Alyssa at April 27, 2007 11:10 AM
"I'm looking at it from a health standpoint. I want the embryo that has the greatest chance of surviving and is the least likely to cause complications during a pregnancy. I don't care about hair color, eye color, intelligence, gender, etc. I care about how healthy an embryo is. Not eugenics."
I think you need to look up what eugenics means.Posted by: Cameron at April 27, 2007 11:15 AM
Thanks Heather. We are really excited!
But, I am glad that I did not try to play God and create my baby just how I would want her to be.
And actually, the more I experience this whole pregnancy process, the more I realize how little control I have over anything at all.
I am almost relegated to the status of observer while things happen around me at light speed.
The notion that I could control any aspect of how my child will turn out is laughable.Posted by: Andrew at April 27, 2007 11:35 AM
"The notion that I could control any aspect of how my child will turn out is laughable."
Congratulations BTW... I hear their skulls are really soft and unformed just yet... you could make a frame for which it grow into any diserable shape you might have in mind. Bonsia baby?Posted by: Cameron at April 27, 2007 11:44 AM
Andrew, I just gave birth to a girl on 4-19-07. Been through it twice before,but it's still a real miracle! Cut the cord if you can.[smiles] I wish you and your wife the best!!Posted by: Heather4life at April 27, 2007 11:51 AM
Thanks Cameron, I guess . . .
The point I am trying to make is that we humans don't have the ability to manipulate things the way we would like to, no matter how hard we try.Posted by: Andrew at April 27, 2007 12:04 PM
"The point I am trying to make is that we humans don't have the ability to manipulate things the way we would like to, no matter how hard we try."
Quite clearly we do have the ability. But I think I see what you're saying. What's not clear is if the changes we'd make are ultimately better or worse. With respect to the bioethics questions being discussed here however, culturally speaking a judgement of what is better or worse transcends genuine science and is subject to all sorts of biases.
So if this sort of manipulation is not kosher with you, what of couples seeking to reproduce? Should they be denied their universal human right of reproductive success simply because they can't pull it off without the aid of modern technology?? That sounds kind of fascist to me.
Posted by: Cameron
at April 27, 2007 12:14 PM
Cameron, no one has a "universal right to reproductive success". Children are not commodities. As an infertile woman, I understand this more clearly than anyone. I can not think of any situation where it would be ethical to create and destory life in order to have a wider pool of embryos from which to draw.
Our society tells us that we have the "right" to everything under the sun. We don't. There are things in this world that we may want more than anything, yet we can not kill to obtain them. Such is life.
As far as "preemies being as good as dead", you're right I didn't read the entire thread, thanks for correcting my mistake.Posted by: Lauren at April 27, 2007 12:20 PM
"Cameron, no one has a "universal right to reproductive success"."
What are you all in tizzy about with respect to China then???
People have a right to bear their own children, and I challenge you to find any instance in which that right was wholly and reasonably curtailed by the state or third parties.
Meanwhile... take a look at these evidence to the contrary. See Skinner v. State of Oklahoma 1942
I'm not surprised that you'd like to think there no such right. Fortunately, you're wrong. It's even more fascinating that you'd deny what is a clear directive from the bible; be fruitful and multiply.Posted by: Cameron at April 27, 2007 12:47 PM
Cameron you are missing the opperative word "success". Yes, we have the right to not be forced into sterilization. There is, however, a huge difference between the goverment sterlizing a woman, and a woman simply being unable to bear children.
There is no right that says "every citizen of our country has the right to bring forth a child out of her womb, through whatever means necessary". Sorry.
In addition, Skinner V.State of Oklahoma dealt only in punitive sterilization. I'm not advocating forced sterilzation, just pointing out that your case does nothing to cement a universal "right to reproductive success".
Furthermore, if we use your language we assume the right to hold accountable any person we perceive to keep us from our "right". Therefore I can sue my doctor, the state, my landlord, my massuse, my pharmistist et. all for my inability to conceive.
God diects us to be fruitful and multiply, but we must always stay within His will. Because we know that God's will is not for us to perish, but to have life, we know that His will could not be for us to kill our children in a quest to bring forth life.Posted by: Lauren at April 27, 2007 1:19 PM
Jill, while I understand that you feel strongly about abortion, it amazes me that you would attack a charity organization that does a million times more good than bad. The Red Cross uses some money in ways I disagree with on occasion, but I still donate because I believe that ultimately they are aiding humanity, just as ultimately, the March of Dimes is striving to help humanity. Without research and testing and trial and error, there will be no advance of science in this area- and more children will die in the future because of it. Even though you may disagree with a couple of their areas, can't you understand that they are working hard towards a very noble cause? They are trying to save children, not harm them. And in terms of charities, this is the only well-organized foundation for such an area. Don't you believe that God would want us to learn from our mistakes and use them to help children in the future?Posted by: Erin at April 27, 2007 1:38 PM
Erin, the good that March of Dimes does can not overweigh the fact that they support abortion as a way of reaching their goal.
