Jivin J’s Life Links 7-28-11
by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat
- A study out of New Zealand found that women who get IUDs after abortions are less likely to have repeat abortions in the next two years. The repeat abortion rate for IUD users was less than 6%. It was 13% for birth control pill users and 17% for condom users.
- The North Carolina Senate is working to overturn Gov. Bev Perdue’s veto of their informed consent legislation. The NC House already overrode the veto.
- Here’s the LOL quote of the week from Amanda Marcotte:Anti-choicers refuse to acknowledge that abortion providers are medical professionals who put their patients first, instead using terms such as “abortion industry” and claiming that abortion providers are trying to increase the abortion rate to make more money.
Marcotte’s statements come in the same week that an abortionist who owns multiple abortion clinics (and is a convicted felon and has had his medical license suspended multiple times) lost a lawsuit and was ordered to pay $36 million and 2 abortionists in Pittsburgh have been charged with illegally providing drugs to a co-worker.
There’s a reason we refuse to acknowledge abortionists as medical professionals who put their patients first. We follow the news.
- Someone threw a molotov cocktail at a Planned Parenthood facility during Tuesday night. It didn’t get inside. A PP rep says it caused serious damage while the fire department says the damage was minor.
Jul.28, 2011 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.
There’s a reason we refuse to acknowledge abortionists as medical professionals who put their patients first. We follow the news.
WIN.
I’m discovering all sorts of incidents as I research for AbortionSafety.com. I seriously doubt that Marcotte will have a response when the site goes live in November.
LOL,
Some woman filling in for Rachel Madcow was rhapsodizing about Bev Perdue and her vetoes, most of which seem to get overturned.
Bev Perdue stands firm with her vetoes against the “radicals” in the legislature! Excuse me madame, but those “radicals” were elected into office by the people of North Carolina and their overturning of her vetoes indicates that Perdue can be better described as spitting in the wind instead of standing firm against much of anything.
Uh Amanda,
Its medical people who look down their noses at abortionists. Sure they tolerate them, they pay homage to “choice”, even send the occasional pregnant mistress for “treatment”, but dirty their own hands? No way.
Its like the neighborhood drug dealer. Sure the guy’s a sleaze, I would never sell drugs myself, but what’s wrong with a little coke or pot now and then?
“Its medical people who look down their noses at abortionists”
Putting aside ”projection,” you know this how? Are you a member of the AMA or any other professional medical association which allows you to gauge the attitudes of fellow medical professionals? Are your close friends with doctors? Do you work in a profession where you are in close conversation with doctors or other “medical people?” Wishing it were so, doesn’t make it so.
Umm..CC…my wife’s a doctor, my best friend is a Chief ER doctor, most of their friends are doctors in several fields of Medicine and I can state honestly that :” Medical Doctors DO look down on abortionists”.
Doctors heal not kill, unless you’ve forgotten that.
From what they are saying, “doctors” who sink to the level of abortionists are generally those who either cannot or will not pass the necessary medical requirements to do anything else, have no interest in healing others or have no personality to speak of….but again, these are heresays from the medical personnel that I have personally talked to…and these are not ‘projections’.
I don’t know about look down on them, but the majority of medical professionals in the U.S. won’t perform an abortion. Take that as you will.
http://www.parentdish.com/2011/07/28/pregnant-man-sheds-baby-weight-shows-off-new-bod/?icid=main%7Chtmlws-main-w%7Cdl6%7Csec1_lnk3%7C220340
A blast from the past: “Pregnant Man Sheds Baby Weight, Shows Off New Bod”
“majority of medical professionals in the U.S. won’t perform an abortion”
If you’re referring to doctors, where are you getting this data? If you’re referring to ”medical professionals,” then you’re including professions in which the members are not qualified/certified to perform abortions.
“Umm..CC…my wife’s a doctor, my best friend is a Chief ER doctor, most of their friends are doctors in several fields of Medicine and I can state honestly that :” Medical Doctors DO look down on abortionists”
I’m curious. In what area of the country do you reside? I’m wondering if this sentiment is geographical or related to the religious affiliation of those doctors that you are familiar with. In my state, our former Planned Parenthood “abortionist” is a well respected member of a number of boards and commissions. But then I live in a pro-choice area. And for many women, an abortion is a healing event – especially those whose lives and health are threatened by the fetus. Right, you don’t believe that…..
If you’re referring to doctors, where are you getting this data?
The Guttmacher Institute, NARAL, and other pro-abortion groups have all sorts of commentaries about how few U.S. counties have abortion providers. I think this is a point that both sides agree upon.
I live right here in the Chicagoland area….where do you live?
And those sentiments I mentioned are echoed by doctors living in diffferent states that I personally know..ie NY, TN, CT..and also by doctors working in other countries.
“And for many women, an abortion is a healing event “….you are right, I don’t believe that.
“where do you live?”
NOOOOOOOOOOO. You never need to ask CC that. Her whole question to you was a set up so she could say the following: I live in New England (sp. RI) It’s very enlightened and educated and wealthy. And abortion will never ever lose favor or even ground anywhere in RI or any other enlightened New England state. (and a dr. hasn’t made it in New England until he performs abortions, I’m sure). I think she has it saved to her clipboard.
Heck, even in the UK, abortion is not a popular field among medical professionals. That doctors don’t like abortion is not new or remarkable.
ooops, sorry, CT….I messed up! *LOL*
If you’re referring to doctors, where are you getting this data? If you’re referring to ”medical professionals,” then you’re including professions in which the members are not qualified/certified to perform abortions.
