Today WI RTL released its 2nd in a series of 4 anti-Obama pro-life e-cards.
Last week’s card focused on Barack Obama’s radical opposition to Born Alive and Partial Birth Abortion legislation. This week’s is on another out-of-mainstream abortion position Obama has taken. Click on the graphic below to view the e-card and send to friends and family:
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
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.
It’s not out of the mainstream when 6 in 10 support abortion rights. WRTL’s position is more draconian and compassionless and the polls reflect that.
Hey, that’s my state you are talking about! I just love coming here and learning new words. Draconian is the word for today, kids. I will use it in a sentence in your honor today, Yo.
The letters are going out fast to our Senators and Reps it wont be long now till the media has to cover this subject Stop the Obama Constitutional Crisis Sign the Petition : 7555 Letters and Emails Sent So Far - http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244/stop-obama-constitutional-crisis
It’s not out of the mainstream when 6 in 10 support abortion rights. WRTL’s position is more draconian and compassionless and the polls reflect that.
Posted by: Yo La Tango at October 14, 2008 11:42 AM
I doubt 6 of 10 people want to pay for others’ abortions. Where’s the compassion in abortion?
Where’s the compassion in abortion?
Posted by: Janet at October 14, 2008 12:59 PM
There can be a lot of compassion in abortion, if the woman has an unwanted pregnancy and would like to terminate it compassionately.
Janet,
I doubt 6 in 10 want to pay for other people’s births, but Medicaid covers that.
To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
Reality,
Medicaid money comes from my tax dollars and I should have a say what my tax dollars will pay for when it goes against my conscience.
. . . . . . . .
Hal @ 1:12,
“Where’s the compassion in abortion?”
There can be a lot of compassion in abortion, if the woman has an unwanted pregnancy and would like to terminate it compassionately.
A husband can be sympathetic to a woman’s distress at an unwanted pregnancy, but not towards her wanting to terminate it. How is abortion a compassionate act in itself? The fetus has no objection to being born. Compassion assumes another person is involved as well.
According to Merriam Webster:
compassion is a sympathetic consciousness of others’ distress together with a desire to alleviate it.
Clarification:
” Compassion assumes another person is involved as well.”
In the case of the act of abortion, the other person I refer to is the fetus.
Alex,
To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
Thank you!
ok, Hal, I will have compassion for you by slipping a tasteless, ordorless poison in your food that will cause you to die painlessly in your sleep.
AREN’T I JUST SO FULL OF COMPASSION?!
“A husband can be sympathetic to a woman’s distress at an unwanted pregnancy, but not towards her wanting to terminate it. How is abortion a compassionate act in itself? The fetus has no objection to being born. Compassion assumes another person is involved as well.
According to Merriam Webster:
compassion is a sympathetic consciousness of others’ distress together with a desire to alleviate it.”
Posted by: Janet at October 14, 2008 2:43 PM
I think the point of Hal’s post was that the compassion is expressed through the people involved in the decision to abort (woman, couple, doctor, etc). No, the fetus’ feelings as to whether or not it wants to be born would not be the primary issue.
that’s the thing though, danielle, they SHOULD be the primary concern…i mean…the fetus is the only one expected to die for the decision…considering the matter from its perspective seems to me to be the least that can be done.
The decision involves people. Yes. Which do you think involves More compassion? Abortion or allowing a child to live or allowing a child to live to be adopted?
“that’s the thing though, danielle, they SHOULD be the primary concern”
Posted by: xalisae at October 14, 2008 3:11 PM
*Debate-able (obviously). One viewpoint is that the woman involved is far more impacted by the process than a baby/fetus – who may or may not be ‘aware’ of its existence – would be.
“Which do you think involves More compassion? Abortion or allowing a child to live or allowing a child to live to be adopted?”
Posted by: Carla at October 14, 2008 3:13 PM
*The answer to this is contingent on the circumstances of the woman/couple/family who would be impacted by the pregnancy, birth and rearing of the child. For example, some couples see compassion in aborting a fetus with medically significant malformations. Others would see compassion in allowing the fetus to be born, whether or not it dies.
Not a black and white answer – personal beliefs will almost always temper the response.
sorry, but dead vs. alive is kind of like, the biggest impact ever, whether or not the person being or not being killed is aware of the action taken or withheld.
i’ve now had 2 kids, and as changing as the experience seemed at the time of being pregnant (both times), I got over it. Had I aborted either of my kids, that’s something they never would’ve just overcame and gone on to live their lives. again, it’s that whole dead vs. not dead thing.
for the sake of this argument, danielle, take it for granted that we are talking about a perfectly healthy fetus and mother. Now answer that question again. Then we’ll start splitting medical condition hairs that the pro-death side seems to be so fond of.
“sorry, but dead vs. alive is kind of like, the biggest impact ever, whether or not the person being or not being killed is aware of the action taken or withheld.”
