Jivin J’s Life Links 12-22-10
by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat
- The Gilkey Window Company in Cincinnati has generously offered to replace Joe and Ann Scheidler’s home windows which were damaged in an act of pro-abort vandalism in early December. An even greater blessing, the company plans to donate all new windows for the Scheidlers’ living and dining rooms.
- A MD man has been sentenced to life in prison for attempting to kill his pregnant girlfriend after she wouldn’t get an abortion:
- “I got my early Christmas present,” Jodi Torok said after seeing her former boyfriend, Charles Brandon Martin, sentenced to life in prison by an Anne Arundel County judge.
- A health worker in England could be fired for giving a pamphlet on abortion’s physical and psychological effects to co-workers:Margaret Forester passed the booklet to family planning staff at the health centre where she works because she felt that the NHS was not offering patients enough information about the risks associated with terminating a pregnancy.
But Ms Forester, 39, said she was suspended from her job as a psychological wellbeing practitioner based in Westminster because managers at Central North West London Mental Health Trust disagreed with her personal beliefs.
She will appear in front of an internal disciplinary committee on Wednesday, charged with “distributing materials some people may find offensive.” Her supporters fear that she could lose her job.
“I believe you were willing to snuff both of them out because they were an inconvenience to you,” Judge Pamela L. North told Martin, in a reference to Torok and her unborn child, before sentencing him.
Dec.22, 2010 1:00 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.
“I believe you were willing to snuff both of them out because they were an inconvenience to you,” Judge Pamela L. North told Martin, in a reference to Torok and her unborn child, before sentencing him.”
Uhhh….duh? I just wanna know why it’s wrong for this dude but any woman can “choose” to do this any day of the week and it’s fine.
If dat dude wuz de one what wuz pregnant, den be a diffurnt deal.
If dat dude wuz de one what wuz pregnant, den be a diffurnt deal.
Excuse me? Am I to assume that the boyfriend is African America? And if so, isn’t the use of “ebonics” a little racist? Although I disagree with just about everything said on this blog, I will say that I have never seen any racist comments.
Perhaps I’m mistaken about Doug’s use of a dialect?
Why, Doug?
Don’t feed the troll, folks.
Maybe Doug’s been making captions on kitteh pictures who canhazcheezburgers. Lol!
A health worker in England could be fired for giving a pamphlet on abortion’s physical and psychological effects to co-workers:Margaret Forester passed the booklet to family planning staff at the health centre where she works because she felt that the NHS was not offering patients enough information about the risks associated with terminating a pregnancy.
Uh… Do they hand out pamphlets to women about the dangers of continuing pregnancies, rather than ending them (which presents less risk to a point in gestation)?
Hi DD,
I wasn’t trying to sound like “Ebonics,” just messing around. If anything, and I’m not trying to make enemies in the deep South, it would be a good old boy from Louisiana. We got to git us out in de swamp and git a coupla gaituhs.
But I can see why you’d ask, and I’m sorry if it struck you as wrong; I didn’t mean to aim it at any group, really.
I was once told by a resident of The Pelican State that “Anybody from north of Shrevepoat, Loozeeahna is a damn Yankee.”
And for all this damn Yankee’s (born in Indiana, primary residence most of my life in Ohio) joking about hillbillies in Arkansas, etc., my employer is headquartered in West Virginia, and I have found no better people, to be serious about it.
Xalisae,
I just wanna know why it’s wrong for this dude but any woman can “choose” to do this any day of the week and it’s fine.
Taking your premise, if the dudeish dude had been the one pregnant, then it would be fine for him. And in that case, if somebody else kills him and the unborn baby (no problem calling it that here) then it would be just as wrong.
“Uh… Do they hand out pamphlets to women about the dangers of continuing pregnancies, rather than ending them (which presents less risk to a point in gestation)?”
Doug,
The pamphlets handed out by Margaret Forester were given to her co-workers, not pregnant women. That’s totally different from your scenario.
Ok Doug. So you’re not a “troll”. My apologies.
First of all, I would just like to say that I was born and raised most of my life in California. I am not a hick, and most of the people out here-kindly though they may be-frankly don’t know what to make of me. They mean well most of the time, though. I like them well enough.
Now that I’ve gotten that off of my chest…
Doug, you’ve not so much taken my premise as you have missed my point completely. If we take what the judge said, and break it down by individuals rather than the “both”, you’ll see where I’m coming from.
“I believe you were willing to snuff both of them out because they were an inconvenience to you,”
Let us forget for a moment that we humans are mammalian. Let us suppose that the woman is no longer in the equation of gestating, and that it is something that happens on its own. An egg, or something.
“I believe you were willing to snuff that woman out because she was an inconvenience to you.”
Fair enough. Murder is murder, no?
But then that leads us to:
“I believe you were willing to snuff that child out because he/she was an inconvenience to you.”
