It was the Sunday after the election, and everywhere I looked I could only see impending doom.
There is no way God would have allowed Barack Obama to become president were He not finally turning America over to judgment, to whatever great or lesser extent that will be.
I sat in my mother's church and was surprised to feel anger when the worship leader smiled and sang the same songs as ever, as if life hadn't drastically changed the week before, as if the Church itself wasn't indicted by Obama's election.
Then my eye caught....
I described that incident on my blog Monday and got enough notes of sympathy I decided I'd better get a grip. Pity is pathetic.
Enough of this, I said to myself. Barack Obama is only a man....
Continue reading my column, "How I got my groove back," on WorldNetDaily.com.
Thank you Jill, it is just what I needed to read because I felt the same considering the worldwide impact of this election on the pro life cause. I've started praying for your new president, hoping too that finally he could miraculously help. God bless you, Jill, your family, your friends, the prolife mouvement and thank you for being such a brave, joyful and inspiring example.Posted by: Marie-Christine at November 12, 2008 5:43 AM
I don't speak/read french. Are you in Canada/ France? How did you hear about Jill?
Au Revoir!Posted by: carder at November 12, 2008 6:13 AM
Jill, thank you for your article and the scripture reference to Psalm 66. I needed that today and I'll probably post that scripture in a few places to help me remember "God is in control", not Barack Obama.Posted by: Tracy O. at November 12, 2008 6:43 AM
Take heart! America is not in end time prophesies. Prophecy seems to indicate that the Anti Christ must rise in Europe. Everything that needed to happen before that has happened. In order for Europe to be so powerful, the US must decline. Obama is the perfect choice for that.
Christ's return may be imminent! Be ready! That should be a cause for joy.
This is the only view of the election that I find the least bit encouraging.Posted by: Terry at November 12, 2008 6:45 AM
I've discovered Jill a few years ago while already looking for beautiful pro life texts to read, meditate upon and translate for the benefit of more!
There's an article for Christmas which I like very much translated from Jill's on ps139
'L'histoire embryonnaire de Jésus" (22.12.2007)
I've had to do some serious re-thinking about my role in the prolife movement also. I'm not really as sad about the outcome of the election as I am disgusted, knowing that many so-called prolifers had to have voted for the world's most ardent proabort. Apparently they thought it was in their financial best self-interest to do so.
That being the case, I have toned down my optimism about our society opening it's eyes to the horrors of elective abortion, and will concentrate more on the local scene rather than the national one. I will try to keep my house in order, and let the "nation" go it's own way. And I'm afraid that way is not a good one.Posted by: Doyle at November 12, 2008 6:47 AM
Thanks...for giving us perspective..Just know you are not alone..Eventhough it may seem like we are in the twilight zone post election I know we can bring this world back to the realization that God rules and His goodness will rule too...lots of prayers for your militant buddy to also remind you to wear the armour of God and carry His sword...
blessings,deannaPosted by: deanna at November 12, 2008 7:20 AM
personally-- after really living through politics these past 70 yrs, I can say this... Not one man is going to change this country.. Bush did alot of horrible things.. he did some good things.. Obama will do good things and will do bad things...
I have a daughter who works in a Perinatal Palliative Care program and spends hours and hours working with families that are being faced with the horrific dilemma of terminating vs experiencing the birth of their baby that will die... She encourages and works with the medical teams to provide comfort care and palliative approach to these innocent babes...
The good that will come out of this country will come from the people.. Lets face it.. Our country is in a bigger mess with this past president.. I am not saying it will change... but it is the people...
So as you blog.. take it from a 82 yr old woman, who has watched the world crumble and rebuild.. it is the people, not that man at the top...
I knew Jill would be back! Hurray!
"Weeping may endure for a night, but JOY cometh in the morning"Posted by: Bethany at November 12, 2008 8:29 AM
So Obama has a fake celebration. Billy Graham asked to meet. How embarrassing for Bark. The catholic leadership is oppenly offended by abortion. What can Bark do since he claimed to bring people together and it looks like the catholics see he has no intentions of doing so.
All the 60's terrorists are coming out of the woodwork. These cockroaches are an embarassment. Pastor Wright is out. What a disgrace. He seemingly can't clean up his tracks and now faces shame. The blogs in Europe are not only sharing the stink, they are asking why America doesn't cover it.
My joy is not dependent on who is in charge.
A lot of people will be depressed because they will find Obama brings false happiness and then a massive letdown.
The church always shines brighter during times of persecution.
This will be one of th epositive outcomes during an Obama presidency.Posted by: HisMan at November 12, 2008 8:43 AM
I magnify you, my God, for Your absolute purity, holiness, and justice, as the Judge to whom all people must give account. I praise You that Your fairness is intertwined with everything You do...that when the time is ripe You will end all sin and injustice, all corruption, all immorality...that You will right all wrongs and reward all loving service and suffering for Your sake.
What a joy it is to know that the government will be on Christ's shoulders, and that there will be no end to the increase of His government and peace...that His kingdom will be established with justice and righteousness from then on and forever more. Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom...a kingdom that cannot be shaken. You will never be voted out; no coup will ever dethrone You. For all eternity You are the King of kings and Lord of lords. To You be the glory and dominion forever and ever. AMEN!
Taken from Day 6 of 31 Days of Praise by Ruth and Warren Myers.Posted by: Carla at November 12, 2008 9:09 AM
Anonymous: So as you blog.. take it from a 82 yr old woman, who has watched the world crumble and rebuild.. it is the people, not that man at the top...
Agreed. But it is a selfishly blind people that have put this man at the top. It will be difficult to rebuild a moral nation from this kind of decadence.Posted by: DeeL at November 12, 2008 9:30 AM
Do you know the real reason we lost and have lost for decades? Black and Hispanic Christians vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic Party and have for decades. They give the Democrats their margin of victory year after year after year.
If you factor out the Black and Hispanic vote and just look at the White vote, pro-life Republicans win almost everywhere. After 5 to 10 election cycles without the minority vote, Republicans would probably control 75 to 80 Senate seats, 350 or so House seats and always the White House. We would have stopped the abortion holocaust decades ago if minority voters did not vote continuously to keep the Democratic Party and the abortionists in power.
The tragic reality is minority voters are MORE pro-life and MORE Christian than White voters, but vote overwhelmingly for the most anti-life, anti-Christian politicians in our society.
These minority voters do NOT vote for anti-life politicians because they are anti-life but despite that fact. They do it because they are conditioned to do it and because they believe that the Democratic economic and social agenda is better for their communities than the Republican agenda. This is painfully far from the truth. The Democratic anti-free market economic and social agenda is severely damaging to people in both the Black and Hispanic communities, as well as everyone else.
