Pro-life news brief 3-18-13
by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat
- San Francisco Supervisor David Campos is hoping to expand the city’s buffer-zone around abortion clinics:
A city law passed in 1993 created an 8-foot “bubble zone” around anyone who is within 100 feet of a health care facility, but Campos said that has been ineffective. Demonstrators, he said, get around the law by staying in one spot and not approaching clinic visitors. - You know you’ve hardened your heart on abortion when a woman saying she’s had 10 abortions makes you thinks she’s empowered:
There are times a client and/or companion is so empowered they instantly gain my admiration….The companion and I escorted the client down the sidewalk. We were in a line: E, companion, client and me. E started with “Women regret their abortions. Don’t lead her into this place.” The companion waved dismissively at him and said, “Oh, I know all about abortion. I have had 10 already.”
…It was great to witness these two completely ignoring the words meant to hurt and shame them. They are just words. The antis don’t know anything about the clients and why they made the decision for abortion. I felt privileged to witness this calm confidence.
- The lawyer of abortionist Kermit Gosnell is hoping he can convince the jury that the medical standards of West Philadelphia are below the standards of any other place on earth and that Gosnell is being prosecuted for killing infants because authorities are racist. Good luck with that one, Jack:
Defense attorney Jack McMahon gave the jury a starkly different view of the case, telling the jury that prosecutors are trying to impose “Mayo Clinic” standards on a West Philadelphia clinic that serves the urban poor.“They’re trying to hold him up to the standards of the Mayo Clinic the standards of a West Philadelphia clinic,” McMahon said. “If you want Mayo Clinic standards then you go to the Mayo Clinic.”
McMahon urged the jury to keep an open mind, saying that, until today, he and Gosnell have been unable to make public a defense because of the judge’s gag order on the lawyers and principals.
The evidence will show, McMahon said, that none of the infants that Gosnell is accused of killing were ever born alive.
McMahon argued that all doctors lose patients but that the prosecution is redefining medical complications as murder: “It fits their needs, this elitist, racist prosecution, to make this a homicide.”
[Photo via AP/Huffington Post]
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.
One only hopes the defense’s wild accusations get the Gosnell trial some actual airtime, so people can see what legal abortion creates.
There is a woman who wrote a book about being a repeat aborter. She was addicted to the high and hope of a pregnancy but repeatedly terminated when the high went down.
I also read about a woman who said she had 11 abortions because the people at the clinic were so nice after the first one that she just wanted to return and repeat the experience.
Don’t we have fun!
It never ceases to amaze me how much people twist the truth to suit their own ends. The father of lies must be proud of his handiwork.
Ten abortions does not show that a woman is empowered. If anything, it shows that she is power hungry.
Speaking of power hungry, that describes Kermit Gosnell very well. He is the face of where a culture of death leads.
His cries of racism are worse than empty, they are evil. The percentage of black babies aborted, and I’d bet this is true at his own so-called clinic, is much higher than for the rest of the population. He should be ashamed of himself, but sadly he seems almost beyond shame. He is in my prayers, that he might repent and become an advocate for life. Or at the least that he will be stopped from killing babies and women.
But the commenter on the article said she knew women who used birth control, still got pregnant and aborted. I thought the pro-aborts are always telling us if only we’d pay for “free” birth control the number of abortions would go down. Now they’re admitting it isn’t true after all?
Regarding Gosnell – wasn’t there some quote that he was adamant about treating the occasional white client well, versus the way he treated African American clients day in and day out? That is going to go over really well if that is allowed and included in court.
“McMahon argued that all doctors lose patients but that the prosecution is redefining medical complications as murder”
And you’re redefining racism to mean prosecuting your client, so it all evens out.
Denise descibes a condition that I think is called “Munchhausen Syndrome by Proxy” or “Munchhausen Syndrome.” It differs from malingering in that the mother (usually) injurs and/or kills the child in order to get attention and/or respect from doctors and/or mourners. It’s actually one of the few true crimes that I’ve read books about. A woman who gets repeat abortions for such a reason definitely fits the description, especially because abortion kills the mother’s child. It differs from hypochondria because in that case it would only involve the patient herself. I think.
