Jivin J’s Life Links 4-16-09
by JivinJ
… Johnson told the court the New Year’s Eve incident happened because she was trying to cover up an abortion and fool an abusive boyfriend. A relative told her what would happen if she didn’t.
“He said, ‘She better produce some kind of baby, or I’m going to kill her,’ and he had a gun,” said Johnson….
According to this story, prosecutors don’t trust her account of the reasons behind the kidnapping.
Patients will receive injections containing millions of their own stem cells, which have been extracted and multiplied up in a laboratory, and can regenerate new tissue to repair damaged regions.
More than 1,500 race horses have been treated using the same process and follow-up data suggests a 50% reduction in re-injury over a three year period, compared with conventional treatment.
… I also knew that most women do not have the support network that I had at hand…. If another woman were in my situation, pregnant, how could I ask her to carry the child? That was my choice, yes. But would my choice be different if I had no one?
… I am thankful for [my son] every day. I was thankful for him every day that I was a single mom, too…. but [he] and I had incredible people in our lives. People who babysat for free so I could work… who bought us loads of clothes or sent us Whole Foods gift cards… who thought about what we needed and gave and gave and gave, without us ever asking.
Most women–most poor families–do not have that.
She provides no argument for why women without a support network like hers should be allowed to kill their unborn children.
Mrs. Sanger, of course, wasn’t the benevolent advocate for human rights that Clinton’s remarks make her out to be. In fact, Sanger’s “vision” for birth control seems to be united to a eugenic vision.
In the October 1921 issue of The Birth Control Review, Sanger wrote that “the campaign for Birth Control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical in ideal with the final aim of Eugenics.”
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.
As for that first story, I think having an abortion is the least of that woman’s problems.
http://www.thomasmore.org/default-sb_thomasmore.html?282302754
Homeland Security chief leader has been sued. she has profiled us in the Pro life cause as organizers of terror cells.
She gave a fake backhanded apology to veterans.
This is a socialist move to demonize the opposition on her part.
xppc,
I think she is nothing more than a lapdog for Obama. These are his ideas and orders. If it isn’t her it will just be someone else.
She takes the flak and he sits in the WH proclaiming his profound ignorance.
Dictatorships start out insidiously. A tyrant doesn’t blast his way into office. He’s elected in by an adoring public then slowly and insidiously strips the people of their liberties and consolidates his power.
Sound familiar?
I wonder what Nelson thinks of pregnancy care centers and pro-life Christians who are associated with them that are willing to do exactly the things she mentions for women without support networks?
Why is the answer abortion rather than setting up groups of people–through the government, through the community, through the church, however she thinks such things should be done–to do these things?
“She provides no argument for why women without a support network like hers should be allowed to kill their unborn children.”
Many proabort arguements are subtle hints, just euphemistic jargon coupled with a wink and a nod. They cite things like a lack of social support, hinting that anyone who lacks it must be therefore justified in killing their baby, without actually saying it in so many words.
And they don’t want you to quote their wink or their nod. They’ll deny it if you do. They’ll help you to support baby killing, but only if you allow them to have “plausable deniability”. They don’t want any of that messy baby blood on their hands, or at least not where people can see it.