The true horror is that minority voters voted overwhelmingly for politicians who go against their moral values and will do everything in their power to destroy the lives of millions of unborn Black and Hispanic kids. They did it despite this to elect politicians who, it turns out, will inflict severe and perhaps irreversible economic and social damage on their communities.
White swing voters also voted for abortionist and statist Democrats because of the financial crisis. They believed that because George Bush is President he must have caused the financial meltdown. The financial crisis was caused by the Democrats almost entirely and Bush tried to stop it (as did McCain). The swing voters voted for the Democrats without realizing that they were rewarding the very party which caused the crisis in the first place. Now they have put in power politicians who have a fundamentally unsound economic agenda and will do great damage to our economy in the years ahead.
So we have the tragic, needless and senseless situation in which voters have voted unwittingly to sacrifice millions of unborn children's lives so that the economy can be ravaged and our economic and social problems made much worse. All of this because they did not understand what was happening.
This is an absolutely senseless human tragedy and is caused by voters lacking a basic understanding of economics and of cause and effect.Posted by: Joe at November 12, 2008 9:31 AM
Beautiful prayer, Carla.Posted by: DeeL at November 12, 2008 9:33 AM
Joe, 9:31a: Great comment.Posted by: Jill Stanek at November 12, 2008 10:04 AM
Jill, Glad you have found some peace with the election. I am still demoralized. Hope you are up for the fight, it will be one constitutional crisis after another.Posted by: Randall Z. at November 12, 2008 10:08 AM
Jill, 1st you should know that I look forward to your column every week. This was truly a moving story – funny how God speaks to us isn’t it? It’s seldom audible, but the message is always crystal clear and profound.
Thank you so much for your words and feelings expressed in this column.
It reminds me to look for all the good and free things God has given to us in our lives.
I have always felt and said that "people are our most important commodity." The ability to share and feel those emotions as you have has lifted me up. It is always nice to hear from God's people who are willing to live a Christian life, while glorifying the Lord.Posted by: Bob M. at November 12, 2008 10:16 AM
No matter what happens, God is always in control.
May I add to your comment?
I have said that the solution to eliminating legalized abortion is to raise the awareness in the black church. Let me add now, the Hispanic church. This and eliminating the 501c3 muzzle on the church.
I was told by a dear black friend that abortion is almost never discussed in the black church. She agrees that it must be made more of an issue. She was going to vote for Obama until we sat down and had a long talk. We must engage our black bretheren and help them see how abortion affects God's heart.
We also need to get to those who are in localized leadership positions of these churches and educate them on abortion issues hoping that raised awareness will lead to regular sermons, seminars, and conferences on the affects of abortion on these communities. People's hearts must be cahnged.
Finally, we must make the pro-life stance the issue that the Republican Party stands for. We must make it known that no pro-abort need apply, ever, i.e, a zero-tolerance policy on abortion, plain and simple. Then, we must hold them accountable to act on what we have elected them to do and that without exception.
We've got four years to work on this and with God's grace we can do it.Posted by: HisMan at November 12, 2008 11:45 AM
Jill, thanks for being human and falling into despair like the rest of us. It just took you a tad longer to recover.... But GREAT!! We're all back on the road again. Obama's only one man. And no match for our God right?
In the words of another writer I know and admire, Dr. Thomas Droleskey: Make no mistake about it: this is a chastisement.
Thanks Jill. This little column was just what the doctor ordered.
Teri, or perhaps the nurse? :)
Jill, thanks for sharing your thoughts as I know I felt the world must have ended Tuesday. But God has shown me He reigns, not Obama or Pelosi or Biden.
Sadly, some of us we felt let down by weak Church leaders as well. God has a plan, and that is the only thing I can trust. I commend your efforts for going head to head with Obama.Posted by: Bess at November 12, 2008 12:54 PM
Glad you are feeling better, Jill. That prayer was so beautiful, Carla, thank you. Here's the closing prayer from today's meditation in the Word Among Us:
“O God, the whole universe is subject to you, yet we live in a political reality that can seem far removed from your kingdom. Bless those who lead my country. Correct their errors, and strengthen every good impulse.”
I, too, despaired for days after the election. But I am over it now, and in the process of converting the rage I felt at this country's choice of evil over good into a productive, nuclear pro-life fury. And I am optimistic that there are enough like me that this country will finally renounce the culture of death even faster than it would had Obama not been elected. A few of the reasons for my new-found hope:
(1) At its core, America really hates abortion. For years it has been blinded to the evil by the same sort of empty sloganeering ("choice") that whisked Obama into office ("change"). Obama's aggressive promotion of the Planned Parenthood/NARAL/NAF agenda will start to open people's eyes, and likely before the new policies can be effected.
(2) Despite over half a billion dollars, incredible charisma, a worshipful MSM, a suddenly-nosediving economy and an incompetent Republican campaign, Obama won by a few percentage points nationwide and by razor-thin margins in most swing states. There were a total of of 124 million votes; had a little over 4 million gone the other way McCain would have one. It's the difference between $1.24 and $1.20 -- mere "change", to put it in its proper context. So his support is tenuous, and there are at least 58 million who opposed him despite the unconscionable conspiracy to put him into office.
(3) Obama will over-play his pro-death agenda. He kept it under wraps during the campaign ("abortion is tragic")but his legislative record shows that he knows no shame when killing babies is involved.
(4) Obama will be driven out of office in disgrace by 2010. His past is full of crimes, big and small, all of which will erupt in short order. The press was in the tank for the election, but the economy is mathematically incapable of recovering within four years and once the people turn on him, so will the MSM. Additionally, he will not attempt any movement to the center like Bill Clinton, and the same forces that drove Clinton to impeachment will be even more motivated destroy Obama.
(5) Obama is inexperienced and incompetent. His Nancy Reagan/seance and Bush meeting/leak gaffes show how helpless he is without a teleprompter. His primary defense is to lie (e.g. "those folks [NRTL] are lying") when cornered, but without a sympathetic media the deceit will just explode in his face.
(6) Viva la resistance! (for lack of something more American).Posted by: The Raving Atheist at November 12, 2008 12:56 PM
Jill, give it up. You are starting to sound crazy. Obama is a good man and we are so fortunate to have him for president. And it is such a relief to see (and know that the rest of the world sees) that Americans aren't stupid after all and they can elect the right person.
Virginia, you consider a man who supports abortion throughout all 9 months and beyond a good man. And you say I sound crazy?Posted by: Jill Stanek at November 12, 2008 12:58 PM
Yes, of course he's a good man. There are good people on both sides of the abortion debate. Is that concept really that hard to grasp?Posted by: Hal at November 12, 2008 1:04 PM
There are good people on both sides of the abortion debate. Is that concept really that hard to grasp?
