New Stanek WND column, “Killed abortion survivor finally gets funeral”
On Oct. 14, little Shanice Osbourne will finally be laid to rest 27 months after she was allegedly killed on the day she was aborted alive, July 20, 2006, by abortion clinic owner Belkis Gonzalez at A Gyn Diagnostics Center in Hialeah, FL.
In addition, notice of intent to initiate a civil lawsuit for medical negligence, wrongful death and personal injury has been filed against Gonzalez, abortionist Pierre Jean-Jacques Renelique and their conglomerate of four Dade Co. abortion clinics by Pennekamp Law in conjunction with the Thomas More Society.
Finally, some semblance of peace and justice?
On a hot summer day a little over two years ago, Sycloria Williams was in the throes of an induced-labor abortion of 22-week-old Shanice when the baby delivered alive.
A clinic worker, along with Williams, witnessed Gonzalez cut the cord and place the moving, breathing baby in a biohazard bag partially filled with chlorine bleach and zip it shut….
Continue reading my column, “Killed abortion survivor finally gets funeral,” on WorldNetDaily.com.
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.
Put this story on the national news next to Obama saying “it’s above his pay grade”, his stance on born alive protection and you may have enough people with a functioning conscience to send this man with a murderous heart back to wherever he came from.
If only there was a collective conservative nerve.
Sandi, you’re trying to connect this baby in Florida to Obama? what did he do?
Yeah hal is right on. I did think it weird to read this whole story about an abortion/murder in Dade County and then lump Obama in at the end. I think the right wing whack-a-nuts are just desperate to throw anything at Obama now and hope something sticks.
PPC, comment deleted. Totally off-topic and an attempt to forward your personal liberal agenda.
JohnS/Hal: This baby is precisely the age baby Obama does not want considered a legal person.
Great thread. This thread shows us exactly what Obama’s stark opposition to Born Alive Infant Protection Act looks like in the birth rooms.
JohnS/Hal: This baby is precisely the age baby Obama does not want considered a legal person.
Posted by: Jill Stanek at October 8, 2008 11:31 AM
And? I’m sorry, I must be missing something.
“Killed abortion survivor?” At 22 weeks, it never would have survived.
Reality, google Amilla Sonia Taylor
Reality,
This is not true, as even Jill as written about before. https://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/02/worlds_youngest.html
Ah Bethany, always one step ahead of me… :)
Jill 11:31 Since the first comment on this post, and yours, were an attempt to link Obama to this case,I feel the New York Times editorial of today was relevant, and not off-topic.
http://news.jacksonville.com/elections2008/2008/10/georgia-mother-daughter-team-travel-to-see-palin/
I took vids while there and apparently none of the news organizations included my story about jill stanek who fired me up on abortion
At least Shanice went to Heaven. While McCain still has a chance to win, and he does, perhaps all would not be lost about overturning Roe v. Wade, etc, if the unthinkable were to happen with Obama winning the presidency. There would still be four conservatives who always get it right and one moderate who sometimes gets in right on the Supreme Court The Supreme Court and the federal courts are the one area where George W. has made a very positive difference as president. These five Supreme Court justices, however, would have to stay together and determine to withstand Obama’s four years. Perhaps then, Sarah Palin or Bobby Jindal could win the presidency in 2012 and appoint more conservatives to the court.
Palin wants each state to decide what abortion regulations to have. I doubt that would please many on this site. Abortion would be legal in about 35 states, you betcha.
Hal,
Palin wants each state to decide what abortion regulations to have. I doubt that would please many on this site. Abortion would be legal in about 35 states, you betcha.
That scenario would be much better than FOCA, which would take away all States’ rights. She’ still more pro-life than Obama who is off the pro-choice charts into Abortionland. I wouldn’t be surprised if we saw an abortion museum erected in his honor if he’s elected.
It would please me greatly Hal to get to vote on if I wanted abortion legal in my state. You. Betcha.
Carla,
great minds think alike, ha ha.
Carla, it might please you to get to vote, but you might not like losing that election. I can see some argument that it would be better than the status quo, but I imagine it might be even more depressing to you guys to have abortion legal because the voters want it that way.
Hal,
That’s what would happen if Roe V. Wade gets overturned anyway. Regardless of what Palin wants. Haven’t we covered this one already??
not as much as we’ve covered “infanticide.”
But, seriously, my point is just that even if the pro-life movement gets a “win,” abortions will continue pretty much the same as now. So, why the excitement about Palin, or the urgency to reverse Roe v. Wade?
Hal,
You don’t know that. And if that’s the case, what’s the big deal in overturning Roe? Why, if abortion will stay the same, would people get allllll kinds of upset about it? Hmm?
