(Prolifer)ations 7-23-08
by Colleen W.
News from the pro-life blogs today….
The Department of Health and Human Services draft proposal, which began circulating around Capitol Hill last week, would require hospitals receiving federal funds to certify that, in their hiring, they do not discriminate against people who refuse to provide forms of contraception, such as birth control pills, due to personal religious beliefs.
This will be an interesting fight to follow, a topic Jill brought to our attention last week.
When a bishop asked the women if they were open to Christian values formation, [Susanah] Reyes [research director of the Asian Social Institute] said the women readily agreed to it.
Many of women who underwent abortion were desperate and treated abortion as the last option, she noted.
“They lacked information on family planning and how it is to become a better Christian,” Reyes said.
It’s not clear to me what Reyes means by “family planning,” whether it’s artificial birth control or natural family planning. However, the concerns the group of rural women raise are significant. These mothers who are aborting their children seem to think that they have no choice, and clearly more needs to be done to provide them adequate support and care.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
THe article Alexa refers to is important:
From the article on the Philippine situation:
But for the rural women, terminologies are secondary. Reyes said they wanted acknowledgement that abortion has been happening in the country side because mothers have not been getting the support they needed from the government.
Again we see that women without maternal support turn to abortion.
What IS interesting is the level of involvement of the Catholic bishops in this country. That we in North America should have this level of concern:
Five bishops attended the discussion, but Racelis said they did not speak much. Mostly they listened, she noted.
In a press conference on Monday, Archbishop Antonio Ledesma, the NRC II convenor, said they supported the women
But Patricia, all these women really need is access to safe, legal abortions and sex ed and condoms!! Don’t forget the condoms. A PP clinic ought to do the trick.
Seriously though. I am finding that some women who have had abortions in other countries struggle with the same issues I did. Not knowing what else to do and suffering with the decision later.
Carla: it is sad that this is what they are turning to. And using herbs etc to abort.
The bishops in the Philippines are working very hard to help these women. They do not want this scourge in their country and they’ve already fought off an attempt to emplace a draconian two-child family law last year.
The NYTimes did a writeup of the abortion rate, per country, and found that the status of abortion as legal or illegal in a given country affected the safety of abortion but not the rate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
As to what kind of family planning information to give these women, I’d like to see them with information on and access to everything there is, but it sounds like even training in the sympto-thermal method alone would be an improvement.
WHo are you anonymous?
I won’t be commenting on this blog any further until moderators show up and remove somg’s comments on the other thread and anonymous comments are stopped.
Anon (I thought this wsn’t allowed anymore), this is the answer to your questions:
1)It does IF it was implemented properly. The Philippine gov’t is as corrupt as it can be. And I would say the same to any enforcing agency. It is not the solution…it’s the implementation of this solution.
2)Contraceptives there are as available as here in the US. The problem stated RURAL women…imagine an area with no access roads, minimal gov’t funding/ support and minimal education. Promiscuity is not the problem here…it is proper health education, not the kind PP gives.
3) It does…haven’t you read about the African solution to AIDS. In the Phil. Situation, it is education and awareness that is the hindering factor to proper promulgation of the teachings of the Church. True, 80% are RC but most do only out of tradition w/o a real in-depth understanding of the Teachings of the Church.
You cannot compare the US situation to a 3rd world country’s situation…it’s like apples and oranges. The problems may be the same but the culture/ infrastructure/ gov’t situation are totally different.
Anonymous comments will be deleted.
OK, this is why those who are banned need to respect the fact that they are banned and not post under false or anonymous names. It’s not fair to new PCers like LTL and A. We worry about people trying to “sneak” on the board (apparently rightfully so) and so we’re now thinking that every name we don’t recognize is someone who is banned trying to post. So out of respect for your fellow PCers, please stop posting if you are banned. Thank you.
OK, this is why those who are banned need to respect the fact that they are banned and not post under false or anonymous names. It’s not fair to new PCers like LTL and A. We worry about people trying to “sneak” on the board (apparently rightfully so) and so we’re now thinking that every name we don’t recognize is someone who is banned trying to post. So out of respect for your fellow PCers, please stop posting if you are banned. Thank you.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at July 23, 2008 8:28 AM
I’m sorry Bobby, but this is gonna doing anything? Somg posted last night when everyone was gone. “A” sounds alot like somg to me.
RSD —
It does IF it was implemented properly. The Philippine gov’t is as corrupt as it can be. And I would say the same to any enforcing agency. It is not the solution…it’s the implementation of this solution.
