Pro-life blog buzz 9-18-12
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.
- FRC Blog points out how Roe v. Wade itself, not the idea of overturning it, is what is truly radical.
- Fletcher Armstrong has more on the case of the director of the UK’s Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform, Andy Stephenson, who is on trial for violating the Public Order Act, which states no one can harass or cause alarm or distress to the public. What did Stephenson do that caused such alarm? He displayed a graphic photo of an aborted baby. (Update, 9/19: Live Action reports the charges have now been dropped):
- Live Action reports on the Virginia Legislature’s vote to make VA abortion clinics conform to the same health regulations as other outpatient surgical centers. The board of health had planned to use a “grandfather clause” to allow the existing 20 clinics to opt out, but the state’s attorney general stepped in and “warned that personal liability could result if the current grandfather clause was kept in place. The Board then voted 13 to 2 on Friday to reverse the earlier grandfather clause decision.”
- The Abolitionist Society of OK demonstrates how abortion proponents show their extreme pro-death mentality even when they might not mean to:
A pro-abortion user posted a photo intended to mock the abolitionist position [pictured left]….Clearly the implication is that it would be better for this child to have been aborted….
If we’re going to make the decision for someone else that their life is or is not going to be of what we think is sufficiently high quality, why stop with killing preborn children? Why make an arbitrary cutoff point at any age?
- ALL’s Judie Brown has some strong thoughts on the “hit parade of pro-abort Catholics” on display at the recent Democratic National Convention.
- Euthanasia Prevention Coalition writes about a Seattle attorney and two Montana senators who attempted to correct an inaccurate article on assisted suicide in the New England Journal of Medicine and were rejected. The “prestigious” publication first stated that they would not accept a rebuttal, no matter how inaccurate an article was proven to be. Later, they decided they would accept a rebuttal, but demanded the authors sign a non-disclosure agreement, even if the publication refused to print their rebuttal.
Sep.18, 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.
Between that New England Journal of Medicine story and the Canadian Medical Association declaring that “babies are not human until after birth”, I think that nearly the entire medical field is lost to us. The Hippocratic Oath is dead, and they’ve decided it is more important to line their pockets with abortion and euthanasia dollars than to acknowledge the truth, treat patients, and heal people. I weep for this corrupt world.
I read the piece on the FRC Blog. It was a good read. And it made a valid point about how politicians should respond to the question about Roe v. Wade. The blog stated the candidate she said Roe needs to be corrected and then offer specific areas where it needs to be corrected. My beef with this advice is twofold: 1) it seems the Candidate is knowledgable about life issues, and 2) that the candidates is fine with an incremental approach. Since there are many pro-life candidates who are nuanced in the intricacies of the prolife position, and even some who are (Todd Akin comes to mind), can make mistakes when taking about life issues. Shorter and more concise answers might be the more prudent way to go for political candidates, however, the prolife community can learn from this point. The prolife community can use the approach to convert the culture at large and soften the prolife public image. Similarly important, the blog identified the need for the prolife community to comfort/assure the general public that overturning Roe would not be cultural or legal chaos.
xalisae, the medical community is not lost – they simply have to be asked a specific “yes or no” type question opinion as to whether or not they regard the preborn child as being human life. Don’t ask the medical community for their political opinion. Framing the question is more than half the problem these days.
I read the piece on the FRC Blog. It was a good read. And it made a valid point about how politicians should respond to the question about whether Roe v. Wade should be overturned. The blog stated the candidate should say that Roe needs to be corrected and then offer specific areas where Roe needs to be corrected. My beef with this advice is twofold: 1) it assumes the candidate is knowledgable about life issues, and 2) it assumes that the candidates are fine with an incremental approach. Since there are many pro-life candidates who are not nuanced in the intricacies of the prolife position, and even some who are (Todd Akin comes to mind), shorter and more concise answers might be the more prudent way to go for our political candidates. Hhowever, the prolife community could use this approach to help convert the culture at large by softening the prolife public image. The blog also correctly identified the need for the prolife community to comfort/assure the general public that overturning Roe would not be cultural or legal chaos.
Hi Tyler,
I guess we should speak-up, but there are some of us who are left speechless/stymied by the horror of abortion. I also think that we do not live in a civil society, but one that fundamentally believes in the primacy of comfort. I have noticed some odd posts here (precipitated by the lady who condemned the picketing of an abortion provider at the abortionist’s home). [I am personally inclined to applaud this action + dogg her every step … picket her when she buys groceries; or, when she goes to the hairdresser; etc. Over-the-top? … imagine a teacher going to school with a machine gun. She proceeds to wipe out kindergarten. And says in her defense:: “I don’t kill ALL kids. I luvs kids.” At times words are useless. They appease the travesty of the situation.
Abortion is never, ever civilized. Some of our nitpicking in posts says otherwise!
We used to pray that God comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable.
I read Judy’s article as well. It was quite good.
John, I think we are on the same page on this issue. Just so everyone is clear: I am not saying that we should ”comfort” or reassure pro-active pro-abortion people or anyone that supports abortion but to simply comfort all American people (prolife or proabortion) that ending Roe would not result in legal chaos as those who promote abortion would have the American public believe.
However, the work of comforting the American public regarding the eventual fall of Roe will take work by the the prolife community, and it may afflict some prolifers who are comfortable and are not active supporters of the prolife position.