Number one:
20. Would you perform an abortion in certain situations, even if it were against your own beliefs?
Yes, 34.1%
No, 53.5%
It depends, 12.4%
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/731485_7
Number two, yes, I’m referring to doctors. Come on. I’m sure you knew what was meant.
You’re right CT.
CC doesn’t have arguments, she has pre-fabricated boilerplate she repeats again and again. Saves her the trouble of thinking – or really listening to anyone else.
If you are a “medical professional” who performs abortions, you are not a doctor–you are a butcher.
Also, I am an artist, but also part of an industry. If you make any money off of what you do, congratulations, you’re part of an industry. Marcotte is a nitwit.
“Would you perform an abortion in certain situations, even if it were against your own beliefs”
What are certain situations and what beliefs are we talking about?
And yeah Lori, “boilerplate.” That doesn’t diminish the reality that most of New England is pro-choice. That doesn’t diminish the reality that your church no longer controls the minds of those who live here – as it once did. Meanwhile, women who live in anti-choice states (thanks, in large part, to your church) are welcome to come here to terminate their pregnancies – despite what their bishops tell them. I could go on about misogynism as it relates to certain patriarchal religious institutions but it won’t get published.
If you are a “medical professional” who performs abortions, you are not a doctor–you are a butcher.
Ewww, tell that to the the major university medical schools who teach abortion as part of the gynecology core curriculum.
And RSD - No offense; but I don’t believe you. There is a strong pro-choice community in Chicago, NY (large pro-choice Jewish population), and Connecticut (fairly middle class and not all that religious and many of those who are belong to liberal Protestant pro-choice churches) As the spouse of a doctor, you must know that many private and well respected gynecologists also do abortions. If I had needed an abortion during my “fertile” years, all I needed to do was tell my Ob-Gyn person and he would have taken care of the problem. As a woman of some means, with a good Blue Cross policy, I would not have had to walk the gauntlet at Planned Parenthood.
But once again, let’s force women to have babies. The fetus worshipping cult never ceases to amaze me – and all the other women (and there are lots of us) who are pro-choice.
Yeah, we’re “fetus-worshippers.” I’m gonna go light a candle at the fetus altar I built in my house. *eye roll*
And for “Some Guy” from his source:
Trends in Levonorgestrel Emergency Contraception Use, Births, and Abortions: The Utah Experience… study shows a statistically significant association between increasing rates of emergency contraception distribution and decreasing abortion rates.
Journal Article, Medscape J Med, January 2009
“Yeah, we’re “fetus-worshippers.”
Obviously, I’m being facetious. But you do believe that the rights of the fetus supersede the rights of the woman who carries it. Hence, fetus worship. There is another term that we in the pro-choice community use and that’s the “forced birth movement.” That’s also quite appropriate.
Uh, no CC, we believe the baby’s right to live supersedes the mother’s “right” not to be inconvenienced. Big difference.
Right, CC, fall back as always on Catholic-bashing when you have no arguments.
You know, you give the Church too much credit here. The thing most doctors who won’t perform abortions are going to depend on is not Catholic teaching, but the oath written for them by the pagan Greek founder of medicine, Hippocrates, which forbids both euthanasia and abortion.
Abortion is against the very nature of medicine. Doctors should heal, not kill their patients. Period.
If I had needed an abortion during my “fertile” years, all I needed to do was tell my Ob-Gyn person and he would have taken care of the problem.
So the turkey baster was . . . Closer? Cheaper? What?
And RSD - No offense; but I don’t believe you. There is a strong pro-choice community in Chicago, NY (large pro-choice Jewish population), and Connecticut (fairly middle class and not all that religious and many of those who are belong to liberal Protestant pro-choice churches)
See!! Add The Catholic Church is evil incarnate, yada yada, reformed Jews are pro-choice, yada yada, I’m a social worker, yada yada, misogyny and you have it all. Do not feed the CC.
What are certain situations and what beliefs are we talking about?
It doesn’t matter what the situations for an abortion are. “No” in certain correlates to a “no” in general. That’s all you really need to know.
There is another term that we in the pro-choice community use and that’s the “forced birth movement.” That’s also quite appropriate.”
I’ll be a “forced birther” so long as you agree to be a “forced deather”.
That doesn’t diminish the reality that your church no longer controls the minds of those who live here – as it once did. Meanwhile, women who live in anti-choice states (thanks, in large part, to your church) are welcome to come here to terminate their pregnancies – despite what their bishops tell them. I could go on about misogynism as it relates to certain patriarchal religious institutions but it won’t get published.
Everything but the social work. We should make this a drinking game, but it wouldn’t even be sporting.
Yeah, we’re “fetus-worshippers.” I’m gonna go light a candle at the fetus altar I built in my house. *eye roll*
My fetus worshiping candle is always lit. What kind of lazy fetus worshiper are you? ;-)
CC,
How’s that line of turkey basters selling up in pro-abortion New England? I should think you’ve sold a million dollars worth by now.
For the rest of us,
That statistic about IUD’s in post-abortive women resulting in the lowest abortion rate is absolutely laughable. IUD’s kill most embryos, so the abortion rate is at least as high as the highest rate using other means of birth control.
One cannot reference an abortifacient as somehow being really good at helping to lower the rate of abortions. Welcome to scientific inquiry, proabort style.