Do you know of any countries where an abortion ban has been implemented correctly? I’m not trying to be aggressive, I’m legitimately curious.
When you said this it kind of called to mind the usual claims of socialists, that the various countries that have been socialist have turned out the way they have not because of inherent problems with socialism but rather because of the corrupt implementation of socialist ideals. (Obviously there are many, many different kinds of socialism, so this is a really broad statement, I know.) The main criticism of past attempts at socialism (or communism) is often that the movement, by definition, must come from the people and not from the political leaders — so if political leaders are at the forefront, it means that the people of a country are not ready to demand a socialist government, which means they are not ready to properly implement one. Which, it just struck me, sounds very similar to arguments against criminalizing abortion — I have heard pro-choicers and pro-lifers alike argue that criminalizing abortion before a society is ready to criminalize it will not work and will result in ineffective implementations of this solution because the solution is being forced before the society is ready to put it into practice.
It seems to me that both social equality/elimination of poverty, and fewer abortions, are ideals to work towards but not to mandate. Obviously that’s just my opinion though. There is a theory — I can’t be bothered to try to remember whose, before my morning coffee — that the right capitalist system will not progress towards socialist revolution, because the government will react to the people’s desire for change in small reforms as problems come up, and thus eliminate the need for a revolution. Which I think sounds a lot like wanting to stop the desire for abortion via accurate sex ed (abstinence included), economic support for women, healthcare and educational reforms, etc. If all of the reasons that women most frequently abort were addressed, then in theory an abortion ban would not be necessary at all, or would at least be redundant — at which point it would, of course, be effective.
I’m just thinking out loud right now, mostly. But I don’t know much about international abortion laws. Are or have there ever been bans on abortion that you would consider to be correctly implemented? What do you think would need to happen in order for an abortion ban to be correctly implemented?
Alexandra: another question might be do you know of any country where the legalization of abortion has not been accomplished by subterfuge, lies, and deceit? In both Canada and the US it was imposed on the population via an politicized judiciary. In Canada there is absolutely NO democratic debate begging the question, “Is Canada really a democracy?”
In China, abortion was foisted on the people there and women are forced to undergo abortions.
Bobby 8:28 As I understand Jill’s new rules, anyone who disagrees with Jill will have their comments deleted or be banned.
I had my comments critical of the anti-Obama movie, and its producers deleted because Jill decided I was “Laura”. I guess anyone who dissents is “Laura” and is banned.
I’m not sure who “Laura” is or what she is up to, but she apparently makes Jill very paranoid.
Quite frankly, if only JIll’s “amen chorus” is allowed to post, this site is of little interest.
“Do you know of any countries where an abortion ban has been implemented correctly? I’m not trying to be aggressive, I’m legitimately curious”
——————————-
Alexandra, have you heard of any government not run by politicians? BY the very nature of a politician, they have to compromise a lot of things in order to remain in office.
The answer then is “no”.
Given that answer, would that prove that the banning of abortion would NOT work?
Again, the answer to that is also a “No”.
I believe we should err on the side of life…
and that the “solution” to abortion should come from the people themselves..not from the government.
Until such time that people (wherever they may be, whatever their social/ economic status in life may be) live their lives responsibly there will always be this abortion “debate”.
Quite frankly, if only JIll’s “amen chorus” is allowed to post, this site is of little interest.
Quite frankly, if you’re looking for a place to speak you mind through insults and attacks, you could always join Amanda Marcottes site.
There is plenty of dissent here. Which we tolerate very nicely, thank you.
What we won’t tolerate, is rudeness.
You could always start your own blog, get your own LTL Amen chorus and ban anyone that’s actually nice.
Or you could speak your peace here, respectfully, and refrain from personal attacks…but we wouldn’t want you to be bored…
Hey LTL.
“As I understand Jill’s new rules, anyone who disagrees with Jill will have their comments deleted or be banned.”
No, Jill welcomes those who disagree with her to voice their opinion respectfully. I think there is a lot of evidence of that on several posts. However, we’re in a somewhat transitional phase. We’ve let a lot of insults and bad language go for a while, and now we’re cracking down. We have to delete many pro-life comments too if they are vile or personally insulting.
In other words, we’re still trying to get a feel for how much we should allow and how much is too far; where the line is. But if we didn’t want open polite discussion, we would have banned someone like SoMG or even a Doug a long time ago. Truth be told, I don’t think you’ll ever see or hear a call for a deletion of a comment by Doug or Alexandra or many other PCers because they are always polite. I’m not saying you aren’t polite, LTL. Laura has caused Jill a LOT of problems, and I think she has a right to want her to not comment on this blog anymore. Did it unfairly effect you? It might have, and if that is the case, I sincerely apologize.
