(Prolifer)ations 7-29-11
by Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN and Kelli
We welcome your suggestions for additions to our Top Blogs (see tab on right side of home page)! Email Susie@jillstanek.com.
- The Passionate ProLifer shares testimony from sidewalk counselor Jo Scott on her candid interaction with Orlando Women’s Center abortionist Randall Whitney at an Operation Save America church service. This must-read post demonstrates we must keep praying for those in the abortion industry.
- Wesley J. Smith reports a judge has disallowed a vote on banning circumcision in liberal, pro-abortion San Francisco.
- John Smeaton spots a strange story from the Daily Mail which could have been titled, “Have sterile cup, will travel.” Thirty-something British man Simon Watson (pictured left) skirts NHS regulations by delivering his “fresh sperm” to couples for insemination, charging more than double what he would make from donating at a sperm bank.
- Vital Signs observes, unsurprisingly, that the mainstream media is ignoring Americans United for Life’s recent announcement of the congressional investigation and exposé of Planned Parenthood. PP, likely confident of the cover provided by the pro-abortion MSM, has issued no response to the announcement.
- Reflections of a Paralytic describes recent instances of “IVF madness” such as selective reduction, eugenics, and controversy over embryo adoption in the Catholic Church. Obviously, this method of resolving infertility is fraught with moral and ethical questions.
- Real Choice questions whether race is a factor in the media’s reporting of abortion deaths.
- ProWomanProLife asks readers to scrutinize the conventional “kneejerk” wisdom that claims more contraception leads to fewer abortions.
- Secular ProLife links to a piece which reveals abortions performed due to fetal abnormalities in Japan have significantly increased, and for every live birth in Taiwan, there are 3 abortions, giving that country the lowest fertility rate in Asia.
- Pro-Life Wisconsin reports that Democratic Rep. Gwen “Ramen noodles” Moore (pictured right) has accepted an award from Planned Parenthood Federation of America. While Rep. Moore seems to believe abortion is better than growing up on mayonnaise sandwiches and Ramen, she ignores the fact that 24% of all abortions in her state are performed on the 6.2% African-American population.
- Recently, Monte at Stand for Life posted his objections to fetal pain laws and pro-life incrementalism. He now posts a rebuttal in favor of incrementalism by Paul Stark. Civil discussion of these views among pro-lifers is important.
- Suzy B notes the entertainment industry also seems to be in Planned Parenthood’s pocket. ABC’s Private Practice, starring avid PP supporter Kate Walsh, had a recent episode full of pro-partial-birth abortion propaganda.
[Watson photo via the Daily Mail; Moore photo via the Milwaukee Courier]
Jul.29, 2011 3:30 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 was thinking the story about the freelance sperm donor couldn’t get any worse and then I read this:
“I am still in contact with one lesbian couple who had a child by me. They send me photos of the boy, who’s five, and I speak to him on the phone. He calls me Dad. ‘I have no yearning to see the child. I’m happy to send Christmas and birthday cards or letters, if that is what the family wants, but nothing more than that.’”
SELFISH SELFISH SELFISH parents.
“Americans United for Life’s recent announcement of the congressional investigation”- AUL has the authority to announce congressional investigations?
I must have missed the establishing of this congressional investigation. When was it announced and by which congressional authority?
Reality – try reading the article. :)
It has been two weeks since the release of Americans United for Life’s exposé of Planned Parenthood and a week since their press conference on Capitol Hill featuring Reps. Renee Ellmers, Randy Hultgren, and Chris Smith.
I have JoAnna, I went to the AUL site as well. They’ve released a submission. Some congress people have stood up and said stuff. But I can’t find where it says that a congressional investigation has been established, can you show me where it does? And does AUL really have the authority to announce such a thing? I’m not making statements here, I’m asking questions.
“…she ignores the fact that 24% of all abortions in her state are performed on the 6.2% African-American population.”
And African Americans in thrall to the Democrat party have the nerve to call conservative Blacks “Uncle Toms?” The above is overwhelming evidence of Uncle Tomage if ever there was any (provided we even accept the epithet as proper in our public discourse).
More to the point, she seems to well fit Malcolm X’s description of the House Negro.
