Jivin J’s Life Links 9-23-11
by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat
- Canada will start funding International Planned Parenthood again – this time only in countries where abortion is illegal:
Planned Parenthood, which provides an array of sexual and reproductive health services, including abortions, abortion counselling and training for providers, is getting the federal funding after [International Co-operation Minister Bev] Oda let the agency’s previous request sit on her desk for a year without a response, and after a Conservative MP told an anti-abortion group that the government wouldn’t be giving the organization any money.
Oda’s decision to approve Planned Parenthood’s proposal comes more than a year after Canada was embroiled in controversy over whether to fund abortions as part of a G8 commitment to improve maternal health in developing countries….
The funding is worth $6 million over three years for Planned Parenthood to work in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Mali, Sudan and Tanzania, where abortions are illegal except in cases where the mother’s life is at risk.
- Secular Pro-Life reviews a recent story on Jezebel about a woman who allegedly went to a CPC in New York, thinking it was an abortion clinic:
Some things are just too much for the human heart to handle, and the knowledge that you’re responsible for the death of a real live human being is one of them. She initially felt that the pregnancy center volunteers were honest and kind. But she can no longer feel that way, not after making the decision she made. And so, she demonizes the pregnancy center movement in an effort to avoid her grief.
It isn’t working, though: she says that “It’s taken me the two years since [the abortion] not to break down every time I think about it.”
She blames the CPC for her grief because while there, she watched the moving image of her 3 1/2 month old preborn child on the ultrasound screen and later chose to abort.
- At Public Discourse, Christopher Kaczor responds to Dennis O’Brien’s “Can We Talk about Abortion” piece:
O’Brien does not deny the harm of abortion, but he does seek to contextualize it in the intimacy of gestation. The reality of pregnancy—the unique, intimate relationship of the human being in utero and the pregnant woman—changes the ethics of feticide: “The pregnant woman’s womb is not just a geographic location for an independent entity that would be the same if it were located someplace else.” To deny this reality is to reduce the pregnant woman to a “container.”
The intimacy argument, as articulated by O’Brien, begs an important question: Why should independent moral status require independent physical status? We don’t think that one conjoined twin may licitly or legally authorize a third party to kill her conjoined sister in order to terminate their intimate relationship. Indeed, the intimate relationship that always exists in pregnancy is a powerful argument against abortion. Every human fetus is a mammal, and every mammal has a mother. Sound ethical reasoning and just laws hold that human mothers and fathers have serious duties to care for and, above all, not harm their own dependent progeny. So, the intimate relationship that exists in every pregnancy gives rise to the duty of the mother not to harm her own child prior to or after birth, including by prematurely ending the child’s life. Precisely because an expectant woman is a mother rather than a mere container, she has duties to her dependent unborn child.
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 read this Jezebel story. It was obvious that the CPC workers cared so much for this woman and her baby. In fact, after her visit, she brought the sonogram home, thinking about keeping her child, only to have her boyfriend talk her out of it. How is that the CPC’s fault?
How sad that she feels the need to blame them for herguilt over killing her baby.
I read the Jezebel story, as well.
This young woman has chosen to blame both the CPC and her ex-boyfriend for her decision to kill her child – the CPC for not being a Planned Parenthood and for letting her see the ultrasound of her living, moving child, and her ex for “not supporting her.” Well, he took the ultrasound picture away, which you obviously didn’t want to see, so wasn’t he “helping” you?? This woman is very confused and very much in need of help. She states that her anger occurred AFTER her abortion. But amazingly, she’s not connecting her anger to the abortion itself, but to other events surrounding the abortion. This is very, very commonly seen in post-abortive women.
She admits that she wasn’t upset with the CPC workers until after her abortion. She even told her boyfriend, when she showed him the ultrasound picture, that they were trying to help her.
Seems to me that his response (taking the photo of their baby and hiding it in a drawer, face down), may have led to her feelings of being unsupported by him.
She watched their baby on the ultrasound screen and admits she can’t get the picture out of her mind (crying for 2 years every time she thought of it). The problem isn’t the ultrasound. The problem is that you killed your child and now you’re in pain and looking for an easy target to blame. Easier than blaming the real person responsible for your pain – you.
That Jezebel story makes me furious. Heaven FORBID someone help you understand what you’re doing so that it becomes harder for you to go through with killing your child. No, we should make it as easy as possible on you. Lie to you. Tell you it’s a clump of cells or whatever your little ears need to hear so that you can get through the procedure. After that, we’ve got your money, so go home and cry your eyes out b/c you can’t escape the truth forever. But at that point, you’re not our problem anymore.
