(Prolifer)ations 5-24-11
by Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN and Kelli
As always, we welcome your suggestions for additions to our Top Blogs (see tab on right side of home page)! Email Susie@jillstanek.com.
- Bryan Kemper links to LifeNews’ “other side of the story” written by Julia Holcomb – former flame of Aerosmith frontman Steven Tyler – about her life with Tyler and the abortion of their baby boy.
- Coming Home hosts a 7-minute video of politicians and NARAL leaders laying out the roadmap to effectively muzzle pregnancy resource centers throughout the US:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tpya05pQGAQ[/youtube]
- Ethika Politika features a post by Scott Lloyd, former attorney for the US Dept. of Health and Human Services, regarding the relationship between abortion and contraception.
- The Anti Abortion Gang points out a Twitter slip-up by a pro-abort who calls the unborn child a “baby.”
- Accepting Abundance continues her series defending personhood, this time taking on arguments regarding conception.
- The makers of Bloodmoney show how the abortion industry uses sex education and contraception as “front end” products, with abortion being the large “back end” product in a “sales pipeline”:
- Moral Outcry completes a 3-part series on daily decisions that impact pro-life convictions.
- Barbara at Mommy Life shares information on a company looking to do a docu-series on large families.
- The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition reports on a new poll that shows 70% of the disabled in the UK are concerned they may one day be pressured into assisted suicide.
May.24, 2011 3:00 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.
In reading what Julia Holcomb wrote, it does indeed appear that Steven Tyler didn’t quite tell the whole story….
Julia Holcomb’s story is both heartbreaking and encouraging. So glad that she found healing and peace!
Comments on a thread must be cut off after… two weeks?
From the May 7 “Can pro-lifers work with pro-choicers to promote adoption?: thread:
Doug says: “Tim, agreed that we are all the same organism from conception. However, had your mom or mine had an abortion, then there never would have been a “you” or “me” to have any awareness, to know or care about anything. Agreed that the unborn are innocent, but the pro-choice argument is not that they are “guilty.” The right to have an abortion is on the woman’s part – and while the Supreme Court did not “declare the unborn to not be human,” they did say that the states didn’t have a compelling enough reason to restrict the liberty of the pregnant woman, as some were trying to do. Same with the Court cases reversing Dred Scott, the finding was that the states did not have a compelling enough reason to restrict the liberty of the slaves, among other things.”
(Tim): Doug, right from your first two sentences, you are contradicting yourself. If I was the same person from conception (your first statement), then your second statement cannot be true because there cannot have been a time after conception when there was no “me.” You go on to agree that the unborn are innocent, yet you go on to defend killing them if the woman chooses to kill them. After that, you make the flatly false statement that the Supreme Court did not declare the unborn not to be human. In point of fact, in the very text of the Roe decision, it is stated that the decision depends on defining the unborn as not persons under the law, and that if the weight of evidence ever were such that the personhood of the unborn were established, the Roe decision would be invalid.
You’re conflating different things, Tim. The physical reality of the organism is one thing, and not at issue, at least not between you and me. The status we attribute to the unborn is at issue, which obviously is thus different.
Regardless of the abortion debate, is there really any doubt that the unborn develop mental awareness at some point? When I speak of a “you” or “me” with mental awareness, emotion, personality, etc., this was not there at conception, this developed later on.
On the Roe decision, you are again confusing personhood and being human. “Human” for the unborn is not in doubt, nor being argued (certainly at least not by me). The status of “person,” however, most certainly is at issue. What you want is for the unborn to have the same status we attribute to the born, that of full, legal personhood. You are certainly on the right track where you quote or paraphrase the Roe decision as saying that if personhood were established for the unborn, the deal would be different. But in no way is that saying “the unborn are not human.”
___
Finally your last statements regarding the Dred Scott decision. You apparently are not familiar with this case. The case was that of a slave who was brought into a free state by his “owner” and who then sued for his freedom based on the fact that he was now in a free state. The Supreme Court rejected his petition, ruling that he was not a person, but was merely property, and that his “owner” could not be deprived of his “property.” Chief Justice Taney famously made the statement that blacks had no rights that whites were bound to respect. Your last statement that the court said the states had no compelling interest in restricting the liberty of slaves is the exact opposite of what the court actually said. The Dred Scott decision declared blacks were property and not persons.
Good grief, Tim – I didn’t say that was the Dred Scott decision. I said, “Same with the Court cases reversing Dred Scott, the finding was that the states did not have a compelling enough reason to restrict the liberty of the slaves, among other things.”
Same with Roe – the Court found that the states didn’t have a good enough reason to restrict abortion prior to viability. This is what the Constitution and the Supreme Court are primarily intended to do – not let the government interfere too much with the people.
