Jivin J’s Life Links 12-1-09
by JivinJ
For nearly two decades, obstetrician Shim Sang-duk (pictured below left) aborted as many babies as he delivered — on average, one a day, month after month.
“Over time, I became emotionless,” the physician said. “I came to see the results of my work as just a chunk of blood. During the operation, I felt the same as though I was treating scars or curing diseases….”
But Shim’s campaign has triggered a rare public debate on abortion. Lawmakers now call for tougher enforcement of existing laws, and are asking parents to reassess the cultural value of childbirth…..
The country’s birthrate is now among the lowest worldwide, with just 1.19 live births per woman.
Meanwhile, abortion rates have kept their pace, many say. Every year, 450k babies are born here; Health Ministry officials estimate that 350k abortions are performed each year. One politician says the number of abortions is actually four times higher — nearly 1.5 million.
So what does this mean for Millennials? First, it means that we need our theory and rhetoric to catch up with the technology, and quick – otherwise, Roe v. Wade may soon be as obsolete as the tape deck. While we shouldn’t abandon other, more modern issues – such as GLBTQ rights, a distant dream in the 1970s – we should find ways to update our arguments.
“In the final analysis, all of us are children of God,” he continued. “All of us have that spark of divinity. If any one of us is denied health care, it really is a threat to who we call ourselves as human beings.”
Kennedy, of course, didn’t note if the unborn were “children of God.” And I don’t suppose liberal groups will be howling about “separation of church and state” after this comment.
[Image attribution, Shim Sang-duk: Los Angeles Times]
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.
I don’t envy Patrick Kennedy his fate. The bulk of the children of historical giants have been lackluster individuals who have spent their entire lives trying to grow into daddy’s shoes.
Paddy Boy here is People’s Exhibit A.
The timing of the release of that letter, three years after he received it, was a pathetic attempt to lay down a smokescreen for the Senate debates as Obama tries to strip Stupak from the bill.
Nice try. That’s all this generation of Kennedy’s has. Cheap parlor tricks.
I don’t envy Patrick his fate.
I just read that cop killer Maurice Clemmons was killed this morning.
Now, that is a shame.
I thought we had discovered the ideal cell mate for Khalid Sheik Mohamad or Nidal Malik Hasan.
I pray they all find forgiveness in the only ONE who has the right, the authority and the ability to do so.
I would prefer to embrace them as fellow brothers who share the same redemption as I, but if they refuse HIS free offer when their time comes, then they will all share the same hell.
yor bro ken
ps: There are some men who just need killin!
“So what does this mean for Millennials? First, it means that we need our theory and rhetoric to catch up with the technology, and quick – otherwise, Roe v. Wade may soon be as obsolete as the tape deck. While we shouldn’t abandon other, more modern issues – such as GLBTQ rights, a distant dream in the 1970s – we should find ways to update our arguments.”
RH Reality Check blog, Elisabeth Garber-Paul
—————————————————
Here is another example of the link between sexual perversion and homosexuality. It’s not just us pro-lifers that recognize what is obvious.
yor bro ken
whoops!
pro aborts recognize link between sexual perversion and abortion.
yor bro ken
Ken, I’m going to pretend that, for just a second, you weren’t both homophobic and deciding who does “need killin'” in the hopes of finding some semblance of consistency in your declaration that you support equal rights for everyone, including unborn individuals.
While we shouldn’t abandon other, more modern issues – such as GLBTQ rights, a distant dream in the 1970s – we should find ways to update our arguments.”
RH Reality Check blog, Elisabeth Garber-Paul
Someone should tell Garber-Paul that a valid argument is timeless.
It really must be hard to come up with a new reason that it’s ok to kill your child. Spin away, pro-aborts. You can’t change the truth.
Rep. Kennedy wrote/said:
“In the final analysis, all of us are children of God,” he continued. “All of us have that spark of divinity.
Oh, my word. “Spark of Divinity?” Scratch a faux Catholic, find a gnostic pagan, I guess…
If any one of us is denied health care, it really is a threat to who we call ourselves as human beings.”
I’ll pass over asking what, in all of creation, that has to do with anyone having “the spark of divinity”; and focus on the obvious (apart from Jill’s cogent note that the unborn apparently don’t have that “spark”, in Kennedy’s eyes): nowhere does the Catholic Church–or any sane branch of Christianity–insist that government-sponsored “Health Care” (to say nothing of a death-ridden, bureaucracy-burdened, pork-laden whale of political theatre that’s currently being considered in Congress) is a right at ALL… and thanks be to God, for that!
We are not ALL children of God, we are all children of fallen Adam. Children of God are those born of the Spirit. Kennedy’s remark proves again that he has no grasp of what the Catholic church teaches.
Posted by: Janet at December 1, 2009 2:02 PM
“Someone should tell Garber-Paul that a valid argument is timeless.”