She said: If you think you want an abortion you probably shouldn’t be having kids.
If you think you plan to kill the kids you conceive, you probably shouldn’t be having sex. Fixed that for you.
Regarding the Jezebel story, does this girl plan to ever have children? What did she expect 10 years from now when she is married and pregnant with a “wanted” child? When she gets an ultrasound at 10 weeks (even earlier than she aborted) and sees her baby moving and rubbing her face and twirling around… is she going to blame the CPC for that too? Is she saying she would rather have had an abortion ignorant of facts? Is she saying she wishes she were lied to? Talk about female empowerment. Abortion shows that is such a crock of poo. They are not about female empowerment. They want to abort and don’t want to feel any guilt. But whether the CPC was there or not I guarantee you she would still be feeling the guilt of what she did.
Btw, I love love love that quote “An expectant woman is a mother not a mere container.” THANK YOU! That precisely sums up why I have always felt disrespected as a woman by the pro-choice community. Because they treat me in my pregnant state as a mere container and not as the mother I am. So so so true!
As for the Jezebel story, the only weird thing is that they aparenty never told her they didn’t perform abortions
She walked in and said I’m here for a surgical abortion. Doesn’t anyone else think the woman should have said we don’t do abortions? Does no one else think that is weird?
Regardless of our views on abortion I hope we can all agree it’s rediculous to think you are in a doctors office for an appointment and the office doesn’t stop to say sorry we aren’t the office you made an appointment with! If they wanted to talk to her after that by all means talk to her. If they wanted to give her more information to encourage her to keeP her baby, great. But they should have let her know at some point she wasn’t getting the service she thought she was and if she was as misled in the way she describes I hope the people on staff lost their liscences (if they had any ) and were sued
Well golly gee whiz Shannon…..when she didn’t get undressed, put the gown on, get in the stirrups, have her cervix dilated and hear the suction machine turned on by the abortionist she maybe got a clue that no abortion was forthcoming!! Shouldn’t she have just LEFT?
sheesh why are women supposedly so empowered at the abortion mill and dumb as a box of rocks at a CPC???
I tried making a comment to silentnomore and rachelsvinyard at the Jezebel article, and submitting that I too had been through an abusive babydaddy attempting to pressure me to abort. Comment flagged as spam. 9_9
*with mentions to silentnomore and rachelsvinyard
Shannon, the fact that this story is being published now is no accident. You are probably aware that New York City (where this story takes place) recently passed a law saying that CPCs must post prominent signs saying they aren’t abortion clinics, don’t give out contraception, etc. It was very soon struck down by a federal judge and I believe is now being appealed. (I live in New York and have followed the whole thing). It’s part of a whole campaign by NARAL and other pro-abort orgs to pass similar laws. I suspect this story was published as propaganda.
And in addition, there are a lot of fishy things about the story. This supposedly proudly pro-choice girl goes in for an abortion; the staff spends an hour or so trying to dissuade her from having one with everything they’ve got — and she has no clue she’s not in an abortion clinic until she goes home and her boyfriend tells her? Seriously? I suspect they did tell her where she was and that she knew all along, but doesn’t want to admit it in front of her pro-abortion friends – what “pro-choice” person is going to be caught dead in a CPC?
And other stuff is weird, like her insistence that there was no one in the waiting room and they apparently weren’t open for business; no one there but her and the staff. That just doesn’t make sense — but it’s a good way of dissuading people from trying to find other witnesses to this event. I’ve noticed that there never are any witnesses or corroborating evidence (like videos) when the pro-aborts go after CPCs.
For pro-choice purposes of course, it’s a great story of how powerful pro-life propaganda is – they even almost persuaded a pro-choice girl not to have an abortion, until brought to her senses by the boyfriend taking the ultrasound away. Horrors! Someone almost escaped abortion!
I would certainly say that this girl went to a CPC and did have an abortion and does regret it, but that there was a lot of “color” added to this tale and not everything was truthful. She is emotionally trying to persuade herself of something; that doesn’t make for great truth-telling.
Sydney: I have always felt disrespected as a woman by the pro-choice community. Because they treat me in my pregnant state as a mere container and not as the mother I am.
