Pro-life blog buzz 2-8-13
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.
- Our newest blog, Clinic Quotes, shows the anti-adoption mentality of the abortion industry from a pamphlet distributed by Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood in 1985, which reads:
But aren’t there alternatives to abortion? Yes, there are. A pregnant women can carry the baby to term and she can then keep it or relinquish the baby for adoption. Relinquishment is often not a very humane procedure. - Down on the Pharm explains why abortion statistics gleaned from abortionists should be viewed with great skepticism.
- Michael New discusses the lack of consistent abortion reporting standards in the U.S. Some states have not reported abortion data to the Centers for Disease Control since 1997.
- Live Action News reports on Planned Parenthood’s total indifference to sex-selective abortions and female gendercide in the United States.
- Euthanasia Prevention Coalition shares the lament of a son who lost his mother to assisted suicide without her family being notified or consulted. The woman suffered from chronic depression.
- Americans United for Life notes that while “big abortion” has a strong foothold nationally, pro-life legislation is poised and ready at the state level.
- Judie Brown calls out the US Conference of Catholic Bishops for their lack of leadership on life issues:
The absence of logic and common sense in [President Obama’s Sandy Hook tragedy] statement [regarding “caring for our children”] does not affect the majority of Americans one way or the other…. [T]he United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which was quick to call for the regulation of firearms after the Sandy Hook massacre… hesitate[d] to reprimand Obama for his impudence on the question of abortion.… Where is their leadership, their collective voice, their capacity to rally the troops and change the culture? Considering the bishops’ near silence in this 40-year-war, these are legitimate questions.
- Bound4Life says that despite the life-affirming Huggies video featured below, owner company Kimberly-Clark may not be so squeaky clean:
I thought that since Huggies acknowledged life in the womb they might advocate preserving life at every stage. I wanted to do all I could to promote them and this message, so I began to research them. What I found was startling. Huggies is a brand of Kimberly-Clark. Kimberly-Clark partners with Girls for a Change which was partially founded by Planned Parenthood.The same mouth that acknowledges life advocates killing it in the name of choice and “girl power.”
[Image via LifeNews]
Feb.08, 2013 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.
At this time, adoption is not an alternative to abortion. It might be such an alternative when it becomes possible to transplant an embryo or fetus from one womb to another (or to an artificial womb). At the present time, the only alternative to abortion is NOT TO HAVE ONE. The only way for a baby to be born is for the pregnant female to carry to term. If she is completely unwilling to CARRY, she might abort. Eleanor Cooney has said that adoption was “quite irrelevant” to her illegal abortion because “I just wasn’t going to complete the pregnancy.” She simply wasn’t going to carry, get the moon belly, and give birth. Thus, she aborted even though it was illegal, even though she was sexually molested by two of the first three illegal abortionists she saw, and even though an abortionist told her, “Have the baby.”
But IF she is willing to CARRY and does carry and give birth and she STILL does not want to raise the baby or is UNABLE to raise the baby, she can make arrangements for other people to raise. If the mother is very ill or disabled, other people might make those arrangements.
For example, I recently published an article about Jeremy Strohmeyer, 18, who raped and murdered Sherrice Iverson, 7, in a Las Vegas casino. When Jeremy was born, his teenaged mother was hospitalized in a psychiatric unit. She was a schizophrenic. She may also have suffered other mental disorders. Completely incapable of caring for herself, she was obviously unable to raise a baby! Thus, her baby HAD to be placed for adoption. For those who say I’m anti-adoption: How does a mother raise her baby if she dies in childbirth? How does she raise her baby if she dies for some other reason while the baby is a baby? How does a mother who is completely incapacitated raise her baby? She doesn’t. The baby must be placed for adoption.
Although the Strohmeyers continue to support their son, who will spend his entire life in prison, they are suing the adoption agency. They claim they told the adoption counselors that a baby from a family with a history of either mental retardation or mental illness was unacceptable. Nevertheless, they got cute little Jeremy, whose birthmother was severely mentally ill and whose biological father was a career criminal. His adoptive parents believe they should have been told the family history of the baby they adopted.
” Although the Strohmeyers continue to support their son, who will spend his entire life in prison, they are suing the adoption agency. They claim they told the adoption counselors that a baby from a family with a history of either mental retardation or mental illness was unacceptable. Nevertheless, they got cute little Jeremy, whose birthmother was severely mentally ill and whose biological father was a career criminal. His adoptive parents believe they should have been told the family history of the baby they adopted”
A baby with a family history of mental disabilities or illness was unacceptable to them? Wonder if they would have aborted a baby with Down’s syndrome if they had gotten pregnant naturally. That’s gross. Biological parents don’t get to pick and choose what problems our children have.
But anyway Denise, just because this young man obviously had something seriously wrong with him doesn’t mean that adoption = bad or that adoptive kids are going to turn out poorly.
