Pro-life blog buzz 7-26-13
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.
- At National Review, Mona Charen says feminism has failed women if all it has to offer is the “hookup culture” in tandem with unfettered abortion:
Welcome to the feminist paradise, where the ideal is for women to model themselves not just on men, but on the worst men….[The Feminine Mystique author Betty] Friedan and her many acolytes were pushing on an open door.
But they pushed in the wrong direction. Not satisfied with encouraging women to pursue careers and correcting legal barriers to women’s equality, feminists sought nothing less than the obliteration of family life and traditional sexual mores. The “double standard” in matters of sex, they taught, favored men. The solution was promiscuity for everyone (enabled by unrestricted abortion).
It was a foolish and self-defeating wrong turn.
- Pro-Life New Mexico announces that a ban on late term abortion in Albuquerque will be on the ballot in October, thanks to a successful, pro-life grassroots effort to gather the signatures of 18,000 registered voters.
A ban would take direct aim at Southwestern Women’s Options (abortionists Shelley Sella, Susan Robinson and Carmen Landau pictured left), infamous for regularly performing late-term abortions.
- ProLife NZ says the UK’s 1967 Abortion Act is being used to abort healthy babies. The Act is meant to allow for late-term abortion if there is “substantial risk” of a “serious” disability or defect. Instead, it is being used to abort children with correctable defects such as cleft palate and club foot.
- ProWomanProLife discusses a challenge being brought against the suppression of abortion-related data in Ontario, Canada. Ontario’s Freedom of Information and Protection Privacy Act (FIPPA) “prohibit[s] the official release of any abortion-related information”:
Slipped in as part of Bill 122, an act purportedly about public sector financial accountability, the change to Section 65 effectively rendered provincial abortion data after 2010 untouchable to the general public.
- According to Right to Life of Michigan, another lawsuit has been filed – this time by two pro-life brothers in Michigan, one Catholic and the other Protestant – challenging the HHS Mandate on behalf of their small, family-owned law firm in Kalamazoo.
- At Reproductive Research Audit, Michael J. New says there is a consensus among peer-reviewed studies which shows parental notification laws lower the abortion rate for minors. Hmm… I wonder why the abortion industry opposes these laws:
… [T]he knowledge that their parents will be involved with an abortion decision provides teen girls with a strong disincentive to engage in unprotected sexual activity. Indeed, there is a body of research on the positive public health effects associated with the presence of parental involvement laws.
A 2003 study in the Journal of Health Economics… found that parental involvement laws reduce the pregnancy rate of 15 to 17 year olds by 4 to 9 percent… [and another] study… shows that parental involvement laws reduce the gonorrhea rate anywhere from 12 to 20 percent for females under 20…. [T]he enactment of parental involvement law is associated with an 11 to 21 percent reduction in the number of 15 to 17 year old females who commit suicide.
[Photos via LifeNews.com and mlive.com]
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.
Part of the impetus to feminism was the curious way that what has traditionally been “women’s work” disappeared from public consciousness. The old saying is, “A man works from sun to sun but a woman’s work is never done.”
Women who were outside the paid labor market were said to be “not working.” This is misleading, unfair, and demeaning. However, this common formulation may be responsible for much female discontent.
If you watch an episode of “The Andy Griffith Show,” Aunt Bee might not be in the paid labor market but she is most definitely working. June Cleaver was working but outside the paid labor market.
We need to revive and revitalize women’s domestic work in the home.
Actually the final total for the Albuquerque petition is 26,900 signatures in basically two weeks. Awesome!
“ProLife NZ says the country’s 1967 Abortion Act”
Just to be clear, the article is actually about the UK’s Abortion act, not New Zealand’s.
JDC, thanks. Fixed.
DeniseNoe:
It makes me sick to see someone continue to argue for “women’s work” in this day and age. The reality is that many women do not feel fulfilled by domestic duties, and shouldn’t be made to feel bad about it by people like you. By that same token, women who do choose that (and men for that matter!) shouldn’t be made to feel bad, either.
” It makes me sick to see someone continue to argue for “women’s work” in this day and age. The reality is that many women do not feel fulfilled by domestic duties, and shouldn’t be made to feel bad about it by people like you. By that same token, women who do choose that (and men for that matter!) shouldn’t be made to feel bad, either. ”
Well, people need to stop calling it “women’s work” altogether, I read an article that says that even when both people in a couple work outside the home, generally the bulk of childcare and housework still falls on the woman, which I think is wrong. We should get away from this attitude that some things are “women’s” jobs and others are “men’s” jobs. Of course, because of certain biological truths some things will always be gender-imbalanced, which is fine if people freely choose it. It shouldn’t be policed and enforced by deed or words though.
So, what I’m saying is I agree.
I agree Lynn. Women should be able to have complete freedom of choice and not be disparaged for it by anyone in any way.
“Women should be able to have complete freedom of choice and not be disparaged for it by anyone in any way.”
Nah, no one has “complete freedom of choice”. Ever. Female or male. Women and men shouldn’t be able to choose to beat their kids badly enough to rupture their spleens and they shouldn’t be able to choose to kill their kids at any age. Equality!
I meant in regards to working/playing/housekeeping/studying/volunteering inside or outside the home Jack.
Not to drink a bottle of scotch and do high speed laps of the school zones in a mustang!
Lol but I know you use “freedom of choice” to include abortion, so I just had to point it out. It’s like a compulsion or something.
lolz – (did I get that right?)