Sydney, it would never even occur to me to think that way. Really, no matter what – and especially from a pro-choice point of view – you’re not just a “mere container.” If anything, I’d say that type of thinking is the province of pro-lifers.
I know how incredibly important it is to some people to have kids, and if you want to have ’em, all fine and good by me.
Doug-
I’ve been called an “incubator” more times than I would like to recall simply because I did not kill my daughter in an abortion after conceiving her under horrible circumstances. Don’t kid yourself.
Shannon,
I agree with everything that Lori said, and would like to add another dimension to this story.
The dynamic of dealing with death is an interesting one. People often construct fantastic explanations for deflecting blame, or even just with coping in the face of sudden or tragic loss.
Martha blamed Jesus’ absence for the death of her brother Lazarus: “Lord, if you had been here my brother would not have died.
Children, egocentrists that they are by nature, blame themselves for the death of a parent: If I were better behaved. If I loved mom more. If I had prayed harder…
People blame physicians for not doing enough when all that medicine has to offer has been deployed.
In fact, blame is the common thread all too often in coping mechanisms, and that brings us to the woman in question. She is in the worst situation of all. She is responsible for the murder of her child, and I use murder here because the CPC showed her the baby on sonogram. She was determined to kill that baby, and now the CPC is at fault for actually giving her the full information that she as a patient needed to make a fully informed consent for the surgery.
This actually speaks devastating volumes against the abortion industry who obviously do not give women the opportunity to give fully informed consent. The first consideration in the ethics of manipulation is to ascertain the identity and status of that which we wish to manipulate. Ascertaining the identity, nature and status of an appendix, we can safely consent to its removal if diseased. We cannot with a diseased brain, for obvious reasons.
The CPC did something the abortionists fear most…
They identified and revealed the nature and status of the organism under consideration. If this woman is so riddled with guilt, it begs the question:
Why?
If there is nothing wrong with tearing a three-month old baby apart, what is it that the CPC did that was so very wrong? This woman would have us believe that they lied to her, et to date no lawsuit has ever been filed against a CPC in NYC for this or any other behavior. She pines for a do-over where she shows up at an abortion clinic and is lied to by omission, by having her baby’s identity and status kept hidden from her.
I feel terribly for this woman. She was given the grace of truth and plowed through it to murder her child.
I also think that this woman’s guilt and sorrow are the essential first steps in her healing and redemption. The greatest victims are the women who deaden their consciences and devote themselves whole-heartedly (Black-heartedly) to aiding women in murdering their children as well.
This is ultimately a story with a silver lining.
I probably should add that I am in favor of abstinence from all sexual activity. I have a close friend in her 40s who is a virgin and a close male friend in his 30s who is a virgin. I used to have another friend who was in her late 20s and a virgin. I’ve heard she is still a virgin but we haven’t communicated in awhile.
All 3 of the above individuals live busy and interesting lives. The 2nd one is sometimes lonely and isolated but the other 2 make many platonic friends of both sexes. All 3 have interesting jobs and hobbies.
I have a close friend in her 40s who is a virgin and a close male friend in his 30s who is a virgin. I used to have another friend who was in her late 20s and a virgin.
Well, Denise, that’s a rare group, there.
“Well, Denise, that’s a rare group, there.”
My parents, my siblings, all of my close friends, and I were virgins when married. It is is more common than you think, and rarity is determined by your frame of reference.
Eric, it may be that I under-estimate it, sure, but I maintain that “rare” still applies.
Xalisae: I’ve been called an “incubator” more times than I would like to recall simply because I did not kill my daughter in an abortion after conceiving her under horrible circumstances. Don’t kid yourself.
X, I don’t think I’m “kidding myself.” I don’t see it as really “pro-choice” to be saying that. If anything, I’d say that’s people just ranting and/or trying to push your buttons. We see it from both sides of the argument.
@ Lori Pieper: You really nailed it. I don’t doubt that this woman did go to a CPC which did try to dissuade her from abortion. But which CPC? Where in New York is it located? What is its name? What were the names of the people she spoke with there? When did visit? Even approximately would be better than “sometime in the past…”
If you’re trying to discredit an organization, these details are important because they allow your story to be verified and serve as a warning for other people the group may target. If this particular CPC is so awful, why not name it specifically, so that others will know not to go there? By refusing to give such identifying details, she’s creating a boogeyman, which is much more useful for propaganda purposes.
