(Prolifer)ations 7-10-09
by Kelli
Spotlighting important information gleaned from other pro-life blogs…
I think pro-lifers should be termed “fetal rights activists.” Pro-lifers are more than just “anti-abortion.” People can be against abortion for reasons other than fetal rights.
And “fetal rights” is the core of our philosophy. It cannot be disputed that those who support legal abortion oppose fetal rights. I think that would be the most descriptive, respectful and indisputable label for pro-lifers.
We’re not against the act of abortion, or for a thing called “life”. We fight for the rights of people.
Put simply, Governor Sanford’s… words make clear that his heart is still inclined toward his mistress, and not his wife….
He refers to his mistress, not his wife, as his soul mate, and speaks wistfully of the affair as “a love story at the end of the day.”
Governor Sanford may cite King David, and he may even suffer the illusion that his response is similar to that of Israel’s King. Nevertheless, the difference is clear…. David acknowledged the reality of his sin, expressed his hatred of the sin, and became a model for us all of repentance.
Governor Sanford, on the other hand, demonstrates the audacity to speak wistfully of his sin, longingly of his lover, and romantically of his descent into unfaithfulness.
Governor Sanford is no King David…. As the Christian church has long recognized, true repentance is reflected in the “detestation of sin.” This is a far cry from what we’ve heard from Governor Sanford….
… Members who vote in favor of the establishment of a public, federal government run health insurance option are urged to forgo their right to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and agree to enroll under that public option….
CNS News adds:
[Rep. John] Fleming (R-LA) (pictured right) said he offered the non-binding resolution after he found out that under both the House and Senate proposals, members of Congress and other federal government employees will not have to participate in the planned health insurance exchanges for at least 5 years.
After 5 years, they still do not have to participate in the exchanges if they do not want to, while every other American must have a plan that conforms to the government’s rules, Fleming added.
I thought Obama said the government’s health program would be optional. (If it isn’t, members of Congress should absolutely have the “privilege” of government health care forced upon them.)
National Women’s Law Center VP Judith Waxman seems to be concerned about the program as well, but for different reasons.
2 Seconds Faster quotes her as saying, “people will be angry if they don’t get to keep what they already have” in terms of abortion coverage on the government’s program, when currently 80% of private insurers cover abortion.
In an ironic twist, could the death of government health care hinge on the deaths of the preborn? (See Stanek post earlier today for more info on this.)
[Photo attributions: localtealawyer.com; cnsnews.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.
First off, I really like the term “fetal rights activist”. In fact, I think alot of people will do a double take, trying to figure out at first what that means. It will give cause for pause. This is good. And it’s what we are all about – basic human rights for unborn children – the right to life, the right to not be experimented on, the right to have their best interests represented.
Secondly, I’ve read a number of articles on Christian websites trashing Jenny Sanford for requesting a separation from her Gov. hubby. I’m appalled.
Once again we see the woman blamed for her man’s bad behavior and for not being Christian enough by forgiving him. (Known as the “bad wife speech”) Sanford has not shown remorse for his actions and it took him a week, AWOL, to break off the relationship, if indeed it is permanently dissolved. Mark Sanford is insincere, selfish, untrustworthy and quite obviously going through some kind of personal problem. He needs counselling and he needs to get God back into his life.
Fetal rights. That is exactly what I’ve been thinking this entire time. Because fetal rights are human rights.
Oh…and Sanford likens himself to King David… Hey, ladies, back off- he’s mine. *sarcasm*
:)
Works for me.
Nope – not “fetal rights”. Human rights. No more, no less.
As soon as we categorize the pre-born as something different than humans, we’re playing into the abortion-choicer’s semantic games.
The pro-life movement is a human rights movement, because realistically, if the unborn, who are no different than us save size, level of development, environment and degree of dependency, whose right to life is not protected, then no one else can claim an inalienable right to life from their Creator.
The government is supposed to secure those inalienable rights. The time to press them on this issue is now.
1. It’s not about fetal rights so much as parental responsibilities.
2. It IS about life — the disabled, the sick, the elderly
Oh — one other reason to reject “fetal rights” — it plays into the proabortion idea that there’s a natural conflict between babies and mothers.
good points by Christina and Chris!
Yes I never thought of that – that it might imply a difference.
Maybe we should really try and frame the debate within the context of human rights. The problem is that people who support abortion simply believe that unborn babies are not persons or that they are not even living human beings – as has been argued on this blog.
I personally am pleased with any language that gets us past the primitive “they aren’t worthy” speak that goes around far too often. The truth is, at least in my own reasoning, that calling them children’s rights, human rights, and fetal rights are all the same thing. For example, I describe issues such as putting a stop to domestic violence and abortion as women’s rights, which, obviously, means human rights.
I, essentially, like the term fetal rights because it is accurate, a more focused mark in a large frame of topic, and it refuses to allow certain people the privilege to dehumanize by believing that they have the right to determine who gets rights and who doesn’t. But that’s just my own opinion. I definitely see what you mean, Chris and Christina. :)
to any mod’s on the blog, I’m unable to comment on the above post – weekend question.
Lemme check on that, angel…
It was in pending comments, angel. Should be up now.
Zygotes have rights too.
I don’t know…I just don’t like the term ‘fetal’ anything, because, while WE seem to know that ‘fetus’ is a Latin word meaning ‘little one’, THEY (pro-aborts) like to say ‘It’s not a BABY, it’s a FETUS’ so that they can ‘de-humanize’ a child by using a ‘clinical’ term. I’ve even noticed on the news that when they’re talking about an already BORN child, they say “The Boy..” or “The Girl..” or “The infant”. What I’d like to know is..when did BABY become a ‘dirty’ word??? Meaning, why does everyone so avoid using the word BABY in ANY context? People don’t even say “we’re having a baby” anymore, they say “We’re havin’ a KID”. Just wondering about these things…
Pamela,
I agree “fetal rights” seems very clinical, but then if we’re dealing with the medical community who, as a whole, is as DENSE on this issue as any, then “fetal rights” may be better than other terms we’ve used. As I mentioned zygotes earlier, how ’bout “zygotal rights”? Seems more accurate, and has a nice ring to it, no?
Oh, about the word “kid” …. “A kid is a baby goat”, as my mother used to say.