“The antis don’t know anything about the clients and why they made the decision for abortion.”
Shows how much the escort knows about us “antis.” We don’t change our pro-life beliefs based on the mother’s situation or mental state. It shows instead how the pro-aborts don’t know anything about the child’s innate will to live. Every moment that the child’s cells go through mitosis, it proves the innate will to live and grow. Once a human being grows old enough to reason, we agree that they conciously demonstrate “the will to live.” However, simply because a child is too small to prove sentience in utero, abortion advocates think they don’t have the capacity to want to live. Just another dehumanizing comfort for them to cling to. AbortionISTS, however, do know well that the tiny child attempts to “swim” away from the deadly instruments, proving yet again, he or she would rather live.
I think we need to take Gosnell’s attorney seriously and at his word. Dr. Gosnell is a graduate of Thomas Jefferson Medical School in Philly, a damned good medical college. So the rejoinder I have is why women undergoing very risky late-term procedures are NOT entitled to Dr. Gosnell’s best efforts, which ought to rival those of Mayo or West Philly, given where he went to school?
Why do women of color merit substandard care? And then, in what state in this nation is it EVER permissible to have two medical school flunkies on staff and pass them off as physicians? Where is it ever permissible to allow non-medically trained staff to administer anaesthetics, or deliver babies alive and then butcher them to death?
Yes, do take that line of defense seriously. That’s the quickest way to a conviction and a death sentence.
@ ninek: You are probably correct. These women may suffer from a version of Munchausen’s Syndrome or Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy.
Gosnell’s lawyer seems to be arguing that poor women should expect and accept that their medical care will be lousy.
Concluding the article in the San Francisco Chronicle, Mr. Riley wrote:
“Campos said he expected legal challenges, but noted that attempts to fight other buffer-zone laws have failed. In Boston, a federal appeals court upheld a 35-foot zone around reproductive health clinics in January, ruling that “the right of the state to take reasonable steps to ensure the safe passage of persons wishing to enter health care facilities cannot seriously be questioned.”
But isn’t this exactly the same concern which the protesters are vocalizing? And the womb is already a “health care facility.”
Jon Van Dyken says:
March 19, 2013 at 6:47 am
Concluding the article in the San Francisco Chronicle, Mr. Riley wrote: “Campos said he expected legal challenges, but noted that attempts to fight other buffer-zone laws have failed. In Boston, a federal appeals court upheld a 35-foot zone around reproductive health clinics in January, ruling that “the right of the state to takereasonable steps to ensure the safe passage of persons wishing to enter health care facilities cannot seriously be questioned.” But isn’t this exactly the same concern which the protesters are vocalizing? And the womb is already a “health care facility.”
(Denise) Wombs are inside female bodies. What would happen if they weren’t?
Will the development of the artificial womb provide the ultimate protection for the unborn?
is this case being covered anywhere? like HLN?? surely you would think HLN is covering this, BUT THEY ARE NOT
Will the development of the artificial womb provide the ultimate protection for the unborn?
No. Alexandra answered this question for you quite well here.
Kel says:
March 19, 2013 at 12:09 pm
Will the development of the artificial womb provide the ultimate protection for the unborn?
No. Alexandra answered this question for you quite well here.
(Denise) Right now, if a pregnant woman dies (and she is not very advanced in the pregnancy), the embryo or fetus AUTOMATICALLY dies with her. OTOH, when we have artificial wombs, the ability of the unborn to live will be unaffected even by the death of the woman whose egg was fertilized and is growing in that womb. Thus, the unborn are protected.
Denise, I think you are having an issue of “moving the goal posts.” When someone actually addresses your question, you simply say, “Well, I wasn’t really talking about reducing abortion, I was talking about saving babies’ lives in case their mothers should die untimely deaths!” Sure you were.
Going back to the original reason why you’ve been suggesting artificial wombs as a solution to abortion… We are talking about the fact that women view the preborn child as if that child is their property instead of as a person, as is proved when you look at cases of surrogacy/abortion and so forth.