From Physicians for Life, a mainstream medical journal on the mechanism of the IUD:
The IUD lost favor in the USA years ago because of several legal class-action suits charging serious damage/death to women from the effects of the IUD. According to these lawsuits and medical reports, many women suffered Toxic Shock Syndrome which can — or did — lead to death.
There are many shapes and components of IUDs. The action still appears to be a “post-fertilization effect” abortive, in that they prevent a developing human being, already fertilized in the Fallopian tube, from attaching itself to the endometrium of the uterus.
“An intrauterine device (IUD) inserted into the uterus through the vagina and cervix usually interferes with implantation by causing a local inflammatory reaction. Some IUDs contain progesterone that is slowly released and interferes with the development of the endometrium so that implantation does not usually occur.” (p. 58)(Keith Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed., Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Comp. 1998.
Intra-uterine devices, or IUDs, are used in China, forcibly inserted if necessary in unwilling women.
They do not provide a barrier to conception but rather cause a local inflammatory response which prevents implantation, again resulting in a “post-fertilization effect” which most likely prevents the ~100 cell embryo from implanting in the uterine lining..
According to a study reported in the Dec 2002 American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (“Mechanisms of action of intrauterine devices: Update and estimation of postfertilization effects”, by Stanford and Mikolaczyk, v 187, n6, 1699-1708):
“The possible mechanisms of action for the IUD in humans can each be classified as occurring before or after fertilization…Hormonal evidence indicates that the IUD does not generally inhibit ovulation in humans. The majority of women who are wearing hormonally active IUDs that reduce or eleminate menstruation still have ovulatory cycles as assessed by hormonal measurement and follicular ultrasonography.
“The possible postfertilization mechanisms of action of the IUD include the following: slowing or speeding the transport of the early embryo through the fallopian tube, damage to or destruction of the early embryo before it reaches the uterus, and prevention of implantation…It is well established that IUDs cause endometrial changes, with the type of changes present dependent on the type of IUD…
“The percentage of clinically recognized pregnancies that are ectopic [tubal] in users of inert and copper IUDs is about 3% to 4%, whereas for levonorgestrel and progesterone it is about 25%…These data suport the existence of a postfertilization effect for the IUD but cannot be used to estimate its magnitude…
“The Levonorgestrel-20 IUD (Mirena; Schering AG Pharmaceutical, Germany), developed in 1980…is highly effective to avoid clinical pregnancy, with a pregnancy rate around 0.1 per 100 woman-years. The levonorgestrel IUD has a minimal effect on the ovariam pituitary axis, and up to 85% of women are ovulatory during its use [i.e. these women still release an egg during each ovulation]. The rate of ovulation may increase with length of time that the device is worn.
“The strongest biologic effect of this IUD is local suppression of the endometrium…In addition, inflammation in the endometrium has bee demonstrated to be similar to that of inert IUDs. These endometrial effects result in decreased bleeding over time, and some women using the levonorgestrel IUD have amenorrhea [no bleeding]. However, amenorrhea does not necessarily imply that ovulation is not occurring but that it is primarily due to the endometrial effects…Cervical mucus favorable to the transport of sperm has been documented in the majority of ovulatory cycles during use of the levonorgestrel IUD.
“Overall, the consensus has been that levonorgestrel IUDs, like progesterone IUDs, act primarily by suppressing the endometrium, an effect that is likely to prevent implantation. However, endometrial effects may also result in the inhibition of sperm migration…
“With a clinical pregnancy rate of 0.1 per 100 women-years, the Levonorgestrel-20 IUD is thus estimated to be associated with the loss of 99.9% to 99.95% of all fertilized ova…
“In previous debates on the mechanism of action of the IUD, there was some discussion as to whether postfertilization effects were a “major” or “main” effect of the IUD. Our model illustrates clearly that, although the majority of pregnancy prevention occurs before fertilization, postfertilization effects make substantial and essential contributions to the effectiveness of all types of IUDs.
“With regard to the postfertilization effect of the IUD, it is likely that the majority of this effect occurs before the embryo enters the uterus.
“As discussed, the low recovery of ova from the uterus in IUD users, as well as the lack of hCG rise in more recent studies of IUD users, suggest that the major postfertilization effect is destruction of the early embryo in the Fallopian tube, in the same way that the major prefertilization effect is likely to be destruction of sperm and ova.
“For the copper IUD, this embryocidal effect may be more a result of inflammation and direct toxicity, whereas with the progestin IUDs it may result more from inhibition of transport through the Fallopian tube, along with prevention of implantation, preventing long-term viability of the embryo…
“We believe that these results have important implications for the counseling of women and couples who are considering the use of the IUD. Because our estimates are based on the best evidence currently available, we suggest that they could be used in clinical counseling for women who may object to postfertilization effects…”
Link is here:
http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/182/36/
Lori,
What can one say of a person such as CC who shows up here investing hundreds and hundreds of hours promoting and supporting the slaughter of babies?
Obsession?
Possession?
Drugs?
Alcohol?
What??? I honestly don’t know. It’s just creepy and vile. Catholic bashing as she does throws me more toward possession, especially the way she spits venom at all that is holy.
Only the “butchers” who were not competent OB/GYNs and could not cut it ended up cutting up babies by becoming the abortionist from my years of experience working in maternity healthcare. The death doctors were a pathetic bunch. None of the reputable OBs socialized with them, evidently not polite dinner conversation OB says: ”I delivered 8 babies and saved the life of 1 this week” Abortionist says ”I mutilated, dismembered, and vacuum suctioned 25 babies (oops I meant to say) fetuses this week”.