There's a difference between "well-meaning but misguided" and "good." Obama is neither.Posted by: The Raving Atheist at November 12, 2008 1:07 PM
Thank you Hal! Well said.Posted by: virginia K at November 12, 2008 1:25 PM
Re: the verse you quoted, "Rebels will not be able to oppose him," did you know that the Secret Service’s code name for Obama is Renegade?
Thank you for once again bringing Down syndrome into the equation of life versus death, especially when the addition of Barak Obama is thrown in to subtract millions more babies.
We have 2 daugthers with Down syndrome. Tess is now 13, and our adopted daughter, Hope, is now 5. Both girls are dynamic proof of the value of every human life, no matter how many chromosomes, no matter how many surgeries are needed, no matter what their IQ.
Your article today reminds me of a vignette in my book, Special Strength for Special Parents, where I share that I, too, used to wonder if Tess's enthusiastic (and loud) worship was disturbing others.
I was convicted that Jesus said not to hinder the little children (I wonder if there were any children or adults with Down syndrome in that crowd before Him) from coming to Him.
Today, even though Jesus is not sitting on the hillside in front of us, the means in which we come to Him is through our times of worship corporately as well as privately.
These days, Tess is often sitting in the front row of our church, standing during the time of corporate woship, hands lifted to the Heavens. She will turn and face the congregation every so often and imply, "Hey, people. Join me in worshipping Jesus!"
Even though most people with Down syndrome have a low IQ, I am convinced their SQ - Spiritual Quotient - is in the genius range.
I am committed to saving others' lives by sharing with the world that my daughters are living proof God is pro-life.
Last Wed was a very depressing day for all of us. I spoke out like I have never spoke out before, lost a few friends and clients because of my views.
God spoke to me also last week a couple of times and I felt better by Thurs. God spoke to me clearly that we are now called to action. Let them have their laws, if there is no need for abortion then we have solved the problem right.
I've always said, abortion is not really the issue, it is really the fact that we need abortion as an option that is the problem. There is a lot we can do in our communities, and what came to me were the issues on the front end and the back end.
Educating our teens about chastity and respect is where is starts, if we don't have unwanted pregnancies then we don't need abortions, we can put them out of business. (Today's 14-year-olds will vote in the next election.)
Then on the back end we need to have more retreats and services to help post abortion woman. They have not even begun to come out of the closet and there is not enough out there to help them right now.
Of course we need to strengthen our crisis pregnancy centers and life care centers across the country so moms and babies are helped.
If I heard it once I heard it 100 times from pro-choice people including Obama, "There is no question, we want to reduce abortions" Ok, let's take it from there, we can work both sides with that one, can't we? Reduce abortions: Utilize Priests for life's angle, sending out the "Let's make sure we are talking about the same thing" video, get on the same page and work together to "reduce abortions."
It seems to me our energy would be better spent from this angle and much more effective, and you would think pro-choicers will want to help with some of this.Posted by: Martha K. at November 12, 2008 2:16 PM
Never give up the fight, Jill. This is just a small battle in the long war. A war that we will win. God has decreed it so. Remember Gideon and his 300 against the tens of thousands of the enemy.
Nina, Martha, Alan,
Thank you for commenting!! :)
Bless you and your beautiful girls!!
I had an abortion and there are more and more abortion recovery resources than ever. We can always do more though! :)
Hey Martha, educating our teens about chastity is not where to start. Educating them about contraception is. It is very, very rare that people wait until marriage or even full adulthood to have sex. Just look at the statistics. And if you think back to your own younger days you will undoubtably have to admit that was the case back then as well. That is why abstinence-only teaching doesn't work. And that is why this country has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the developed world. Reduce unwanted pregnancies by teaching ALL kids about birth control AND encouraging them to wait until they are adults before having sex. Demand for abortions will decrease.Posted by: virginia k at November 12, 2008 4:41 PM
Good people can disagree on whether or not Jews should be thrown into ovens.
Or at least, they can according to pro-abort logic.Posted by: John Lewandowski at November 12, 2008 5:13 PM
John, clever point there. hmmm, so legal abortion is wrong in your view?Posted by: Hal at November 12, 2008 5:16 PM
Hohn, WTF are you talking about? Good people cannot argue for that! Good people CAN argue for abortion though, especially if they do not believe life begins at conception. And good people can argue that making abortion illegal does nothing to reduce the number of abortions and that it only makes them less safe, endangering the lives of women.Posted by: Virginia k at November 12, 2008 5:21 PM
Kids know about birth control. You sound like you want to put it in their hands. I like Martha's idea better. We need chastity education (that comes from the home).
Oh... and John (sorry not "Hohn"), it's called pro-choice not pro-abortion (and not anti-life either for that matter).Posted by: Virginia K at November 12, 2008 5:24 PM
Janet, the sad truth is, that alot of American kids (and adults) DON'T know about birth control (or do not have affordable or accessible birth control). Thanks to the Bush gov't some schools teach abstinence-only and those kids aren't receiving the info at home.
You know, it's not that I "want" to put it in the kids hands necessarily but that's where it is...... unless you are goign to lock them up or chaperone them 24 hours a day until they are in a position to have a child and raise it well.Posted by: Virginia K at November 12, 2008 5:29 PM
Please stay away from my 4 children. Thanks. :)
Carla, I'm assuming by that statement you are against teaching comprehensive sex ed. Well, of course I'll "stay away from your 4 children" ....and also any grandchildren you may possibly have sooner rather than later with that approach! I'm sorry, but those are the facts. (Just ask the governor of Alaska)!Posted by: Virginia K at November 12, 2008 6:30 PM
So the Governor of Alaska's daughter is now the poster child for the anti-Abstinence campaign? Please give the girl a break.
I am against assuming that all teenagers will have sex so might as well shower them with condoms.
What age are you thinking of beginning comprehensive sex ed to my children? Preschool?
Yes, let's continue the Palin bashing.Posted by: Carla at November 12, 2008 7:14 PM
Virginia, you can stay away from my children too. :) I'd appreciate that.
By the way, the school Palin's daughter went to doesn't teach abstinence ed (in fact, sex ed is mandatory in public schools in Alaska), which is the most ironic part of this whole dumb blame game the liberals are trying to play.
Also, Sarah Palin's family is not complaining about the baby. They consider the baby a blessing, and that is what I think bugs them the most.
Bethany, do you just make this stuff up? Factis, Alaska has a hands-off approach to sex ed and leaves it up to the local school districts to decide. According to an article in Anchorage Daily News from October of this year, many students are NOT receiving comprehensive sex ed and a group of college students and others are working hard to change that.
As for Bristol Palin's school teaching birth control, do you know that for certain? BTW She didn't even attend school for most of last year for some undisclosed reason.
