(Prolifer)ations 9-30-11
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.
- ProWomanProLife remarks on this week’s World Contraception Day, pointing out that despite the avalanche of government-funded comprehensive sex ed instruction, distribution of condoms, and dispensation of birth control pills, “unsafe sex” has increased:
Young people across the globe are having more unprotected sex and know less about effective contraception options, a multinational survey revealed on Monday. [The study] reports that the number of young people having unsafe sex with a new partner increased by 111 percent in France, 39% in the USA and 19% in Britain in the last 3 years.
- Wesley J. Smith discusses another unintentional consequence of IVF – in this case, a divorced Argentinian mother is having her frozen embryos implanted against her ex-husband’s wishes. The ex argues he is being “forced into fatherhood” – but the fact remains that since the embryos currently exist, he is already a father.
- Stand for Life posts Ray Comfort’s 180 movie, stating “it is extremely impactful because one can see how the youth are struggling to reconcile their view of the Holocaust with how they argue for abortion.”
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y2KsU_dhwI[/youtube]
- In the same vein, Secular ProLife has guest commentary by Patrick Ptomey on the 180 movie:
“[Ray Comfort] did a wonderful job arguing for the protection of unborn human lives by capitalizing on the illogical and contradicting mindset of countless people. The best part is that he did this without bringing religion into the discussion. This is proof that people can understand abortion is wrong regardless of their belief system. I hope all of Ray’s fan base can see that abortion can be argued on a moral ground, using the issue of human rights to make their case.”
- Reflections of a Paralytic reports some good news as 40 Days for Life begins – the loss of an abortion provider in Columbia, Missouri:
This is not the first time they have been without an abortion provider. The PP in Columbia has gone through six different abortionists during the past two and a half years, including times during 40 Days for Life campaigns, and this facility has gone months at a time with absolutely no abortions.
- Real Choice asks who the pro-choicers will blame for the 1989 death of a 35-year-old who died from septic shock after her abortion. If this had occurred pre-Roe v Wade, the abortion industry would have blamed her death on pro-lifers. Who takes the blame now?
- The Passionate Pro-Lifer exposes those complicit in abortion through their involvement with abortion clinics: medical waste haulers. One in particular, Colorado Medical Waste Disposal, has the motto, “All waste is manifested for ‘cradle to grave’ tracking.” The preborn children they haul away had only a womb for a cradle and a garbage bin for a grave.
- Star Studded Super Step discusses the Face the Truth Tour coming to Dallas on October 1st, sponsored by Pro-Life Texas:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UT5zSsHxA8[/youtube]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
“The ex argues he is being ‘forced into fatherhood’ – but the fact remains that since the embryos currently exist, he is already a father.”
Not by the standards provided by the Heartbeat Bill supporters: “Science has already given us a yardstick to determine if someone is alive–a beating heart. — Lynn Wachtmann, Ohio State Representative and New Chair of the House Health Committee from heartbeatbill.com
To be fair, Steve, that quote can easily be taken as stating a sufficient condition to determine if someone is alive- not a necessary one. I too am quite uncomfortable with the Heartbeat bill, but I don’t think teh quote implies that a heartbeat is necessary to determine if something is alive.
Fair enough, Bobby. But given the post this morning regarding the supposed ridiculousness of pro-lifers opposing the bill, I think it’s necessary.
Bear in mind that my opposition is fundamentally different from that of the cowards with the Right to Life orgs. I can’t support a bill that explicitly throws some babies under the (big pink) bus. For example, from the text of the bill:
“Nothing in this section prohibits the sale, use, prescription, or administration of a measure, drug, or chemical designed for contraceptive purposes.”
Ella, anyone?
This bill also grants credence to the lie that abortion is therapeutic lifesaving health care: “Except when a medical emergency exists that prevents compliance with this division, no person shall perform an abortion on a pregnant woman prior to determining if the fetus the pregnant woman is carrying has a detectable fetal heartbeat. Any person who performs an abortion on a pregnant woman based on the exception in this division shall note in the pregnant woman’s medical records that a medical emergency necessitating the abortion existed.”
On 180.
I think it is fantastic!! BUT how can these young people NOT know who Adolf Hitler is?????
You can’t be pro-life and pro-contraception. Not possible.
180 is extremely powerful. I too was amazed that so many could say they had no idea who Hitler was. Something that really struck me, though, was when asked when it is OK to kill a baby in the womb, one girl replied that it is OK if she would just end up beating the child. So I guess in her mind, it is better to kill a child than to beat him. Is that what she would tell child abusers??
“comprehensive sex ed instruction” – what, like in Texas? And how’s the teen pregnancy rate there doing?
