How the Massachusetts Senate race impacts pro-lifers, Part II
Read Part I for backdrop.
Click the above to enlarge. The pro-abort group EMILY’s List has sent the same email alert twice in the past 3 days, the 1st entitled, “Emergency in Massachusetts,” and the 2nd, “Circling sharks.”
MA Democrat pro-abort US Senate nominee Martha Coakley is as bad as they get, to the extent she supports partial birth abortion and as a young attorney helped minors circumvent MA’s parental consent law in court.
On the other hand, I think it’s quite clear the US Senate Republican candidate, Scott Brown, isn’t solidly pro-life.
Question is, does it matter?…
On Brown, the Weekly Standard via CBS, today:
Republicans and Tea Party activists are nonetheless flooding the phone banks and knocking on doors for Brown. “The pro-life movement is really excited,” says John Rowe of MA Citizens for Life. Yet Brown declares on his website that abortion is a decision that should be made by a “woman in consultation with her doctor, “i.e., he’s (moderately) pro-choice.
The Boston Globe has much more on Brown’s positions on various aspects of abortion, which have become good but not great.
Purists will likely disagree, but I think it’s a no-brainer that pro-lifers have to support Brown, particularly since he would be the 41st vote against healthcare in the Senate. Brown’s place would do more than break up healthcare, he would break up the Democrat veto-proof majority.
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.
If I lived in Mass., he’d definitely get my vote.
Legal Insurrection has great posts about the campaign at the headquarters. Pizza and donut boxes everywhere. Folks are actually lining up to do the phone banks. They’ve ran out of signs and bumper stickers.
Great pictures, too.
“Circling sharks”…wow…is THAT ‘the pot calling the kettle black’!
In the washroom in the airport I saw this handwritten sign posted over one of those hot air hand dryers: “Please push button and listen for a short message the president….
There’s nothing like “hot air” and the smell of fresh crap to give you that true Obama presence!!!!
yor bro ken
Obama’s Indian name
President BARACK OBAMA was invited to address a major gathering of the American Indian Nation two weeks ago in upstate New York . He spoke for almost an hour on his future plans for increasing every Native American’s present standard of living, since he has now become the President.. HE referred to his career as a Senator, how he had signed ‘YES’ for every Indian issue that came to his desk for approval. Although President Obama was vague on the details of his plan, he seemed most enthusiastic about his future ideas for helping his ‘red sisters and brothers.’ At the conclusion of his speech, the Tribes presented Obama with a plaque inscribed with his new Indian name – “Walking Eagle.” The proud President then departed in his motorcade, waving to the crowds.
A news reporter later inquired to the group of chiefs of how they came to select the new name they had given to the President. They explained that “Walking Eagle” is the name given to a bird so full of poop it can no longer fly.
yor bro ken
Brown raised 1 million in a day. The democrats are nervous!
I know this is off topic, but I’m at the end of my rope with this one. I’ve tried explaining it to her so many different ways, but she act like she knows it all because her mother is a biology teacher, and she counters the college biology book references I give with…the dictionary. UGH! I’m at a loss, please help.
“i never said a fetus was an organ. a fetus functions similarly to/like an organ inside the woman’s body until birth. what the mother does affects the fetus, and when things go wrong with the fetus, it affects the mother.
bad argument. a transplanted heart has distinct DNA from the host but it still thrives by using the host’s bodily systems.(even though I’ve already gone through the difference between an artificially transplanted organ and the act of concieving which is a natural process and the purpose of the bodily systems we’re talking about…)
not true. every human being on this planet is socially dependent, but at the same time, are physically INdependent. children depend on society and? on other people to feed, clothe, and love them. children do not solely depend on the physical body of a single person, or any person for the matter. a child’s body grows and develops on its own.
how is it a bunch of ‘bullcrap’? elaborate.
“The fetal human is producing its own blood cells in its liver within the first trimester! It also processes its own nutrition and excretes its own waste products such as urine which contribute to the volume of amniotic fluid.(my words)”
yes. and your point is? that doesn’t change the fact that a fetus uses the woman’s BODY to maintain homeostasis, excrete, ingest, digest, and turn food into energy. the fetus survives off the woman’s BODY to continue its existence. without her body it would not exist. i don’t need the body of my mother to survive.? my body survives on its own. fetuses cannot do that. when you call a fetus a human being, it’s a misnomer because it implies it is a complete organism and separate from the mother, which it is not.”
xalisae,
Perhaps this is too simplistic and you may have already presented to her the fact that the only difference between the woman and the child carries in her womb is time and nutrition. Babies are not able to survive on their own even after birth. It takes years of help from others. At what point should we have to stop killing them? If self-sufficiency is the yardstick, that would probably be about age 10 or so depending on the child.
There is really only one logical way to decide and that is at the beginning of life which is at conception. Life begins at conception for the simple reason that it can’t begin anywhere else. Trite, but true.
xalisae,
I’m a hospice RN. I’m wondering if you would declare many of my patients non-persons? Your logic is terrible and quite disturbing. You are basically using a version of the tired and flawed viability argument. Can you give me some pro-abortion arguments that don’t also support infanticide? Think it through.
“my body survives on its own. fetuses cannot do that”
What about a person who is supported by technology (ventilator, feeding tubes) are they non persons as well? Do you lose personhood if your body cannot survive unassisted?
xalisae,
Your post was a bit confusing as I was in a hurry and read it quickly. You can pose the questions I have written to this person. Keep asking questions in order to lead them to commit to their own definition of personhood. From there it should be easy to point out the absurdity of this position by showing how arbitrary it is.
X, Gerald Nedal has a good post on this on his site.I don’t have the link, but I’m sure you can juts look through some of the posts here and find something he’s written.
Brown states his position on abortion on his offical web site. It says that abortion is a matter solely between a woman and her doctor