Carla, you don't think most teenagers are having sex? So you think we shouldn't teach them how to protect themselves and make sure they have access to birth control? Great plan. Oh by the way, that same ADN article reports that in a 2007 survey 63% of high school seniors were having sex which is about the national average. And the percentage only gets higher beyond high school. Yeah, great plan indeed. Think back.... Did you have sex in high school? In college? Before you were married? With someone other than the man you married? What about your friends? Classmates? You don't have to answer these aloud.
Carla asks at what age to start teaching birth control. Well, quite obviously not in preschool. But definitely before there are likely to have sex. Some time in middle school and then continuing into high school. Part of this education should include the message that you should delay sex as long as possible. Until adulthood at least is ideal.
Hope that answers all your questions girls!
Oh, and as for the Palin's seeing this latest pregnancy as a blessing. Sorry Bethany, but I don't see what's so great about two teenagers, neither of them with even a high school diploma raising a kid, even if they do end up following through with the marriage.Posted by: Virginia K at November 12, 2008 8:33 PM
Virginia, can't good people argue that Jews aren't really alive, and thus that it's OK to throw them into ovens?
After all, if pro-aborts are going to ignore the scientific reality that life begins at conception, why can't Hitler also ignore that Jews are clearly living human beings?Posted by: John Lewandowski at November 12, 2008 8:39 PM
Other potential "good people can disagree" arguments:
-Good people can disagree on whether or not rape should be legal. After all, maybe some people think that women aren't really people, so it's OK to rape them.
-Good people can disagree on whether or not killing gays should be legal. After all, maybe some people think that gays aren't really people, so it's OK to kill them.
-Good people can disagree on whether or not we should throw all Muslims in jail. After all, maybe some people think Muslims aren't really people, so it's OK to jail them.
What do all of these arguments have in common? It's objective fact that unborn children, women, gays, and Muslims ARE ALL LIVING HUMAN BEINGS WITH HUMAN RIGHTS. Yet in every case, a subjective argument is used to arbitrarily declare them sub-human and thus deprive them of civil rights.Posted by: John Lewandowski at November 12, 2008 8:45 PM
Your argument is fundamentally flawed. There is no scientific proof that LIFE begins at conception. Nothing you said makes any sense.Posted by: Virginia K at November 12, 2008 8:55 PM
Virginia, science proved that life begins at conception about 150 years ago.Posted by: John Lewandowski at November 12, 2008 9:00 PM
Oh, and as for the Palin's seeing this latest pregnancy as a blessing. Sorry Bethany, but I don't see what's so great about two teenagers, neither of them with even a high school diploma raising a kid, even if they do end up following through with the marriage.
Like I said, it makes liberals so angry when someone counts a child as a blessing, despite the circumstances.
You can watch the video about my abortion regret and find out all of those answers for yourself. I want much better for my own children. I pray they make different choices than I did.
Your argument is fundamentally flawed. There is no scientific proof that LIFE begins at conception. Nothing you said makes any sense.
Pardon me while I chuckle a bit at the ignorance of that statement.
Human life indeed begins at conception (fertilization), and like John L said, that was proven a long, long time ago.Posted by: Bethany at November 12, 2008 9:04 PM
It doesn't make me angry Bethany. I'm just saying, logically, that it's not so great. It's not something to strive for. In fact, it's something to avoid.
And John, oh really? And can you please direct me to this scientific evidence?Posted by: Virginia K at November 12, 2008 9:05 PM
Hi Carla...hope you're having a good night. I'm about to go to bed! :)
"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote). ... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual." (Carlson, Bruce M., Patten's Foundations of Embryology, 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p.3.)
"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote." [Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]
"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zygtos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being." [Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]
"Although human life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed. ... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity." (O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology and Teratology, 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29).
"the term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops. It is synonymous with the terms fecundation, impregnation and fertilization ... The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life." (J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Freidman. Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers, pages 17 and 23.)
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being." [Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]
"Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus." (Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146.
"every time a sperm cell and ovum unite, a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition." (E.L. Potter, M.D., and J.M. Craig, M.D. Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant (3rd Edition). Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975, page vii.)
Posted by: Bobby Bambino
at November 12, 2008 9:06 PM
"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life." [Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]
It doesn't make me angry Bethany. I'm just saying, logically, that it's not so great. It's not something to strive for. In fact, it's something to avoid.
Maybe she did. Maybe they were using condoms and it broke. How do you know what she did?
So should she have had an abortion after she knew the baby was there? I suppose that would have made you happier, 'pro-choicer'?
Posted by: Bethany
at November 12, 2008 9:09 PM
Virginia, perhaps you have heard of spermatozoa and ova? When a spermatozoon combines with an ovum, a new life is created. When a human spermatozoon combines with a human ovum, a new human life is created. This was originally discovered about 150 years ago.
So the argument about when human life begins was actually settled back in the 19th century. What pro-aborts argue, however, is not really when life begins, but rather, when that life has worth. Pro-lifers think that life has worth from its inception; pro-aborts think that life only has worth when the mother declares that it has worth.Posted by: John Lewandowski at November 12, 2008 9:09 PM
Isn't it amazing how "pro-choice" everyone is until someone chooses life?
Bethany, if Virginia were really "pro-choice", she would be mum about any pregnant teen who chooses to keep her baby. Instead, she laments the "choice", since would prefer that the baby be aborted. That's why she, just like the rest of them, are actually "pro-abortion".Posted by: John Lewandowski at November 12, 2008 9:16 PM
Jill, this one's for you:
1 Lord, why are you so far away?
Why do you hide yourself in times of trouble?
2 An evil person is proud and hunts down those who are weak.
He catches weak people by making clever plans.
3 He brags about what his heart longs for.
He speaks well of those who always want more.
He attacks the Lord with his words.
4 Because he is proud, that evil person doesn't turn to the Lord.
There is no room for God in any of his thoughts.
5 Everything always goes well for him.
So he is proud.
He doesn't want to have anything to do with God's laws.
He makes fun of all of his enemies.
6 He says to himself, "I will always be secure.
I will always be happy. I'll never have any trouble."
7 His mouth is full of curses and lies and warnings.
With his tongue he speaks evil and makes trouble.
8 Sinful people hide and wait near the villages.
From their hiding places they murder those who aren't guilty of doing anything wrong.
They watch in secret for those they want to attack.
9 They hide and wait like a lion in the bushes.
From their hiding places they wait to catch those who are helpless.
They catch them and drag them off in their nets.
10 Those they have attacked are beaten up. They fall to the ground.
They fall because their attackers are too strong for them.
11 Sinful people say to themselves, "God doesn't pay any attention.
He covers his face. He never sees us."
12 Lord, rise up! God, show your power!
Don't forget those who are helpless.
13 Why do sinful people attack you with their words?
Why do they say to themselves,
"He won't hold us accountable"?
14 God, you see trouble and sadness.
You take note of it. You do something about it.