Comparisons of abortion with the holocaust are dishonest and insulting.
The holocaust was a government planned and enacted program to expunge an entire cultural group from existence.
Abortion is one person deciding to terminate one pregnancy in an individual circumstance.
No government plan to expunge an entire group exists. Nor is anything like that taking place in any form or by any measure.
If the government enforced the aborting of all fetuses then you might have a valid comparison.
Otherwise, no.
Reality, it is a perfectly reasonable and apt comparison. Abortion is the legal killing of an unborn baby, who is dismembered and then incinerated as waste. It is an entire class of humans who are dehumanized to ensure their killing is legal. The language used to dehumanize our babies, and to euphemize their killing is propaganda on the part of you pro-aborts. It is the same thing.
No government plan to expunge an entire group exists. Nor is anything like that taking place in any form or by any measure.
If the government enforced the aborting of all fetuses then you might have a valid comparison.
Otherwise, no Mary Lee.
The government legalize it which is nearly as bad. What happen if it legalizes killing of women rather the unborn. Then will you object if people compare it to the Holocaust if 30 million die as a result?
I mean it as in abortion.
Oh, I’m sorry, you mean all “unwanted fetuses” right? The fact that you use the word “fetus” only proves me right. And yes, abortion IS a holocaust, by definition. Try to pretend it’s not all you want, but you can’t manipulate the truth. You guys try so hard. Aw. It’s sad.
Bruce? Please, please do not start that nonsense again.
“The fact that you use the word “fetus” only proves me right.” – are you saying that there is no such thing as a fetus?
“And yes, abortion IS a holocaust, by definition.” – you are so wrong.
Try to pretend it’s not all you want, but you can’t manipulate the truth. You guys try so hard. Aw, shucks. It’s so, so sad.
hol·o·caust
[hol–uh-kawst, hoh-luh–]
Show IPA
Abortion is a holocaust.
Reality: “Abortion is one person deciding to terminate one pregnancy in an individual circumstance.”
Not if you live in China.
Perhaps the abortion holocaust in the U.S. isn’t government planned and enacted, but it’s certainly government sanctioned and promoted. But the holocaust wasn’t a tragedy because it was a government action. The holocaust was a tragedy because of the incredible destruction of innocent human life. A very valid comparison to abortion.
Regarding the 180 movie. Wow. Wow. Wow. So very powerful.
And yes, how can any young adult not know who Adolph Hitler was?
Reality, the Nazi government did not kill *all* the Jews. In many camps it was at the sole descretion of the individual jailers to kill individual Jews or keep them around for labor. Many were killed, many were rounded up en masse to be killed as well, but many survived as well. Some Jews were even jailers! So a holocaust does not need to kill all members of a specific group. In fact common use of the word holocaust and genocide only require the targeting of a specific group. Nor does it require that the group be targeted by the official government.
A certain group of human beings, pre-born human beings, are targeted by powerful social and political groups for death. What’s more these ‘individual’ women are subjected to great social and verbal pressure by those advocating for abortion. Many studies have shown the majority of women seek abortion at the behest, cohersion, or force of another.
I object when people use the word ‘genocide’ to describe attacks against races that leave some of that race behind. The word *once* meant the complete distruction of a race. Now it means the targeted distruction of members of a certain race. They don’t even bother to say ‘attempted genocide’ anymore, it’s just ‘genocide’. I still internally wince a bit when I hear ‘genocide’ used in it’s other-than-traditional way. But the fact is language is fluid and the use of the word has expanded.
Holocaust is currently used to describe the targeted killing of any group of humans, and is being frequently ascribed to the mass killing of *any* thing, human or not.
90% of Down’s Syndrom children are aborted. 60% of black children are aborted. Various majorities of children with other identifiers (such as dwarfism, conjointed twins, trisonomy 18 (sp?), and even females in some demographics) are also aborted. Social workers, genetic couselors, OBs, and others are frequently pressuring woman to abort with intimidation, lies, lack of information/outdated information, withholding of/threatening to withhold treatment, and simple old fashion badgering. There is no mistaking it, by the current definition of the word, abortion as a whole is a holocaust, even if each individual abortion is done independantly of the other (hardly the case when some clinics have enforced quotas or when some doctors/counselors *always* push for abortion).
You might not like the definition change, heck I don’t like that the word ‘slavery’ is understood by any English speaking person to refer to institutionalized racial slavery in England and the U.S. such forms of slavery are the historic exception, not the norm, but that’s what people think of when the word is used today. I’ll be the first to admit English is a very imprecise language. There probably *should* be a different term for a ‘holocaust’ that is made up of individual actions that, when taken as a whole, amount to the targeted destruction of a specific class of humans. But, alas, English doesn’t even let us differentiate between eros and agape!