I am sensing the urgency to continue the killing of all babies to the tune of 4,000 a day!! At all costs, no matter the deathtoll, the emotional and physical harm done to women…carry on. In fact, there is NOTHING that Obama has said that backs up the fact that he will REDUCE abortion!! That’s a laugh. HA
Roe V Wade should have been voted on by the people in the first place. You know, democracy and all.
Posted by: hal at October 8, 2008 11:49 AM
I’d say you’re missing a whole lot.
So… after Barack’s inauguration, this will all stop, right? Because its “unpatriotic” and “unamerican” to bash the President, right?
And “If you don’t like it, shut up, or get out!”, right?
Or will the “dissent is patriotic” line suddenly not be so offensive and “liberal” to you?
Hal,
Someday there will be no abortion.
There was a time when babies born prior to 32 weeks were unsavable. There was a time when babies born prior to 28 weeks were unsavable. There was a time when babies born prior to 24 weeks were unsavable… we keep pushing those numbers back…
If one actually looks at the history of outcomes in preterm births, we see a constant improvement and a constant lowering of the gestational age at which medical intervention can succeed.
How then, can people claim that this causes there to be a right to abortion prior to a certain gestational age? What it says is, “Just because we haven’t managed to do it yet, does not mean it will not happen.”
Roe V Wade should have been voted on by the people in the first place. You know, democracy and all.
Posted by: Carla at October 8, 2008 2:52 PM
This IS precisely the point – in a democracy the people should make the laws and NOT the activist judiciary.
Otherwise, it is no longer a democracy.
Funny how the liberals like Hal and Doug are all for democracy when it’s forwarding their agenda but when the majority are not onside (as was in the 60’s 70’s and 80’s and continues to be by a slim margin) they want to resort to totalitarianism.
Actually we are much more of a Republic than a Democracy.
“Someday there will be no abortion.”
Posted by: Carla at October 8, 2008 3:36 PM
C’mon, Carla, you know this is not true. What would cause you to believe that one day there would never be another abortion anywhere on the planet??
Oh c’mon Danielle. His name is Jesus.
“Oh c’mon Danielle. His name is Jesus.”
Posted by: Carla at October 8, 2008 5:52 PM
I figured this was going to be the answer.
I believe in God too, but even if I were PL, I would still realize that this was not possible. It’s a warm thought, but a naive one.
Not only is Obama linked to the content of this story, so is every single proabort on earth, now, past and in the future.
Everyone who supports abortion in any way, shape or form will be held responsible one day.
Trust me, the Judge of all isn’t swayed by any argument from the left or the right. God isn’t a democrat and He isn’t a republican, He’s Just and He’s Holy and the blood of the innocent cry out to Him.
Obama will face the God of the universe and he will be found lacking as will all those who refuse to repent.
So you believe in God, Danielle….big deal, so does satan. You’re as saved as he is if you don’t call on the Name of Jesus, repent and that includes repenting of the sin of supporting abortion.
Warm. Naive. So says Danielle.
I have hope. I know truth.
“So you believe in God, Danielle….big deal, so does satan. You’re as saved as he is if you don’t call on the Name of Jesus, repent and that includes repenting of the sin of supporting abortion.”
Posted by: sandi at October 8, 2008 6:15 PM
Well, Sandy, that’s your belief and that’s fine. Mine are not the same.
If nothing else Danielle, part of what Carla is saying is that there will be no abortions after Jesus comes back.
What a terrible story about little Shanice Osbourne. Think about it, she survives an abortion and then gets dumped in bag of bleach and gets thrown on top of roof to bake in the sun.
The abortionist who did this is free.
What a terrible story about little Shanice Osbourne. Think about it, she survives an abortion and then gets dumped in bag of bleach and gets thrown on top of roof to bake in the sun.
The abortionist who did this is free.
———————————————-
Jasper, thank you for re-centering this on the essential details.
What I would like to hear is some of those people who claim to be kind, compassionate, but believe in the right to abortion give some type of answer as to why, regardless of your views on abortion, the treatment this baby received is in any way acceptable.
Sorry Elisabeth. You won’t hear a peep from the PC crowd about that poor little baby.
Elisabeth, has anyone said the treatment this baby received “is in any way acceptable?”
“Sorry Elisabeth. You won’t hear a peep from the PC crowd about that poor little baby.”
Posted by: Carla at October 8, 2008 7:16 PM
That’s not true. I’ll go ahead and raise my hand even if it gets slapped down. I need to first state that I wanted to confirm the details of this story through a non-pro life/Christian blog. It took 4 pages of Google search results, but I found an article in Miami New Times and the story’s legit.