Murder is still murder, right? the judge phrased it so that she seemed just as indignant about the death of the child as she did about the death of the mother. Now, with abortion being legal, and fetuses being nothing more than a “sack of cells” (I recently had a woman who works for an abortionist leave a comment on my youtube channel calling a fetus this exact thing, poor girl), why the outrage? Why is THIS death of an unborn human any more outrageous than any other death of any other unborn human anywhere else on any given day that is perfectly legal? If he had just deemed the thing “unwanted” and had it killed, as do thousands of mothers daily-without harming anyone else, or against anyone else’s wishes-would it have been wrong?
Boy, now the trolls can’t even recognize each other and start fighting. They’re more confused than ever!
Hey Janet, : )
The pamphlets handed out by Margaret Forester were given to her co-workers, not pregnant women. That’s totally different from your scenario.
That booklet is really slanted propaganda, though, Janet, and no wonder people would object to it – it certainly crosses the line with respect to separating church and state, as well as being rather “out there in left field” as far as pretending what would necessarily happen to women who have abortions.
Xaliasae, very good post from you.
Murder is still murder, right? the judge phrased it so that she seemed just as indignant about the death of the child as she did about the death of the mother. Now, with abortion being legal, and fetuses being nothing more than a “sack of cells” (I recently had a woman who works for an abortionist leave a comment on my youtube channel calling a fetus this exact thing, poor girl), why the outrage? Why is THIS death of an unborn human any more outrageous than any other death of any other unborn human anywhere else on any given day that is perfectly legal? If he had just deemed the thing “unwanted” and had it killed, as do thousands of mothers daily-without harming anyone else, or against anyone else’s wishes-would it have been wrong?
Yes, murder is of course still murder, but it’s defined by the law, and while I don’t know if the judge is “pro-life” or “pro-choice,” she was going with the law. As to legal abortions, I don’t know if the judge would have any outrage.
Something being “outrageous” or not and all the right/wrong/good/bad in the moral realm is always coming from some consciousness, in the opinion of “somebody” or some group of minds. You propose we take the gestating woman out of the equation, let the man deem the baby as unwanted, and have it killed, and you then ask if it would be wrong. Okay, wrong in the opinion of who?
If nobody cares, if nobody has conflicting desires, then nobody will be saying it’s wrong.
In the actual case, it was against the law, and pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike are against it. You don’t see pro-choicers saying that women should be made to have abortions against their wishes anymore than you see them saying it should be legal to kill somebody’s born kids.
In the actual case, it was against the law, and pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike are against it. You don’t see pro-choicers saying that women should be made to have abortions against their wishes anymore than you see them saying it should be legal to kill somebody’s born kids.
From http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=14386 (National Conference of State Legislatures):
“Those on the other side feel that laws to protect a fetus could become a “slippery slope” that could jeopardize a woman’s right to choose an abortion. Pro-choice advocates say such laws grant a fetus legal status distinct from the pregnant woman – possibly creating an adversarial relationship between a woman and her baby. They are also concerned that the laws could be interpreted to apply to a woman’s behavior during her pregnancy (such as smoking, drinking or using drugs). They prefer criminalizing an assault on a pregnant woman and recognizing her as the only victim.”
Which would, technically, make it legal to give a woman an abortion against her will, as it would only be the assault to the woman which would be prosecuted. The actual killing of the unborn child in question would be legal. Also, Peter Singer thinks it’s peachy keen to kill born infants, so you’re wrong on both counts.
Bump.
Doug?
I would like a response to my last post, please. :)
Would it be okay to kill Doug if no one else objected? Does it matter if Doug objects? Is it okay to kill Doug if he consents? What if his father, mother, and wife consents, but Xalisae objects? Does Xalisae have any rights or interest in protecting Doug? If Doug’s wife is the one picking up after Doug and cooking for him, does her vote to kill him count the most? What if Xalisae was willing to do that instead?
Hi young christian woman,
Would it be okay to kill Doug if no one else objected?
In their opinion, yes.
Does it matter if Doug objects?
Obviously, to him it would, if he’s objecting. Beyond that you need to give more information.
Is it okay to kill Doug if he consents?
This is one of the best questions. My opinion is that if they “are of sound mind,” and truly want to die – this usually involves such massive suffering on their part that a substantial portion of the population will agree with them – then assisted suicide is okay.
What if his father, mother, and wife consents, but Xalisae objects?
Then you’ve got a difference of opinion.
Does Xalisae have any rights or interest in protecting Doug?
More information is needed to answer that. Whose opinion are you asking about?
If Doug’s wife is the one picking up after Doug and cooking for him, does her vote to kill him count the most?
Again, not enough information is given, but there have indeed been a few times when, so to speak, my wife wanted to kill me. ; )
What if Xalisae was willing to do that instead?
Well, for now I’m hoping that Xalisae’s fee is more than my wife can afford. : P
Xalisae, sorry for the delay in replying. I have had a heck of a time navigating back through the topics. Seems like no matter what I try – clicking each prior topic, using the archives, clicking on the “Home” or “Blog” links to get web pages of topics, then trying to go back through them that way – I still end up skipping over a lot and ending up in November all of a sudden….