In this strange new world, the Planned Parenthood plantation doesn’t buy Black children to work the fields, it charges their parents for the service of killing them.
Let’s just put it this way — identity politics dies a little more with each minority person willing to kill their own child.
“Rep. Moore seems to believe abortion is better than growing up on mayonnaise sandwiches and Ramen”
Easy for you to say Ms. Moore, you’ve already been born.
I wonder if Ms. Moore also advises every poor person she comes across to commit suicide. I mean, if she thinks death is better than being poor shouldn’t she be helping those millions of poor people in the US see the mercy of her wisdom?
FYI- my response to Paul Stark on Monte’s website:
Paul, I appreciate your interest in trying to find the most effective way of ending or reducing abortions, but there are more complicated questions we have to answer, such as whether efforts to save “even a single human life” undermine our efforts to achieve “protection for every unborn child in law”.
Now, I know you tried to address this, but you did so mainly by reference to Clarke Forsythe, whose book is easily refuted. I’m currently completing a book which addresses all of these issues, including a refutation of Forsythe’s arguments.
I know it wasn’t your intent, but you also use a straw man argument, by saying we “contend that supporting an incremental law is wrong in itsself because such a law does not protect all unborn children.” Forsythe’s book intends to “refute” this straw man too, which is partly why it fails. Our concern on this point is twofold: 1) it’s not that these laws are incremental, it’s that they are moral compromises — I’ll show you in a moment some laws that are incremental and save lives, but which are NOT morally compromised; 2) these compromised laws aren’t bad because they don’t protect every unborn child, they’re bad because they set a false value separation between babies who are protected and babies who are not. You recognize that they’re all at risk right now, and you’re right, but by passing these laws we’re condoning the relative value difference between, for instance, babies who are older vs. younger (as Monte correctly pointed out, re: fetal pain).
These laws “teach” society, but they do not teach that every life is valuable. Instead, a law that says abortion prohibited after 20 weeks teaches society that abortion is bad after 20 weeks, but also teaches abortion is “okay” (society hears “less wrong”) before 20 weeks. Basically, society learns that the more a baby looks like a baby, the more wrong it is to end the baby’s life. This is a rejection of the Right to Life, and is instead upholding the concept of a “limited right to choose.”
Dr. New has done studies on some types of regulatory laws, and he thinks they’re great – his research shows that they’re stopping small percentages of abortions, and that is great. BUT his research says the most effective laws are parental consent laws, for obvious reasons — they impact 100% of the targeted group of moms. The great thing is 15% of underage moms are prevented from aborting by their parents. The tragic thing is the vast majority — 85% – of the parents tell their kids to go ahead with the abortion. That’s “buy-in” — that’s society learning they have a right to kill kids. And instead of just the moms being supportive of that right, now the parents support it too, and a parent’s support in killing a baby only reinforces the minor child-mom’s impression that it’s all right. That’s devastating!
The overall percentage of abortions impacted is small. Sure, it sounds great to think that 5% of 1.6 million abortions is alot. But at what cost? At the cost of entrenching abortion in the minds of the public? At the cost of reinforcing the concept of a “limited right to choose?” And these laws suffer from the laws of diminishing returns, too — 120 more laws would only save slightly more kids. The end result is while you might eventually impact 20-30% of abortions through these incremental laws, it would eventually become impossible to impact any more, and the remaining 70-80% of abortions would continue into perpetuity (partly because we’ve taught society they have a right to kill some kids — a “limited right to choose”).
There are uncompromised ways to pass incremental laws. Ultrasound bills simply say before you have an abortion you’re either required to see an ultrasound or sign a consent form waiving your right to see one. The 7-8 ultrasound bills passed recently basically say, “Do this, and then you can kill your baby” — the “limited right to choose” thing again. Instead, the same requirement could be made to apply to every pregnant woman. If we did it with every woman, and don’t connect it with abortion, it wouldn’t legitimize abortion in the eyes of society and the law.
The same could be done with parental consent — parental consent for any invasive medical procedure does NOT inherently endorse a “limited right to kill your baby”. But it would have the same impact on the number of abortions.
Just some ideas to promote thought, reflection and dialogue – I’m hoping you and others will read my full arguments in my book when it comes out soon.
Ed Hanks