Jivin J’s Life Links 12-16-10
by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat
- The European Court of Human Rights has ordered the country of Ireland to pay a woman approximately $20k for violating her human rights under the European Rights Convention. The woman was in remission of a rare form of cancer (which she felt might relapse during pregnancy) and went to the UK to have an abortion after unintentionally becoming pregnant and not getting the information about the possible risk to her life from her doctors.
- The Court rejected the arguments of two other women who claimed they needed abortions for health reasons:
- A Kansas City abortion clinic has been training 2 physicians to perform abortions. The would-be abortionists, Drs. Mila Means and Greg Linhardt, want to perform abortions in Wichita – the former home of George Tiller’s abortion clinic – but don’t plan on performing late-term abortions.
- In Canada, members of parliament voted against making coercive abortion illegal:The bill was defeated with 178 votes against to 97 for it.
While… many Conservatives voted against the bill, 10 Liberals supported it.
“I’m disappointed that the Conservatives message here is somewhat contradictory,” said Liberal MP Dan McTeague.
Roxanne’s Law was named for Roxanne Fernando, a young Winnipeg woman who was killed after refusing demands from her boyfriend to have an abortion. The woman’s brutally beaten body was discovered in a snow filled ditch outside of Winnipeg in February 2007.
The court found in favor of Ireland in 2 other cases, brought by women whose lives were not at risk, saying the country has the right to restrict abortions given “the profound moral values of the Irish people in respect of the right to life of the unborn.”
The BBC also has an informative Q and A on this case. There are a lot of ridiculous/inaccurate attention grabbing headlines about the case.
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.
Regarding the claim that a woman’s life is in jeapordy unless she aborts: again, this is not the case for any of the three cases involved. That argument basically seems like the “self-defense” argument: “if I did not shoot that guy, who had a gun pointed at me, I would have been the one of the two of us who ended up dead.”
That me-or-you self-defense argument is different from some speculation that a pregnant woman is at some increased risk of death herself unless she kills her child.
That would be like saying: “the guy had a gun, and a mean look in his eye, and maybe he had been drinking. so , i had to kill him before he killed me.”
In Canada, members of parliament voted against making coercive abortion illegal.
Unbelievable.
The defeat of Roxanne’s law in Canada is sad. It shows that Canada is NOT a pro-choice country and will not become so if the so-called “pro-choicers” have their way. Anyone who wants to prevent women from being protected from coercive abortions is NOT pro-choice, even if they hypocritically say they are.
Interesting that they don’t have anything to say about what happened to Roxanne, who the bill was named after. They count violence against pregnant women as ordinary domestic violence and refuse to give it a sub-category within the domestic violence category. They will object to domestic violence in general and admit that pregnancy increases a woman’s risk of being victimized. But they have nothing to say about how such violence violates a woman’s right to choose to have her baby. Compare this with the howl they make when a woman is inconvienenced by a 24 hour waiting period, or when someone tries to talk to her before she goes in to the clinic. This is called harrassment. But to kill a woman for refusing to abort–no violation of her right to choose there, they seem to think. Or maybe they think she deserves it for refusing abortion.
In Canada, members of parliament voted against making coercive abortion illegal.
Unbelievable.
What is even sadder, is that Canada’s Prime Minister claims to be a Christian. I dearly hope that he is held accountable for this shameful situation. Anything to stay in power. God have mercy on this man…..
“Oh, Canada, glorious and free…” (and not strangled by regressive religous forces) And re domestic violence. Weren’t you folks just saying that it was fine and dandy for the boyfriend of that YouTube young woman to get a little rough with her because, after all, she was murdering his baby?
Abortion isn’t a religious issue. It’s a human rights violation of immense proportions.
DD,
A woman has a right to NOT have an abortion!!
Here in the USA we have this
Center Against Forced Abortions
http://www.txjf.org/pages.asp?pageid=99931
No one was condoning violence against women – what people were saying was that in the man’s shoes, people could see that he had a right to be upset. But his upset must stop short of hurting her, just as a woman’s upset must be short of her hurting her children, born and unborn.
For those who don’t believe there is such a thing as forced abortion – I know a woman who was forced into 7 abortions by her family, starting at age 10. She was being abused by a member of the family – and that abuse continued into her adulthood. She has lots of healing to do – she was betrayed by so many who should have loved and protected her – and now in her desire to help others, she is doing just that.
