Speaking of Bin Laden’s death, I can’t forget a debate we had at George Washington University against abortion. While the frantic pro-abortion students defended Bin Laden’s life, they called for the killing of innocent unborn children.
Unbelievable.
~ Student Action Director John Ritchie, via TFP Student Action newsletter email, May 6
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
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 principle of “life”, it appears, is not as important to these students as the identity of being anti- military and pro- casual sex.
Wow, that is a very sad demonstration of the poor reasoning skills of GWU college students. They didn’t even make sense.
And personally I am against the death penalty, but even if I weren’t how would that conflict with the pro-life philosophy? The death penalty, if done properly only punishes those guilty of heinous crimes. Abortion kills the most innocent members of our society.
Typical of pro-abort “logic” , isn’t it?
Hooray for those young men who publicly defend the rights of women (and men) from conception in a very respectful way!
I have trouble viewing this video. I don’t know why. Maybe it’s my computer, but it keeps cutting off and having to buffer or whatever. I don’t normally have that trouble with their videos, but I have with this one–whether I view it here or on their site. Does anyone else have that trouble?
I really appreciate what these young men do, by the way.
No logic involved there – they’re simply insane.
These people haven’t learned that unborn babies are human too. So they can support abortion and still think of themselves as people who value human life and are therefore against the death penalty.
It seems as though the arguments made by the pro-life debaters were extremely biased and filled with religious ideology. The fact of the matter is that times change and we realize that our mistakes can be fixed, the same ones that our foremothers and forefathers could not. The difference is responsibility and understanding one’s actions and asking for forgiveness could not help solve a problem that could be solved now easily. Life does not start at conception, because as an embryo life is, as the student was attempting to point out, only in the process of creation, not actual creation. And to have a child born under unwanted circumstances, as is the case in many irresponsible teenagers today, is quite possibly the worst thing one could ever imagine for this child. Odds are that this child will never find the love, care, or attention that it requires in its early stages due to its mother’s mistake. Statistically, twenty years after abortion became legal in the United States, the crime rates were lowered significantly. How is this logical? Because the children who would have been born into a bad environment and turn to crime to fulfill their needs and want, would never be born.
If you are pro-choice, then you are pro-responsibility of the parent in question who made the mistake in the first place. I would only like to point out that a serious flaw in the pro-life argument is that it assumes that the life, which according to those who believe it begin at conception, is in safe and responsible hands. This is not the case and that fact should be seriously taken into consideration before making the ultimate decision.
Life does not start at conception, because as an embryo life is, as the student was attempting to point out, only in the process of creation, not actual creation.
http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
Life is a continuum which begins at conception and ends at the point of physical death. There is nothing philosophical or religious about this.
Odds are that this child will never find the love, care, or attention that it requires in its early stages due to its mother’s mistake.
So, you have statistics that show children born into unplanned pregnancies are less loved and cared for than “planned” children?
Statistically, twenty years after abortion became legal in the United States, the crime rates were lowered significantly.
Wrong.
How is this logical? Because the children who would have been born into a bad environment and turn to crime to fulfill their needs and want, would never be born.
Ah, I see. So, children born in less than ideal circumstances naturally turn to crime and ruin life for the rest of us. Got it. Ever heard of eugenics? You are advocating this. Margaret Sanger would agree with you.
If you are pro-choice, then you are pro-responsibility of the parent in question who made the mistake in the first place.
I hate to point this out, but most pro-choicers advocate sex without consequences, and they do not view that sex as a “mistake” but as a “right.” Unless you are of course referring to conception as a “mistake.” Conception as a result of sex is not a mistake. It is a biological and expected fact of human reproduction.
I would only like to point out that a serious flaw in the pro-life argument is that it assumes that the life, which according to those who believe it begin at conception, is in safe and responsible hands. This is not the case and that fact should be seriously taken into consideration before making the ultimate decision.
No. Pro-lifers do not assume that every life is in safe and responsible hands. If every life were “safe” we wouldn’t need to advocate against abortion. There are other options for every expectant mother. A child should not be snuffed out because his or her mother is “irresponsible.” You wouldn’t advocate this for a born child. (By the way, a newborn is part of that life continuum, too… newborns aren’t as developed as toddlers, toddlers aren’t as developed as pre-adolescents, pre-adolescents aren’t as developed as adolescents, adolescents aren’t as developed as adults. Prior to the newborn stage you have the various other stages of life – zygote, embryo, and fetus. Same DNA, same human – different stage on the life continuum.)
YATG – please think about what you are advocating – that it’s just fine to treat an entire segment of the human family as less than human. Want to help society? Make the world a better place? Help those who are disadvantaged? Want to help children? Families? Help the poor? You can do all that and more – but one good thing to do is to recognize that every human has worth – not by their function, economic prowess, color of their skin, political savvy, impressive talent, or the car they may drive.