My opinion? This place sounds like a two-bit butcher shop run by clowns who have no business applying for a medical license and attach themselves to the young, poor and ignorant. Amazing that so many other women experienced botched abortions from the same location and they weren’t shut down.
At a clinic that accepts 2nd tri terminations, it would not be uncommon to have a fetus that size, I suppose. But if they clearly realized they had a viable fetus on their hands they should’ve reacted by calling for help if they weren’t medically equipped to handle the situation. But that’s what smart people do…
They should’ve called 911. Obviously they covered this up knowing that involving the authorities would shut them down, given the past complaints. Sounds like they should’ve been closed long, long ago.
This is why professional, licensed physicians are so vital to keep patients healthy and educated. This is why it’s so important for women and girls to have access to adequate to health care, education and birth control.
Like I said. What about that poor little baby, Danielle? Have you mentioned her yet??
I guess my concern is that this is the type of situation that Roe v. Wade was touted as protecting against. Roe v. Wade…. touted to keep abortion “safe, legal, and rare”….
But only 1/3rd of that is true. It isn’t rare, and in far too many cases it isn’t safe. We’ve had numerous problems in Arizona with slipshod, horribly run abortion mills that have ended in the death of not only the baby but also the mother.
This is a medical procedure. But they are not held to the standards of other medical practitioners… they don’t have to obtain informed consent, they don’t have to provide the information on all possible negative outcomes no matter how unlikely. If I perform a conscious sedation on a child in order to obtain a CT scan (a noninvasive procedure) I still have to make sure that the parent understands that there is a risk that the child could have a negative outcome including even the possibility of death. Do I think there is even a 0.00001% chance that child will die in my care? Of course I don’t. But I still have to tell the parent that it could happen… because honestly, even though I can’t even begin to fathom the horrible confluences of negative steps that would have to take place for it to happen, it is still a possibility.
But a medical procedure that has, as its premise, the demise of one of the participants and has the potential for negative consequences both physiologically and psychologically for the other participant does not require full disclosure of those facts?
It is a sham, a travesty, and the medical profession needs to be held to a far higher standard than this! Either all you care about is that at least one of the participants dies and who cares about the other one…. or you adhere to standard medical protocols, including obtaining care for the participant who was intended to die if he or she fails to go along with that plan!
Elisabeth,
Bravo!
Carla,
We dare not mention the dear little baby. We MUST MUST call her a viable fetus, not a human being, as though the 2 are very different. See, calling little Shanice a viable fetus allows for a lack of emotion. If it’s just a fetus, then why worry? But if it’s a baby, a human baby, then we might have to have some feelings about it. And we wouldn’t want that. Nope, not in the name of choice,choice,choice,reproductive freedom, choice, women’s rights. I do wonder where the feminists were screaming for little Shanice’s rights. She is a female afterall, or was. But nope…nobody screaming for her. When she tried to have her own voice, somebody threw her in a bag of bleach.
What is it that you want to hear?
The ‘what about the baby’ question is a lose-lose for anyone PC on this board. There is simply no way to answer the question to your liking.
If you say ‘yes, I cry for that poor baby’ then you’ve contradicted yourself, called a hypocrite and asked how could you support abortion. Further proof that all we need is time to come around to right thinking.
If you say no, it was only a fetus, you’re cold, heartless and diluted with liberal brainwashing. Or better, a feminazi.
So, you can’t win either way.
It doesn’t matter if it the answer is not as black and white as it seems, or if someone’s spirituality impacts their view, or if they can separate the medicine or science from emotion – that’s just ‘double talk’ and rationalization.
So, you write the script, and I’ll co-sign on it, how’s that.
If you say ‘yes, I cry for that poor baby’ then you’ve contradicted yourself, called a hypocrite and asked how could you support abortion. Further proof that all we need is time to come around to right thinking.
Nope. You’re wrong there. It would show *me* that you care about something other than your own agenda. When I hear about women who have had abortions, REGARDLESS of whether or not they regret it, I feel for them. Not in a “I want to call you a whore because you’ve had sex and killed your baby as a result” kind of way. But just to let the woman know that I am here. I also feel sad for her, but those are for my own reasons. When I hear about women who’ve died from legal, botched abortions, I feel very sad for them. Now, they’ve had an abortion, and I don’t agree with it, and there ARE some who would say she got what she deserved for having an abortion, but I AM NOT ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE. I feel sad for her. GENUINE SYMPATHY. And I can acknowledge that without it altering the stance I take on abortion.