As far as alternative charities, well let's just say I'm working to change that. ;)Posted by: Lauren at April 27, 2007 1:43 PM
Erin, if a candidate for political office approached you and said that he supported the use of terrorism, but that he had really good positions on education, health care, the deficit etc.. would you really look at those other things?
Or, would his stand on terrorism automatically disqualify him from receiving your vote?
Of course it would, and the same principle applies here. The fact that they support the killng of innocent renders suspect any other endeavour they may engage in.Posted by: Andrew at April 27, 2007 1:44 PM
Yikes, my computer just had a mild seizure. Can anyone delete those other two posts?Posted by: Erin at April 27, 2007 1:51 PM
I think only Jill can do it...Posted by: Andrew at April 27, 2007 1:59 PM
Cameron, are you referring to the forced abortions in China?
www.chinaaid.org/english_site/press_release_detail.php?id=1957Posted by: Andrew at April 27, 2007 2:05 PM
I talked to the local March of Dimes people and they would not admit to being pro-choice, but it's clear that they refuse to see abortion as a risk factor for premature delivery etc.
Keep up the good work!Posted by: Mary Lou at April 27, 2007 2:14 PM
About the Democrat debate last night, Jasper, 10:05a, said: "Yes the question came up. They all were against it. I believe Obama has a bad record. I think he tried to defeat the born-alive act in Illinois. I'll wait for your post."
Ohhhh, yes. Obama was the lone state senator speaking against Born Alive in IL during floor debate. Have written about it extensively:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51121 ("Why Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama")
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53617 ("Born Alive Veterans for Truth")
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53694 ("Obama's constitutional crisis")
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53795 ("When Obama chose his church over his state")
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53924 ("The AP's fetus frenzy")Posted by: Jill Stanek at April 27, 2007 2:20 PM
Cameron, 10:36a, said: "We know... there either with you or against you... god forbid someone put aside a preoccupation with the unborn in order to save the lives that they can."
Cameron, if you read what I wrote, you'll learn MOD is not "putting aside a preoccupation with the unborn."
Rather, MOD is strangely preoccupied with killing the unborn.
It supports human embryo experimentation, fetal tissue research, disabled embryo destruction, "selective reduction" of babies in the case of a multiple pregnancy, and was a principle in the origination of US genetics/eugenics testing.
Equally important, MOD covers up a major reason for premature deliveries: induced abortion.
All this makes MOD part of the very problem it states it is trying to correct, Cameron. Why in the world support it?Posted by: Jill Stanek at April 27, 2007 2:27 PM
Erin, 1:38p, said: "Jill, while I understand that you feel strongly about abortion, it amazes me that you would attack a charity organization that does a million times more good than bad."
Erin, see my response to Cameron above.
Sorry about your computer's seizures. I've performed surgery from this end to remove repetitious posts.Posted by: Jill Stanek at April 27, 2007 2:34 PM
Cameron, no woman has a universal right to GET pregnant.
But every woman who is blessed to become pregnant - and every baby conceived is a blessing, no matter what the circumstance of conception - has a responsibility to give the baby she is carrying his or her universal right to life, unless doing so will kill her. It is only then that she can "choose" to save her own life.Posted by: Jill Stanek at April 27, 2007 2:45 PM
Thank you so much on informing me on an organization kept abundant by deception. Keep up the good work.Posted by: Long Beach at April 27, 2007 3:43 PM
"There is, however, a huge difference between the goverment sterlizing a woman, and a woman simply being unable to bear children."
That's a strawman. The purpose of the cited case is to illustrate that the state cannot intefere with a woman's interest in bearing children. With the help of IVF, a woman who could not previous bear children now can, and you are suggesting she shouldn't be allowed to do so, wich is no different than forced sterilization absent the invavise.
The right to bear children is current area that is actively pursued by the ACLU, particularly with respect to "child exclusion" clauses which effectively prevent a woman recieving social services from having a child.
Court cases have been swinging both ways, but the momentum is towards the recognition that one cannot prevent a woman from bearing children if she so choses.
"Furthermore, if we use your language we assume the right to hold accountable any person we perceive to keep us from our "right". Therefore I can sue my doctor, the state, my landlord, my massuse, my pharmistist et. all for my inability to conceive."
Try to at least be a little resonable. Hyperbole just makes you look desperate.Posted by: Cameron at April 27, 2007 4:34 PM
"Cameron, are you referring to the forced abortions in China?"
I guess that would probably get a prolifer in a tizzy ;-P
More in line with the argument though, human rights groups have been raging against China for forced sterilation, and other various directives regarding procreation.Posted by: Cameron at April 27, 2007 4:37 PM
"Rather, MOD is strangely preoccupied with killing the unborn."