————————————————–
Dang it! I wish I had writ thayett!
Excellent, Janet, Excellent!
yor bro ken
Posted by: Vannah at December 1, 2009 1:29 PM
“Ken, I’m going to pretend that, for just a second, you weren’t both homophobic and deciding who does “need killin'” in the hopes of finding some semblance of consistency in your declaration that you support equal rights for everyone, including unborn individuals.”
—————————————————-
Vannah,
To borrow a term from the feminista lexicon, you are ‘conflating’ two separte thoughts.
I believe I shall refer to this deliberate missing of the point as ‘conflatulence’.
The same people who need killin’ are those whose actions demonstrate a complete disregard for the lives of others.
Maurice Clemmon would be one of those folks. How many people does one have to rob, rape, maime and murder before it sinks in that his neck should be sized for a custom made millstone?
I am not fearful of male or female homosexuals. They enjoy the same God given rights that any other member of the human family enjoys.
They do not earn special status because of their dysfunctions nor does it disqualify them from the same protection of and from the law any other person enjoys.
If a homosexual, male or female, went on a killin spree like Maurice Clemmons or Nidal Malik Hassan, then yes, I do believe they would be one of those person’s who have forefeited their God given right to life as a consequence of their actions and they do indeed need killin’.
Just an observation: If it is impolite or impolitic to refer to gay and lesbians as ‘homosexual’ then it is equally wrong to refer to those who object to their clammoring for special priveleges as ‘homophobic’.
You really do need to come up with a term that is more consistent with your ‘politically correct’ rules of linguistic engagement.
I will leave it to your fertile imagination to fashion a term that will be appropriate for your sensitivities.
yor bro ken
Posted by: Paladin at December 1, 2009 3:57 PM
“…no where does the Catholic Church–or any sane branch of Christianity–insist that government-sponsored “Health Care” (to say nothing of a death-ridden, bureaucracy-burdened, pork-laden whale of political theatre that’s currently being considered in Congress) is a right at ALL… and thanks be to God, for that!”
————————————————–
That statement is just a tad bit toooo broad.
There are plenty of liberal/progressives who would identify themselves as members of a particular christian denomination who DO believe that ‘health care’ is a fundamental human right that should be guaranteed and provided by the ‘state’.
I will note that you did qualify your assertion with the word ‘sane’.
All or most liberals/progressives are not clincally insane.
They just haven’t yet received their bill for their misguided ‘compassion’.
When that reality sets in, they will begin to moderate their generosity with other peoples money as well as their own.
yor bro ken
Liberals/progressives want to re-distribute rich peoples wealth, but they have not yet devised a method to do that without themselves having to participate in the poor peoples poverty and accompanying misery.
yor bro ken
Yor bro ken…I always enjoy your posts! I have to chuckle too…I guess I am homophobic. While I do have several gay friends and love them as PEOPLE I have flat out told them that I think their “lifestyle” is perversion. They don’t agree with me, obviously, and that is their choice to make because they will give an account of their lives to God, not me. But to say what the Bible says, that homosexuality is an abomination to God, and that it is the “unnatural use” of the body is not homophobic. Its truth! God created men and women and our bodies and how our bodies function. God created marriage and God created sex and homosexuality is just Satan’s way of perverting what God made and said it was GOOD.
Ken, who on earth is supporting giving gay people special privileges? If you’re referring to gay marriage, then that is not giving them more rights than anyone else, only giving the same rights that straight couples have.
Marriage is not a religious institution. It is a legal contract stating that two individuals are bound by law and the government acknowledges this and, yes, hopefully, marriages have love in them, and the two consenting adults are eager to join their legal affairs and legal status, but it is not a religious institution at all. Which is why non-Christians are allowed to get married. Every culture that I’ve ever studied has had some form of marriage, regardless of religion, and marriage has been around far longer than Christianity.
Furthermore, there is not guarantee that the gay couple is a Christian and therefore the Christian belief in being straight doesn’t apply to them. They do not have to adhere to the same religion as you, Ken, because of freedom of religion and the separation of Church and State should guarantee gay marriage.
Now, a WEDDING is a religious ceremony. The celebration of the marriage varies from culture to culture and religion to religion.
I’m assuming that marriage is the privilege that you were referring to. Because after marriage, the only thing that gay individuals fight for is the right to have children and the right to be able to walk around without the threat of being attacked for their orientation- none of these count as a privilege for anyone else but gays have to prove to so many people that this is their right, too. This is not too much to ask.
Ken, the troubling word in your post was “perversion,” not “homosexuals.”
And, yes, I’d be interested to know what special privileges you believe gays and lesbians wish to obtain.
I heard it was an abomination to eat shrimp. Oh the horror.