She is a brave and courageous woman – and is now beginning to share her story to help others. God can work wonders with those who let Him work. Out of a tragedy, she is already helping other women have hope.
Unfortunately, Canada has more to do, as we all.
As the Minister said, protection already exists within Canadian law – it’s not like it was legal for Roxanne to be killed.
At first glance, it may seem strange for politicians not to be supporting the proposed new law, but how would “coercion” be defined?
Doug
Doug,
The leading cause of death for pregnant women? Murder.
I am absolutely sickened that this did not pass. Pregnant women and their growing babies need protection, Doug.
DD, you remember and know already that none of us condoned violence and further, jog your memory, the boyfriend in question yelled but then gave in (allegedly). So there was no abuse of the young woman in the video.
You know that you lead women to murder their babies. That’s about as abusive as it gets. Why don’t you pick on someone your own size, as my mother used to say. You are a hypocrite to the millionth degree. And you know it, and you don’t care. You take pleasure in coming to Jill’s blog and trying to goad the pro-lifers. You’re on the LOSING side, DD. Abortion is on its way out, even if it takes time to accomplish. I hope as time goes by you have fewer and fewer mothers to lead to into your abattoir until there are none left and you stand around in your stupid vest, alone like a loser.
Hi Carla. : )
I hear you on the leading cause of death for pregnant women being murder. Frankly, I think women have a bad deal, worldwide, to varying degrees. There are places where the killing of women, the mutilating, torturing, stoning of them, etc., is legal, for cultural or religious reasons that, to say the least, I disagree with.
What happened to Roxanne Fernando was already illegal , though. It’s not like what her boyfriend did is permitted unless the bill passed, and members of both political parties saw that.
It’s also not legal, as far as I know, to throw a woman in the trunk of a car, take her someplace, and physically force her to have an abortion against her will. Same for kidnapping her, tying her to a chair and wrapping her with ropes, so she can’t have a desired abortion – as I recall there was a case where some kook parents did something like that to a woman….
So, where does the “coercion” begin, the coercion that would be affected by the proposed law, since past a point the actions of other people are already legally prohibited?
If we are talking about men yelling at women because the women want to have an abortion, or don’t want to, then at some point, short of physically attacking her/physically compelling her against her will, it would still be considered abusive. If we propose a law against that, fine, but the motivation of the man really does not matter – whether they object to the woman not having an abortion, or having one, or that she cooks broccoli too often or won’t have the “oldies” station playing on the radio.
Hi Doug, :)
Main Entry: co·er·cion
Pronunciation: kO-'&r-zh&n, -sh&n
Function: noun
: the use of express or implied threats of violence or reprisal (as discharge from employment) or other intimidating behavior that puts a person in immediate fear of the consequences in order to compel that person to act against his or her will;
Please DO NOT compare being forced or coerced into killing your own child against your will to cooking broccoli or playing oldies…….
When a parent says to a child that they will kick her out of the house if she doesn’t get an abortion that is coercion.
If a parent drags a girl into the abortion against her will while she is crying and resisting that is forcing her to get an abortion.
When the clinic workers tell a woman it’s just a bunch of cells or tissue or a blob, it doesn’t hurt a bit, it’s not a baby, doesn’t show her the ultrasound, lies about how far along she is, doesn’t disclose ANY risks THAT is coercion.
When an abortionist hears the patient screaming NO! NO! NO! and trying to get off the table and proceeds to call in his people to hold her down that is abortion by force.
When a boyfriend threatens a woman that she better get an abortion or else……that is coercion. When he drags her there against her will it is abortion by force. When he kills her its murder.
I was coerced into an abortion I did not want. I have friends that were forced by their parents to abort, I have friends that were also forced by the abortionist after they said NO to him.
A woman has a right to NOT have an abortion, Doug.
There are several states that are looking into passion no coercion bills. The clinic is to MAKE SURE a woman is acting of her own free will. She needs to have consented to the abortion free of violence or coercion.