I (and I’m sure Carla would have to) would just like you to have expressed the amount of compassion ANYWHERE NEAR what you have about the women who you’ve “helped” while volunteering at the abortion clinic. I’ve read what you wrote about that, and it was genuinely compassionate for those women. I would have liked to see something for that poor child that was thrown in a trash bag of bleach and left on a roof to be eaten by maggots.
But if you feel you must stick so die-hard to your agenda that you can not express any sort of sympathy for the murdered child, and PC OR NOT, THIS CHILD WAS MURDERED, then I feel sorry for you. That’s all.
“that is it that you want to hear?”
Danielle,
You can start by telling us your feelings about little Shanice. You do recognize her as a person, don’t you?
Jasper, thousands and thousands of babies died last year. Some from Medical errors, some murdered by their parents, or by friends or strangers. Some dies of cancer. Do you have any fear that the pro-life movement is exploiting this particular tragedy to further it’s political goals? This baby, because she died at an abortion clinic, is somehow more tragic than the rest?
“This baby, because she died at an abortion clinic, is somehow more tragic than the rest?”
Hal, all of things you mentioned are certainly tragic as well. But the topic of this post is about baby Shanice, who was murdered at an abortion clinic. You have to admit Hal, this is barbaric.
Don’t you think this abortionist should be arrested?
Hal 12:09, use your brain. This baby’s death, because it happened at an ABORTION clinic, is in some ways more SIGNIFICANT than the rest. There were some–I believe Mr. Obama was one of them–who protested that BAIPA in Illinois was unnecessary because there was already existing legislation to protect new-born babies. These advocates of infanticide–because that is what they practically are–claimed that Jill Stanek’s case was the one exception. Search high and low, and you will not find any other exceptions–so they said.
But you see what these people’s priorities are. Abortion is something so valuable–and so vulnerable–that it most be protected at all costs from fiendish pro-lifers who dare to suggest that a mother is responsible to CONTINUE CARE FOR her baby, and that–I will go further–a husband is responsible for the wife he impregnates. What? You say that they are not necessarily husband and wife? What are they doing having sexual intercourse? But you want sexual freedom at all costs, even at the cost of others’ lives. Of course, you are not just violating other human beings, you are violating God’s laws, which is far worse. So you deny that God exists, and you deny that babies exist before birth–or even after birth if the abortionist failed to do a “clean job.” Don’t like it? Deny it. He who has the power to define wields ultimate power, the reason that godless liberals have resorted to activist judges and new theories of interpretation.
Ah, such a compassionate society! We “protect” Roe vs. Wade (a thing, a court decision) in the name of women, who become pawns for the ultimate goal of selfish sexual fulfillment. We “protect” unwanted children from abusive parents by killing the children. We “protect” wanted children from their parents and from God by brainwashing them in “secular” public schools. Sex education for kindergarteners!
Shanice survived the abortion, Hal. What the abortionist killed was not a human fetus but a human infant. In other words, the abortionist committed INFANTICIDE.
Granted, I don’t really see too much difference between abortion and infanticide. But for some reason, some abortionists do. Even Mr. Obama seems to regard infanticide as a smear. And for some strange reason, people like you want to defend Mr. Obama’s fanatical defense of Roe vs. Wade.
But maybe you see no real difference between a murder and a natural death. If you can only see the effect and fail to discern the cause, then you do not really understand humanity. As a human being, I should love my neighbour–seek his welfare, not kill kill him.
Danielle,
I am with Elizabeth. My heart aches with EVERY story or picture of abortion. It sometimes makes me physically sick and I of course wonder what my daughter went through during the abortion I had that took her life.
It pains me to see how the topic is always diverted and something else brought up and on and on it goes…
Shanice was a tiny little human person who through no fault of her own, was targeted for death. I wish that witness would have grabbed her and ran off with her and FOUGHT for her. Sorry to say, we all know how Shanice died don’t we?
God have mercy on us.
Funny how the liberals like Hal and Doug are all for democracy when it’s forwarding their agenda but when the majority are not onside (as was in the 60’s 70’s and 80’s and continues to be by a slim margin) they want to resort to totalitarianism.
Patricia, funny how some people misstate things….
The US is a constitutional republic. The majority of Americans are for abortion being legal to a point in gestation, which is what we have now. You can argue that the restrictions are not 100% effective, but I think it’s 41 states that have them on the books, and what law really is “100%” in the first place?
That the other states don’t have them is primarily due to silly attempts by legislators to be sneaky and negate women’s rights under the guise of restricting post-viability abortions, attempts which either have been seen through by the electorate or struck down by the courts.
If the majority of people wanted slavery to be legal, are you going to be for that?
