(Prolifer)ations 11-19-10
by Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN
- Pro-Life Wisconsin notes that while NARAL is observing National Adoption Month with a special screening of the movie Juno in Madison, WI, they just can’t seem to speak the truth about the humanity of the preborn. On their website, they state:
- There is no single answer to the question of when life begins. That is why each woman must be free to make a decision about abortion based on… her beliefs about when life begins.
Forget scientific evidence – it’s all about what the woman wants. Interestingly, in a scene from Juno, Juno’s classmate, a sidewalk counselor, tells her her baby already has fingernails, and that piece of scientific evidence causes Juno to leave the abortion clinic.
- RealChoice shares the video and story of Melissa Ohden, an abortion survivor, in answer to the question, “Who would adopt those aborted babies?” Pro-lifers like Melissa’s adoptive parents, that’s who:
- Part 2 can be viewed here.
- Fr. Frank Pavone describes a good way to cut to the heart of the issue when discussing the human toll of abortion:They will talk about choice, freedom, the Constitution, the Church, women’s rights and sometimes, women’s health. But they won’t define or describe abortion itself. The reason is simple. Abortion cannot be defended. As soon as it is described, or viewed, the human conscience objects to its obvious violence.Maybe that’s why pro-abort HHS Sec. Sebelius, who advocates use of graphic images to discourage smoking, doesn’t approve of graphic abortion images.
- Pro-Life Unity tells the story of pro-life Netherlands journalist, Mariska Orban, who has received death threats after writing an open letter to a pro-abort parliamentarian asking her to reconsider her position. Apparently, “[t]he pro death people of The Netherlands are certainly true to their beliefs. They believe getting rid of an inconvenient child is acceptable and thus threatening to get rid of an inconvenient journalist is acceptable as well.”
- Wesley J. Smith discusses Donald Berwick, temporarily appointed Medicare chief, and his view that the patient/doctor office call is highly overrated.
- ProWomanProLife discusses the real reason why pro-aborts have a problem with freedom of expression like the one at Carleton College in Ottawa:At Carleton today, it’s about graphic images. In Halifax, 25 years ago, it was about Feminists for Life pamphlets saying “Peace begins in the womb.” The problem then, isn’t how the message is conveyed. The problem is that the pro-life message is conveyed at all.
Nov.19, 2010 3:30 pm |
Blogs |
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.
There is no single [WRONG] answer to the question of when life begins.
There… fixed it for them. :)
There is no single answer to the question of when life begins. That is why each woman must be free to make a decision about abortion based on… her beliefs about when life begins.
So, how many of you think this would get you an A in your biology or embryology class?
Considering that their ad for the event mentions that there will be a “frank discussion of whether adoption is as easy as it looks in the movies”, I have to think this will not be a pro-adoption-choice group.
It may get you an A in a philosophy, ethics or psychology class.
And that’s the point. Humans don’t function, think, emote or choose based purely on biology or embryology.
Its the difference between our ‘brain’ and our ‘mind’.
cranium
November 19th, 2010 at 7:27 pm
This has been explained to you over and over again, but perhaps this time it will sink in. If you hold an opinion that the sky is purple, with neon yellow zebra stripes, your opinion is wrong. It is not based on facts. Unless you have facts on which to base your arguments, like scientific facts, perhaps, you’re just guessing. You can dress up your guessing in whatever nicey-nice philosophy or “ethics” you choose, but that doesn’t make it anything other than a guess, unless you have some solid facts on which to base it. Right now, I am of the opinion that the sky outside my house is a very dark, almost black, blue and that there is a full moon visible. Why is that my opinion? ‘Cause I went outside and made observations of the sky. My opinion is based on the facts I observed. If it were mid-afternoon and there were a tornado coming, I might be able to arrive at the conclusion the sky is green based on the observable facts and be absolutely correct. If I said that now, however, I would be wrong. Just because you think something, that doesn’t make it true.
And no. Waxing poetical about basic human biology would not get you an A in any decent psych course anywhere. As the veteran of numerous psychology classes, I speak from experience. When they ask about biology, they want facts.
And was your complete missing of the point intentional or unintentional?
“I am of the opinion that the sky outside my house is a very dark, almost black, blue and that there is a full moon visible” – very dark? How dark is that? Oh, almost black, is that very or just black? Blue you say? But I thought you said it was almost black? Or was that very dark? When is very dark not black? When it’s a very dark blue? A full moon? Is it really a full moon? It looks that way for about three nights but only one of them is scientifically a full moon.
My whole point, in case you still haven’t got it, is that science is not the be all and end all of how we live, make our decisions or how we feel about things. So while biologically a fetus is a life, philosophically it may or may not be classed as a ‘life’.
I was not waxing peotical about basic human biology, I was talking about basic human psychology. And as we can see, even when one is convinced that something is dark, or was it blue, or was it black, although we both know it wasn’t green, it can still fall into a spectrum of reality yet differ.
