Pro-life news brief 1-25-13
by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat
- The Pope has tweeted support for the March for Life.
- Gerard Bradley discusses the paradox of Personhood and how the Supreme Court’s refusal to address the most foundational question could resurface:
Roe’s shaky edifice is built on a studied and stubborn refusal to address the foundational question about who the law is for. This reticence is all the more remarkable because none of the seven justices in Roe’s majority seems to have believed that the unborn really are persons. They reckoned nonetheless that the constitutional law they produced could not be grounded in any answer — theirs, yours, mine — to that philosophical question. Their reticence was supposed to credential the Court’s judgment as somehow uniquely objective and thus supremely authoritative.
- Michael New reviews Dr. Monica Miller’s book, Abandoned:
Overall, the best service this book provides is to give the reader a window on the pro-life movement from the late 1970s to the early 1990s. During this time, clinic blockades played a prominent role in the right-to-life movement. This was for a couple of reasons.First, the Roe v. Wade decision occurred as the Vietnam War was concluding. Many thought that the same civil-disobedience tactics used by opponents of the Vietnam War would be useful in stopping abortion. Second, those who engaged in clinic blockades thought that these tactics were strategically shrewd. When arrested, pro-lifers invoked a “necessity” defense — stating that their conduct was justified as necessary to prevent public or private injury. They hoped a necessity defense would allow attorneys to present evidence documenting the humanity of the unborn — and ultimately lead to a reversal of Roe v. Wade.
- Despite the claims of some abortion advocates, Daniel Williams notes how the pro-life movement formed in many states before Roe:
In the spring of 1971, pro-lifers defeated abortion legalization bills in all twenty-five of the state legislatures that considered them. The next year, their record was almost as successful: Only one state liberalized its abortion law, and it did so only under court order. Pro-lifers were equally successful at the ballot box.When Michigan and North Dakota introduced voter initiatives to legalize abortion in 1972, pro-lifers defeated both measures by wide margins. By the end of 1972, pro-lifers thought that they were probably within only one year of repealing New York’s permissive abortion law, and the director of Planned Parenthood’s Western Region division worried that pro-lifers would soon make abortion illegal in California too. “In the West we view ’73 as a difficult year for abortion,” he confided to a colleague in the summer of 1972.
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’d like to make one point for xalisae and JackBorsch: I’m currently working on a crime story about a vicious female psychopath. She victimized her own son.
The truth is that psychopaths, including forcible rapists, CAN be unfailingly kind, loving, and protective of THEIR OWN CHILDREN even if they are unfailingly brutal toward EVERYONE ELSE. They also can treat their own children with the same brutality that they treat other people. There are many examples that go both ways.
It might be that a rapist could improve through a relationship with his child. It might be that he would harm the child. Since there is no way to predict, I suppose it is best to err on the side of caution and bar him from contact (unless PERHAPS supervised contact).
Conceived in rape Rebecca Kiessling is working with other attorneys to ensure that all 50 state bar rapists from having visitation rights to the children sired through rapes and also cannot block the birthmothers if they place the babies for adoption. The particular circumstances of rape might mean that the rapist-father is still obligated to pay child support even if he has no visitation rights. I pointed out to Kiessling that the legislation proposed at hopeafterrapeconception.org fails to address the support question. She agrees that it would be fair to hold them responsible for support but said, “We’re working on what we believe is most important first” which is denying them the normal paternal rights.
I also asked her if she thought the character of rapists might improve through relationships with their children. She answered, “I would doubt it. They’re some of the hardest criminals to rehabilitate.”
I’m almost tempted to start a twitter account, just so I can follow the Pope!
Thanks, Denise. That was…actually pretty level-headed and informative. @_@
Okay, Denise. First, stop calling me out on threads I haven’t commented on yet, there isn’t a guarrantee I will see it and be able to respond.
I will always hold the opinion that rapists should have no parental rights to their children, except for supervised visitation in limited cases (certainly not in cases where the child was concieved by the rape). I don’t see why you keep on talking to me about this. I don’t care if some psychos care about their kids, the fact is that a lot of them don’t and kids get hurt if they aren’t protected.
The Daniel Williams article was very helpful, it taught me a lot I did not know about about the pre-Roe history of the pro-life movement. It seems we were doing a lot than I thought we were.
@JackBorsch: OK. I won’t mention you again in a thread unless you’re already there.
Thanks, I wasn’t trying to be snotty to you, I just would like to be able to respond if someone makes a comment to me, and I don’t look at every blog post.
“Their reticence was supposed to credential the Court’s judgment as somehow uniquely objective and thus supremely authoritative.”
