Pro-life blog buzz 8-21-12
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.
- Wesley J. Smith reports that Pat Robertson is in the news again for making outrageous comments – this time, against adoption!
- Abolitionist Society of OK discusses how, even if we are unable to personally adopt, we can help international orphans.
- Abstinence Clearinghouse has information on a “recent study performed by the Ruth Institute [which] showed that teenagers that watch the sex scenes of popular movies are more likely to engage in sexual activity. The study is great proof of how the media truly affects the development and decision making of adolescents.”
- Live Action posts an excellent response to the often-used argument from abortion advocates (represented in the image at left) that embryos and fetuses are “not human beings” or “not people.”
- The Anti-Abortion Gang shows how abortion proponents are, naturally, blaming pro-life laws for the death of a pregnant teen with leukemia in the Dominican Republic. Doctors said the girl’s prognosis was poor regardless, because of her type of leukemia. And, as AAG notes, the girl could have received chemotherapy despite her pregnancy. (Recent studies have also shown that chemotherapy does not harm preborn children.)
- LaShawn Barber discusses recent news of an Oregon law which allows “free” teenage sterilizations to be performed on willing children – without parental consent.
- Fletcher Armstrong says the pro-life truth trucks are busy this election season, and are receiving quite a bit of media attention. Those involved say they are prepared to answer the usual “I don’t want my kids to see this” objections.
- Culture Campaign reports that Planned Parenthood’s push to encourage oral sex to teens as a means of pregnancy prevention is unsafe, thanks to the possibility of transmitting chlamydia, genital herpes, gonorrhea, and syphilis.
- Kelly Clinger follows up on her viral post and photo of a young woman aborting twins at 20 weeks for reasons of gender bias. Kelly was verbally attacked after the post because even some abortion advocates refused to believe the context of the photo. But there is also good news:
The majority of the responses have been ones of eyes opened. Many pro-choicers surprisingly responded with shock and horror that this was happening and said they were completely unaware. Some of them said they could no longer support abortion because of what they now know. - Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life posts a must-see video of former abortionist Dr. Anthony Levatino, describing second trimester abortions before a House committee:
Dr. Levatino later says: “Some people think the doctor waves his hand and the baby disappears. It just doesn’t happen that way.” He calls D&E abortion “absolutely gut-wrenching for the physician… to literally tear a human being apart with your own hands.” He explains why he changed his mind about abortion toward the end (beginning at about 2:50) of this clip.
Aug.21, 2012 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.
Oh my gosh these people are so unscientific. It’s shameless beyond belief that they say we are the anti-science people.
Of course a raw egg is not a chicken. But if it’s a fertilized egg it contains a tiny unborn chicken. And the unborn chicken survives by being nourished by the food in the egg. What is shown in the picture is the food absorbed by an unborn chicken, outside the egg shell.
Ditto on the acorn. It contains a tiny embryonic tree and food to nourish it. This is taught in middle school science class.
A clump of silk will never be a dress if left to its own devices. This one is patently absurd.
The worst part is that the final picture is in fact NOT a person, since fertilization hasn’t happened yet. A new life doesn’t begin until the sperm’s nucleus combines with the egg’s nucleus. More middle school science. But yeah we’re the anti-science, anti-intelligence people.
A chicken egg does not have a soul, an acorn does not have a soul, a silkworm larvae does not have a soul, BUT, a human zygote has a soul. Therein lies the difference.
A person would do themselves well if they would only spend a bit more time thinking about any and everything proponents of abortion to do to try to make abortion sound logical and moral.
Remember, they are expert at crafting lies and deception.
Abortion is ‘insanity’ and the pro-aborts are insane. There is no other way to describe people who support such heinous crimes.
My life didn’t begin while the sperm and egg were still distinct, but as soon as conception occurred and my DNA became what it IS and always WILL BE, my life began.
Yes, Virginia, a zygote IS a person.
When did your life begin?
It is heartwarming to know that Dr. Levatino’s pro-abortion heart and mind were converted to PRO-LIFE. Prayers work! May God bless him and his family and those people who are converted to the cause of honoring the dignity of every human life.
Why should adoption be looked at as a sacred cow? It seems to me that it is automatically very traumatic for a girl or woman to carry for a full 9 months, go through childbirth, and hand the baby over to someone else to raise. The process of carrying and giving birth prepares the woman’s body to nourish the baby. Her breasts are filled with milk for the baby. Yet we are supposed to believe that there is nothing the least bit wrong with her exiting the baby’s life even when she is physically prepared to nourish the newborn.
In this way, adoption resembles surrogate motherhood, another practice that is problematic IMHO.
Some people recognize that a birthmother might grieve because the bond is broken through adoption. Isn’t it likely that the bond goes BOTH WAYS? In other words, the carrying and birth have bonded the baby to that particular mother so for her to disappear from the child’s life causes harm.
Adoption is strongly linked to things that are anti-life such as serial murder and parricide. I’m not saying the practice should be abolished. After all, women will always die in childbirth. Some will give birth and then realize they just aren’t interested in raising a baby. Some will find that handicaps prohibit them from adequately caring for babies.