Artificial wombs.. isn’t it just another way of saying:
Women, your body is inferior. Your body is not functioning properly. A mammal’s body that gestates the species’ children is negative, and nature has done something wrong. A mammal’s body that gestates a child is a bad evolution and all the mammals on the planet are functioning badly. We human beings maybe products of evolution, but evolution is obviously wrong. Even though mammals have survived and thrived in such great diversity, it must be wrong. It’s wrong to reproduce by sex. Since plants also reproduce sexually, they are also bad. It’s better to be protozoa. Even though protozoa have no intelligence, no society, no culture, no highly developed nervous system, no brain that thinks for itself, clearly they are superior creatures.
Evolution must be bad, because all highly developed intelligent animals that have parenting roles are bad. Because I don’t wanna be responsible for my children.
Kel says:
March 19, 2013 at 2:17 pm
Denise, I think you are having an issue of “moving the goal posts.” When someone actually addresses your question, you simply say, “Well, I wasn’t really talking about reducing abortion, I was talking about saving babies’ lives in case their mothers should die untimely deaths!” Sure you were.
(Denise) I wasn’t moving the goal posts because abortions, the deaths of pregnant women, and carrying the unborn to term are all connected. Of course, I was talking about decreasing abortion. In the article I read about an abortionist who was active when abortion was illegal, he told how he started doing abortions. He lived in a small town and a frightened young woman came to him begging for an abortion. He refused. He read in the newspaper the next day about her suicide. When he mentioned this to his parents, they thought he should have helped the woman get an abortion because she might have lived and the embryo or fetus automatically died when she did. He felt like he hadn’t saved the unborn since the unborn couldn’t live sans her body but he could have saved her because she could have lived if the embryo or fetus was removed from her body. I’ve talked to women who say they just weren’t going to carry to term. As things stand now, no one gets born UNLESS the girl or woman carries to term.
<<Going back to the original reason why you’ve been suggesting artificial wombs as a solution to abortion… We are talking about the fact that women view the preborn child as if that child is their property instead of as a person, as is proved when you look at cases of surrogacy/abortion and so forth. >>
(Denise) There again the ability of the unborn to get born depended on the carrier. If the lady who contributed the egg was not the carrier, her suicide would have had no effect on the unborn. That baby was born because the woman carrying was willing to carry to term.
If we had artificial wombs, the fact that the female wasn’t carrying would mean that the fetus could be brought to term without her. She could kill herself and the artificial womb would be completely unaffected.
ninek says:
March 19, 2013 at 3:21 pm
Artificial wombs.. isn’t it just another way of saying:Women, your body is inferior.
(Denise) It says: embryos and fetuses can survive without human carriers. Abortion is no more because the lives of the unborn do not depend on human girls and women to carry and give birth.
Denise, if I could offer you mental health, or a fake womb, but not both, which would you prefer?
I can’t believe I’m taking this seriously, but…artificial wombs won’t stop abortion. This question was actually posed on a debate board I frequent. Nearly every pro-choice woman said they’d rather have an abortion because they wouldn’t want to bring the child into the world, period.
“Oh, I know all about abortion. I have had 10 already.”
You filthy pig, in a just world you would be put in front of a firing squad.
OMG, I hit “add comment”! I meant to use my inside keyboard 0-o.
But seriously, the human body already has the most awesome wombs in nature. According to evolution, those complex creatures that cooperate with each other have the most intelligence. I would say that having a shock or crisis is natural when one finds out one is pregnant, but according to evolution, females who took good care of their young passed on their DNA while indifferent or hostile females would perhaps have children, but they would have less of a chance to thrive and pass on their DNA.
By intervening in the natural process, and certainly NOT improving on it, we are doing ourselves a disservice, as a species. A fake uterus won’t solve ANY human problems, and it will probably create problems.
Kate says:
March 19, 2013 at 7:20 pm
I can’t believe I’m taking this seriously, but…artificial wombs won’t stop abortion. This question was actually posed on a debate board I frequent. Nearly every pro-choice woman said they’d rather have an abortion because they wouldn’t want to bring the child into the world, period.
(Denise) But THEY wouldn’t be pregnant! They wouldn’t even have to be around. The artificial womb will mean saying goodbye to abortion. No one will be walking about big-bellied. The womb will be kept in the lab and the techs will make sure the embryo grows into a fetus and the baby is delivered.