Conflatulence… OMG, Ken, you’ve got me giggling over here. LOVE the word, may have to steal it.
Marriage has not been around longer than ‘Christianity”. If you are thinking “Christianity” started when Christ died on the cross and rose from the dead you are wrong. Christianity is about a relationship with the one true God Jehovah. Man began his relationship with God back in the garden of Eden. So true Christianity began then. Christians looked for the messiah and when Christ came Christians recognized Jesus as the Messiah and believed on Him. God says the only way to Him is through His Son Jesus. But it was at the beginning of creation that God created a MALE Adam and a FEMALE Eve and showed us the model for marriage. Marriage is NOT just a legal thing. Tons of people enter into legal contracts and they are not married.
Gays want to redefine traditional(between a man and a woman) marriage to include same sex marriage. Although a lesbian has the same rights as I do. To marry a man.
People who self-identify as homosexual DO fight for “rights” that are above what heterosexual people have. Specifically, to be able to have someone punished more for attacking them if they “might have been thinking homophobic thoughts”.
Let me explain why I believe that this concept – the “hate crimes” concept – is ridiculous. Let’s say a man is walking down the street minding his own business one evening, and some guy with a baseball bat comes flying out of the alley and beats the tar out of him.
Now let’s take the exact same circumstance – a man walking down the sidewalk minding his own business – and suppose he’s openly gay. Let’s say that the aforementioned thug beats Man #2 to the exact same extent as Man #1.
The concept that we should punish Thug Man MORE for beating Man #2 just because Man #2 identifies himself as homosexual is stupid. It doesn’t matter what Thug Man was thinking or if he had a problem with gays. That didn’t add any special circumstance to the beating. Thug Man beat up Man #2 and therefore should be punished the same as he would be for beating Man #1 because it was the same crime.
However, when you add the “hate crimes” concept to it, Thug Man would be punished more for beating Man #2 more than he would be punished for beating Man #1, simply because he had a personal problem with Man #2’s lifestyle. That is quite simply a statement that Man #2 is worth more than Man #1 because it’s more of a crime to beat him to a pulp than it was to beat the heterosexual man to a pulp. When you talk about “equal rights” and then promote “hate crimes” legislation, that’s not “equal”. That’s really treating people who identify as LGBTQ (pick whichever) as an elite class who are more “valuable” than the rest of us.
And then there are those who would want to have people punished under “hate crimes” law for the “crime” of stating that the LGBTQ lifestyles (or D/s, or bestiality, or whatever lifestyle a person wants to be into) is morally wrong. That’s a whole other can of worms and I don’t care to see this country getting into that either. Nobody has a “right” not to be offended. If someone tells you that something you are doing is wrong, and you don’t want to hear it, then don’t listen. It would be petty to have that person put into legal trouble just for having an opinion you don’t like. And if my children did the same thing (came running to me or my husband, the people who enforce the rules, and whined that someone said something they didn’t like) it would be called “TATTLING”.
Carla: “Gays want to redefine traditional(between a man and a woman) marriage to include same sex marriage. Although a lesbian has the same rights as I do. To marry a man.”
And if same-sex marriage becomes acceptable everywhere, you will, like her, have the right to marry a woman. So same-sex marriage is about equal rights, not special rights. What special rights do you think they want?
Same sex marriage is not acceptable to me, nor will it ever be.
Sorry Vannah. We will have to disagree on that and agree on Stevie Nicks. :)
Done on this topic. I tend to not get into these threads. Call me a homophobe for disagreeing with the gay agenda, if you like.
Did anyone see the new Travel Channel reality show called “Meet The Natives: USA”? There is a scene in which a (male) gay couple tells a small group of men from a remote island in the Pacific that they are a “couple”. The looks on the men’s eyes are priceless and their reactions are telling.
Gay agenda? Carla, really?
You’re better than that.
I do have an opinion Hal. I would hate to think that those who support the gay agenda have the only opinions that matter. You are better than that, Hal.
Now.I mean it.Not.Commenting.here.again.Really.
Carla, I can’t condemn you. If you intentionally try to avoid the fighting and instead of going around shaking your finger at gay people you get down on your knees and help pregnant women and hurting women and you give women power…you’re a good person in my book. I can’t find it in myself to get on my high horse and condemn someone who goes out of her way not to get into this fight and who continues to, instead of discussing gay marriage, focus on what she can do that’s positive instead. :)
Actually…that’s probably a lesson that I need to learn because I get mad too often. :(
LOL Vannah, you’re not the Lone Ranger in that sentiment. There are certain others here who get mad and fly off the handle a bit too easily and could take a lesson from Carla as well (yes, I mean me… sometimes…). ;-)
Why do gays have to call it marriage? The word “marriage” is already taken. If they want equal rights under the law, I say go for it. Just give it a new name. Everybody’s happy.