CC “I could go on about misogynism as it relates to certain patriarchal religious institutions but it won’t get published.” Why bother? Any woman who’s pro-life has betrayed her sex — an “Uncle Tom” of the gender world. Right? Self-loathing, disordered betrayers of feminism and fetus fetishists.
Just consistently speak of pro-life women of their own vile flaws and you don’t need to invoke much by way of religion. What could a patriarchal, misogynistic hierarchy possibly offer in further explanation of the dismal lives of these contemptible “women” who would enslave their sisters, their children — the world! — to a programme of forced servitude? Fetus is Lord! Right? I mean, aren’t they just stupid beyond belief, CC? Misguided morons who can’t think for themselves. Religious fanatics. Cretins. Barefoot, pregnant hillbillies.
Just figured I’d give voice to what pro-choicers really think about women who merely believe the unborn should be welcome in life and protected by law. You’re not allowed to say it here because it violates the board’s rules. But I believe I’m allowed to satirize what you can’t say. ;-)
In a pregnancy, there are TWO patients….the MOTHER and the PRE-BORN CHILD. Some people forget that!
I can guarantee you the 5 perniatalogist that treated me and saved my son are not “looked down upon” by other doctors. In fact the lead doctor travels the US and world giving lectures. The operating room also had a couple of fellows there to learn how to save a baby literally dying from TTTS.
I’m sure you guys will hammer me, because my story really, really bothers you. I had an abortion to save a life, THAT you can’t or refuse to wrap your head around.
And why no news on what’s going in SD with HB 1217?
Ah, Tiffany. Your story doesn’t bother me except that I am sorry for what you went through. I am still wondering why you want to advocate for the elective abortion of healthy babies of healthy mothers with your story.
Because I trust every woman to make their own decision, without government interference. And Jack, I know you will come back at me with your story, but I believe that everything happens for a reason. You weren’t aborted because you were meant to be on this Earth. I trust in God, he sent me to the best doctors in this country, they saved my precious child, he was meant to be here. EVERYTHING HAPPENS FOR A REASON, you just have to find the reason why.
Just to clear some questions up, based on the ones from my previous post:
My health was never at risk, unless my uterus became infected, which was a possibility since the deceased baby’s sac burst and I was on high amounts of antibiotics. Had that happened, I was told the only way to treat it was to terminate the pregnancy altogether, that made my stomach sick, this remaining baby was wanted, hundreds were praying for him.
After hearing I was pregnant with identical twins, I was thrilled. I would have done anything to bring two beautiful boys into this world. So NO, the other treatment options weren’t options to us, if they were I would have tried that, and how dare any of you suggest otherwise.
No, I have not had any previous abortions. I was lucky, although my parents were shy when it came to the sex talk, my school wasn’t. We had a frank discussion in health class. None of that abstinence only talk. Texas spends the most money on abstinence only classes, and they have the highest teen pregnancy rate in the country.
And one commenter said I didn’t have an abortion. I thought the same thing, until I read Referred Law 6 and Initiated Measure 11, the two abortion bans in SD. According to both, I had an abortion.
Well, you see, I don’t believe in God. I believe that this life is probably the only chance we get to experience this earth. And to take that chance away from a healthy child is just horrendous to me. I realize that nothing I can say will change your mind, but just think about it. There are millions of souls that will never experience this life on this earth. I don’t see how that is justifiable. I don’t like the fact that some women feel trapped by a pregnancy, and I really wish that every pregnancy was planned and wanted. But I think women in bad situations deserve better options than taking a unique being’s life away.
I am really sorry for what happened to you, Tiffany.
Jack, first off, thanks for your compassion, I was put in a situation that no one should ever be put in, but thankfully, I was able to make the decision I did, without government interference.
And I agree with you, I wish every woman was ecstatic to learn they were pregnant and had the financial means to bring another child into this world. But this is not the world we live in. I wish every woman and man had the money to raise these kids, but this country is struggling, people can’t pay their mortgages. If I could afford to give money to the woman wanting an abortion because she can’t afford to feed another mouth, I would. And the CPC’s can’t afford to pay these women’s bills. My local CPC just had a posting about a couple who earned a crib in their “Learn to Earn” program, problem was the CPC didn’t have a crib, like they promised, so they requested a donation, many times over. Don’t promise something you don’t have. The ex. director AND founder both drive Lexus SUV, they aren’t hurting for money, yet when their AC went out they begged for someone to fix it for free! And their ultrasound bus is in need of repair, again they are BEGGING for donations and free work. The founder and her husband are worth hundreds if not millions of dollars, yet are begging for diapers, free AC, free bus repair and storage. Where is their heart and pocketbook?
I wish there were never any fatal fetal anomalies, I have hundreds of friends who terminated a pregnancy because they would rather let their WANTED babies rest in peace without having to experience pain first. There has been great gains in diagnosing these case and in some of them they can correct it, but you can’t put a brain in a child that has none. I know that prenatal hospice exists and I think that is fantastic, but unless you have walked in those parents shoes facing a fatal diagnosis you can’t decide for them. These are heartbreaking choices, choices no one ever wants to make.