An artificial uterus will solve one problem — abortion — once and for all!
You aren’t getting it. It’s not just that they don’t want to be pregnant. They don’t want the child to exist, period. The use of the so-called artificial uterus allows the child to live, yes…but they would rather have an abortion because they don’t want to be pregnant AND they want the baby to die.
As a post abortive woman……..I get it.
I didn’t want an abortion. I wanted help and support and hope. I believed every single lie I was told at the mill.
And in listening to hundreds of post abortive women tell their stories of desperation, fear and being totally alone with no help and no support and feeling like they HAD NO CHOICE…..not one of them has ever said, “I wanted a dead baby.”
I have a womb, it’s a good fake one. Wendy, who’s standing next to me, had “safe sex” and now she’s pregnant. Giving her child to me is exactly like adoption. She doesn’t want that because there’s a chance the child will become a serial murderer. She’s going to abort on her lunch hour and tell her coworkers it was a miscarriage. Conclusion: fake womb didn’t solve anything.
About Kermit Gosnell: Anti-abortion columnist headlined a column on Gosnell with a play on Sesame Street’s “Kermit the Frog.” He called Gosnell “Kermit the Dog.” Someone wrote, “Mr. Adams, please do not insult dogs.” Another person wrote, “Yes, Mr. Adams, you owe an apology to canines everywhere.”
After 40 years of the lies of the abortion industry and preying on women for profit I am not sure why we hate post abortive women who believe the lies.
I mean the woman who is on her 6th abortion and knows darn good and well she is carrying a child and STILL goes through with it after seeing the ultrasound…….needs help. She needs help to break out of the cycle of self abuse and trauma that she is in. Maybe she is brazen now……….telling sidewalk counselors to FO. BUT one day she just might come to the end of herself and realize that the depression, nightmares, drinking and promiscuity after abortion has not brought peace.
Sorry. I am so tired of the same ol same ol.
AND make no mistake…..
I am not excusing or justifying the murder of precious, innocent babies.
Women need help before and after abortion.
ninek says:
March 20, 2013 at 10:00 am
I have a womb, it’s a good fake one. Wendy, who’s standing next to me, had “safe sex” and now she’s pregnant. Giving her child to me is exactly like adoption. She doesn’t want that because there’s a chance the child will become a serial murderer.
(Denise) This isn’t funny, Ninek. It’s really not. The reasons for the adoption-serial murder link aren’t completely clear. It is possible that open adoption will help to decrease this link which may be based on the darkness and questions hovering over closed adoptions. It may also be possible that the “primal wound” of separation from the mother who carried and gave birth is responsible for this link — and that could well be addressed through artificial wombs or even by transplanting from one womb to another.
You are right, Carla. Saying they want the baby dead was probably the wrong interpretation. “Gone”? “To disappear”, perhaps? Referring more to the general situation than the child specifically.
I am sorry if I offended you. Reading how coldly some speak of these children…I wish I had your faith and compassion.
Agreed Kate.
Abortion is sold as an answer. A quick fix. Quick, simple, painless. No risks, no side effects, no lifelong regret or complications. Nothing. Get on with your life. It is simply not true.
No worries. I am not easily offended. There are women going for late term abortions today at OWC in Orlando FL. They are showing and feel that baby kicking and they are defiant and they tell the counselors that God will forgive them.
I just don’t get angry at THEM anymore. She just might want post abortive healing one day and THAT is where my heart lies. To be there for her then. When she is broken, repentant and longs to be forgiven and set free.
Thank you Kate.
And I also am truly thankful that others OFFER her help and hope and another way even if she chooses to go through with it.
Carla says:
March 20, 2013 at 10:26 am
After 40 years of the lies of the abortion industry and preying on women for profit I am not sure why we hate post abortive women who believe the lies.
(Denise) There was one post-abortive woman who might not “believe the lies.” The mother of the Oldenburg Baby, Tim, a baby with Down Syndrome that was delivered alive and left for hours without medical treatment.