So those who are attacked place themselves in your care.
You help children whose fathers have died.
15 Take away the power of bad and sinful people.
Hold them accountable for the evil things they do.
Uncover all the evil they have done.
16 The Lord is King for ever and ever.
The nations will disappear from his land.
17 Lord, you hear the longings of those who are hurting.
You cheer them up and give them hope.
You listen to their cries.
18 You stand up for those whose fathers have died
and for those who have been beaten down.
You do it so that no one made of dust
may terrify others anymore.
What the heck John??? How do you know I would rather a pregnant teen have an abortion? Just because I believe a women should have the choice doesn't mean that I think they should all choose abortion over continuing the pregnancy and either keeping the baby or putting it up for adoption. None of these are easy decisions. And every case is different. It's not for me to say what the pregnant women/girl should do.
That's the whole idea between CHOICE John. Isn't that obvious?Posted by: Virginia K at November 12, 2008 9:55 PM
Virginia, you consider a man who supports abortion throughout all 9 months and beyond a good man. And you say I sound crazy?
Posted by: Jill Stanek at November 12, 2008 12:58 PM
Yes, JIll because you are either a) delusional or b) consciously lying.
Again:Obama has said that the state can regulate late term abortions. SO all your talk of "beyond birth" is a lie.Posted by: phylosopher at November 13, 2008 12:01 AM
Virginia, you already lost any credibility as being "pro-choice" when you attacked Palin's daughter for choosing life for her child.
Careful Bethany..... I wasn't "attacking" Palin's daughter for her decision to have the baby. Nice try. No, I was clearly using her as an obvious example that teenagers DO have sex and unless they are taught about birth control and taught to be careful, they could very well find themselves or their sexual partner pregnant long before they are ready to have children.Posted by: Virginia K at November 13, 2008 8:27 AM
I don't know that I ever said or Bethany ever said that teenagers DON'T have sex. They can rise to the standard of waiting until marriage though. I taught middle school. There were girls that I told that they could wait. Some said, "I can??!!"
I simply don't follow your logic that MOST teens will have sex so we should get them birth control and when that fails we should bring them in to have their children killed. We will have to agree to disagree.
Good morning Bethany!!!Posted by: Carla at November 13, 2008 9:06 AM
Okay Carla, I'll try to type this slowly so you can read slowly and maybe understand.... Of course teenagers can wait until adulthood or even marriage before they have sex. And as I said, this is what we should be advising them to do. BUT the reality is, that most of them do have sex before then. There is no refuting this fact. And this is not a new trend. So... they should be taught about birth control and birth control should be accessible to them. This will reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. This will reduce the number of women who have to make the decision to either carry the baby and give it up for adoption, try to raise the baby themselves or have an abortion. None of these are easy decisions. As parents, as eductors, as public health workers, as government, we should all work together to protect our children from having to make any of these choices. Yes, advise them to wait. Teach them that that's okay and within their control. But do not be naive.Posted by: Virginia K at November 13, 2008 9:40 AM
Ok Virginia K,
I will try to type this slowly so you can read slowly and maybe understand...
I vehemently disagree with your stance on this issue.
Advise them to wait but give them the Prom Party Pack.
Toodles.Posted by: Carla at November 13, 2008 9:48 AM
Oh, and I think it is HILARIOUS that you find me naive!!! Oh my stars. Thank you for the good laugh!Posted by: Carla at November 13, 2008 9:56 AM
Vehemently disagree? Wow, that's pretty intense when what you are doing is weighing your hopes against the hard facts.
That's fine Carla. You are free to put your head in the sand. You may feel differently when your children are older though.
Carla, I think I understand why you might think me calling you naive ( though it wasn't YOU specifically I was referring). You probably are laughing because you think I was suggesting you have no life experiences. Well, obviously you do, and your family environment and experiences growing up and eventually having an abortion that you now regret is a very sad story.
But no... the naivety I was speaking of is when people think that by teaching our children to not have sex until they are adults/married and raising them in a healthy, loving, supportive home that they will then not have sex. Certainly this wasn't your situation. But what about all those other kids you went to high school and college with that were having sex? And what about all those other college girls you speak of getting rides to the local abortion clinic. Do you think none of them were raised in good home environments, perhaps much like the one you have created for your kids now?
Virginia K., go back a hundred years or two, and America becomes an example of a society where many, if not most, people saved themselves for marriage. What has changed? Why?Posted by: Jon at November 13, 2008 11:03 AM
Jon, you're kidding me right? One or two hundred years ago the age at which people were married was much younger than it is today. Easy to wait for marriage when you are don't have to wait so long! Easy to wiat for marraige if you are a girl who has just hit puberty and marriage is right around the corner!(And note: we are assuming here they did wait. How are we to know for sure? June 3 1831. Dear diary, today I milked the cows, made a straw dolly, walked the eggs into town for mama and did NOT lift my skirts for that Joshua Jacobs boy).
Are you suggesting we go back to those days when women had little choice but to get married young?Posted by: Virginia K at November 13, 2008 11:26 AM
I have lived your advice. Hardly putting my head in the sand when I speak out about my life experience.
Do not worry your pretty little head about my children. I will be open and honest about my life and the heartache it led to. I pray they make better choices. If they do have sex in spite of what they learn in our home, there are consequences and we will deal with them. Just like you.
Really, VK this conversation is going nowhere and maybe if you hadn't come on blasting others about bigotry and naivete and your Sexpectations Speech we might have had a better dialogue. meh
I love the Sexpectations word. I borrowed it. :)
Well we are very different Carla. I had the good fortume to come from a good home which also happened to be Catholic. You know the expectations there, I won't bother elaborating.... Nevertheless, as people do, I did not wait until marriage. But I did wait until college. Do I regret having sex before getting married at 25? Not at all. Now, had I started having sex at 14, contracting STD's and getting pregnant I would likely feel very differently based on my experience as you do.
Abstinence-only does not work and I believe (shall I add vehemently?) that this country needs to better provide ALL children with comprehensive sex ed in order to reduce our dismal teen pregnancy rate. I am encouraged that we may now be moving in that direction again.
Having them (and the rest of society) suffer the consequences is not okay.Posted by: Virginia K at November 13, 2008 11:58 AM
You have been heard.
I am grateful that you grew up in the home that you did. That is a blessing. Indeed.
You are feisty. I like feisty.
Now...can we please agree to disagree on this topic?? :)Posted by: Carla at November 13, 2008 12:03 PM
one hundred or two hundred years ago women married early because the life expectancy was MUCH lower than it is now, in the 21st century. And large families weren't that uncommon, either.
My Paternal grandmother lived to the age of 90. My maternal grandmother just celebrated her 87th birthday last month.