Hal and I are not for slavery, and we’re also not for taking away the freedom that women have in this matter.
Stanek on G. Gordon Liddy today
FYI, I’m tentatively scheduled to be interviewed by G. Gordon Liddy today at 12:30p EST to discuss my WorldNetDaily.com column on the murdered abortion survivor in HIaleah, FL….
Freedom to kill the growing child within you, right Doug?
“But if you feel you must stick so die-hard to your agenda that you can not express any sort of sympathy for the murdered child, and PC OR NOT, THIS CHILD WAS MURDERED, then I feel sorry for you.”
Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella’s Momma) at October 8, 2008 11:13 PM
-Like I said, lose-lose.
There’s no agenda here. I’m not on anyone’s payroll to troll PL sites w/PC doctrine. I also don’t post here in an attempt to convert someone into being pro-choice. My beliefs and feelings on this issue are my own – they always have been since I was a pre-teen, frankly. I explained to you why my response in this particular environment was measured.
“You can start by telling us your feelings about little Shanice. You do recognize her as a person, don’t you?”
Posted by: Jasper at October 8, 2008 11:55 PM
-I recognize her as a baby. How do I feel about babies being suffocated, thrown into a plastic bag and discarded in the garbage? The same as you do – it’s unspeakable.
Well, Sandy, that’s your belief and that’s fine. Mine are not the same.
Posted by: Danielle at October 8, 2008 6:26 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No, Danielle, they’re not my beliefs, I’m only in agreement with what God “believes”.
It doesn’t matter what my beliefs are or what yours are, only what God says.
So, just be aware that personal beliefs hold no water with God and will hold less on the day we’re judged.
Doug said, “Hal and I are not for slavery, and we’re also not for taking away the freedom that women have in this matter.”
* “In the eyes of the law… The slave is not a person.” Virginia Supreme Court decision, 1858
* “An Indian is not a person within the meaning of the Constitution.” George Canfield – American Law Review, 1881
* “The statutory word ‘person’ did not in these circumstances include women.” British Voting Rights case, 1909
* “The Reichsgericht itself refused to recognize Jews… as ‘persons’ in the legal sense.” German Supreme Court decision, 1936
* “The word ‘person,’ as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.” Roe v. Wade, 1973
Danielle,
Unspeakable to throw a living baby into a bag of bleach to die a horrific death. On that we can agree. Very good.
I can never agree that abortion helps or empowers women.
So, just be aware that personal beliefs hold no water with God and will hold less on the day we’re judged.
Posted by: sandi at October 9, 2008 9:43 AM
According to your beliefs, that is.
Hal and I are not for slavery, and we’re also not for taking away the freedom that women have in this matter.
Posted by: Doug at October 9, 2008 8:19 AM
NO you both are for murder with at least one of you cold-bloodedly killing your own children. And you mean the freedom men/women have to have sex when they wish with NO accountability to the outcome and no accountability to the women/men. Your freedom is another’s death. So how is that really freedom?
IN a truly democratic society the people make the laws not the likes of a single Doug or Hal (God forbid)
“I recognize her as a baby. How do I feel about babies being suffocated, thrown into a plastic bag and discarded in the garbage? The same as you do – it’s unspeakable. ”
thank-you Danielle.
Freedom to kill the growing child within you, right Doug?
No, Carla.
Jon: “In the eyes of the law… The slave is not a person.” Virginia Supreme Court decision, 1858
Right – the slaves were not accorded those rights.
…..
“An Indian is not a person within the meaning of the Constitution.” George Canfield – American Law Review, 1881
Same deal.
…..
“The statutory word ‘person’ did not in these circumstances include women.” British Voting Rights case, 1909
That’s England, but if so, and if we define a “person” as having the right to vote, then yes.
…..
“The Reichsgericht itself refused to recognize Jews… as ‘persons’ in the legal sense.” German Supreme Court decision, 1936
That’s right, Jon.
…..
“The word ‘person,’ as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.” Roe v. Wade, 1973
Yeah – the unborn are not attributed rights as are born people. That’s been the case from before 1776 to the present, regardless of state laws on abortion.
Jon, when the Constitution was written, it was primarily white, male landowners that truly had all the “rights,” while nobody else did. Women were not treated the same, no, and neither were blacks/other minorities.
“Hal and I are not for slavery, and we’re also not for taking away the freedom that women have in this matter.”
Patricia: NO you both are for murder
Silly.
…..
IN a truly democratic society the people make the laws not the likes of a single Doug or Hal (God forbid)
So what? The majority is neither for a return to slavery nor for taking away the rights that women currently have in the matter – you have no case there.