Humans have worth because they are. They have the natural potential they have by themselves – and when a certain part of the human family are hurt, and even killed because of their race, sex, or any other attribute. The children in the womb are human. They are alive. They are part of our human family. Life is already here – and why would you think it;s ok to end that life for that boy or girl (or twins!). Real flesh and blood. Real life and death.
Care about humanity? Care about all of it – no matter their circumstances.
YATG said:
Let’s look at what you’re saying here:
1. “If you are pro-choice, then you are pro-responsibility of the parent in question who made the mistake in the first place.”
Sexual responsibility means being responsible for sexual outcomes. The primary purpose of sex is procreation – otherwise the human race would die off, become extinct.
Your sentence is self-refuting, because if both man and woman were responsible in the first place, then there wouldn’t be a “mistake”.
Besides, calling human beings “mistakes” is rather callous, isn’t it?
Is it possible there is a mistake in how you’re thinking about this?
2. “I would only like to point out that a serious flaw in the pro-life argument is that it assumes that the life, which according to those who believe it begin at conception, is in safe and responsible hands.”
Do you know what a cortical reaction is?
Life does begin at conception – scientifically, medically, factually. Even Alan Guttmacher, who became the president of Planned Parenthood, authored a book that stated that as fact, and questioned why anyone would think otherwise. Embryonic stem cell research requires a cortical reaction, and funny, after one happens, the two cells fuse, becoming one and begin growing. That’s life.
You also have another self-refuting sentence. You’re claiming the unborn are alive – a life, and correctly implying a human life, because you refer to human parents, who are dangerous. Aren’t you saying a human child is in danger of being killed by his parents?
As Greg Koukl states, “If the unborn aren’t human, no justification for abortion is necessary, but, if the unborn are human, no justication is sufficient.”
3.”This is not the case and that fact should be seriously taken into consideration before making the ultimate decision.”
So you’re arguing that since human beings are irresponsible with sex, and irresponsible as parents they can be responsible to their unborn child by killing him?
Hi YATG,
“Life does not start at conception, because as an embryo life is, as the student was attempting to point out, only in the process of creation, not actual creation.”
Please expound upon this point. How is an embryo in the process of creation and how does that imply that it is not alive?
“And to have a child born under unwanted circumstances, as is the case in many irresponsible teenagers today, is quite possibly the worst thing one could ever imagine for this child. Odds are that this child will never find the love, care, or attention that it requires in its early stages due to its mother’s mistake.”
Why don’t we wait until they are born to know for sure that they will be poor, and unloved, etc. and THEN kill them? This would serve several purposes. First many people who are born into good conditions end up being poor and unloved, etc. They should be killed. Also, some people who are born in miserable conditions end up being loved and happy so we wouldn’t want to kill them if they end up happy. So let us kill them when we KNOW they need love, care, etc. rather than speculate.
“Statistically, twenty years after abortion became legal in the United States, the crime rates were lowered significantly. How is this logical? Because the children who would have been born into a bad environment and turn to crime to fulfill their needs and want, would never be born.”
Suppose this is true. How does this address the pro-life claim that abortion is the unjust taking of an innocent human life? It doesn’t at all. IN fact, it attempts to argue that killing people is the best way to deter crime. Why not just kill everyone who commits any sort of crime? I guarantee crime will go WAY down beacuse all teh criminals will be dead, and anyone who thoguht about being a criminal will be deterred.
“I would only like to point out that a serious flaw in the pro-life argument is that it assumes that the life, which according to those who believe it begin at conception, is in safe and responsible hands. ”
YATG, what part of the pro-life argument is this part of? I have never heard anyone ever once use this line of thought to try and justify why abortion is immoral. I can’t even come up with a way one would try and use it in an argument. Where did you get this?
YATG, I don’t mean to be mean, but I am quite sure you have no idea what the pro-life argument is. I would be happy to go through it with you if you wish.
Your Average Teenage Girl will oneday be unapologetically pro life-she just doesn’t know it yet. She is just begging for attention and love-just like an average confused teenage girl.
I got pregnant when I was young and I love my child more then anything. I gave him up for adoption. I choose life for my child because I knew someone else could give him the great life I never could have given him. But I will never tell someone else that is young and doesn’t want the child that she shouldn’t get an abortion because I believe its wrong. Because to tell you the truth it doesn’t matter if You think its wrong, its about her and her decision. This is a very private and personal decision and nobody should have the right to tell someone what they can or cannot do with their own bodies.
This is a very private and personal decision and nobody should have the right to tell someone what they can or cannot do with their own bodies.
It’s so great to hear that you love your son and placed him for adoption, Kathy. I commend you for that.
However, with the statement I quoted above – would you feel the same way if the child were a newborn? Do you believe your son, who kicked and moved inside you, was “part of your body?” Within you, yes, but your “own body?” Killing someone else, regardless of their age or location, should never be viewed as “a private matter.”