I have a good friend who has a patient of Dr. Tiller, due to a fatal fetal anomaly. She called her insurance company to get the termination cleared, they said no, she said (no verbatim), “Ok, I’ll go ahead and have this child, the doctors don’t know how long she will survive, but she’ll never leave the NICU.” The insurance company agreed to pay for the termination, b/c to them it’s all about money, they realized it was cheaper to pay for the termination than to pay the NICU bill for a child that had zero chance at life.
I may never change your mind, Jack, but I appreciate the civil discussion.
“Jack, first off, thanks for your compassion, I was put in a situation that no one should ever be put in, but thankfully, I was able to make the decision I did, without government interference. ”
No, no one should be in that position. It’s terrible. I know next to nothing about medicine, but my wife knows what it is like to have a traumatic pregnancy. When she was pregnant with my daughter, they thought it might be ectopic early on because she was having so many problems. Thankfully she wasn’t and my daughter was born healthy, but I remember the panic we both had. It doesn’t really compare to your situation, but I do understand how horrible it is.
” And I agree with you, I wish every woman was ecstatic to learn they were pregnant and had the financial means to bring another child into this world. But this is not the world we live in. I wish every woman and man had the money to raise these kids, but this country is struggling, people can’t pay their mortgages. If I could afford to give money to the woman wanting an abortion because she can’t afford to feed another mouth, I would”
But see, finances aren’t helped by abortion. Everyone thinks that they will be but they aren’t. When I lived on the streets, I can’t even tell you how many street girls I knew had abortions, usually multiple. We were all poor as dirt and didn’t have anywhere to live. And abortion didn’t help a single one of these girls. They still lived on the street, they still did drugs, except now they had broken hearts over the children they lost. This one girl I knew who kept her baby, she ended up getting assistance and moving on, getting out of that life. I don’t think having kids is the answer to these situations, not at all, but I know that abortion caused more harm than good to the poorest of society. I have seen it. I see it now with the homeless kids at the shelter that I volunteer at. Broken hearts, broken lives.
About the CPCs, no they shouldn’t offer anything that they don’t have. And I am sure that there are directors like the ones you described. Every type of program has some bad apples. But really, I have seen CPCs do far more good than harm. My wife went to one when she was pregnant with our second kid, we were poor and couldn’t afford to get clothes and diapers. They helped us out a lot. I think that on the whole they definitely do more good than harm. Really, if all the money that got poured into abortion clinics went to programs to help women and children, and help prevent unwanted pregnancies, it could do a lot of good.
“I know that prenatal hospice exists and I think that is fantastic, but unless you have walked in those parents shoes facing a fatal diagnosis you can’t decide for them. These are heartbreaking choices, choices no one ever wants to make. “
I agree, it is horrible. I wish that no one ever had to face that, and I am sorry for what your friend went through. But I simply can’t agree with the deliberate killing of a child, as opposed to palliative care. I can’t imagine a situation where it is more moral to kill a suffering child rather than make them comfortable and let them pass naturally. I do think, though, that the healthcare system needs to change it’s view on end of life care. Actually, our entire healthcare system needs an overhaul IMHO. I just don’t see that a deliberate killing is the proper response to tragedy. There isn’t a reasonable stopping point. What if my two-year-old became terminally ill, and is in pain? Would I be within my rights to kill him to save him suffering, or is a better response to manage his pain and let him pass naturally?
“I may never change your mind, Jack, but I appreciate the civil discussion.”
No problem, I would rather have a discussion than a fight, and as long as people don’t attack me I generally stay civil.
While CPC’s can provide some assistance to those who give birth, they in no way can provide the kind of ongoing assistance that the state does. A woman on “welfare” (which is time limited) receives a monthly stipend, Medicaid, and food stamps. Given that entitlements programs will be scaled back, it’s possible that, in the future, these programs will not be available to the extent that they are now. If the anti-choice movementgets its way and abortion is criminalized, many more women will be giving birth – women without safety nets. Thus, the USA could become like so many third world countries with armies of street children. And forget the churches providing assistance. They are barely able to meet their expenses now.
And Lori – I did my turkey baster thing (and I still don’t know if I had a very heavy period or I expelled a “baby”) in 1968 when I didn’t have a gynecologist. We gals did lots of fun stuff to ourselves in those pre-Roe days. Some of us actually suffered serious health consequences (good enough for us, right?). Others went to Canada. I linked up with a doctor post Roe.
And Dr. Nadal - ”possession?” You are joking, right? Because if you’re not, you provide Exhibit A for why the anti-choice movement has the reputation of being full of medieval, religious zealots. Possession? Seriously? You are a scientist, right?
Don’t feed the troll, y’all…
:)
Which one?
Thanks, Paladin!!
CC 3:14PM
LOL and then some. I’ve spent the past 40 years working in the medical area in some capacity of another and do now. That’s longer than many of the people on this blog, maybe even you have been born. Take my word for it CC, I know exactly what I’m talking about.
“Possession? Seriously? You are a scientist, right?”
While I agree that his remarks were odd and over the top, I’m not in the least sure why you find a reasonable association between those three interrogatives.
Vast numbers of scientists believe in Demon possession. That Jesus of Nazareth healed demoniacs is part of the Christian message — ostensibly believed by Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and, I’m sure, a vast number of Planned Parenthood employees.
“And Dr. Nadal – ”possession?” You are joking, right? Because if you’re not, you provide Exhibit A for why the anti-choice movement has the reputation of being full of medieval, religious zealots. Possession? Seriously? You are a scientist, right?”