Yes Doug. The freedom that women have in abortion is the freedom to kill the growing child in her womb.
Unless you have another definition of abortion? Reproductive rights maybe? Reproductive justice? Reproductive choice?
Call it what you want. A child is killed in the name of freedom and you know it.
“It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.” — Mother Teresa
Oooh. Thanks Elisabeth for that quote!
“How can you say there are too many children? That’s like saying there are too many flowers,” — Mother Teresa.
“How can you say there are too many children? That’s like saying there are too many flowers,” — Mother Teresa.
Posted by: LizFromNebraska at October 10, 2008 9:05 AM
————————————————
That was on our youngest daughter’s birth announcements! (She’s #6.)
Freedom to kill the growing child within you, right Doug?
“No, Carla.”
Yes Doug. The freedom that women have in abortion is the freedom to kill the growing child in her womb.
No – there is no agreement that the unborn in this argument are “children” in form, function, etc., (or otherwise, for that matter) in the opinion of people. Call it what you want – say anything, but there is a heck of a difference between a full-term, newborn baby, and the embryo or fetus that is aborted during the vast, vast majority of abortions. Not to mention a heck of a difference between most fetuses in the third trimester or after viability, versus the zygote, the blastocyst, the embryo, the early-term fetus.
……
Unless you have another definition of abortion? Reproductive rights maybe?
You are free to say “child,” but in no way is that necessarily the case. Hey – in an abortion the pregnancy is ended, yes, the “human being” (if we go with such a broad definition) does die, yes, but the emotional spin, the preferred terms of one that don’t apply to others, etc., do not constitute rational argument.
I fully believe that you feel as you do. Does that mean that another woman will necessarily feel the same way? No.
“How can you say there are too many children? That’s like saying there are too many flowers,” — Mother Teresa.
Liz, there again – if you have somebody saying that “there are too many children,” and that people should have abortions per that, then you actually do have somebody that is “pro-abortion.”
Pro-Choicers are not saying there are too many children. Pro-Choicers are saying that not everybody is suited to having kids, and that as a society we don’t have a compelling need to force women to continue pregnancies (especially to a point in gestation) against their will.
Doug,
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Been here before with you. Someone else will have to take the fast train to Dougsville.
Toodles.
“How can you say there are too many children? That’s like saying there are too many flowers,” — Mother Teresa.
Liz, there again – if you have somebody saying that “there are too many children,” and that people should have abortions per that, then you actually do have somebody that is “pro-abortion.”
Pro-Choicers are not saying there are too many children. Pro-Choicers are saying that not everybody is suited to having kids, and that as a society we don’t have a compelling need to force women to continue pregnancies (especially to a point in gestation) against their will.
Posted by: Doug at October 10, 2008 7:14 PM
———————————————-
I’ve had plenty of people tell me there are too many children. I’ve had people stop me in the street when pregnant when I have my entire crew with me and tell me I was single handedly responsible for overpopulating the planet. I’ve had people tell me I should have been forced to have a tubal ligation, and yes, I’ve had people tell me to my face if they had their way I would be having an abortion (and this at about 8 months pregnant!) People can be really rude and for some reason think it’s their business.
I take great pride in the fact that my family makes far less of a carbon footprint than the average American familiy with far fewer children and that I am raising six children who will know how to compost, recycle, and live frugal lifestyles based on sane levels of consumption while giving all they can to their fellow human beings (and in the case of at least one of mine who wants to be a veterinarian and rescue injured/abused/abandoned animals, animals as well.)
One very sweet old gentleman did ask me once if I wasn’t afraid to bring children into this world since it is such a horrible place. I just smiled and said, “Oh, that’s okay, I’m raising them to make the world a better place.”
(Much nicer than my comment to the rude and ignorant people who say horrible things to me. They just get, “Well, we’re trying to outbreed the stupid people. I see I need to add one more to my tally.”)
“Pro-Choicers are saying that not everybody is suited to having kids, and that as a society we don’t have a compelling need to force women to continue pregnancies”
..no, no compelling need.
Doug said, “Pro-Choicers are saying that not everybody is suited to having kids…”
Pro-lifers agree. For example, a homosexual couple is not suited to have kids. For some strange reason, some such couples still think that they are entitled to kids. Kids are also not suited to having kids. For some strange reason, some politicians still want to give kindergarteners sex education.
Many pro-lifers will even go further. Not all heterosexual couples are suited to having kids. After all, pro-lifers believe in planned parenthood. That is, sexual intercourse is only for marriage. In such an arrangement, the kids get two parents, a father and a mother. They complement each other and provide a wonderfully supportive environment for the nurture of the kids. (Yes, I said “kids“; brothers and sisters are great for each other’s nurture.) Heterosexual coupling for one night isn’t quite the same thing as marriage. There’s a difference in the level of commitment.