His mother had a nervous breakdown and was in and out of institutions before committing suicide 6 years after he was aborted into life.
You know what’s not funny, Denise, legal abortion. First of all, an artificial womb is exactly like adoption and if you think adoption creates criminals, then you yourself are in a moebius loop of your own making.
Also, I don’t mean to offend people who struggle with mental illness, especially because people I know and love struggle with it: but let me say this: People with mental illness that directly impacts their ability to have relationships or healthy outlooks on human beings and reproduction have NO BUSINESS trying to engineer or influence the real life and death struggle against abortion.
Denise, you propose absolutely ridiculous and dangerous solutions to a real problem that people LIKE ME take VERY SERIOUSLY. Poisoning the water to prevent rape pregnancies and artificial wombs are frankly crackpot ideas. Your ideas are NOT helpful at all, and I very personally regret going back on my earlier decison never to engage you again. I will add you to my prayers for all pro-choice individuals, that all of you may come to appreciate the value of all human life, from conception to natural death. I don’t have negative personal feelings for anyone on this website, not even old cc, wherever she is. I honestly hope that pro-choicers turn around, not just for the sake of babies but for the sake of their own inner peace and the sanctity of their very souls. Thanks readers and mods, for so kindly putting up with ME when I get on my soapbox. I only want each baby to have the same fair chance at survival that I was given.
” Also, I don’t mean to offend people who struggle with mental illness, especially because people I know and love struggle with it: but let me say this: People with mental illness that directly impacts their ability to have relationships or healthy outlooks on human beings and reproduction have NO BUSINESS trying to engineer or influence the real life and death struggle against abortion. ”
That’s not true. :/ People with mental illnesses can be great in the fight against abortion, especially if they use their struggles to show that you don’t have to be perfect and wanted with no issues to be deserving of the basic right to life. If everyone had to be in perfect mental health to influence the pro-life movement a lot of issues would go unaddressed and we’d probably be less effective.
@ ninek: I don’t consider myself a “pro-choicer” and believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned.
ninek says:
March 20, 2013 at 2:44 pm
You know what’s not funny, Denise, legal abortion. First of all, an artificial womb is exactly like adoption and if you think adoption creates criminals, then you yourself are in a moebius loop of your own making.
(Denise) I don’t pretend to know what the exact reasons are for the statistical links between adoption and certain types of heinous homicides. I do know that both adoption and abortion tend to come up a lot when researching true crime cases (the former in serial murder and parricide, the latter in crimes of infanticide).
You might be correct that there could be a parallel between the artificial womb and adoption although I wouldn’t say that they would be “exactly alike.” People have proposed the development of artificial wombs for reasons unrelated to abortion. For example, when women are pregnant, they often do things that (however marginally) might harm an embryo or fetus. Some people believe want to see artificial wombs developed because they believe the resulting babies are more likely to be healthy because unaffected by things a pregnant woman might do.
Also, I don’t mean to offend people who struggle with mental illness, especially because people I know and love struggle with it: but let me say this: People with mental illness that directly impacts their ability to have relationships or healthy outlooks on human beings and reproduction have NO BUSINESS trying to engineer or influence the real life and death struggle against abortion.
Denise, you propose absolutely ridiculous and dangerous solutions to a real problem that people LIKE ME take VERY SERIOUSLY. Poisoning the water to prevent rape pregnancies and artificial wombs are frankly crackpot ideas. >>
(Denise) Many people look forward to the development of artificial wombs for the reasons given above. They hope it will lead to more health.
I just kind of “floated” the possibility of contraceptives in the water supply because people are so often absent-minded, sloppy, and careless — and, yes, because fertile young girls and women can be impregnated through rape. As I’ve pointed out before, pregnancies from rape are a total of 1% of abortions yet about 50% of the discussion around abortion is about them. A very intelligent young woman once said to me, “If I got raped and pregnant, I don’t know what I’d do. I really don’t know what I’d do.” I’ve heard others say they would never abort — unless they were raped. Preventing such pregnancies should be a priority for those who want abortion to decrease.