Gosh, you never told me, Reality, that they had talked to you! Since then all kinds of scientific outlook has changed, not just cosmos thinking and astro-physics which are popular, and often atheistic in outlook. Biology has now 4-D ultra-sound imaging that show human-fetal development. [Surprise, its a baby!] And we’re killing them.
Much of modern biology is centered on the extraordinary complexity (and harmony) of All systems within one/each human … pre-birth. You rely exclusively on what is called ‘rational-thought’ and totally exclude the principle that exhibits such flawless building-motion in complexity and harmony. It is as if a ‘scientist’ can be dismissed as second-rate if he/she is enthralled by what is observed.
“and often atheistic in outlook” – how could they be anything else.
“human-fetal development. [Surprise, its a baby!]” – which one is it, make up your mind.
“It is as if a ‘scientist’ can be dismissed as second-rate if he/she is enthralled by what is observed.” – tut tut. it would appear that being in the thrall of your own beliefs leads you to draw the wrong conclusion. Many scientists are enthralled. Others too, myself included, by the amazing universe and its contents. The scientists who attribute what they see to some creator, now they’re the ones who are dismissed as second-rate.
Its like weird, man. Trying to be rational with someone who calls himself ‘Reality’, when some of his observations are fanciful in the extreme. the dark-ages philosopher, Thomas Aquinas offered six different ways that we could prove that God existed. [This is a philosophical thought process, and therefore it is only an indicator.]
one of these PROOFS is from simple observation: everything moves … everything! The human eye moves, and BECAUSE IT MOVES (scans), WE ARE ABLE TO SEE. now we observe things in motion and also things not-in-motion (space), and we only ‘see’ a vacuum because it moves things. Aquinas called god – THE PRIME MOVER {the One Who started things moving.]
Thomas also was fascinated by how orderly things are. I know there is chaos theory and Charles Darwin. Let’s take a look at ‘chaos’ …. a monkey and a typewriter MAY indeed print a word, but will all the generations in ‘monkeydom’ ever make a keyboard? When a scientist gleans highly sophisticated ORDER, in the most banal of places, he calls this divine. [i think it wondrous, beautiful too!]
Your reasoning is sloppy … too many holes in sequential logic!
You believe in a god and creation and you complain to me about trying to be rational with someone!?!
“Thomas Aquinas offered six different ways ……..This is a philosophical thought process” – thats not science then is it. How long ago did Thomas live? How much have we learned since then?
“everything moves … everything!” – indeed, even the particles whhich scientists have found which come out of nothing!
“but will all the generations in ‘monkeydom’ ever make a keyboard?” – probably not, but so what. That hardly proves or disproves any scientific theory.
“When a scientist gleans highly sophisticated ORDER, in the most banal of places, he calls this divine” – if they mean ‘divine’ in the sense I think you are alluding to then their scientificness is limited. (look, another new word (maybe?), my gift to you)
Your reasoning can’t work, you bring god into it.
Hi Denise,
I am troubled by your dwelling on this. I get the impression you communicate with convicts, an extremely dangerous thing to do, and are manipulated by them, which they are masters at.
Jack and X can certainly speak for themselves, but from my point of view, I see you as romanticizing these people. You have not actually lived with them. What you would see going on in the home and what actually does are two different things. You may see a “loving” parent. What there is in fact is a manipulating and brutal parent.
I can only caution Denise that you do not let yourself be manipulated and listen to people such as Jack, X, and myself who have been down this road. Having been raised by a sociopath and surrounded by Cluster B family members, I can tell you these people can put on any facade they need to serve their purpose. They are manipulators and they are liars. They are charasmatic. They know exactly who to go after and who’s emotions to play on. They are also human time bombs.
My favorite analogy is comparing the sociopath to the pet boa constrictor. You think it is tame, docile, and that it loves you. You disregard this animal’s dangerous nature at your own risk, and then it strikes.
Keep this analogy in mine when it comes to sociopaths and the dangerous people you seem to be corresponding with. They prey on the good intentions of people like yourself, and they always know who to prey on.
Thomas lived several hundred years ago and we have made all kinds of ‘new’ gadgets since then, but as far as any kind of newness-in-thought goes, we haven’t gone very far at all. And ‘science’ is a small branch of philosophy and not a ‘different/inferior’ thought process. To understand better, try to learn some ontology, not oncology.
maybe, when you see the word ‘divine’ it is not-just-one-opinion-among-many but a proclamation of relentless study/observation. It is very rarely a fanciful whim. [I remember once a biologist describing some dogs in a nutrition experiment. He used the word ‘thrive’ to describe these dogs. For a researcher, this is a very unusual word. It was designed so, because he wished to give it special emphasis.} When the word ‘divine’ is used by a scientist, it is so unusual. that it is highly significant to them.