Posted by: xalisae at October 14, 2008 4:46 PM
I disagree. I’m not a philosophy expert – but I would argue that the impact of life and death is significant to those who have experienced it. If you don’t realize you are alive, how can you know if you are dead?
The emotional impact is left to those who were exposed to you (or, it). We, as living, thinking, processing humans, assign emotion and feeling to experiences. Yes, an organism can live and be alive – but that’s not the same as KNOWING you are alive and having a life. If that life is taken away, did you know?
I guess this boils down to whether or not you believe you have a soul before you’re born.
“take it for granted that we are talking about a perfectly healthy fetus and mother. Now answer that question again. Then we’ll start splitting medical condition hairs that the pro-death side seems to be so fond of.”
Posted by: xalisae at October 14, 2008 4:51 PM
-I don’t need to split hairs. I’ll rephrase the example: “Some couples see compassion in aborting a fetus they wouldn’t want rather than raise it in an unhappy home or go forward with pregnancy and childbirth. Others would see compassion in allowing the fetus to be born, whether or not it is wanted.”
Point still stands. Its not up to me (or you) to decide if their decision is frivolous or not, because we are not impacted by their decision not to have their own baby.
So Danielle,
When your mother was pregnant with you, what species of embyo/fetus was resident in her uterus?
What would your momma say if you asked her?
Would she state the obvious or obfuscate and evade and deny?
yor bro ken
Danielle,
The Truth is a majority of One.
The Truth is not a popularity contest.
The Truth does not bend with every wind and wave of public opinion.
Pregnant women only have one species of embryo/fetus resident in their uterus.
Just like pregnant cats only have one species of embryo/fetus present in their uterus.
From the lowest form of bacteria to plants to the highest form of life, we only reproduce what we are. That is why it is called, ‘reproduction’.
yor bro ken
“When your mother was pregnant with you, what species of embyo/fetus was resident in her uterus? What would your momma say if you asked her?”
Posted by: kbhvac at October 14, 2008 6:48 PM
-I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that I said humans don’t give birth to other humans, because I didn’t. The issue is not what ‘species’ of life pregnant women give birth to (or not). What exactly is your point?
Danielle,
Then how do you justify the killing of another human being?
Danielle,
Just wanted to see if you would answer the question. None of the other pro-choice people have responded.
yor bro ken
Danielle,
You still did not answer the question.
yor bro ken
Danielle,
Then how do you justify the killing of another human being?
Posted by: Eileen #2 at October 14, 2008 7:13 PM
-Because, Eileen, I am pro-choice. I believe that the woman at the center of this issue should make the choices about her life and body as she is the one impacted the most intensely by a pregnancy and potential motherhood. I addressed the issue of existential awareness because it seems to be at the crux of our argument: If you believe children/babies have souls, feelings, emotions and existential awareness prior to birth, then I would expect one would not agree with me.
Regardless of her reasons and circumstances, I also believe it is none of my business why she makes the decision she does (to have or not to have), nor is it anyone else’s, even if I object to it personally. Because I believe in this right, I also believe that she should have safe and easily accessible access to all reproductive health issues, including birth control, sex education, pre-natal care, medication and abortion.
Danielle,
I did not say or imply that human beings ‘give birth’ to human beings. I said we reproduce what we are. I do agree human beings ‘give birth’ to human beings.
But you still did not answer question.
yor bro ken
Danielle,
I am not asking to commit to a long term relationship.
It’s just a question.
yor bro ken
But you still did not answer question
Posted by: kbhvac at October 14, 2008 7:55 PM
About what my mother thinks she was pregnant with? A human, clearly. If you had another question, I’m unclear and not ignoring it on purpose.
Circumstances change, Danielle. Of course it is our business. If there have been millions of abortions since 1973 then it stands to reason that we all know someone who has had one. We have all lost siblings, nieces and nephews and grandchildren.
If it were just a woman’s body we were talking about I would have no problem with it either. We are talking about a separate, complete and whole human being that is being killed.
And also – I am not sitting in front of the computer hitting ‘refresh’ over and over again. I leave and come back, like many.
At times responses on online message boards will take time. Please have some patience.
You have made it your business, Danielle by volunteering at a mill. I have made it my business by working in abortion recovery.
I actually admire your bravery in coming here. You haven’t resorted to personal attacks or name calling. Always refreshing. Thank you.
Danielle
Forgive me. I am doing othet thins as well. Is the better time for you to have this discussion?
yor bro ken
“You have made it your business, Danielle by volunteering at a mill. I have made it my business by working in abortion recovery.
I actually admire your bravery in coming here. You haven’t resorted to personal attacks or name calling. Always refreshing. Thank you.”
Posted by: Carla at October 14, 2008 8:07 PM
Then so be it. We will disagree on who’s concern it is when a woman has an abortion.