Cranium- “And that’s the point. Humans don’t function, think, emote or choose based purely on biology or embryology.”
Cran- Last I checked, none of those abilities are included in the scientific definition of “life.” Please stop trying to say that unborn humans are not alive because you have tried to redefine what “life” means according to your personal ethics.
According to science, we are all alive, as new, unique, individual human beings, from the moment of amphymixis.
What you are arguing is that humans have to attain additional status- we have to be able to prove to you that we are worthy of not being killed- before you will allow us to keep on living.
cranium
November 19th, 2010 at 9:00 pm
I understand the point you are trying to make. It is a bad point. And you are not really grasping that I am saying you are wrong.
Not only were you were waxing poetical, but you still are. There is no such thing as a “spectrum of reality.” There is reality. Something is either real or it’s not. Nor are you discussing any sort of psychology. The fact that two different people might perceive the same thing in different ways is irrelevant when you are talking about what something is. If two people experience the same stimulus, the fact that they might experience it slightly differently does not change what that stimulus actually is.
So, when talking about the unborn, whether someone “considers” them alive or not doesn’t matter, no matter how much philosophizing you should care to do on the subject. They are alive. Full stop. Someone who comes to a different conclusion about them is wrong.
My whole point, in case you still haven’t got it, is that science is not the be all and end all of how we live, make our decisions or how we feel about things. So while biologically a fetus is a life, philosophically it may or may not be classed as a ‘life’.
Cran,
Wasn’t it you that stated a few threads back that rational people leave emotions behind when making decisions? Have you changed your mind?
Well, that’s the McGuffin, isn’t it? Pro-abort commenters on the internet don’t have a stand, or an organized philosophy or code of ethics, not even a code of pro-abortion ethics that has any cohesive or rational organization.
What pro-abort commenters are is contrary. Whatever a pro-lifer says, no matter how rational or scientific, is refuted out of a disorganized sense of nihilism.
In other words, they got nuthin.
Cranium – I just wanted to be sure that you understand that it is now established law in the United States, based on the 8th Circuit Court’s decision on the SD Informed Consent Law that the the babe in the womb, from the moment of conception, is “A whole, separate, unique, living human being.”
Now we have two contrary laws; Roe v. Wade which was established on bad dark-ages medical rhetoric that said we “can’t be sure” when life begins; and the current and medically correct SD Informed Consent law, based on real established science, which states that life begins at conception. When they collide, science will win.
It must require a huge and exhausting effort for you to pretend to be so ignorant of real scientific facts all the time.
I also think it is interesting that you are throwing in the “mind versus brain” argument to make your case. Most of us who believe the mind is a different thing than the brain base that believe on the fact that we have a soul, and there is a Creator, and all kinds of other “nebulous” things that are mind-like in their existence. Most of us who believe in a Creator also believe that He is the giver of life and a lot bigger and smarter than us, so we should never mess with His plans; especially his plans for other people, like babies in the womb – because they are really His babies, not ours; just like you are His creation, not your own.
“Cranium – I just wanted to be sure that you understand that it is now established law in the United States, based on the 8th Circuit Court’s decision on the SD Informed Consent Law that the the babe in the womb, from the moment of conception, is “A whole, separate, unique, living human being.”
You obviously don’t understand how the federal court system works. The 8th Circuit’s decisions only have effect in the states under its jurisdiction: Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, and the Dakotas.
Cranium, you could decide that for YOU putting on a chicken suit and jumping off a cliff will enable you to fly. You might really really believe it. You use all your knowledge of ethics and psychology and US law to convince yourself that it can be done. You disdain those who caution you about the scientific law of gravity. You put on your chicken suit and jump off the cliff. Despite all your beliefs to the contrary science says you can’t fly by putting on a chicken suit. You plummet to your death.
Believing something is or isn’t does not make is it so.
Joan – I’m a little confused… and a little annoyed at your snootiness, but I’ll soldier on here anyway.
What, exactly, have I written here regarding the 8th Circuit’s ruling that is inaccurate? Planned Parenthood has lost on appeal and so the informed consent law is “established” by the full 8th Circuit, which happens to be in the United States. An eventual collision is unavoidable between Roe and SD’s beautifully crafted IC law. Though Planned Parenthood is loath to bring the case to the supremes because they know science will win; other states are following South Dakota’s lead and writing their own versions of the IC law; which has already been challenged and found sound by the 8th, so other circuits will have to follow precedent or allow it to go on up to the Supreme Court.
The tone of your comment to me reminds me of another Joan I know whose sister used to be an abortionist.
All I have stated is that people make decisions based on more than pure science. So while a text book may say life begins at conception, people don’t. Now you consider that to be ignoring the facts but lets face it, there are an awful lot of facts being ignored by everyone as they live their lives. Just as an example, not as a dig, there is absolutely no science behind claims for deities and yet….