@ JackBorsch: I never indicated adoption is bad. I know 2 adoptees who have turned out just fine. One said he believes the best luck of his life was when he was taken in by his adoptive parents.
In Jeremy’s case, there may have been genetic problems and the closed nature of the adoption might have contributed to what he called a sense of “void.” I support adoptions being open if babies are adopted. As I pointed out, how is his schizophrenic, extremely disturbed mother supposed to raise him? How is a mother who dies in childbirth going to raise? Obviously adoption is sometimes necessary.
However, it cannot, at the present time, be done pre-natally. Generally speaking, if a female carries to term and gives birth, the bond formed means she will raise. This will probably be true even if she plans to place for adoption while pregnant.
OTOH, if a female like Eleanor Cooney is completely resistant to CARRYING, there is absolutely no way with present technology for her to have that done by anyone else. She believes that “when a woman doesn’t want to be pregnant, the force inside her wanting to end the pregnancy becomes equal to the nature that wants her to continue the pregnancy.” Thus, she seeks to stop the process of pregnancy before she can have a baby.
If a girl or woman is not pregnant, she cannot abort. Cooney was 17 years old and alone with a teen boy when she got pregnant. We should try to ensure that teen girls and boys aren’t alone together. That will prevent the sexual activity that leads to pregnancies that are aborted.
I am not defending Planned Parenthood, but there was a time when women were pressured into placing their babies for adoption because they had committed the “sin” of having premarital sex. The babies were given to “suitable” married couples. This of course, was wrong, but I don’t know if this sort of thing still went on in 1985.
“I don’t know if this sort of thing still went on in 1985.”
It did but to a lesser extent than it did in the sixties and seventies. It was less systemic by the eighties and nineties, and it normally happened to very poor or young women without the family support or resources to resist pressure to adopt out the babies they wanted to, or those from very religious families. I know this one woman who got pregnant at fifteen in like 2000 who’s family made her give up her kid because it was “embarrassing” to the family.
With due respect, I’d advise Judie Brown to aim her guns elsewhere. The Catholic Bishops are not the problem. It’s very easy to point and blame them, but we are presently blessed with some stellar priests, bishops and cardinals, along with Papa Bene, who are speaking out very loudly and unapologetically, not only to teach the truth about the sanctity of human life, but to criticize this abortion-loving President.
I’m sick of the Catholic circular firing squad and people like Judie Brown do not help anything. No, the Church isn’t perfect and never will be as long as it’s made up of human members. But somebody please tell me what other Church is holding the line steady and firm when it comes to the child in the womb, true marriage, sex, and the dignity of the human person til natural death?
This article has a “reproductive freedom” bias. However, does it shed any light on why adoption is so unpopular?
http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/postionpapers/41-Why-Few-Women-Choose-Adoption.pdf
Again, I have to add that adoption is inevitable in some cases.
Gotta say, I watched the Huggies commercial, and though I thought it was very cute, I didn’t consider it to be “pro-life”. Pro-choice advocates say that it doesn’t matter what “it” is, a woman has a right to decide whether or not she gets to keep “it” in her womb; if the woman considers it a person growing in her stomach, and she doesn’t want a person growing in her stomach, it’s her choice to have an abortion. Sadly, we live in a world where it’s perfectly acceptable to wish death upon most anyone and even socially acceptable to cause death in select sympathetic cases.
Whereas, a pro-life diaper commercial would have something more akin to a couple agonizing over their bills to be paid and then discovering that “surprise” they have diaper expenses on the way… and affirming that they’ve got to man-up to protect and nurture that person growing in her stomach – not as cute and funny, but actually pro-life.
The pro life part is that they are acknowledging that an actual human being is growing in your stomach. Not a blob of tissue or products of conception growing in your stomach.
Denise…the only sense I can make of your looooong and senseless posts is that you don’t see adoption as an option because the woman would not want to bother to carry and give birth. You were published?? Really?
Susie Allen says:
February 8, 2013 at 7:02 pm
The pro life part is that they are acknowledging that an actual human being is growing in your stomach. Not a blob of tissue or products of conception growing in your stomach.Denise…the only sense I can make of your looooong and senseless posts is that you don’t see adoption as an option because the woman would not want to bother to carry and give birth.>>
(Denise) Adoption is an option AFTER the woman has given birth. It can’t be done pre-natally (at least at the present time). Adoption may actually be a necessity after the female has given birth if she is incapacitated or dies.
A woman told me adoption was “quite irrelevant” to her abortion because she “just wasn’t going to complete the pregnancy.”
<<You were published?? Really?>>
(Denise) Google “Denise Noe.”
It’s not actually your stomach though–my friend told her son that she had a baby in her stomach and he started to panic every time she ate because he thought food was falling on the baby’s head–lol. Finally she had to explain.