Mary Lee – how is the fundamental mindset and practice behind abortion “nonsense”?
Contraception is the key issue from which the entire culture of death flows.
Lets stop fooling ourselves here. You can’t be pro-life and support either contraception or same sex “marriage.” To do otherwise is to remain hypocritical.
“any mass slaughter or reckless destruction of life” – well since that’s not happening, abortion isn’t a holocaust, or a genocide, or anything of that ilk.
“Not if you live in China.” – I can’t disagree with you Lrning, But that’s not an ‘abortion holocaust’ either. It’s a dismal policy to control population growth. It’s not predicated on abortion itself, it’s predicated on government enforced birth control.
“it’s certainly government sanctioned and promoted” – it’s not aimed at the expunging of every single fetus.
“the targeted destruction of a specific class of humans” – and again, that’s not happening.
Reality: “any mass slaughter or reckless destruction of life” – well since that’s not happening
I wonder how many have to be killed before you consider it “mass slaughter”? About 11 million were killed during the holocaust. About 53 million (in the U.S. alone) killed in the abortion holocaust. Yep, sounds like a “mass slaughter” to me.
Reality: “Not if you live in China.” – I can’t disagree with you Lrning, But that’s not an ‘abortion holocaust’ either. It’s a dismal policy to control population growth. It’s not predicated on abortion itself, it’s predicated on government enforced birth control.
“it’s certainly government sanctioned and promoted” – it’s not aimed at the expunging of every single fetus.
You seem to have an odd definition of holocaust. (A mass slaughter of human life carried out by a government for the purpose of expunging every single member of a particular group?) I think I’ll stick with the more common definition of the word (which Carla posted), you can have your odd definition all to yourself. It won’t help you when communicating with others, but you don’t seem very concerned about that.
Bruce, cut it out. I’m not falling into that trap again. Your posts are troll-like. You do not get to decide who is pro-life and who is not, just as pro-aborts do not get to decide who is “valuable” and who is not. This is the last time I will ever answer you. Please DO NOT RESPOND to me, and stop posting statements that are inflammatory and the literary equivalent to a caddle prod. It’s not funny, and your statements are patently false. ENOUGH.
The majority, as happened with the holocaust and various other genocides.
The rate of abortions within total pregnancies does not amount to ‘mass slaughter’.
Please, feel free to stick with Carla’s definition. It still isn’t applicable to abortion. There’s no ‘mass slaughter’ and there’s certainly no reckless destruction of life.
Reality, so for you to consider it ‘mass’ it has to be a majority? So is it an abortion holocaust against Down syndrom children since 90% of them are aborted? How about black offspring, 60% of them are aborted. Shall we go through each identifyable group whose abortion rate *is* above 50%? Or will a holocaust, in your mind, only exist if the total birth rate for all women falls below 50% of the pregnancy rate? After all, Hitler didn’t succeed in killing the majority of Jews worldwide, but only in a specific group of Jews, yet the holocaust is remembered to be ‘against the Jews’, not just ‘against German occupied territory Jews’. So, logically and consistantly, if it can be properly termed ‘The Jewish Holocaust’, then if a specific group of unborn (down’s, dwarfism, black, etc) is over 50%, even if it only somewhat impacts the rest of the overall group, it can still be properly termed ‘the abortion holocaust’ or the ‘prenatal holocaust’.
You’re missing the point Jespren.
There is no coordinated campaign to expunge any identified group. And certainly not in regard to fetuses.
The only campaign which could be seen as coordinated is the one which aims to give each and every individual woman the freedom to choose what is best for her.
So anyway you look at it there is no ‘holocaust’ or ‘genocide’ of any sort.
Reality, wow, um, I think you need to visit reality more frequently. There is a strong and concerted effort by geneticists and OBs to make sure every pregnant woman is given genetic testing and any baby found to be flawed aborted. There is a huge push by social workers to counsel young and/or poor woman and/or woman with ‘too many kids’ to abort current or future pregnancies. They have even passed laws in an attempt to stop the blatant pro-abortion counsel given after genetic testing. A woman who finds she’s pregnant with a down’s baby isn’t asked if she needs information on downs syndrom, she’s asked when she’d like to schedule the abortion!