Posted by: LizFromNebraska
at November 13, 2008 12:39 PM
Carla, thank for calling me feisty. I think I like that. And I think were it not for our key differences, we could probably be fast friends!
Yes, I can agree to disagree. But I cannot agree to people imposing their religious beliefs on the lives and rights of others.
Over and out. I hope.Posted by: Virginia K at November 13, 2008 12:42 PM
Not to be rude Lizfrom Nebraska, but what's your point? I don't see what you're trying to say in response to my comment.
Are you saying 100 or 200 hundred years ago women married early becuase they had to get going on all that birthing babies because they had fewer years to live? Otherwise, they would have what? Become lawyers? Doctors? Pilates instructors?Posted by: Virginia K at November 13, 2008 12:47 PM
I don't believe I even mentioned my religious beliefs. Points for me on that one I think. :)
We will be friends. Be patient.Posted by: Carla at November 13, 2008 1:05 PM
Liz, I wasn't necessarily referring to you in my comment about imposing religious beliefs. That was a general statement. A vast many people want to criminalize abortion and restrict the rights of gay couples based on their own religious beliefs.Posted by: Virginia K at November 13, 2008 1:14 PM
Good morning (well, afternoon) Carla! I was gone right after I made my last comment so I didn't see your greeting till just now.. :)
BUT the reality is, that most of them do have sex before then. There is no refuting this fact. And this is not a new trend. So ... they should be taught about birth control and birth control should be accessible to them
Virginia, both Senator/VP candidate John Edwards and former Governor Eliot Spitzer knew about birth control and had access to it. In fact, just like you, they lectured people about the wonders of contraception -- and used their political power to spread it near and far. But Spitzer went to prostitutes for unprotected sex and Edwards had a love child while cheating on his cancer-ridden wife.
So knowing about and having access to contraceptives did nothing for these educated men. Had they practiced abstinence at the right time, they might still be in office.Posted by: The Raving Atheist at November 13, 2008 2:37 PM
The Raving Atheist,
You are right, if abstinence isn't at least given as an option, most teens probably wouldn't consider it.
It drives me nuts when parents say "they're going to do it anyway.."
Why do we tell teens not to speed, again? Because there are consequences? WOW, and some teens actually listen.
Sorry Bethany, but I don't see what's so great about two teenagers, neither of them with even a high school diploma raising a kid, even if they do end up following through with the marriage.
Barack Obama's mother was 18 and unmarried when he was conceived, and she followed through with the marriage three months later.
Not exactly sure if I just proved your point or mine, but for what it's worth . . .
I hate when I see people speeding or when I can hear their stereos blasting away (tis very annoying).
Abstinence DOES work when presented in a good way. Listen to a sample of Jason Evert's talk. He does one for Catholic schools & for public schools (which is adjusted for the audience, so no biblical verses) and he's had teens turn in all sorts of shocking items after his talk.
Raving, Obama's mother did a magnificent job, no denying that. But sadly this is often not the case. And I bet if you could ask her, she would say she wished she had been in a better position when she had him. It was a struggle. At least it sounds like she had finished high school. No, it's never a great thing when an unwed teenager gets pregnant.
Liz, comprehensive sex ed DOES include abstinence. You ask why do we think are kids may have sex anyway, even though we tell them not too? Gee... did you?
BTW Liz, you didn't answer my earlier question asking you to clarify your previous comment. I don't get it.Posted by: Virginia K at November 13, 2008 5:30 PM
Sorry, my comment about abstinence being a part of comprehensive sex ed was in response to Janet's comment, not Liz's.
Liz, what I meant to ask you is do you have any data to support your claim that abstinence-only works? Because the studes all show that it doesn't.Posted by: Virginia K at November 13, 2008 5:53 PM
I'm sure if YOU could have been there to talk to Obama's mother, she would have aborted him. Sadly, she lived in a dark, unenlightened age when superstition clouded people's minds and she did not have access to that safe and simple procedure we all now treasure. She herself might have been brainwashed into thinking a clump of cells outranked her autonomy. Perhaps in some limited sense she "chose" to have him -- but is choice truly choice when a lack of knowledge and access gives one no choice?
No, it was not a great thing for her to be a pregnant teen. It was a terrible, tragic thing. Through her own ignorance and society's cruelty, she faced a struggle. Who knows what would have happened had there been a kind and worldly-wise Planned Parenthood counselor back then to help her understand her true worth, to lead her into the gentle hands of a skilled doctor who would free her to pursue her studies unfettered by the unwanted?
The pain. The sadness. The tragedy. I weep. I weep for Obama's mother. I weep for the Bristol Palins of the world.Posted by: The Raving Atheist at November 13, 2008 6:32 PM
RA, you are awesome.
Raving, what gives you the freakin' idea that I'm all gung-ho for abortion? FYI I'm not. But I am for a women's right to choose.Posted by: Virginia K at November 13, 2008 7:00 PM
Virginia, my little mind was wrong. It was affected by the scepticism of a sceptical age. I did not believe except what I saw in a sonogram and felt in my heart, knowing that the heart that beat upon the screen was the same as mine.
Yes, Virginia, there is Planned Parent Claus. It exists as certainly as dilation and extraction and suction exist, and it abounds to give women their greatest freedom. Alas! how dreary would be the world were there no Planned Parent Claus. It would be as dreary as if there were no Virginias, and, had Planned Parent Claus had its way, there might not have been.
Yes, Virginia, there is Choice on Earth. You believe in it. I do not, because I believe in only what I can see . . .Posted by: Anonymous at November 13, 2008 7:39 PM
And yes, Virginia, that last comment was me.Posted by: The Raving Atheist at November 13, 2008 8:05 PM
I'm concerned that your comments about God judging America because the voters put Obama into the White House seem to be dangerously close to putting words into God's mouth. I can understand your feelings, but I don't know how you can make that kind of statement unless God gave you some kinds of heads-up that He hasn't shared with the rest of us.Posted by: David P. Graf at November 13, 2008 8:28 PM
"RA, you are awesome."
Bethany, I know! I think every single post I've read of his has been a gem. I'm really glad he's on our side. I do not look forward to the day when I'm on a different blog and we're on opposite sides..Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 13, 2008 8:35 PM
Raving Atheist? Raving Lunatic is more like it! Are you high?Posted by: Virginia K at November 13, 2008 9:19 PM
All I've done is exercise my right to choose what to say to you. And although when I make that choice nothing dies, you imply that one of us is right and one of us is wrong. Somehow, my choice to oppose killing upsets you more than the killing itself -- to the extent you call me high.
P.S. I would also oppose your right to get high, even though it's your body and nothing necessarily dies.Posted by: The Raving Atheist at November 13, 2008 9:54 PM
That settles it. You are high.Posted by: Virginia K at November 13, 2008 10:01 PM
P.S. I would also oppose your right to get high, even though it's your body and nothing necessarily dies.