Same – from the thread where we can’t reply any longer:
“That too is wrong, Bethany. There’s nothing that says I would necessarily agree with a given majority opinion. But when we come to rape – has it ever actually been legal and not considered a crime? I do not think so.”
If “majority rules” has no say so in your argument, why would this matter, Doug?
Bethany, the question does not necessarily follow, since it wouldn’t always be a majority that determined the legality of a thing or not. Still, what’s the argument for having rape not be a crime? Nothing, compared to the ethical concern for pregnant women – even if one most values the life of the unborn, one still has to see that there is the woman to consider.
_____
“Smith was/is a kook. In no way am I defending what she did.”
Why not, Doug? She might say that killing her children “helped” her. If she believes it helps her, why is she any different than a post abortive woman who says abortion “helped” her?
Regardless of what she might say, the bodily autonomy argument no longer applies in the same way. The kids could have been placed, immediately, with other people. They were certainly sentient, mentally aware, could suffer, emotional, had personality, etc. They also presumably had relationships with the father (I’m guessing), grandparents, other kids, etc., a reality as opposed to the “what could later occur” with a pregnancy. I don’t know if these are all the differences, but it’s sure enough for me to not defend her.
Coming Home hosts a 7-minute video of politicians and NARAL leaders laying out the roadmap to effectively muzzle pregnancy resource centers throughout the US
The real testimonies of women who’ve received services through CPCs, given in the comment section of the video, are positive and encouraging! Keep speaking up, ladies!
Julia Holcomb’s story is heartbreaking and hopeful. How many teenagers are there like her? Christians need to increasingly find and reach out to girls like Julia was and offer them real care and support.
After hearing how her son was aborted, I have spent 10-15′ loving up my newborn, thinking of the babes who die without any hugs and kisses from their own mothers.
And I was glad to hear she has been able to know and love seven other children as their mother, and give birth to six of those. I bet she’s a fantastic mother.
In the first video, if we just changed the wording, it sounds like a perfect video about how PP is deceptive, offers misleading services . . .
I kept thinking, “oh my gosh,” do they not hear themselves and realize how misleading PP is and how they are all about the $$$?
Mary Ann,
Is there any experience that can compare with loving up a newborn?? Makes me want 15 more!
In the first video at 4:52 the woman is typing up the “misinformation” that CPCs provide their clients regarding the health risks of abortion. Thus, NARAL believes that abortion does not increase the risks for the following: death, (undetected) ectopic pregnancy, (increased risk of) premature birth, uterine and cervical damage, (possible and realized) increased breast cancer risks, (possible) future infertility, (possible) pelvic inflammatory disease (from undetected STI during the abortion procedure), PAS, reproductive racism (the higher percentage of blacks getting abortions vs. whites), fetal development, (the high rate of real-life) condom effectiveness, and (actual and real) dangers of birth control pills and emergency contraception.
The woman said that she “couldn’t believe how CPCs give out blatant lies here in New York City.” Look at that list one more time, lady. The risks of abortion are TRUE! Women certainly have died, had cervical lacerations, subsequent premature births, lead to infertility from complications, have masked ectopic pregnancies, and have had regret of their abortions. Where are the lies in that!? Planned Parenthood are the liars regarding fetal development. They are the ones who lie to their patients regarding possible risks. They are the ones who lie and lie to the entire world regarding what exactly they are killing in an abortion procedure.
Undercover sting? I want to see the videos! Show us the lies! Show us the misinformation! Show us the covering up of statutory rape! Show us the covering up of a sex trade. Show us the videos showing CPCs demeaning women and not listening to their pleas. SHOW US!!!
Frustrating. lol.
Wow. That NARAL video is hard to take. I have never seen so many people in denial speaking in such a continuous string of lies. Screwtape and Wormwood must be proud of themselves.
I agree Segamon.
One of our trolls recently made a wisecrack about the Handmaid’s Tale, as if to imply that being pro-life is like wanting to live like the people in the movie. Well, I read the book. First, it’s fiction. Second, if you read Margaret Atwood’s book, which the movie is based on, it clearly explains that the social breakdown occurred in part because well-off women were becoming infertile in droves. Gee, what’s happening now? That’s right, abortion is rendering many women infertile. I can name you three women I know off the top of my head that are infertile after abortions; one had a hysterectomy and will now never ever have children of her own. IUD’s which are personal abortion devices, are also responsible for a great deal of fertility. A fourth woman I know was lucky to have had a couple of children BEFORE the IUD destroyed her uterus. When I was a teen, the very mention of the phrase “Dakon Shield” struck morbid fear among my mother’s friends.