Even woman who agree to genetic testing can get the pro-abortion push before the testing is even done! I have personal experience with this. When I was asked to sign a consent form for the quad screen during my first pregnancy I said ‘we can do that if you want, that’s fine, but the results are immaterial; I would never abort.’ The OB proceeded to give me a 15 minute long lecture on how horrific some birth defects could be and how, if I refused to consider termination a possibility, she “wouldn’t feel comfortable continuing to see me”, when that didn’t sway me she set up a mandatory evaluation (if I wanted to remain in the greater practice) with a geneticist and a high risk OB to go over ‘the realities of possible birth defects’. I wasn’t even in a high risk group to have a birth defect, nor had the testing been done (no defects detected) and this woman wouldn’t accept that I wouldn’t terminate *if* a problem was found. My story, far from unique is AVERAGE. Almost every pregnant woman I’ve spoken to through 2 pregnancies will tell you the doctor or nurse made it clear the point to the quad screen was so an abortion could be procured in a timely manner. It’s systamatic and very intentional.
Reality, why are you even here?
Oh, because your mom thought you were valuable enough to keep.
Please answer this: when, in your life, did your life become worthwhile? Give me a short answer, no political posturing. Just WHEN.
Better answer: You’re here because your mom AND dad engaged in a properly ordered (i.e., non-contracepted) marital embrace.
Because they were in this together. Because they decided not to be selfish. Because they wanted God in their relationship at all times. Because they did not want to distort His creation and His plan.
I actually have a similar experience to Jespren. I am on Medicaid, so everything that is SOC for pregnancy should be covered. And yet, I still got a bill for one of my prenatal appointments- the one in which I got the quad screen, while making it clear that I wouldn’t abort, irregardless of how it turned out. All I can figure is that someone decided that a quad-screen just for informational purposes is a “luxury” while a quad-screen with an eye to abort the “undesirables” is covered, probably along with the abortion itself, since it would be for “fetal abnormality.” Still gives me the willies today, and my son is 2.
Reality,
Putting aside the fact that you don’t think the fetus is a life, are you really arguing that the Holocaust was a tragedy b/c it was a government plan? Would it have been less of a tragedy if Hitler had just said, “Jews are not fully human, the German citizenry is free to make it’s own individual decisions as to whether a given Jewish person lives. You can kill a Jew b/c they get in your way or just b/c you don’t want them living next door to you. Make sure you give the decision careful consideration. We’re not pro Jew-killing, but we respect the right of the citizenry to make it’s own decisions on the issue.” As a result, 6 million Jews are murdered by German individuals. But there was no government plan – so it’s not a holocaust, right?
I once devised an expedient to deal with just these situations, folks. Just contrive a neologism!
So instead of a holocaust, call abortion a vertaan-kejist. Then define it using the same definition as holocaust.
It helps, because it eliminates the connotations that are more central to our arguments, often, than the denotations.
Try it. It actually works. ;-)
I am pro-life and pro-contraception.
Bruce: Better answer: You’re here because your mom AND dad engaged in a properly ordered (i.e., non-contracepted) marital embrace.
Because they were in this together. Because they decided not to be selfish. Because they wanted God in their relationship at all times. Because they did not want to distort His creation and His plan.
How would you know this about Reality’s parents? Bruce, have your posts resulted in a conversion of heart and mind for any pro-contraception person ever? They seem rather uncharitable to me. We aren’t just to speak the truth, we’re to speak the truth in love.
Jespren, apart from within your whirlwind of imagineered propaganda, the fact still remains that there is no coordinated campaign to expunge any identified group. And certainly not in regard to fetuses.
She did indeed Courtnay. She chose to have me even thought there wasn’t any serious choice at that time.
When my mother decided to have me and I was born Courtnay.
“Better answer: You’re here because your mom AND dad engaged in a properly ordered (i.e., non-contracepted) marital embrace.” – ROFLMBO – they wanted to have sex Bruce, they weren’t planning to procreate.
Problem for you Bruce – they didn’t wed until my sister was about to be born, when I was almost six years old. I guess that might confirm what some people think of me ;-)
“Because they were in this together. Because they decided not to be selfish. Because they wanted God in their relationship at all times. Because they did not want to distort His creation and His plan” – stop, stop! You’re making it hurt. I’m laughing too hard. They had no desire or need of any ‘god/s’ in their relationship. They wanted sex, my mother fell pregnant, they decided they were quite happy with that, so here I am. If they had chosen otherwise then the only thing that would have changed is that I would not exist. And no-one would be aware of that in any way. No history, no knowledge, no anything.
Nice try CT, but there is still no coordinated or planned campaign to identify any particular group of people for any sort of action. There is no group of people, who on an individual basis or as a large or small group have an aim to delete all fetuses. Just because women are told they can have an abortion doesn’t mean there is anyone who is running around trying to abort every fetus, which would be analogous to the situation that you describe.