Aquinas is considered by many to be the-smartest-man-who-ever-lived. one story has him dictating his thoughts simultaneously (on completely different subjects) to six secretaries.
@ Mary: It is precisely because I have studied and corresponded with psychopaths that I do NOT romanticize them! I know exactly what they are capable of doing.
@ Mary: One prison inmate with whom I used to correspond was not a psychopath or all-around criminal type. She was in prison for beating her 3-year-old son to death. Part of the reason Renee Nicely was not given the death penalty was that jurors believe she was emotionally disturbed by her recent abortion and took her feelings about the abortion out on her son.
I also correspond with Eric Robert Rudolph who might not be a psychopath either. He was politically motivated to his terroristic bombings in large part because of outrage about legal abortion.
I correspond with two imprisoned forcible rapists, both of whom are on death rows in their respective states because they are rape-murderers. In neither case would I permit visits with children, even children they had sired. However, the two I write to are VERY unlikely to have fathered children through their rapes. Carlton Michael Gary, the “Columbus Stocking Strangler,” specifically targeted older women who are unlikely to be fertile. His oldest victims was 10 days shy of her 90th birthday when she was raped and strangled. Lawrence “Pliers” Bittaker targeted very fertile teenaged girls but killed all his known victims so it is unlikely he has a child out there sired through a rape. These two men are extremely vicious, to a point at which it seems unlikely — not impossible but unlikely — that they could even have normal, positive, loving feelings for their own children. At any rate, there is no way I would chance it.
HI Denise,
Studying and corresponding with them is one thing. I’ve been raised by and lived with them. I’ve attracted them like flies my entire life.
I can’t stress enough that you are involved with extremely dangerous individuals and your corresponding with these people in prison is not some benign pasttime, its asking for trouble, its asking to get yourself killed. These people escape prison, they get parole, they have friends on the outside.
You think you are in control, you understand them, you know exactly what you’re dealing with. Not so my friend, these people are the masters of the mind game. Rudolph was motivated by rage over abortion? Or maybe that’s just what he has masterfully convinced you and others of. Mary Winkler, the pastor’s wife who blew away her husband beat the rap by making claims of abuse and of course the sympathy and support of gullible supporters. I didn’t buy it for a minute.
Other words of wisdom Big Joe passed on to me. Once you let these convicts into your life, they own you body and soul. Denise you are in over your head.
@ Mary: Thank you for your concern. My father has expressed a similar concern. He said, “Some of these are very dangerous people. Do you think it’s a good idea to write to them?”
Actually, I am aware of certain possibilities and I am cautious. Although I can’t go into great detail about my personal situation, I am exercising care. In fact, although it was many years ago, I DID once receive a letter that gave me a turn. The man was not a famous criminal. I quite flipped my lid when I got a letter from him that indicated that he had taken it into his head that I wanted to be his girlfriend! Noooooooooooo! I wrote back and politely set him quite straight. I never heard from him again. I am not a “prison groupie.”
Again, I appreciate your concern and I am exercising caution.
Yes, I do believe there are valid distinctions between prisoners. Not ALL those imprisoned are psychopaths. It is quite likely that Rudolph was motivated (at least in part) by a strong identification with the unborn. This does contrast with the motivation of most psychopaths which is a completely selfish motivation.
Hi Denise,
I will say again my friend, you are in over your head and it is obvious. The fact you must exercise “caution” shows you know this is dangerous ground you are treading on. Never underestimate these people. Your “caution” doesn’t mean squat to them, they probably know more about you than you do yourself. Denise, you only think you are in control, that’s the mastery of these people.
Thanks for your concern, Mary.
It might not just be “rage” about abortion motivating Rudolph. Psychopaths cannot empathize. By contrast, Rudolph might STRONGLY EMPATHIZE with the human embryo or fetus that has had no legal right to its natural habitat since the Roe v. Wade decision. This empathy with the unborn may have led to his crimes.
Renee Nicely is also not psychopathic but was driven temporarily out of control by the trauma of recently aborting.
This strongly contrasts with most murderers who lack the ability to empathize with other people.
