by Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN
As always, we welcome your suggestions for additions to our Top Blogs (see tab on right side of home page)! Email Susie@jillstanek.com.
- SecularProLife compares the recent SCOTUS decision to uphold the free speech of groups like the Westboro Baptist Church to the NYC Council’s same day decision to limit pro-life speech.
LTI, in a post entitled, “Save the Foreskin, Kill the Child,” points out the craziness of a San Francisco bill restricting the right of a parent to circumcise a newborn baby boy while the government promotes the right to abort that same child.
ProWomanProLife examines the “slippery slope” of abortion and a recent ruling where a Canadian mother killed 2 of her infants and was given the lesser charge of “infanticide” as opposed to “murder.”
Live Action discusses the mainstream media’s continuing efforts to mischaracterize and discredit pro-lifers.
Wesley J. Smith predicts Donald Berwick’s tenure as head of Medicare/Medicaid will be over at the end of 2011 but warns he can do a lot of damage in the meantime.
Family Research Council’s blog notes the current state of physician-assisted suicide laws in the US.
Ethika Politika also writes on assisted suicide, disputing the popular soundbite of “death with dignity,” insisting that simply being human is what makes us valuable – not our capabilities.
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.
The prowoman prolife link gives a page not found error.
RE : LTI, Life Training Institute link
If it passes, those caught cutting foreskins would face a fine of $1,000 and a year in prison. Only people over the age of 18 would be allowed to have their foreskins removed. (nbcbayarea.com)
So, will they have spies in public showers and diaper changing tables at McDonalds? Detectives tracking down offending pediatricians? The Health Dept. would spend their time better serving women by regulating abortion clinics and supporting CPC’s. Yikes!
”
LTI, in a post entitled, ‘Save the Foreskin, Kill the Child,’ points out the craziness of a San Francisco bill restricting the right of a parent to circumcise a newborn baby boy while the government promotes the right to abort that same child.”
One thing has nothing to do with another. A person can quite easily oppose both abortion and circumcision.
“the craziness of a San Francisco bill restricting the right of a parent to circumcise a newborn baby boy while the government promotes the right to abort that same child.”
How about Jewish/Muslim parents? For them it’s a very important tradition. Is some government guy saying it’s NOT ok to do that more important than these people’s faith and tradition? I am not for circumcision and wouldn’t do that to my children (as it doesn’t really have any benefits), but I don’t see why other parents wouldn’t be allowed to do it if it’s important for their family and is a tradition that reaches thousands of years back.
Oh, and I do see a point with the abortion, the politicians seem to concentrate on one little idea, little niggle that they think shouldn’t be allowed, but remain completely blind to the fact that exatcly the same child could have been LEGALLY killed pretty much up to the birth (in some states), foreskin or not!
There are Jews who are very observant in their religion but who also strongly oppose the practice of circumcision…
If I recall correctly, traditional Jewish circumcision is also remarkably different from the circumcision that most American boys get, in that it’s almost more of a marking than a removing. I think YCW knows a lot about that particular topic.
As for spies in public bathrooms and group showers, Janet, that sounds like the hyperbolic rhetoric of pro-choicers who always ask if the government is going to confiscate all discarded pads to check for signs of brief embryonic life. According to the very arguments of most people here, making something illegal – and punishing the obvious trespasses against that law - is a great deterrent in and of itself, and absurdly invasive government action does not go hand-in-hand with new laws. After all, we manage to maintain the illegality of FGM without installing spies in innocuous places.