In fact, CC, this is a tremendous burden of proof you have placed on yourself. Possession is only a priori out of the question if demons do not exist or if they do exist, if you can show that it is somehow metaphysically impossible that they can possess someone. Otherwise, one must take the current evidence that they have and attempt to form teh most reasonable hypothesis. If one does not have a proof that demons do not exist and indeed, if one has good reason to believe that demons do exist and can possess humans, then it would be irrational to simply blow it off as an unreasonable hypothesis and not even consider it. Again, when one is attempting to explain certain pieces of data, one must take into account explanatory power, explanatory scope, reasonability, etc. etc. So what argument can you offer to show that either demons do not exist or that it is metaphysically impossible for them to possess individuals?
”possession?” You are joking, right?
—————————————-
Reminds of this excerpt from Gabriel Amorth’s book:
How can those who deny the existence and the many activities of Satan understand the achievements of Christ?
How can they understand the value of the redemptive death of Christ?
On the basis of Sacred Scripture, the Second Vatican Council affirms that “[Christ], by His death and resurrection, had freed us from the power of Satan” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 6)
*..Fr. Amorth is the Chief Exorcist of the Vatican…
Tiffany: The ex. director AND founder both drive Lexus SUV, they aren’t hurting for money, yet when their AC went out they begged for someone to fix it for free! And their ultrasound bus is in need of repair, again they are BEGGING for donations and free work. The founder and her husband are worth hundreds if not millions of dollars, yet are begging for diapers, free AC, free bus repair and storage. Where is their heart and pocketbook?
So people with money should not run charitable organizations? Unless they’re taking the money from the CPC to feed their lifestyle, I don’t see what your point is unless you think no one should be involved in founding or running a charity until they are willing to personally fund it.
So, can I be “ardently” pro-life? Or is it “zealous” if you’re pro-life, and only “ardent” if you’re pro-murder??
My guess: Possession.
Jack, if your child was terminally ill and on life support machines, you could legally take her/him off. If you can do that after they’re born, why can’t you do it when they’re in the womb?
CT, I’m referring to the two people who founded it, they have millions. Yet when they had an outstanding bill for pregnancy tests and couldn’t purchase more unless they paid the past due bill first they went to Facebook to beg for money. They could have easily paid the bill. Here’s what they posted:
“We have a bill that is past due for $595.79 for pregnancy tests and we need your help. Without pregnancy tests we can’t bring women in the center. Is God is laying it on your heart to do a fundraiser for the Alpha Center babies?”
Pathetic when the founders probably had that amount in their wallet.
So abortion is just taking your child off life support in utero?
Easy Peasy.
Tiffany, I see a huge moral difference between naturally letting someone pass and deliberately killing them. Taking a child off life support is analogous to bringing a baby with a fetal defect to term and letting them die naturally. Having an abortion is analogous to deliberately killing a sick two-year-old.
Carla, a late term abortion is not “easy peasy”, it’s a 3 day procedure. You expect others to show you compassion but when you use the words “easy peasy” to describe a 3 day procedure that extremely painful, you’re not showing women who’ve had them much compassion. Stick to what you know, first trimester abortions.
Jack,
You do realize that babies with a fatal fetal anomaly feel pain right? Every woman I know who had a LT abortion said they did so so their much wanted baby wouldn’t feel pain. But hey, if you wanted your child to die naturally, even though they will feel pain, that’s your CHOICE.
describe a 3 day procedure that extremely painful, you’re not showing women who’ve had them much compassion.
And evicting your sick child from your womb feet first to the neck only to have a pair of scissors jabbed into the base of his/her skull and suction out their brains isn’t very compassionate, either. I wonder what hurts more: what I just described, or their ailment….
O you want sympathy because it’s painful? O, it isn’t so easy peasy for women? Well, you know who finds it even more painful and less easy??? THE BABIES.
And Lori – I did my turkey baster thing (and I still don’t know if I had a very heavy period or I expelled a “baby”) in 1968 when I didn’t have a gynecologist. We gals did lots of fun stuff to ourselves in those pre-Roe days. Some of us actually suffered serious health consequences (good enough for us, right?). Others went to Canada. I linked up with a doctor post Roe.
Sorry I haven’t been able to keep things straight without a scorecard. However, didn’t you claim in the past that women could get abortions in hospitals pre-Roe? At any rate, it’s definitely true that they could. In fact, the reason Harry Blackmum was so gung-ho to write Roe v. Wade to begin with was to prevent all the respectable doctors who were performing abortions in their offices and in hospitals from having to do so illegally (He was heavily connected with various physicians’ organizations).
Illegal abortions deaths were nowhere near as common as people think. In fact, the numbers were made up – as Dr. Bernard Nathanson, the guy who made them up, admitted. In 1972, there were only 39 such deaths in the U.S.
I should think that doctors in your hip-liberal area of the country should have been able to accommodate you if you were pregnant. Of course, your mental processes were probably affected by whatever drugs you were on at the time.
“And evicting your sick child from your womb feet first to the neck only to have a pair of scissors jabbed into the base of his/her skull and suction out their brains isn’t very compassionate, either. I wonder what hurts more: what I just described, or their ailment….”
xalisae,
You should do some research, the above doesn’t happen. The doctor gives the baby a shot to the heart, stopping it, so they don’t feel a thing.
Ninek,
“O you want sympathy because it’s painful? O, it isn’t so easy peasy for women? Well, you know who finds it even more painful and less easy??? THE BABIES.”