Would you care to direct to me to the evidence (MOD performing/funding abortions). I suspect you're just conflating their IVF work though.
MOD is not in bed with abortionists, per your delusional paranoia. They are simply trying not discourage much needed donations from one particular camp. Your whole premise here is that nutrality is akin to killing babies which is tenuous at best, but mostly ridiculous in light of what they do do. This a great example of the prolife going against numerous moral codes in favor of myopically advancing to such a degree that it no longer has any merit.
Posted by: Cameron at April 27, 2007 4:45 PM
"Cameron, no woman has a universal right to GET pregnant."
Yes... it appears they do. Again, please provide evidence otherwise.
The rest of your post is so ridiculously off topic I'm not even going to bother.
Posted by: Cameron
at April 27, 2007 4:47 PM
You have to open your eyes to see the evil.Posted by: jasper at April 27, 2007 5:15 PM
OK... work day is over and I've had a few minutes to do a little research.
Conclusion: I am guilty of that which I accuse you all; projection of absolute moral imperative onto a broad area in which it is often confounded.
Upon further review, my notion that people have a right to reproduce is based on my inherent belief system and morality (yes... I have a little). This is actually a common misconception that upon further analysis is a very problamatic expansion of right to privacy. Hey... at least I'm not basing it on a 2000 year old mythology. Specifically, I beleived that nobody should interfere if a woman or couple wants to bear children, and that's all fine and dandy for the most part but not always...up untill IVF. IVF does not fit this substantive rights notion well. A procedural rights issue is more appropriate, or in other words, they have a right to have their situation examined and treated fairly. Which means denying them IVF without considering if they have legitimate and reasonable situation justifying its application, is a violation of procedural rights... not universally recognized human right to reproduction.
It is still a violation of rights to deny IVF entirely and without any consideration when someone has it within their means, but there is no right to reproduction itself.
BTW... I suspect many of you are wondering... this is called humility. It's a christian virtue too.
More typical action from right-to-lifers....
Abortion Clinics On Nationwide Alert
AUSTIN -- Women's clinics are on alert this morning after an explosive device was found outside a medical center in South Austin. The bomb was found near the Brookside Women's Medical Center on I-35 north of Oltorf St. Wednesday afternoon.Posted by: SoMG at April 27, 2007 6:00 PM
Bethany, I went to your art site and I will most likely be ordering that "From Line to Life" book from Mike Sibley. *in awe of the artistic talent*
Bethany, I am honestly considering hiring you to do a mural for me in the future for whatever house I get. Your talent is undeniable and out of this world!Posted by: Alyssa at April 27, 2007 7:35 PM
Oh awesome, Alyssa!! The book is GREAT...in fact, when you buy it, be sure to check page 12...he included a quote from me in the book there! :-)
Mike Sibley is one of the most talented artists out there!
I would absolutely love to paint a mural for you. Just let me know if you ever want one done, and I'll talk with my hubby about traveling! :D
They have someone in custody that they say may have put the bomb there.
National news. I believe I was just having a discussion with (Less?) on the fact that when an abortion clinic is threaten it never hits the national news. Interesting that I had no problems finding info on it.
The man/woman/people responsible with this are facing up to life in prison on weapons of mass distruction charges. Thank God for the new terrorist charges. We can also give thanks that no one was injured.
oh and SOMG -
"More typical action from right-to-lifers...."
Does this mean all the pro-choicers that frequent this blog are in par with Dr. Tiller?
Posted by: Valerie
at April 27, 2007 9:05 PM
We should all be as good at our jobs as Tiller is at his.Posted by: SoMG at April 27, 2007 9:11 PM
Hey looky here! From http://americablog.blogspot.com/
"Bush official who promoted abstinence and denounced condoms resigns -- after admitting he used "D.C. Madam's" escort service "
"Deputy Secretary of State Randall L. Tobias submitted his resignation Friday, one day after confirming to ABC News that he had been a customer of a Washington, D.C. escort service whose owner has been charged by federal prosecutors with running a prostitution operation. "
What is it with right-to-lifers named Randall? You will recall way back when Randall Terry got kicked out of his church for multiple adulteries. Now this guy. Why can't right-to-lifers named Randall exercise zipper control?
ha, i have an editorial on abstinence only sex ed and its fairly funny if you dont take the insults thrown around casually too seriously
Fair warning, insults are thrown in the direction of Christians, fairly regularly actually, along with conservatives in general. Don't say I didnt warn you
(some of you may have already read this)Posted by: Dan at April 28, 2007 12:07 AM
Dan, that editorial has earned a coveted place in my Collection o' Editorials, among another editoral that lists all the many benefits of sex along with their studies, and my own small collection. I also have a copy of my one hate letter and a review of the Art of Seduction. It's in good company.Posted by: HumanAbstract at April 28, 2007 12:19 AM
The author is hilarious, you should check out some of his older ones.