Doug, I am curious why you would call a people who make certain sexual choices as a ”rare group” just because they are in the minority. I’d venture you would never refer to a group of homosexuals — a minority — as “that’s a rare group, there” because it implies abnormal.
Eric, I didn’t mean “abnormal” in any pejorative way at all. Just that it’s rare to find somebody who’s a 40 year old virgin, 30 year old virgin, etc.
The ‘Book of Ages 30’ says that 4 % of women are virgins then, 3% for men.
Among that group, women must start gettin’ after it a little more in their 30s, as by age 40 it’s 1.2% of men and 0.3% of women, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/3/government-survey-virgins-at-40-do-exist/
Where do we draw the line as far as “rare”?
Eric says:
September 24, 2011 at 9:59 am
“Well, Denise, that’s a rare group, there.”
My parents, my siblings, all of my close friends, and I were virgins when married. It is is more common than you think, and rarity is determined by your frame of reference.
(Denise) The 3 I referred are not “waiting for marriage.” They have no plans to engage in sexual activity at any time in their lives. The woman in her 20s lived in an “in name only” marriage for 6 years to a male best friend of hers.
“She blames the CPC for her grief because while there, she watched the moving image of her 3 1/2 month old preborn child on the ultrasound screen and later chose to abort.”
It can hardly be the CPC’s fault unless she specifically told them she didn’t want to see an ultrasound. Anyway, now she knows.
Free Father Pavone!
Amen!!! Free Father Pavone!
Doug, you’re right, as a statistic, 30-year old or 40-year virgins are in a minority, and I appreciate you didn’t mean to sound perjorative. However, as I said, you would not refer to any other sexual minority group as “rare” without sounding like you’re really saying, “they’re pretty odd.” I may be wrong, but I am confident if someone were describing their transexual friends, who make up even an even smaller percentage of US population, you would never even think to say, “that’s a rare group, there.” because it would sound condescending.
Eric, I see what you mean. It shows how things can be taken, and the different ways they can be taken. I think part of it is the lack of voice inflection and observed body language online.
If one says “rare” or “rare person” and it comes out like “an odd duck,” for example, or it’s like saying in a sarcastic manner, “Oh, well aren’t they *special*?” then I would take it the way you did.
I really was just referring to the rate of incidence, and hey – I would definitely say that transsexuals are rare, and that homosexuals are rare – I think the rate is between 1% and 3% there. 1 in 100 or 3 in 100 is “rare” to me. As far as drawing the line, and obviously it’s a personal thing here – I’d say around 1 in 40 is “rare.”
Is it rare to find a 40 year old virgin? I think so. But again – truly – no offense meant, and now that I’ve had my long and argumentative say, I’ll let go of the “rare” stuff.
I don’t think I can eat 50 eggs (at least not right now) but I bet I can drink more wine than 99% of the population, i.e. a ‘rare’ talent.
But kinda strange that Canada would only fun PP in countries where abortion was illegal….
Well said, Doug — you’re right, just like in e-mail, written comments here lack inflection and body language — thx for the interaction. A wine connoisseur? Are you partial to any particular variety? You may be able to drink more wine than 99% of all Americans (“rare”), but of course that *may* not translate into out-drinking Italians.
My wife is Italian. :) I like Cabernet Sauvignon, Pinot Noir, Syrah (also known as Shiraz in Australia), Grenache, Nebbiolo, Malbec, Merlot, Cabernet Franc, Riesling, Chardonnay, Sauvignon Blanc, to name just a few.
Va bene Doug. Tua moglie è una benedizione per toi. Le piace il vino rosso anche?
Couldn’t figure out “Le piace” without help… Oh yes, she likes red wine, but we both drink more white, overall. That said, the best red wines have an “impact” above the best whites, IMO and to generalize.
We definitely like Amarones, Chiantis, Barbarescos, Barolos, Brunellos and the “Super Tuscans.” Also some of the wines made from Grenache and Cabernet Franc.
Denise Noe says:
September 24, 2011 at 5:35 am
“I probably should add that I am in favor of abstinence from all sexual activity.”
Wow….
Eric, couldn’t figure out “Le piace” without help… Oh yes, she likes red wine, but we both drink more white, overall. That said, the best red wines have an “impact” above the best whites, IMO and to generalize.
We definitely like Amarones, Chiantis, Barbarescos, Barolos, Brunellos and the “Super Tuscans.” Also some of the wines made from Grenache and Cabernet Franc.