<<Your ideas are NOT helpful at all, and I very personally regret going back on my earlier decison never to engage you again. I will add you to my prayers for all pro-choice individuals, that all of you may come to appreciate the value of all human life, from conception to natural death. I don’t have negative personal feelings for anyone on this website, not even old cc, wherever she is. I honestly hope that pro-choicers turn around, not just for the sake of babies but for the sake of their own inner peace and the sanctity of their very souls. Thanks readers and mods, for so kindly putting up with ME when I get on my soapbox. I only want each baby to have the same fair chance at survival that I was given. >>
(Denise) I don’t describe myself as “pro-choice.” I believe restrictions should be placed on abortion and that much, much more should be done to prevent pregnancies that are not accepted by those who get pregnant.
I think the main difference between myself and other people here is that, to many of you, abortion is “the” problem. To me, abortion is a horror that results from an underlying problem. That underlying problem is problem pregnancies which, in turn, are the basis of problems intrinsic to growing up female. When I was a child, I heard of young women who were “in trouble.” That didn’t mean they had undergone abortions but that they were pregnant out of wedlock. I heard, “She’s pregnant. She’s been such a disappointment.” I didn’t hear, “She had an abortion. She’s been such a disappointment.”
As many of you know, I’ve been a regular reader and commentator here since 2007, so I’m not a fly-by-night spammer and my following request is genuine. I recently found a large abnormal mass, which was causing discomfort on my feline companion Boris and took him to the vet for a checkup. The vet is concerned and would like to preform surgery to remove and biopsy the abnormal tissue, however the cost is prohibitive for me. I’ve created a fundraising page for Boris’ surgery and medical costs and any donation would be greatly appreciated:http://www.gofundme.com/2d9a00
I think the main difference between myself and other people here is that, to many of you, abortion is “the” problem. To me, abortion is a horror that results from an underlying problem.
I think that’s a very good summary. But I disagree with your conclusion (abortion is a symptom of an underlying problem rather than a problem with underlying causes). As I’m sure you know, child abuse and domestic violence are caused by many factors (psychological, genetic, socioeconomic, environmental, etc). But they’re rightly seen as problems themselves, and nobody is ambivalent about either one being legal. If abortion is the same type of horror as child abuse (unjustified violence against an innocent person), I don’t see how you couldn’t wholeheartedly support changing the law.
It also seems very degrading for you to repeatedly suggest that the female body is inherently broken because it has the capacity for pregnancy.
@ Navi: I believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned and expect it to be overturned within a few years.
Navi: It also seems very degrading for you to repeatedly suggest that the female body is inherently broken because it has the capacity for pregnancy.
(Denise) When people said, “She’s in trouble,” they didn’t mean she had just had an abortion; they meant she was pregnant and single. Writing in the novel “The Bell Jar,” Sylvia Plath has protagonist Esther Greenwood say, “I’ve got a baby hanging over me like a big stick while a man hasn’t got a care in the world.” I heard, “She’s pregnant. She’s been such a disappointment” rather than, “She had an abortion. She’s been such a disappointment.”
Abortion is a horror but it is a sub-set of a much, much larger problem.
“@ Navi: I believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned and expect it to be overturned within a few years.”
I On what do you base this? I hope you’re right, but given who’s going to be making the Supreme Court appointments, I really doubt it.
oops, added an “I”for no reason.
@ JDC: It was bad law. It was built on sand. It seems to me that Justices like John Roberts and Sam Alito are likely to help overturn this poor Court decision.
Even Constitutional experts who support legal abortion consider Roe v. Wade a lousy court decision. They like the results but know the reasoning was flawed.
@ ninek: The risks of my proposals have to be weighed against the risks of what they are trying to prevent. Are my ideas any more “crackpot” than the idea that 1 million and a half women per year will carry for 9 months, give birth, and then place 1 million and a half babies for adoption?
There are grave risks in being born to a young and impoverished rape victim. There are grave risks in being shuffled around between foster homes and relatives. There are grave risks in having an embryo or fetus ripped out of your body.
Drastic measures to decrease problem pregnancies are arguably justified because such pregnancies lead to so much disaster.
Hi Rachael. I hope Boris is okay. I made a small donation in memory of my cat, who I recently lost. Take care.