Posted by: The Raving Atheist at November 13, 2008 9:54 PM
Now you have crossed a line.Posted by: hal at November 13, 2008 10:17 PM
I support your right to choose to claim you've won the argument, without even pretending that you've addressed a word of what I've said. In fact, I celebrate your choice to do so, almost as much as you celebrate Roe v Wade.Posted by: The Raving Atheist at November 13, 2008 10:22 PM
And I support the right of the president-elect to choose to smoke crack, as long as it means that he's too high to sign the FOCA.Posted by: John Lewandowski at November 13, 2008 11:09 PM
Hmm... From the looks of things, might be a few people hitting the pipe a bit around here....Posted by: Doug at November 14, 2008 12:07 AM
I think you are awesome!
Why would God want Obama to be President? Maybe he's tired of never-ending wars. Maybe He's fed up with rendition, torture in secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe, prisoners who "dissapear" in the night without contact with their family, an attorney, a court and are held indefinetly. Maybe He's fed up with economic policies that leave people struggling to pay bills, stay in their homes, keep health care as they are laid off. Maybe He thinks that there are bigger fish to fry at this particular moment than something that for the last 3000 years up until about 50 years ago was not even an issue at all.Posted by: JohnS at November 14, 2008 7:56 AM
john are you saying abortion or legal abortion wasn't an issue until 50years ago? Because abortion has been around way longer than 50 years! And what's with the 3000 years? What about before then?Posted by: Virginia k at November 14, 2008 9:50 AM
Because abortion has been around way longer than 50 years! And what's with the 3000 years? What about before then?
Indeed, John! Do you not realize that abortion is eternal? Nay -- it is more than that. It is the fundamental essence of the Universe, transcending matter, energy, consciousness and spirit, yet more real than all of them combined!!!
Consult the Periodic Table of the Elements and you will see what the best scientists, theologians and philosophers have known for years. The element "C" -- Choice -- triumphs over all, its explosive, radioactive nature laying waste to everything that stands in its way. The elements of Life, Love and Liberty disintegrate in its presence, melting into a wet, oozing red liquid that flows into the drains at the outer reaches of the heavens, never to be seen again.
Posted by: The Raving Atheist
at November 14, 2008 10:18 AM
LOL, AWESOME RA!Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 14, 2008 10:26 AM
Still high I see, Raving.
Mine was a legitimate question. Abortion has been around longer than 50 years and man more 3000, so clarification was needed.Posted by: Virginia K at November 14, 2008 10:31 AM
On the off chance that I have perhaps overstated the case, permit me to offer an alternative explanation. Fifty years ago abortion was not an "issue" because back then even Planned Parenthood was issuing pamphlets declaring that "an abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun." It became an "issue" thereafter when, in the service of "sexual freedom" and "self-fulfillment," mass killing centers began to dot the landscape more plentifully that McDonalds.
So when abortions are being performed secretively (for thousands of years), they are not "an issue"? We can pretend they don't exist? Because the pregnant wome can do or become sterile do to unsafe conditions so it serves them right? What?
I don't understand.Posted by: Virginia K at November 14, 2008 10:45 AM
Sorry, that's "...women can DIE or become sterile"Posted by: Virginia K at November 14, 2008 10:46 AM
Very well, Virginia.
I concede that women have been having abortions, in some form, since the dawn of civilization. Murder, suicide, infanticide, rape and war have also existed since that time. But what you were so clearly "getting at" is that somehow the mere age of the practice was a reason to honor it. I am well familiar with the rhetoric, and grateful that you spared me the further lecture regarding the herbs and potions concocted by gentle tribeswomen in the days of yore to "control their fertility."
But in fact, abortion was historically rare, and the social sanction against it was enshrined nearly 2,000 years ago by the Hippocratic oath. It was only after the combination of 19th century Nietzschism and 20th Century technology gave rise to the toxic eugenic culture that the practice was embraced in purported name of progress and science. It is neither. It is death.
As to my being high, I am compelled to note that your angriest denunciations seem to come after the posts in which I have most forcefully reflected your position. Yes, there is great ugliness in them. But you are merely blaming the mirror.
Look inside yourself instead.
Because the pregnant women can die or become sterile due to unsafe conditions so it serves them right? What?
I don't understand.
Without exploring too deeply the myths surrounding the prevalence of back-alley or "coat hanger" abortions, let me note that in the 1972, the last pre-Roe year, the CDC reported that majority of abortion deaths occurred in the legal ones. But safety isn't really the issue.
Many people engage in harmful practices such as "cutting", purging and drug abuse. Often the cause is desperation or mental illness. But we do not set up centers to encourage and normalize these practices. We try to stop them. We try to help the people find healthy, life-affirming alternatives.
And no, if we find them dead on a darkened street we do not say it "serves them right." We are more compassionate than that. I would not even say that about a crazed and desperate man shot dead after turning to bank robbery to feed his family. But whether bank robbery should be legalized and condoned to save the lives of the unfortunate souls who attempt it is a separate question.Posted by: The Raving Atheist at November 14, 2008 11:16 AM
raving, you misunderstand me. I have no rhetoric. I am not familar with the usual arguments pro choice puts out. This is all new to me and I am somewhat shell shockedPosted by: Virginia K at November 14, 2008 12:50 PM
Virginia: I am not familar with the usual arguments pro choice puts out. This is all new to me and I am somewhat shell shocked
Virginia, one might get shell-shocked by all the straw man arguments we see from some Pro-Lifers.
But, you'll have that.... ; )Posted by: Doug at November 14, 2008 1:34 PM
Amazing how you guys ignore the main point of my post. Anyway abortion is an ancient practice that was legal practially everywhere until the 19th century, and after that, even though it was technically illegal, it was more like Prohibition, everyone knew where they could get one. It was only Griswold v. Conn in 1967 that created the issue of reproductive freedom that carried over into Roe, and made it suddenly a issue. But my POINT was God might on balance weigh all the good in Obama (and all the really, really BAD in the Repubs) over one issue.Posted by: JohnS at November 14, 2008 2:17 PM
This is from Wikipedia:
The history of abortion law dates back to ancient times and has impacted men and women in a variety of ways in different times and places. While laws regulating acceptable forms of abortion began with the Romans, widespread regulation to have an abortion did not begin until the 13th century.
There were no laws against abortion in the Roman Republic and early Roman Empire, as Roman law did not regard a fetus as distinct from the mother's body, and abortion was not infrequently practiced to control family size, to maintain one's physical appearance, or because of adultery. In 211 AD, at the intersection of the reigns of Septimius Severus and Caracalla, abortion was outlawed for a period of time as violating the rights of parents, punishable by temporary exile. However, late Roman legislation is generally derived from a concern for population growth, and not as an issue of morality.
