Life Links 11-29-11
by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat
- The Northern Illinois Women’s Center abortion clinic in Rockford will stay closed until at least January 4, 2012, when attorneys for both the abortion clinic and the state health department will have another hearing.
- Apparently, some pro-choicers at Harvard aren’t big fans of tolerance. From Aurora Griffin’s op-ed in the Harvard Crimson:
In response to the growing hostility toward discussion of the abortion issue on campus and dissolution into name-calling, as seen in the impressively consistent vandalism of Harvard Right to Life’s poster campaigns, I’d like to present a philosophical argument for the pro-life position. HRL’s innocuous “Smile, your mom chose life” posters have been ripped down within hours of posting almost without exception. At a school where free speech and diversity are valued so highly, this is a travesty.
- Lea Singh writes about the upcoming Gosnell murder case and the acceptance of late term abortion amongst some:
And yet, late-term abortions, effectively right up to the moment of natural birth, are not illegal in Canada or in many parts of the United States. If Gosnell had chosen to act in medically acceptable ways by dismembering or killing the fetus within the womb just before removing it, he would likely be a hero in the eyes of many for providing an essential service that empowers women. Who knows, he could have gotten the highest civilian award – a mere three years ago we bestowed the Order of Canada upon Henry Morgentaler [pictured left], a man who claims to have personally performed over 100,000 abortions.
Is it just me, or is there something sickly schizophrenic about a society that huffs and puffs in outrage at the killing of a baby in the light of day, but quietly supports it when it happens in the darkness of the womb? We are talking about the very same baby here, at the exact same moment of gestation, the only difference being the location of the demise. If we can kill a baby within the womb, why not outside of the womb? Viable babies are being put to death in late-term abortion clinics all over the United States, perhaps some in Canada. We call it “abortion” but in the light of day, these actions clearly are “murder.”
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.
Is it just me, or is there something sickly schizophrenic about a society that huffs and puffs in outrage at the killing of a baby in the light of day, but quietly supports it when it happens in the darkness of the womb? We are talking about the very same baby here, at the exact same moment of gestation, the only difference being the location of the demise. If we can kill a baby within the womb, why not outside of the womb? Viable babies are being put to death in late-term abortion clinics all over the United States, perhaps some in Canada. We call it “abortion” but in the light of day, these actions clearly are “murder.”
Here we go Duck. Answer this one. Explain it to this author how vaginas magically confer personhood.
It would be more applicable to cite the umbilical cord than the vagina.
Herman Cain. Spiralling down in flames. Bluster and pompously odd statements notwithstanding.
Anybody support him or (gasp) contribute to his campaign? ;)
I find Cain comes across as a nice person Doug, claimed indiscretions aside; nice but clueless.
What I found interesting was that the people who were all over Bachmann like a rash suddenly pushed her to the back of the room when the male equivalent – Perry – emerged. It was almost like “well we love her and all but lookie here, now we have the male version to support.” Kinda like a joke someone I worked with centuries ago always said – ‘I love women, I really do – but you can’t beat the real thing!’
Reality, you may be right about Bachmann – I wasn’t following things much then, but it’s entirely believeable. For both Bachmann and Perry, seemed like they were fast-punctured balloons.
On Cain, I don’t know – maybe he is a “nice person,” but to me it’s sure looking like he’s one of those that think he can skate across many things without really dealing with them, facing them, and just bluster onward.
I wasn’t aware that abortion advocates had condemned Kermit Gosnell’s “snipping” activities.
Last week, the Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette worked out a consent agreement with a Lansing area abortionist to shut down two abortion facilities and the comments to the Mlive article ranted about getting Schuette kicked out of office. This, in spite of the fact that the reasons Schuette went after this abortionist were (1) there was no doctor on staff and (2) the staff threw medical records into the trash. Now remember, this was a CONSENT agreement; the abortions were being performed by non-doctors and the staff was throwing private patient information out.
I will never understand abortion advocates.
Sydney: Here we go Duck. Answer this one. Explain it to this author how vaginas magically confer personhood.
I don’t think Duck is saying they do. ;)
Doug, she said on another thread that birth confers personhood. Birth occurs when the child emerges from the birth canal (or in c-section pulled from womb through abdominal wall) I’m not talking legally, I’m talking scientifically that the umbilical cord can still be attached and yet birth has occurred. I’ve not yet had my question answered why descent through the vagina makes a “potential human life'” an actual human life.
These people are NUTS. The poster “Smile, your mom chose LIFE!” and a picture of a smiling baby:
pretty effectively mocks and demonizes people who are pro-choice. I don’t think it’s a respectful or mature sentiment at all. I would simply like them to poster in a way that respectfully engages the Harvard community, rather than alienating a good number of its members out of spite or malice.
This is from a commenter on the Harvard story. Really? A smiling baby is spiteful? Malicious? It’s disrespectful? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
“No doubt I now grew VERY pale; but I talked more fluently, and with a heightened voice. Yet the sound increased — and what could I do? It was A LOW, DULL, QUICK SOUND — MUCH SUCH A SOUND AS A WATCH MAKES WHEN ENVELOPED IN COTTON.”
Guilt lies with the guilty party. The “malice” and “spite” seen by these people is not real. It is a mirage-a reflection of their own malice and spite towards their very own child(ren).
Am I the only one crying out to the Lord for the soul of Henry Morgentaler?
Jana…is that your real last name?!
Xalisae: Really? A smiling baby is spiteful? Malicious? It’s disrespectful? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
X, you’ve never seen Stewie on ‘Family Guy’?
X, I love it when you play the Poe card and deal it from the bottom of the deck.:)
Of course I have, Doug. And I guess you have a point. The one thing I can say he’s not is “funny”. McFarlane jumped the shark YEARS ago.
Sydney: Doug, she said on another thread that birth confers personhood. Birth occurs when the child emerges from the birth canal (or in c-section pulled from womb through abdominal wall) I’m not talking legally, I’m talking scientifically that the umbilical cord can still be attached and yet birth has occurred. I’ve not yet had my question answered why descent through the vagina makes a “potential human life’” an actual human life.
Sydney, okay, I see what you mean. As far as the status of personhood, that’s one thing, and yeah – we do it at birth though it does not have to be that way.
“Potential human life” sounds pretty wacky to me. On purely “being alive or not,” the unborn are as alive as the born are. If somebody is really saying that “it’s only potential human life until birth,” then that requires a fairly restrictive meaning for “human life,” one that imputes quite a lot to the term, more than what is usually required. If nothing else, I’d want an explanation just why they thought that.
Xalisae: Of course I have, Doug. And I guess you have a point. The one thing I can say he’s not is “funny”. McFarlane jumped the shark YEARS ago.
Damn, X, you’ve gotten around in your young life…. ;)
Stewie’s “world domination” shtick did get old pretty quick, but I think he’s largely given up on it. ‘Family Guy’ is funny sometimes simply because of just how stupid and ridiculous something is. It’s not for everybody.
To be serious, I’d have a mighty hard time saying that a “smiling baby can be spiteful.” Mind you, I have seen a very few babies that I wondered about, but for the most part they seem a non-spiteful lot.