Please read the letters on this site. There is a letter for the parents, the girl and the abortionist. These lawyers have already saved the lives of women and their children from forced abortions. One case I was directly involved in.
http://www.txjf.org/pages.asp?pageid=99931
Even under Roe v. Wade, the decision to keep the child is supposedly the woman’s alone, so these young women’s rights are being violated when they are coerced into abortion
Carla, the point with not liking broccoli or the choice of a radio station, as well as with having an abortion or not, is that in the “Roxanne” case the guy’s motivation really did not matter – she was already dead and there are already laws against what the guy did. So the other MP’s are thinking, “Dude, this is silly and you ought to know better….”
When a parent says to a child that they will kick her out of the house if she doesn’t get an abortion that is coercion.
Okay, yeah, good example, and of course it also applies if she wants an abortion and the parent doesn’t want her to – I agree she should be in control, there, and that she should not be so coerced.
The motivation for a man killing a pregnant woman is because she plays the oldies then right? The motivation for young pregnant women to be killed is always after the fact. This year alone Doug there have been several killed BECAUSE THEY WOULDN’T ABORT! Please pay attention.
Please give me the link where the MP’s voted it down because it was silly………
Methinks they don’t want ANY law that might have an affect on Big Abortion.
Are you forgetting that when a pregnant woman dies so does her child? 2 deaths Doug. 2.
I am heartsick when I think of Roxanne. FIGHTING for her life and the life of her child!!! Dying alone in a snowbank. Sick, sick, sick.
Carla, there was lack of support for that bill because what the guy did is already illegal, and because there is a large disconnect between the actions of murderers and their motivations, frequently, and it’s silly to think that the law can address them. (The act of murder is well-defined in law, while the motivation could be anything.) My point, and what the Members of Parliament saw, as well, is that it does not matter that abortion was involved (any more than it would if my other examples were operative) – killing Roxanne was already illegal.
I know it’s a very personal issue for you, and I’m not saying that I support coercion in any way, but the laws against murder don’t necessarily involve coercion at all.
When the clinic workers tell a woman it’s just a bunch of cells or tissue or a blob, it doesn’t hurt a bit, it’s not a baby, doesn’t show her the ultrasound, lies about how far along she is, doesn’t disclose ANY risks THAT is coercion.
That’s the only one I didn’t agree with, all the way, because “baby” is subjective, and there are times when it does look like a bunch of cells, a blob, etc. No big deal, and if the woman wants to see the ultrasound, then I certainly don’t think she should be prevented from doing so.
In no way do I mean to minimalize what Roxanne went through, nor the horribleness of the entire thing.
By the time a woman even REALIZES and CONFIRMS she is pregnant Doug IT is no longer a clump of cells or a piece of tissue.
I was 10 weeks along for crying outside!! And told it was just a bunch of cells.
I am talking about protection for pregnant women who DO NOT want an abortion. This law should have at least shined a light on the fact that Roxanne had every right to NOT have an abortion. Roxanne AND her child died.
Get a clue, Canada.
“…there are times when it does look like a bunch of cells, a blob, etc...”
There was a time during Halloween that I looked like a cat. It didn’t mean I wasn’t still human. ^_^
Hi again Doug.
This just in.
http://www.lifenews.com/2010/12/20/state-5755/
There was a time during Halloween that I looked like a cat. It didn’t mean I wasn’t still human. ^_^
Hey X, There was a time during Halloween that I looked like a pumpkin. Oh, that’s right, I look like a pumpkin today. It doesn’t mean I’m not still a human. ^_^
There was a time during Halloween that I looked like a cat. It didn’t mean I wasn’t still human. ^_^
Xalisae, I LOVE your picture. Looks like you “have an attitude,” and I have many nieces, some of them with similar possessions.
Still human, indeed, yet we are all “a bunch of cells,” in one way of looking at it.
Last time I dressed up for Hallowe’en, I was a “big inbred,” a hillbilly-looking guy with a serious hat, beard, and a tooth blacked-out with this wax stuff you can buy. One of my nieces, Emily, 3 at the time, was “Po,” the red Teletubbie. One look at me and she went the other way; wouldn’t even go with her older sister and me in the main trick-or-treating party, so her dad and her went alone.
I guess hillbillies are scary. Like clowns.
I currently live in Arkansas. Yes, yes they are. ;P
One of the jobs we have is an oil-processing operation in the metropolis of Smackover, Arkansas, close to El Dorado. I think I did see a couple hillbillies in the area….