But stick around, LTL. Once we get this stuff figured out, I think you’ll see that we welcome and are willing to discuss different points of view.
“I’m sorry Bobby, but this is gonna doing anything? Somg posted last night when everyone was gone. “A” sounds alot like somg to me.”
I love how Bobby kindly explains how unfair it is to accuse people with absolutely NO evidence of pretending to be others, and then you go and do it.
The admins can check IP addresses to verify people are not faking. Why don’t you leave it up to them rather than stirring up trouble by making accusations you can’t even begin to back up with any amount of proof?
Patricia and Amanda – we’re taking care of it. Thanks for your patience.
Thanks, for your comments Bobby at 10:22, but it appears mk strongly disagrees with you at 10:19, and feels anyone who disagrees is “rude”, that dissent is a “personal attack” and that anyone who disagrees with Jill should leave this site, and form their own site.
I think you need to establish a policy about dissenting views, as it appears even the moderators disagree.
No, LTL, what MK disagrees with is people being rude and offensive for NO reason. Calling people an “amen chorus” which is blatantly untrue and just done to insult people really, is rude.
How about HisMan’s threat to NM on a prior post to “chew him up and spit him out?”. Is that considered by you to be “rude” or insulting”?
Or is there a “good reason” for those threats?
Perhaps it is the double standard whereby Truthseeker and HisMan are allowed to post insults and threats, and those who are pro-choice are banned for far less offensive statements, that has me confused.
I will say, in general I find things around here to be quite fair. However, HisMan has said some things that would have had ANYONE else banned for good, but he gets a pass because 1. he’s pro life, and 2. he usually apologizes afterwards when he gets called out by other pro lifers.
But, LTL, I really think thats the only exception. TS has said some incredibly ignorant things – but again, he usually gets called on it – by plenty of pro lifers.
Yeah, LTL, I’m always calling pro-lifers like HisMan and TS out when they say something rude and insulting. Go back and look in the archives if you don’t believe me. Plenty of us call people out on rude remarks on either side, it may have been before you were here though, I can’t really remember.
Again, someone else saying something rude and insulting doesn’t take away from your rude remark. Unless you want to be on the level with people who do that, and if that’s the case, have at it.
Again, someone else saying something rude and insulting doesn’t take away from your rude remark. Unless you want to be on the level with people who do that, and if that’s the case, have at it.
Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella’s Momma) at July 23, 2008 12:34 PM
……………………….
Was it 3 or 4 of LTL’s posts that were pulled? I read them before they went away. I found nothing rude. What did I miss?
Does everyone actually need to be reminded that Jill sets the tone of her blog with her often rude, offensive, and unfounded speculations about people and their character? What does it say about her if she can’t take the same heat?
Sally,
You and everyone else here are more than welcome to challenge anything Jill says. I’m pretty sure that’s what the blog is for. You know, the exchange of ideas. What exactly does one get out of dogging on a person who’s site they come to on a constant basis? You don’t like her so much, here’s a thought, you don’t have to post/read here. I don’t recall reading what it was LTL said that got deleted so I don’t really know the context, but I trust the mod’s here. They’re pretty fair. They’ve deleted plenty of pro-lifers comments here, because I’ve seen them do it.
“he usually apologizes afterwards when he gets called out by other pro lifers.”
——————————————
Actually, I think, that’s the diff between out-of-line comments by PL and Pro-aborts…we apologize afterwards…don’t recall any on the “other” side do that.
Oh please, RSD. You’re being just as ridiculous as LTL with this “the OTHER side is always (fill in the blank)!!!” crap. Besides the fact that you know perfectly well thats not true.
Amanda…I’m saying prolifers are more acceptable of “corrections” from other pro-lifers …recognize when we’re out of line and apologize immediately.
I didn’t say you and your ilk are full of it…I may “think” it, though.
LTL,
Thanks, for your comments Bobby at 10:22, but it appears mk strongly disagrees with you at 10:19, and feels anyone who disagrees is “rude”, that dissent is a “personal attack” and that anyone who disagrees with Jill should leave this site, and form their own site.
If you read my response I made it quite clear that like Bobby and ALL the moderators, not only do we allow dissenting views, there would be no point to this blog if we didn’t have them.