…and that as a society we don’t have a compelling need to force women to continue pregnancies
Ah, here indeed is a serious point of disagreement. The language is also peculiar; one might call it “forced.” How does one force a woman to continue a pregnancy? Doesn’t her body naturally continue it of its own accord? And if her body doesn’t, then the miscarriage is natural, i.e. not forced. A pro-lifer can easily correct the statement:
As human beings, we don’t have the authority to force expectant mothers to abort.
I’ve had people stop me in the street when pregnant when I have my entire crew with me and tell me I was single handedly responsible for overpopulating the planet. I’ve had people tell me I should have been forced to have a tubal ligation, and yes, I’ve had people tell me to my face if they had their way I would be having an abortion (and this at about 8 months pregnant!) People can be really rude and for some reason think it’s their business.
Elizabeth, that’s mean-spirited, and certainly not Pro-Choice. It’s not their business and they oughtta be ashamed.
“…and that as a society we don’t have a compelling need to force women to continue pregnancies”
Jon: Ah, here indeed is a serious point of disagreement. The language is also peculiar; one might call it “forced.” How does one force a woman to continue a pregnancy?
Jon, legal force, the law.
…..
Doesn’t her body naturally continue it of its own accord? And if her body doesn’t, then the miscarriage is natural, i.e. not forced. A pro-lifer can easily correct the statement:
As human beings, we don’t have the authority to force expectant mothers to abort.
No argument there, Jon – Pro-Choicers are for leaving it up to the woman, not for forcing an abortion.
I asked, “How does one force a woman to continue a pregnancy?”
Doug replied, “Jon, legal force, the law.”
I ask, How does one force Doug to continue an argument?
Doug responds, “Legal force, the law. Doug isn’t designed to carry on an argument; he won’t naturally argue.
I said, “As human beings, we don’t have the authority to force expectant mothers to abort.”
Doug said, “No argument there, Jon – Pro-Choicers are for leaving it up to the woman, not for forcing an abortion.”
An expectant mother can abort naturally; she has a miscarriage. By definition, the only way to induce an abortion is to force it. Some harmful drug or physical violence is required to end the pregnancy that left to itself would continue.
“Pro-choicers” are for forcing an abortion.
As a human being, an expectant mother doesn’t have the authority to force herself to abort.
Jon: I asked, “How does one force a woman to continue a pregnancy?”
Doug replied, “Jon, legal force, the law.”
…..
I ask, How does one force Doug to continue an argument?
Heh, now that’s lame. As if you have any need to “force” me…
You know darn well, or you certainly should, that short of physical compulsion otherwise, we can “do” things, or try to do them, whether they are legal or not.
What you want here is a change of policy. You want more or all abortions to be made illegal. Seriously – you’re not pretending otherwise, are you?
Jon: I said, “As human beings, we don’t have the authority to force expectant mothers to abort.”
Doug said, “No argument there, Jon – Pro-Choicers are for leaving it up to the woman, not for forcing an abortion.”
…..
An expectant mother can abort naturally; she has a miscarriage. By definition, the only way to induce an abortion is to force it. Some harmful drug or physical violence is required to end the pregnancy that left to itself would continue.
We were talking about forcing the woman. Pro-Choicers are not for forcing the continuance of a pregnancy nor the ending of it. It is not your will that holds sway, nor your will that pro-choicers want to hold sway – it is the will of the woman who is actually the one pregnant.
…..
“Pro-choicers” are for forcing an abortion.
No. (Obviously) such a person would be just as anti-choice as you.
I asked, “How does one force a woman to continue a pregnancy?”
Doug replied, “Jon, legal force, the law.”
I asked, How does one force Doug to continue an argument?
Doug should have responded, “Legal force, the law. Doug isn’t designed to carry on an argument; he won’t naturally argue.”
Doug actually responded, “Heh, now that’s lame. As if you have any need to ‘force’ me…”
And I agree; Doug’s made my point. There’s no need to force an expectant mother to nurture her child. (“Forcing” normal pregancy development is what we were originally talking about.) Her body nurtures her child automatically. Nurture is what her body was designed to do. When her body fails, she aborts naturally. Nobody has violated her body.
But force and violence are required to induce an abortion. “Pro-choicers” are for forcing abortions. The purpose of the civil government is to restrain and prevent such violence. The civil government is also force. It’s a contrary force to the evil forces inside a country (crime) and outside a country (foreign aggression).