A suggestion for a test case. People who get a death sentence automatically have an appeal. I can see an enterprising attorney appealing a death penalty case for a double homicide of a pregnant woman and the unborn child. It would directly address whether the child is a person and how someone can be convicted of
Well, perhaps this Catholic Hospital should make up its mind whether the fetus is a person or not a person:
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/01/24/in-malpractice-case-catholic-hospital-argues-fetuses-aren%E2%80%99t-people
When it comes to having to dole out money, evidently it’s not. When it comes to saving the life of the woman, it probably is. Go figure.
Sadly, being a person and being a person protected under law are not always the same thing.
From the article:
…they are arguing state law protects doctors from liability concerning unborn fetuses on grounds that those fetuses are not persons with legal rights.
As Jason Langley, an attorney with Denver-based Kennedy Childs, argued in one of the briefs he filed for the defense, the court “should not overturn the long-standing rule in Colorado that the term ‘person,’ as is used in the Wrongful Death Act, encompasses only individuals born alive. Colorado state courts define ‘person’ under the Act to include only those born alive. Therefore Plaintiffs cannot maintain wrongful death claims based on two unborn fetuses.”
Looks like that Catholic hospital follows the directives of the Church and values born and unborn life. They are being sued for wrongful death under a law that does not recognize the unborn as persons protected by the law. If they lose, perhaps this will be the case that will make it to the Supreme Court that can lead to the unborn becoming “persons” protected under the law.
Lrning, they are arguing the position that is convenient for them. If they were being sued for failure to save the life of a pregnant woman (due to hospital policy that the fetus is a person), they’d argue that the fetus is a person.
They want it both ways.
That opinion isn’t supported by the article you cited. Opinions about personhood aren’t part of this lawsuit. It’s strictly a matter of who is covered under CO law regarding wrongful death.
Lrning, the hospital is still picking and choosing. But, you have your opinion and I have mine. Anything for the hospital to save a buck and ignore its principles.
Lrning, in a different situation, how could the same hospital then claim it wasn’t malpractice if a woman died because its policy or principles were to protect the fetus?
the hospital is still picking and choosing
Picking and choosing? I doubt the hospital had anything to do with writing this law. Either the unborn are protected by the law or they aren’t. In this tragic case, notice the hospital isn’t arguing that they shouldn’t be sued for the wrongful death of the mother… because her life is recognized under this law. Unfortunately for this family that lost 3 family members that day, 2 of those members aren’t covered under the law. I say, change the law!
I see Merit becomes more interested in recognizing gestating human beings as persons if given the opportunity to stick-it-to a Catholic hospital. Interesting.
xalisae, I am more interested in exposing the hypocrisy of the hospital.
@ Mary: I want to make it clear that while it is POSSIBLE for rapists and murderers to have positive feelings for their own children, I am quite aware that they cannot have such feelings for ME. The prison groupie phenomenon is made up of largely of women who think they can give this man so much love that he will become a normal, good person through it. No! That just doesn’t happen. At the present time, there is simply no reliable treatment for psychopathy. Traditional treatments often make them WORSE as they learn more about other people’s weaknesses and how to manipulate them.
I have experience in real life as well with violence-prone brutes of both genders.
Hi Denise,
I think you miss my point. None of these people are in prison for praying too loudly in church. I think it is to their credit that they will kill any child molester they can get their hands on. However, you have to remember these people are dangerous predators and you my friend are a prison groupie. They prey on people like you who have only the best intentions, that for some reason are drawn to them. For that reason Denise I am very concerned for your safety as it sounds like you have, and do now, communicate with some very dangerous individuals.
Again I fall back on the wisdom of Big Joe, a deceased dear friend, ex-cop, and street wise character, who taught me much about this. Convicts scour newspapers looking for victims, they especially look for single women buying homes, opening businesses, writing letters to the editor, the obituaries for widows, etc. Chances are your prison friends have groupies galore writing them and you are but one of many. Especially Rudolph who is a very attractive man. Big Joe said these guys are brilliant at conning these women into sending them money, letters, etc., and especially at conning them and playing on their sympathy. The cons are basically very decent guys that no one understands. Big Joe said these cons and their sob stories never ceased to amaze him. Then the convict is released on parole or freed and these women would go to the police and complain they feared they were being stalked, The newly released convict is hanging around my place of employment, he’s occasionally calling, he sends anonymous letters and notes.
So the police could only tell the women they can’t arrest the guy for what he might do and so long as he doesn’t break any laws, there is little they can do. Perhaps the wise course of action would be never to get involved with convicts in the first place, ya think?
I asked Big Joe why women do this, even after being warned to never get involved with convicts, and he could only respond, “Mary, after all these years I’m damned if I know”.
xalisae, I am more interested in exposing the hypocrisy of the hospital.
I would be too if I was completely unable to defend my position on its own Merits.