Historically, it is unclear how often the ethics of abortion (induced abortion) was discussed, but widespread regulation did not begin until the 18th century. One factor in abortion restrictions was a socio-economic struggle between male physicians and female mid-wives. In the 18th century, English and American common law allowed abortion if performed before "quickening." By the late 19th century many nations had passed laws that banned abortion. In the later half of the 20th century most Western nations began to legalize abortion.Posted by: JohnS at November 14, 2008 2:42 PM
I apologize for the discourtesy I have shown you. My jaded pro-life heart misperceived your mission here, and my worse instincts overcame me.
You said earlier that you are not "gung-ho" for abortion. If I am reading you correctly, you may well think it is a bad thing, at least at some stage, and in some instances, for reasons which do turn on religion, but rather on the fact that a life is lost. And perhaps you understand that there are countless women who feel the same way -- but who aborted at a time of weakness, fear, confusion or indifference and now suffer terribly in reflecting up their choice.
You know that your life began in some sense at conception, at least in the sense that had what emerged from that union been destroyed you would not be among us today. You know that every fetus promises to some day be human, and is a unique combination of the traits of its parents. You know that at least that much is certain, although you may have doubts as to whether is human enough yet.
May I make the mad suggestion that you weigh a certainty against a doubt and join us, for friendship's sake?
That you put your principles aside in a way that does offend them, and focus exclusively upon helping those women who you believe might be hurt by abortion to avoid it?
Think of it this way: you may disapprove of pornography. You may not be "gung-ho" about it. You may believe that it hurts some women, that they are used and exploited. But you may be "pro-choice" about it in some way, concerned that there are troubling free speech issues, and that criminalization might impermissibly infringe on what some women want to do with their bodies.
But you would not devote your life to "selling" pornography. You would not become a pornographer. You would not patrol the comment section of an anti-pornography blog extolling the liberating effects of photographed or videotaped sex. Indeed, you might even consider discouraging women from entering the profession, much as you might discourage your own daughters.
Can you not as least consider doing the same where abortion is concerned and a life is at arguably at stake? I'm sure that I and the other friends of this blog could suggest a thousand things you could do to fight abortion, and help heal those wounded by it, in a manner consistent with your politics.
You are new to this. You are shell-shocked. But you are standing at a fork in the road that so many of here have stood before, with a precious choice to make.
Come down our road Virginia. Weigh a certainty against a doubt, and come with us, for friendship's sake.Posted by: The Raving Atheist at November 14, 2008 2:46 PM
Forget it Raving. I do not beleive life begins at conception. Nonetheless, abortion cannot be a pleasant experience and I would not want to go through it. That doesn't mean I would not choose it. I can't say for sure, never being in the position of an unwanted pregnancy.
Whatever I would choose for myself, I do feel strongly that it is a women's own choice and that is not something that I, nor anyone else should take from her based on our beliefs.
You are wasting your time with me Raving. And those arguing based on religious beliefs and dogma are wasting their time even more so on me. I respect that their reasons for opposing abortion ring true with them, but they are not for me.Posted by: Virginia K at November 14, 2008 5:29 PM
I do not believe life begins at conception.
Is there any point in the pregnancy at which believe that the state should have the right to prohibit a woman from having an abortion, assuming there's no serious threat to her health or life?
Virginia, I wasn't talking about you volunteering to take away a woman's legal right to an abortion. I was talking about discouraging women from having them, helping women who are being pressured into abortion despite wanting the child, helping women get through pregnancy-related diseases without aborting, helping those who are grieving about their original choice to abort. You can certainly contribute in those areas without compromising your belief that abortion should be legal.Posted by: The Raving Atheist at November 14, 2008 6:26 PM
JohnS: though it was technically illegal, it was more like Prohibition, everyone knew where they could get one.
John, very true - women or girls "went to visit aunt Millie" or "went to a sanitarium" or "vacationed abroad," etc.
I was 14 in 1973, and had heard some tales like this myself, prior to the Roe decision.
I also think that it's somewhat of a moot point, since even if we had abortion be illegal again, it would still be like Prohibition in some ways. Abortions would still take place, and I doubt there would be penalties of any significance for the woman, just as with the banning of D & X abortions - the doctor can get a fine or up to 2 years in jail while there is no punishment for the woman.
There is also the internet now, and much more available information on how women can use abortifacients to self-induce.Posted by: Doug at November 14, 2008 7:09 PM
JohnS: But my POINT was God might on balance weigh all the good in Obama (and all the really, really BAD in the Repubs) over one issue.
There are always people who think in silhouette, who want to think that their chosen issue is all-important, who need to believe that the Bible, etc., supports them in a one-sided manner, even if it's not really the case.
I figure you're getting a bit complex for them.Posted by: Doug at November 14, 2008 7:13 PM
I figure you're getting a bit complex for them.
A bit patronizing, considering that being pro-choice is a virtual litmus test for running as a Democrat, and that modern feminism has been reduced to little more than the support of abortion rights. Palin-hatred pretty much hinged on that single issue, with little of the "nuance" you find so essential.
From my own experience, I've found that pro-lifers are far more more inclined to cite science than the Bible in support of their position. It's the pro-choice side that invokes religion the most, asserting that it's just a "Catholic issue" rather than a basic human one. If you review the history of the pro-choice movement, you'll see that religion-bashing was chosen as a deliberate strategy to distract from the real issues.Posted by: The Raving Atheist at November 14, 2008 7:28 PM
Raving, I appreciate your tone and suggesting ways I might be able to work with your cause. But honestly, I cannot be a part of what I have heard here. I cannot help their cause.
I would not be interested in discourgaing women from having an abortion. The only thing I would be interested in is a situation where women are presented with all the options,facts and unbiased advice given for the individual's case. And where support was offered be it for post- abortion counselling, dealing with a newborn and finding social assistance or arranging adoptions. The whole shabang.
I hope that now or one day there are groups that assist women to make choices and to deal with unwanted or risky pregnancies.Posted by: Virginia K at November 14, 2008 7:34 PM
The only thing I would be interested in is a situation where women are presented with all the options, facts and unbiased advice given for the individual's case.
Obviously, one of the options would be abortion. How you would respond might depend on what your "unbiased" view was of the procedure. As I asked before, is there any point in the pregnancy at which believe that the state should have the right to prohibit a woman from having an abortion, assuming there's no serious threat to her health or life? Or, from the point of view of a counselor, is there any point in the pregnancy at which you would discourage the woman from having an abortion (even if you thought it should still be legal) absent a health/life threat reason? For example, what if she said "my boyfriend wants me to have an abortion, and although I want the baby I really want to keep him as my partner more?"Posted by: The Raving Atheist at November 14, 2008 8:11 PM