Nice try yourself Reality, but the government plan is not the analogy. The analogy to the Holocaust is good people standing by and doing nothing to stop a legal slaughter of a certain group of people who have been deemed less than fully human. Whether the slaughter was intended or merely permitted is irrelevant to the analogy.
“good people standing by and doing nothing to stop a legal slaughter of a certain group of people who have been deemed less than fully human.” – that’s not happening.
In your attempted analogy you stated that Hitler had just said, “Jews are not fully human, the German citizenry is free to make it’s own individual decisions as to whether a given Jewish person lives. You can kill a Jew b/c they get in your way or just b/c you don’t want them living next door to you. Make sure you give the decision careful consideration. We’re not pro Jew-killing, but we respect the right of the citizenry to make it’s own decisions on the issue.” As a result, 6 million Jews are murdered by German individuals. But there was no government plan – so it’s not a holocaust, right?
No-one is telling anybody they can abort other peoples’ fetuses of their own volition. In your scenario anyone can go around killing any number of an identified group that they wish.
Your analogy fails.
So if abortion is comparable to the Holocaust or slavery, then what does that make pregnant women? Slave drivers? SS officers? You’ll run into some conundrums if you actually think about the parallels you’re drawing. During the Holocaust, thousands of women were enslaved and used as sex slaves for prison guards (immortalized in the novel, “The House of Dolls”), and there are testimonies about women getting pregnant from these rapes and giving birth. Similarly, it was common practice for slave owners in the antebellum US to sexually exploit their female human chattel (“Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl,” anyone?). See how messy this is getting? The fetus is like the eighteenth-century slave, who could have been a woman with literally no right to control what happened to her body? What?? You can only make these ill-conceived comparisons if a) you’re dense b) you find it pretty easy to leave women out of the equation entirely.
Come on, pro-lifers. F- for intellectual laziness.
Come on Megan you just described yourself there as F intellectually. The reason why abortion is comparable to the Holocaust and slavery is because pro-aborts like Nazis and pro-slavery folks (who also argue for right to choose btw as their argument) have to dehumanize their victims to justify what they did to them. Folks of the rationale of the most rabid pro-aborts describe the unborn as rapists and parasites among other things. How different is that from how the Nazis describe the Jews? Funny how pro-aborts who often advocate for hate speech laws engage in the worst of them when it comes to the unborn. Abortion killed far more than the Holocaust did and did not merely take away one’s liberty but also one’s own life. And if you want to argue a person’s body is his or her own property then abortion violates one’s right to life, liberty and property at the same time.
Pro-aborts use many of the same arguments pro-slavery folks use. Whereas slavery folks say slaves were their properties pro-aborts argue that the unborn are their properties, ie, their bodies or parts of their bodies to be disposed of as they pleased. Just as slaveowners accused abolitionists of forcing their religious fanaticism pro-aborts say same about pro-lifers including atheist pro-lifers. And just as pro-slavery folks argue for right to choose to own slaves so do do pro-aborts argue for right to choose abortion. Finally just as pro-slavery folks argued it is privacy issue (see how often the words private property abound in their defenses of slavery) so do pro-aborts say any restriction on abortion is invasion of privacy. And both want aid from the federal government for those rights!
Not to mention as stated before both dehumanize their victims.
Pro-aborts use many of the same arguments pro-slavery folks use.
There are people right now, today, who would advocate taking away the rights that some other people have, and re-instituting slavery.
There are people right now, today, who would advocate taking away the rights that women have, with respect to the abortion debate.
What rights are we talking about?
The right for women to drive, vote, work, pierce their ears, worship, start a business?
OR
the right to kill their own fully alive human child?
That is not a right. Anyone who thinks it is needs help. Serious help.
And anyone who wants to reinstitute slavery? As in African American slaves? Seek help.
Doug you just proved my point: just as slaveowners claimed that to take away their rights to own slaves would to enslave the slaveowners pro-aborts say to take away their rights to kill their unborn would be to enslave the pro-aborts. Never mind the victims of their crimes against humanity.
“No-one is telling anybody they can abort other peoples’ fetuses of their own volition. In your scenario anyone can go around killing any number of an identified group that they wish.”
You’re quibbling over irrelevant details. If anything your additional points only show that abortion is like slavery + and a holocaust. So you can’t go around killing less than humans unless you OWN them. So I’ll restate. Hitler announces Jews are less than human, you can keep them as slaves. And you can do what you want with your slaves including kill them. But you can’t kill someone else’s Jew. What of the unowned Jews? Well I imagine the facility in which they are kept is free to do with them as they wish – experiment on them, freeze them, destroy them.
As a result of these policies, 6M Jews die. You’re right – those details made it so much less tragic.