And, I promise that I would rather walk away from the desk and count to 10 rather than be reduced to unproductive, flaming insults with another poster. My objective is to have clear, concise, adult discussion on a very divisive issue. (For the most part) ppl here have treated me quite fairly, which brings me back. No matter if I disagree I’ll always respect (and often understand) your opinions.
Is the better time for you to have this discussion?
Posted by: kbhvac at October 14, 2008 8:12 PM
-Now is as good a time as any (although, I must admit I’m fading…the NyQuil is kicking in). As long as you ask me a direct question, I will give you a direct answer – but my response time may be periodic.
Danielle,
Thank you. Again please forgive me if my impatience offended you.
I am going to pose the question again: When your mother was pregnant with you what species of embryo/fetus was resident in her womb?
yor bro ken
I am going to pose the question again: When your mother was pregnant with you what species of embryo/fetus was resident in her womb?
Posted by: kbhvac at October 14, 2008 8:24 PM
Human species. I answered this a few posts above.
Danielle,
You were, while in utero, a human embryo/human fetus?
You were human in the womb.
So was there some time prior to birth that you were not human?
This is essentially the question that Rick Warren posed to Barack Obama, ‘At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?
I have a wife and four daughters. They all have inherent rights just because they are human. They have equal rights to all other humans. So female human rights are not a question to me. My oldest daughter will probably be the first female president in america, because when the time comes she will possess all the requirements necessary to be president above and beyond what the constititution requires.
When do prenatal humans cease to have equal rights?
It’s not out of the mainstream when 6 in 10 support abortion rights. WRTL’s position is more draconian and compassionless and the polls reflect that.
Posted by: Yo La Tango at October 14, 2008 11:42 AM
Only with great restrictions Yo. And tell me, what is so draconian about the right to life?
Danielle,
Thank you for your honest answers and that we can agree to disagree. The self control you exhibit in your comments is not lost on me. Excellent! I will do likewise.
I would like to encourage you to read my abortion story. Click on my name. It’s in the right sidebar of my blog.
trying to make this some sort of deep philosophical issue only serves to obfuscate, much in the same manner as the word “choice” masks the actual meaning of abortion.
I am not religious. I am not a particularly spiritual. Trying to reduce this to some sort of subjective matter of “everything’s ok if the woman thinks it’s ok; there is no other person involved.” is inappropriate.
I base this on the biological idea of “alive” and “dead”. Before abortion, there is an alive human inside a woman. After an abortion, that human is dead. This all happens with no legal consideration given to the rights of this other human. This tragedy must be rectified. Once that right to life is taken away from that person, it can never be returned. However, any rights TEMPORARILY (if any, I personally think that any rights connected to abortion by the pro-death side is an unbelievable contortion of the constitution) suspended by a woman giving birth to a child brought about by her own conscious, willing actions can be regained after that child’s birth.
“You were, while in utero, a human embryo/human fetus? You were human in the womb. So was there some time prior to birth that you were not human?When do prenatal humans cease to have equal rights?”
Posted by: kbhvac at October 14, 2008 8:54 PM
-I don’t think there was a time in utero that I was going to develop into anything other than a human being. As for prenatal humans no longer having equal rights…I was unaware they once did and now don’t? Is that what you’re asking? Anyway, no, they don’t have equal rights to me and I wouldn’t expect them to.
ummm…how about BASIC rights? the right to live is kinda important.
To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
Posted by: Alex at October 14, 2008 2:28 PM
You do realize that Jefferson was a slaveowner, an act that 99% of decent people agree is sinful and tyrannical.
“I would like to encourage you to read my abortion story. Click on my name. It’s in the right sidebar of my blog.”
Posted by: Carla at October 15, 2008 7:00 AM
I’m doing something wrong, bc when I click on the names it just takes me to an email window. Is it somewhere else? I was going to try and read it…
You do realize that Jefferson was a slaveowner, an act that 99% of decent people agree is sinful and tyrannical.
Posted by: Yo La Tango at October 15, 2008 1:41 PM
Yo La,
Does that automatically nullify everything that Thomas Jefferson said or did? Someone, somewhere, said that you take a person within the totality of their actions.
Someday 99% of decent people will agree that abortion is wrong.
Danielle,
Click on my name at the end of this post. :)
It is linked to my blog.
The other one is an email address to get ahold of me.
RE: Posted by: Eileen #2 at October 15, 2008 2:55 PM
That he was a slaveowner does not nullify all the other contributions he made to the Republic, but it does color the particular quote you cited with a distinct shade of irony.
care to address anything I’ve said, danielle?
“care to address anything I’ve said, danielle?”
Posted by: xalisae at October 15, 2008 7:02 PM
-I think I already have.
Danielle,
Click on my name at the end of this post. :)
It is linked to my blog.
The other one is an email address to get ahold of me.
Posted by: Carla at October 15, 2008 5:03 PM
-Got it, Carla, thanks.
ummm…..no, you haven’t.