As a human being, an expectant mother doesn’t have the authority to force herself to abort.
It is not my will that holds sway, nor the will of “pro-choicers” that holds sway, nor the will of the expectant mother–God’s will holds sway. As some of the Greek poets said, “For we also are His offspring” (Acts 17:28). In Him we live and move and exist. To live apart from Him is death.
Joshua said (24:15), “But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.”
Jon: I asked, “How does one force a woman to continue a pregnancy?”
Doug replied, “Jon, legal force, the law.”
The point being that there are people who do indeed want to try and force that.
…..
I asked, How does one force Doug to continue an argument?
Doug should have responded, “Legal force, the law. Doug isn’t designed to carry on an argument; he won’t naturally argue.”
No, I was being truthful. You have no need to try and force me to continue an argument. If you’re pretending it’s an issue, you’re wrong.
…..
Doug actually responded, “Heh, now that’s lame. As if you have any need to ‘force’ me…”
Right, you’re pretending false things.
You don’t need to force me to continue arguments, but you do want to force women to continue pregnancies. It most certainly is an issue with you.
…..
And I agree; Doug’s made my point.
No, I’m pointing out the differences between things, where you are falsely acting as if there’s no difference.
…..
There’s no need to force an expectant mother to nurture her child.
You contradict yourself there, for you obviously do want a policy change aimed at doing what you see, there.
…..
(“Forcing” normal pregancy development is what we were originally talking about.) Her body nurtures her child automatically. Nurture is what her body was designed to do. When her body fails, she aborts naturally. Nobody has violated her body.
We were talking about society not having a compelling need to try and impact the free choice of the woman. It’s up to her whether she continues the pregnancy or not, at least to viability, and that is what you don’t like.
…..
As a human being, an expectant mother doesn’t have the authority to force herself to abort.
To viabiliity she certainly does, your opinion notwithstanding. Since she has that authority, you are displeased with the situation, and you want policy change, a change in laws, etc.
…..
It is not my will that holds sway, nor the will of “pro-choicers” that holds sway, nor the will of the expectant mother
Yes, it’s the pregnant woman who gets to decide, and that’s what you don’t like.
Pro-Choicers are leaving it up to the woman.
Doug said, “We were talking about society not having a compelling need to try and impact the free choice of the woman.”
Doug’s incorrect. Read again his comment on October 10 at 7:14 PM, a portion of which I reprint below. Our argument began when I challenged him on his language in this excerpt.
Pro-Choicers are not saying there are too many children. Pro-Choicers are saying that not everybody is suited to having kids, and that as a society we don’t have a compelling need to force women to continue pregnancies (especially to a point in gestation) against their will.
I asked, “How does one force a woman to continue a pregnancy? Doesn’t her body naturally continue it of its own accord? And if her body doesn’t, then the miscarriage is natural, i.e. not forced.
“Pro-choicers” are for forced abortions. Natural abortions require no force.
As human beings, we don’t have the authority to force expectant mothers to abort.
As a human being, an expectant mother doesn’t have the authority to force herself to abort.
God has the authority. He says so. He hasn’t given it to us. He says so. Read Genesis 9 in the Bible.
Doug said, “We were talking about society not having a compelling need to try and impact the free choice of the woman.”
Doug’s incorrect. Read again his comment on October 10 at 7:14 PM, a portion of which I reprint below. Our argument began when I challenged him on his language in this excerpt.
It’s obvious that some women do want to end pregnancies, and we are talking about people wanting to impact that.
…..
“Pro-Choicers are not saying there are too many children. Pro-Choicers are saying that not everybody is suited to having kids, and that as a society we don’t have a compelling need to force women to continue pregnancies (especially to a point in gestation) against their will.”
I asked, “How does one force a woman to continue a pregnancy? Doesn’t her body naturally continue it of its own accord? And if her body doesn’t, then the miscarriage is natural, i.e. not forced.
By bringing legal force against the woman’s decision. And that’s what you want – you want the law to be changed.
…..
“Pro-choicers” are for forced abortions. Natural abortions require no force.
No, if somebody is for forcing women to have abortions, then they are not Pro-Choice. They would be just as anti-choice as you, in that case. You’re against their choice of ending unwanted pregnancies, and the person you describe would be against the choice of continuing a wanted one.
…..
As human beings, we don’t have the authority to force expectant mothers to abort.
Nobody here is advocating that things be different, there.
……
As a human being, an expectant mother doesn’t have the authority to force herself to abort.
Sure she does, and that’s what you don’t like. She has the legal freedom to end a pregnancy, if it’s unwanted. You advocate a policy change with respect to that.