You also need to do some research. And obviously you have never had to make that decision, it’s not an easy one.
I suggest you to check out the website below:
http://www.aheartbreakingchoice.com/
Because I trust every woman to make their own decision, without government interference.
What does that sentence have to do with leveraging the story of your sick and dying child to attempt to legitimize the wanton killing of thousands of healthy children daily? That does not answer the question of why you would use what is essentially the natural death of your child as a soapbox for women who are going out of their way to pay for their healthy children to be killed. This would be equivalent to a mother whose young son died of leukemia rallying around Susan Smith because “hey, we both gots dead kids, right? Same-same!” when any rational person can see the glaring difference.
The doctor gives the baby a shot to the heart, stopping it, so they don’t feel a thing.
Ooooh! Ok! I gotcha. Let me go ask my uncle who has had multiple heart problems how totally not painful cardiac arrest is. 9_9
boy…you guys really think you’re doing someone a favor, don’t you…This is seriously spooky. I would hate for someone to kill me and think that they really did me a solid.
And sorry about the inaccuracy. I saw someone mention late term abortion and just thought of what used to be standard procedure up until not that long ago.
“However, didn’t you claim in the past that women could get abortions in hospitals pre-Roe”
Yes, they could. I tried and couldn’t make the necessary connections and my dear mama was not about to help me out. She took care of her problem but I was on my own. And if I had produced a baby, I was also out of the house. But glad to see that you are cool with all the funky stuff that we used to do to our bodies to expel fetuses. Many women were injured (try douching with physo-hex) and some women died – but then they were just being “punished” for going against their basic role in life (according to your church, anyway.) Funny, your former Pope once said that abortion was the greatest sin. Ah-hem, robbing children of their innocence, is, in my book, just as bad but Cardinal Law has a place of eminence in Rome. Nuff said.
After I went on birth control, I was just fine. Fun sex without the worry of pregnancy. You should try it, Lori, if that’s how you roll. If not, that’s OK, too – despite what your church says.
“boy…you guys really think you’re doing someone a favor, don’t you…This is seriously spooky. I would hate for someone to kill me and think that they really did me a solid”
You’re not a fetus.
Wonder how many fetuses are currently blogging and on Facebook. I hear they’re really quite smart and are the masters of the witty riposte.
And BTW, I love how you “pro-life” “Christians” are so willing to shame and pass judgment on a woman who had a very traumatic experience regarding an abortion. Such compassion.
“You do realize that babies with a fatal fetal anomaly feel pain right? Every woman I know who had a LT abortion said they did so so their much wanted baby wouldn’t feel pain. But hey, if you wanted your child to die naturally, even though they will feel pain, that’s your CHOICE.”
Of course I realize they feel pain, it’s awful. Just like it’s awful that a little kid with cancer or an elderly person with emphysema feels pain. I just don’t think that it is good practice to give parents/PoAs rights to deliberately (as opposed to palliative care and no life support) kill someone. What other situations are acceptable to kill someone because they are in pain? Where does this end?
And really, I can understand the impulse to keep abortion legal for fetal anomalies. I don’t think it’s right, but I can see why some accept it. My real beef is with elective abortions, healthy mothers and babies where there aren’t any medical rationalizations for an abortion, at all.
CC, again with the Catholic bashing. What’s your point?
You’re not a fetus.
Nope. But we’re both human beings. I’m just a human being that’s older than a fetus. i still wouldn’t want someone doing that to me even if I were a totally oblivious 3 month old baby.
Wonder how many fetuses are currently blogging and on Facebook. I hear they’re really quite smart and are the masters of the witty riposte.
And even if I was found guilty of the crime of not being talented and adept enough at banter to amuse or entertain you. Other human beings have value and should be afforded rights according to their humanity, not whether or not pro-legal-abortionists can find any (entertainment) value in them.
“What does that sentence have to do with leveraging the story of your sick and dying child to attempt to legitimize the wanton killing of thousands of healthy children daily? That does not answer the question of why you would use what is essentially the natural death of your child as a soapbox for women who are going out of their way to pay for their healthy children to be killed. This would be equivalent to a mother whose young son died of leukemia rallying around Susan Smith because “hey, we both gots dead kids, right? Same-same!” when any rational person can see the glaring difference.”
That has to be the most far fetched comparison I have ever heard. Susan Smith drowned her kids, they weren’t sick. Big difference.
I wouldn’t have used my story to defeat an abortion ban if the genius’s who wrote the bill had not tried to make it a felony to have the selective reduction which saved my son’s life. Goes to show how little they actually know about complicated pregnancies. In fact, when our commerical hit the air, they hadn’t heard of it and had to google it. I know that from their press release.
And my son’s death was not natural.
Here’s a story for you Jack, a family member of mine, his brother’s wife was dying of cancer, they had exhausted all treatments. She was in awful pain and asked to be put out of her misery, but she had a strong heart, so one of her family members gave her too much medicine, knowing it would kill her. This woman, and all the family members involved, were strong Catholics, she was happily married with two small children. Do you think they did the wrong thing? The woman was in extreme pain and just wanted to die. And I know that the family members don’t think of themselves as murderers, they wanted to help their sister, daughter, wife, pass away like she wanted.
I’ll never forget my cousin who died at 19 from cancer. Towards the end he was in so much pain he couldn’t wear clothes or have a blanket draped on him. It was painful just to lie in bed. My mom was allowed in, but he didn’t want his cousins to come into his room and see him like that. He also just wanted to die.