However, there is no reason to be enthusiastic about adoption.
Of course, adoption is often touted as an “alternative to abortion.” It’s not. It can’t be done pre-natally. There is no way — at the present time — to transfer from one womb to another. Thus, if a female finds the pregnancy itself intolerable, she can only abort or commit suicide.
When I point out truths about adoption, people think I’m justifying abortion. Not true. I’ve never had an abortion nor have I every placed a baby for adoption.
Wanted and accepted pregnancies are the goal.
A chicken egg does not have a soul, an acorn does not have a soul, a silkworm larvae does not have a soul, BUT, a human zygote has a soul. Therein lies the difference.
Erm, that may be a difference, but–scientifically speaking–that is not the difference. An unfertilized chicken egg like you buy in the grocery store is the hen version of a menstrual period (yet another reason I don’t like eggs, ’cause ew), an acorn is a complete organism of the tree species to which it belongs so it actually is a tree in that sense making this claim wrong outright, and a human embryo is not assembled or constructed or fabricated the way a dress would be making that one an apples and oranges claim. Those are the differences. Souls, while important, are not something science can measure or make any commentary on. They belong to philosophy or metaphysics.
Perfect, Alice. The chicken egg is not the same thing as the result of an egg which has undergone fertilization, the acorn is of the same substance as teh oak tree (so is teh same kind of thing), and a dress is an artifact, not a substance.
*whiny voice* But…you guuuuuuuuuuuys! Learning that stuff would require like, knowledge and investigation! Can’t I just live my entire life based off of how things look instead?! You’re like, SO MEAN AND STUFF. No! YOU’RE dumb! I’M smart! *sticks fingers in ears* I can’t hear you, la la la la la!
In my defense, a “jack” is a male donkey, and a jenny is a female. *innocent whistling*
I am not a donkey X. Lol.
I don’t like it when people base pro-life arguments on things such as souls. No one agrees on when or if they exist. I don’t even know if I believe in a “soul”. It is more accessible to argue like Alice did, from what we can prove.
that was supposed to go on the other thread, where I said a (supposed?) curse word, Jack. I don’t think you are a donkey. <3
For those who find it “outrageous” to make a statement “against adoption,” you might want to visit keepyourbaby.com. This is composed of both adoptees and birthmothers urging girls and women NOT to place for adoption.
This is easy.
Go to Google images and enter “joey pouch.” You will see what we learned in, yes, yet again, middle school. The baby joey kangaroo emerges from the womb to outside the body (Barbara Boxer’s definition of when life begins) at a very early developmental stage relative to other mammals. He or she then nurses in the pouch when, (watch out – sciencey stuff ahead) other mammals by comparative biology would still be in the womb.
That mammal example is convincing.
Here is another one: caterpillar to butterfly. A caterpillar looks nothing like a butterfly.
Maggot, fly. If you discovered a maggot wiggling around in your meal, would you be OK since it is not alive, due to the fact that it looks nothing like a fly?
Being recognized as an organism does not depend on how many cells you have. You will get sick from amoebae, and they never get to have as many cells as a seven-week old fetus. An amoeba is a living creature.
Which came first, those who know where babies come from, or those who have conveniently forgotten? The former, of course. There are a lot of little kids who had this explained to them, and now are a whole lot smarter than almost half the country,
“This is not a difficult concept”
1) Your little graphic is not a scientific argument – it’s a “concept” based on false examples. Next!
2) Life begins at conception. Abortion kills humans. Killing humans is wrong. This is not a difficult concept. Just sayin.
Hi Jack,
Alice is correct and ‘science’ here is of little value. The ‘soul’ in Western philosophy is the principle which gives an organism ‘life’. Otherwise, there is no difference between a ‘corpse’ and a ‘living being’. Two things to note: 1) we take it for granted, but Rights belong to ‘living’/soul-filled humans….. before abortion not after (what we call ‘dead’).
2) Most hard-science is about ‘things’. This MAY include ‘living-things’ but far too often, not! It’s as if ‘living’ was an inconsequential phenomenon.
Libertybelle,
This is NOT as`simple` as most PL believe. If we follow the old dictum, `ět looks like a duck; it quacks like a duck: therefore, it is duck`, we PL would have tough time saying a human- zygote was `human`.
This DOES GET TRICKY though, because ‘soul’ also means the ‘faith-principle’ which animates living-humans. This is a historic (notably Jewish and what Hisman(above) sense. The difference between the two leads to some important differences. To many in the Jewish faith `human` begins only once it is soul-filled (at birth). During gestation it is only `human` to DNA (not practically and not metaphysically).
PC have been exploiting this `difference` for decades. we in PL-land do a dismal job in refuting this. Their winning is to be called(and treated) as trolls. maybe we should try `personalizing` our posts a little: instead of 2,109 dead babies, maybe “today, al, sylvia, heather, fred, jack, jim, Tom, joan …. and many other humans were killed via abortion.“ life is a privilege, such magnificent privilege.