What I objected to was your rude manner. Hisman is constantly called out by us when he gets revved up, and so have other members of the “Amen Chorus”…Why exactly was it necessary to use that particular phrase? What were you trying to accomplish? Warm feelings all around.
I don’t moderate one hour a day. I don’t moderate 3 hours a day. I devote, as do our other moderators, a minimum of 5 hours a day, and sometimes as many as 10 to this blog.
We are having some troubles with a particular poster, and unfortunately you and he have a similar writing style. Until we could assess whether or not your were one and the same, we had to pull you.
In the future if you have a gripe, feel free to make it, but leave out the snarky parts.
I rarely lose it on here, but your post was the first thing I saw this morning, BEFORE I had my coffee, and you really set me off.
Sorry, If responded out of character, but really. You’re not exactly Mary Poppins.
Regardless, Bobby and I are in total agreement.
Dissent? Good. Rude, insulting comments meant to inflame and serve no other purpose? Not our favorite.
Amanda,
I agree that clumping all pro choicers on this site into one group serves no purpose. You have apologized, midnite has apologized, Doug has apologized…the list goes on.
However, the truly rude members of the pro choice side have never apologized. I won’t name any names, SoMG, but I can see where RSD is coming from.
He’s wrong (sorry RSD), but it can seem like there are an awful lot of rude pro choicers. There aren’t, but it can seem that way. Squeaky wheels and all.
LTL,
If the other moderators have no problem with it, since I see nothing offensive in your posts that were deleted, I’d be happy to put them back up.
Now that it has been determined that you aren’t one of the folks that has been banned, there is no reason to keep them deleted.
Peace?
Oh please, RSD. You’re being just as ridiculous as LTL with this “the OTHER side is always (fill in the blank)!!!” crap. Besides the fact that you know perfectly well thats not true.
Don’t lie, Amanda. You know perfectly well that you had to erase the words “I’m sorry” from your vocabulary in order to join the pro-abort club, just like I did. ;)
LTL — in all seriousness, something I try to remember when I’m reading things on this blog is that just because something offends me doesn’t mean that it’s inherently offensive. I have almost never agreed with anything Jill has said, but there are only a handful of times that I think she has said something that is objectively offensive. The same goes for most of the commentors. I find some of the things people say really awful, but I only occasionally find them to be unnecessarily so considering the ideas that person may be trying to express. By that I mean, sometimes a person’s beliefs seem really foreign to me and may frustrate me, but just because my reaction is frustration doesn’t mean the person was seeking to frustrate or offend me. They were just explaining themselves, which I am grateful for; my reaction is my own concern.
Name-calling, insults, and obviously-false generalizations fall under the headline of ‘deliberately offensive’ to me. Most other things, I try to — just as a test — remove my emotion from the subject and see if I still find the words, stripped of my reaction to them, offensive.
People here haven’t (often) told me to leave just because I’m not in step with the general view of the blog. Tone is much more important than opinion, here, which I know is not necessarily the case at other blogs.
Just a disclaimer though, that when I say that tone matters more than opinion, I don’t mean that you can politely express a pro-choice opinion and not have people challenge it. I just mean that doing so won’t get your post deleted.
wow Amanda you get your knickers in a knot over the slightest things.
There are ways to get around being identified though IP’s Ya know!
Take a breath of fresh air or go have a smoothie. Sheesh.
People here haven’t (often) told me to leave just because I’m not in step with the general view of the blog. Tone is much more important than opinion, here, which I know is not necessarily the case at other blogs.
Posted by: Alexandra at July 23, 2008 5:26 PM
Well I for one, do NOT want you to leave Alexandra!
Alexandra,
Thank you. You said that so well.
Yes, and I agree that I jumped on her this morning…
I do want to make it clear tho, that the posts were not deleted because of content, but because we thought she was a poster that had been banned.
She/he could have posted that she loved us all and had become pro life, but until we could figure out if she was a certain someone, her posts were getting deleted.
Honestly, except for the crack about the “amen chorus” (which I overreacted to), there was nothing in the posts per se, that needed to be deleted.
Which is why I’ll put them back up as soon as I’m given the okay.
MK: you are too sweet!
mk —
I do want to make it clear tho, that the posts were not deleted because of content, but because we thought she was a poster that had been banned.
Oh, I didn’t see the posts that were deleted. I just assumed they contained offensive language. Sorry, LTL. I shouldn’t have jumped to conclusions.
Patricia — thanks!
Alexandra: 5:26: That was a very level-headed response. Thank you!
mk: “Amen chorus” makes me think of angels. :)