Tiffany, I am probably in a very tiny minority on this blog, because I do not have a problem with people choosing to end their own lives if they have a terminal illness. I have seen more suffering people than I ever cared to, and I really can’t get too worried if someone chooses not to live through horrific pain. The problem is when other people get the choice to end someone else’s life. That is a whole different ethical issue. I don’t want anyone to have the legal right to end someone else’s life. If we are to have consistent laws, everyone needs to have their right to life protected against other people.
Anyway, it’s a very small percentage of abortion which are due to medical reasons at all. I really don’t understand why everyone focuses on these cases, when most abortions performed are for reasons that have nothing to do with medicine. Do you think all abortions have to be legal in order for the cases you are talking about to be protected?
Tiffany, if I am not mistaken, for Catholics it is permissible to administer pain medication that may have the effect of shortening someone’s life if the intent is to eliminate or control pain.
But glad to see that you are cool with all the funky stuff that we used to do to our bodies to expel fetuses. Many women were injured (try douching with physo-hex) and some women died – but then they were just being “punished” for going against their basic role in life (according to your church, anyway.)
No, CC, they were not being “punished” for their sins or for “going against their basic role in life” My Church does not teach that at all. The Church simply does not and never has taught that women’s sole purpose in life is having babies. I dare you to show me a magisterial document that says that.
No, what happened was these women did stupid things by putting foreign objects in their bodies and ingesting poisonous substances. There are foreseeable consequences to all these things in the laws of nature.
I certainly don’t want any woman to die for any reason. I feel sorry for the women who did these things. But you must admit they had a choice to do them or not. They had a choice to do this or to preserve their child’s life. Their unborn children got no choice at all. And I know sisterhood is powerful but really — poor martyred you. You apparently suffered no ill effects from your turkey-baster caper — but your unborn child died (or maybe did). And still I feel sorry for you.
What Pope are you talking about and where did he ever say “abortion is the greatest sin”? I don’t anything of the kind in any papal document.
Trying to pull women back from the sin of abortion or trying to get them to admit their wrong is not shaming them or blaming them. The Church is only holding out the medicine of mercy here. Women’s souls are hurting. I can tell yours is hurting too.
It seems you have some terrible anger issues with your mother, from things you’ve said here and elsewhere. You’ve never once mentioned your father, so I assume he was never in the picture. Quite a childhood and youth. I’m sorry you’re still trying to medicate for your pain with the Catholic-bashing. It’s childish and wearing very thin. Still it always feels better to blame others rather than yourself, doesn’t it?
God’s mercy is available to you, CC. Deny it all you want, but you need it.
That has to be the most far fetched comparison I have ever heard. Susan Smith drowned her kids, they weren’t sick. Big difference.
And way to miss my point. Let me spell it out for you:
You====> mom whose son died of leukemia
Moms going out getting elective abortions because they want it====> Susan Smith
Get it yet? You/mom with leukemia are using your story of your sick and dying child to come to the aid and defend the legality of the practice of other moms who don’t have sick and dying children killing those children because they want dead children like Susan Smith wanted dead children. Why?
Hi Tiffany,
It’s called sarcasm.
Sorry. I don’t expect compassion from you or anyone else who is proabortion.
You aren’t here looking for compassion. You don’t come to a prolife blog as proabortion as you are and look for compassion. You are here to once again tell us that your experience somehow warrants healthy women aborting healthy babies electively by the thousands each day.
Yeah. I’ll stick to what I know. Abortion.
How many folks continually talk about something they DON’T regret? Or claim they don’t regret?
I will never understand women that claim they don’t regret their abortions CONSTANTLY having to talk about how they don’t regret them. Maybe to try and convince themselves that they don’t?
There used to be a young lady(Amanda?)that would come here every couple of months and say, “Still don’t regret it, Carla!”
When I don’t regret something, I forget it. I don’t bring it up. It doesn’t come to mind.
I agree Carla. I don’t see any reason for people to talk about something constantly that didn’t bother them. I was debating on a forum where one woman’s handle was Iam Notsorry, and she was one of the angriest and unhappiest people I have ever talked to. :( To be fair, it s seems that Tiffany was sad about her situation. Still not a reason to advocate for elective abortion.
JackBorsch says:
July 29, 2011 at 8:06 pm
I suspect we’d differ on some end-of-life issues, but you stated the distinction well as you see it. It’s undeniably a huge distinction, and I wish there were more people like you who understand it. If there were, there’d be a lot more pro-life folk.
Geez, I wonder if anyone is strongly against “mercy killing” (to cite just one end-of-life issue) but is pro-choice. Now THAT would be weird…
We shall be blamed for it, Jack. No worries there.
“If you guys weren’t always talking about how you regret your abortions then we wouldn’t have to be out here telling you how we DON’T regret ours!!”
:)
I thought this was a really good point that bears repeating:
Gerard Nadal says:
One cannot reference an abortifacient as somehow being really good at helping to lower the rate of abortions.
Jack, if your child was terminally ill and on life support machines, you could legally take her/him off. If you can do that after they’re born, why can’t you do it when they’re in the womb?
Tiffany, since you also trust women to decide when to kill perfectly healthy children in the womb, why can’t they legally kill them outside of the womb. Do they suddenly lose their trustworthiness in deciding when they should kill their children?