He had a couple on gay marriage that were AMAZING.Posted by: Dan at April 28, 2007 12:20 AM
That was hilarious!Posted by: prettyinpink at April 28, 2007 12:43 AM
What is it with right-to-lifers named Randall? You will recall way back when Randall Terry got kicked out of his church for multiple adulteries. Now this guy. Why can't right-to-lifers named Randall exercise zipper control?
What, and put you out of work?Posted by: MK at April 28, 2007 6:08 AM
I'm obviously a little late joining this discussion. Yes we can make every effort to plan and produce so-called perfect babies, but what about children who develop disabilities after birth as the result of accident or illness?
A child who becomes autistic. A child who is diagnosed with cerebral palsy at 6 months of age(my cousin's daughter wasn't diagnosed with CP until she was 3y/o), a child paralyzed as the result of an accident, a child with serious emotional problems. Could the mother of the late actor Christopher Reeve foresee what would happen to her son? Would she be any less devastated by this than the parents of a less than perfect newborn? How many parents are caring for severly disabled adult children who were born perfectly healthy and normal? The list goes on and on.
Yes, we can plan all we want and take every precaution, but do we ultimately have any real control? What do we do with the child who is born "perfect, planned, and wanted" but develops serious physical, emotional, or mental problems after their birth for whatever reason?
An excellent point about opposing an organization which supports abortion no matter how much good they do otherwise.
I remember a woman telling me that pro-life people shouldn't vote strictly on the pro-life stand of the candidate. One issue alone should never dictate anyone's vote.
So I gave her this hypothetical situation. There was a candidate she supported, he voted every way she had wanted him to and was honest and ethical. If this candidate came out and said that while he personally opposes domestic violence, he feels this is a matter of personal conscience and will oppose any effort to legislate against violence and will not support any legislation that assists or protects the victims. Would she vote for him?
Absolutely not!!!, she thundered. Well, excuse me, but didn't you just say that one issue alone should never determine how you vote?
Why can't right-to-lifers named Randall exercise zipper control?
Probably the same reason pro-choice politicians named Ted and Bill can't.Posted by: Mary at April 28, 2007 7:40 AM
"A child who becomes autistic. A child who is diagnosed with cerebral palsy at 6 months of age(my cousin's daughter wasn't diagnosed with CP until she was 3y/o), a child paralyzed as the result of an accident, a child with serious emotional problems. "
Thank you for bringing this up. Very good points. I didn't want a child born prematurely and have apnea and a slow heartrate when he was born. I didn't want a child who had to spend 35 days in the hospital before he came home. Or a child who had to be on a breathing/heart monitor for the first 7 months of his life. and I definately didn't want a child with autistic symptoms because of his sensory intake difficulties.
Danny was fine all the way up to premature birth. It was not HIM that came out early, but unforseen complications from MY body that could have come up with a 'perfectly constructed child'. All his problems are a direct result of being born too early. He will probably outgrow many of his sensory intake problems, but he is bound to have obessive compulisive disorder because of it. (Not as bad as what is seen on 'As good as it gets.") But, I wouldn't change anything about him.Posted by: Valerie at April 28, 2007 9:17 PM
And I didn't want a child afflicted with a familial form of mental illness that began manifesting in adolescense. As I look at pictures and videos of her growing up, I can see the subtle and eventually the not so subtle signs of her mental deterioration. What your situation, mine, and those of countless other parents' show Valerie is that ultimately we really have no control, no matter how we plan, or what we do "right", or what precautions we take. As a dear friend of mine always said, "life is what happens when you've made other plans".
My very best wishes to you and your son. Your little Danny has the advantage of having a devoted and loving mother as you obviously are and I have no doubt he will do well. These little ones can surprise you!
I am very sorry about your child. These are the reason why eugenics will never work. No amount of DNA manipulation can guarentee what will happen in the brain, or what will happen to the body.
I have always believed that when you start to mess with Mother Nature, she will mess with you.Posted by: Valerie at April 29, 2007 9:17 AM
Somg, Most people don't go to work and kill for a living!Posted by: Heather4life at April 29, 2007 1:11 PM
Thank you for your concern. You're right about eugenics, there is just no way to guarantee anything and its useless to try. I remember how one woman whined that pro-life people all have healthy children in kindergarten, so thus they cannot condemn abortion. Don't we wish! Pro-life people have no more guarantees than anyone else, and yes we have children with physical and mental disabilities, emotional and mental illnesses, genetic defects, children who lifetyles we disapprove of, children sitting in prison, and any other problem you can think of.Posted by: Mary at April 29, 2007 2:17 PM