Which would, technically, make it legal to give a woman an abortion against her will, as it would only be the assault to the woman which would be prosecuted.
Well, if prosecuted then it would not be legal.
The actual killing of the unborn child in question would be legal. Also, Peter Singer thinks it’s peachy keen to kill born infants, so you’re wrong on both counts.
If there were no laws against killing the baby, then yes, but most states have laws that address that, as well as differentiating between wanted pregnancies and unwanted ones. If Peter Singer or anybody else is for going against the woman or couple’s wishes and forcing her to have an abortion or killing their born kids, then that is not being pro-choice.
I think it’s an interesting and good point about creating an adversarial relationship between the woman and the unborn baby. In cases where the woman is drinking a ton of booze and/or using drugs up the wazoo, then I think it’s crazy for her to get pregnant or willingly continue a pregnancy, knowing she’s not going to stop ingesting those things. But do we legislate against it? If she is going to retain custody of the baby once born, do we legally penalize her, possibly further lessening her ability to care for the baby?
Well, if prosecuted then it would not be legal.
The death of the unborn human-which is what abortion is-is not prosecuted. Only any possible injury to the woman. The abortion itself against the woman’s will is legal. Here is a case of a legal abortion against a woman’s will:
http://www.stripes.com/news/calls-for-14th-murder-count-in-fort-hood-case-1.96695
From the article:
North Carolina is one of about 15 states that does not have a fetal homicide law.
So, in 15 states, it is legal to give a woman an abortion without her consent. Now, federally, it’s illegal, but that is only in the event of a federal crime commited against a pregnant woman.
Here is Peter Singer’s take on infanticide:
http://hubpages.com/hub/An-Argument-for-Infanticide-Evaluating-Peter-Singer
From the article:
Because of the different possible lives children might live, Singer tries to assess the value of life in a purely utilitarian way by enumerating the happiness and unhappiness contained in and caused by a potential child in determining whether that child’s life is worth keeping. Although this may sound horrible, it is quite practical when it comes to tackling situations such as unwanted pregnancy or disabled children
Still wrong.
So, in 15 states, it is legal to give a woman an abortion without her consent. Now, federally, it’s illegal, but that is only in the event of a federal crime commited against a pregnant woman.
Xalisae, looks to me like you can make a case that killing the fetus would not be illegal, but would there still not be charges of assault, kidnapping, etc., against the person who is ending the wanted pregnancy? I’d also say that it’s an area where pro-lifers and pro-choicers are on the same page, i.e. it should not be permitted for somebody else to end a woman’s wanted pregnancy.
How do you see Peter Singer’s argument applying to the abortion debate? Once the baby is born, then of course abortion doesn’t come into it anymore, and at birth we attribute the full right-to-life.
Xalisae, looks to me like you can make a case that killing the fetus would not be illegal
Ok, and I did. That’s my point. Do you concede it, or not? We’re not talking about assault, or kidnapping, or anything else. The matter at hand is abortion.
I’d also say that it’s an area where pro-lifers and pro-choicers are on the same page, i.e. it should not be permitted for somebody else to end a woman’s wanted pregnancy.
Then you might want to tell that to the other pro-choicers, Doug.
http://www.dadi.org/now_rips.htm
Peter Singer applies his own argument to born people by extending the pro-choice position:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Abortion.2C_euthanasia_and_infanticide
Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood—”rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness”[17]—and therefore “killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living.”
(X): Ok, and I did. That’s my point. Do you concede it, or not? We’re not talking about assault, or kidnapping, or anything else. The matter at hand is abortion.
Well, yeah, if it’s not illegal then it’s not illegal. You are removing it from things that would necessarily accompany it, but yeah.
On state feticide laws – pro-choicers know that pro-lifers often favor a policy of incrementalism, and perhaps sheaky attempts to establish legal personhood for the unborn without regard to abortion. If a given state had good clear language included to address that, then I don’t see a rational pro-choice objection to criminalizing the killing of a wanted unborn baby.
Examples, IMO, are Alabama: “nothing in this act shall make it a crime to perform or obtain an abortion that is otherwise legal.”
And Maine: “These crimes against unborn children do not apply to an abortion to which the pregnant woman has consented, nor do they apply to acts committed pursuant to usual and customary standards of medical practice. (2005 Me. Laws, Chap. 408, LD 262)”
Quoting Peter Singer: “Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood—”rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness” —and therefore “killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living.”
He’s distinguishing between being rational and self-conscious, and not being, but that is not the societal definition of personhood nor the basis upon which we attribute it.
I go the other way with it, saying that inasmuch as we deem the born as persons, then the late-term fetus (3rd trimester, anyway) is substantially the same, and as it usually can be delivered and kept alive, then I don’t have problems with state restrictions on abortion then.