It’s lulz!
*%#@&!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hey, hey, ho, ho, the hook-up culture’s got to go!
Here is the answer to the hook-up culture: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/07/17/devout-catholics-have-better-sex
Devout Catholics Have Better Sex, Study Says
Group presents data showing those who go to church weekly have most frequent, enjoyable sex
“Devout Catholics Have Better Sex, Study Says” – he he, that’s funny.
I’m guessing it wasn’t conducted by what could be called a ‘scientific’ methodology.
Rather unequal comparative analysis probability too.
If you’ve never had epicurean experiences you’re probably quite happy with standard fare.
My sister’s only owned a couple of cars, both clunkers. But she feels lucky to have a car at all so she’s quite happy.
I’ve had cars ranging from clunkers to brand new models with numerous features.
I’m very happy to have had a wide motoring experience.
Reality: “Women should be able to have complete freedom of choice and not be disparaged for it by anyone in any way.”
Freedom of choice is never free and that is the lesson that modern-day feminists, yourself included, must accept. Promiscuity or shall I say, “giving it up” comes with a price. It’s name is RESPONSIBILITY. Women’s liberation movement, as envisioned by early feminists and these so-called feminists of today, mistakenly encourages women to destroy their self-worth and allow for invasive and unsafe procedures such as an abortion, which 99 percent of the time is not medically justified. How does this liberate a woman?
All of us have a responsibility to the society we live in, simply because we do not live in a vacuum. Each decision causes a dominoe effect.
You are because your mother decided to carry you to term. To deny a life wanting to be born, is to deny humanity.
Nothing in life is free Thomas R., but that doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t be free to make choices.
Abortion is a safer procedure than childbirth.
“which 99 percent of the time is not medically justified.” – depends on what you classify as ‘medically’. There are other reasons which are ‘justifiable’ too.
“How does this liberate a woman?” – compared to enforced gestation and patriarchal control you mean?
“To deny a life wanting to be born” – how do you know if a life wants to be born?
I belief that all this is much simpler that you have attempted to convolute in your response Reality. 1) Abortion is not a medically necessary procedure and the medical community is in full agreement on this, as pregnancy is not and will never be considered a condition of illness, 2) no one is enforcing gestation on women but themselves by engaging in unprotected intercourse (don’t tell me that you believe that prior to having sex a woman does not realize that she may become pregnant!), and 3) once conception occurs, yes, that is how I know that humanity is enriched.
Pregnancy may not be an illness but that does not mean that there aren’t certain gestational events which can make abortion medically necessary.
Medical necessity need not be the only reason which makes abortion justifiable.
Precautions can fail, women get raped. Pregnancies can occur despite womens best efforts. Not allowing them to terminate an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy is enforced gestation.
You didn’t answer the question – how do you knoew if a life wants to be born?
Here you go with this beat-up line of unplanned or unwanted pregnancy. Do you analyze anything before typing away? This implies that these women you speak of are complete cretins as they do not possess the understanding that having unprotected intercourse equals possibility of becoming pregnant. Pro-abortionists sound less and less credible with these illogical and self-serving statements.
Yes I know pro-abortionists just want to “put it out” and do as they please but it is not that simple Reality. Perhaps using a female condom would ensure that an abortion could be avoided? But that would probably take away from the misguided notion of “girl power.”
As far as the question you posit I have to be brutally honest in my counter question: DID YOU WANT TO BE BORN?
Can’t you read? I wrote “Precautions can fail, women get raped. Pregnancies can occur despite womens best efforts” – and you come up with “This implies that these women you speak of are complete cretins as they do not possess the understanding that having unprotected intercourse equals possibility of becoming pregnant.” Even NFP can result in an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy.
“Yes I know pro-abortionists just want to “put it out” – how do you know that? Do you think that peoples virginity falls out if they become pro-choice? Does being pro-choice mean people must go out and have sex with someone different every day? Would you like to tell that to happily married family folk who are pro-choice?
DID YOU WANT TO BE BORN? – that is a question that no one can answer, so I guess that’s your answer to my question.
” DID YOU WANT TO BE BORN? – that is a question that no one can answer, so I guess that’s your answer to my question.”
Sure, not everyone is happy to be born, but you don’t get to preemptively take away their life on the off-chance they might not enjoy it. Everyone should get a chance at least, they can choose to no longer live when they have the function to do so.
The question relates to prior to birth Jack. Thomas R. spoke of a ‘life wanting to be born’. I’ve asked him how he knows that any life wants to be born and he doesn’t seem too keen to answer.
Post birth the whole matter gets a lot more complex, yes.
I do not engage in purely philosophical and rhetorical polemic here Reality. We are discussing a tangible and concrete phenomenon of human birth. Your preference is to turn this discussion on it’s head with convoluted responses because, apparently, it is easier for you to distance yourself from the truth that we are discussing potential life.
Did you ask yourself if, conversely life does not want to be born? This spin on the superficial question to begin with, would inform you that precisely because you do not know the answer – than the most logical and fair thing to do is to allow this potential life to be born. But instead, you run away from this conclusion and continue to advocate for an abortion of a life that you acknowledge, may want to be born.
And, did you think about my counter-question to you? I am just curious whether you consider having been born the greatest privilege in your life? The mere fact of birth has allowed you to be. I am proud of your mother for allowing you this opportunity.
Jack, you are absolutely correct!!! Since we do not know whether a potential life wants to be born, we allow for the opportunity. We do not discount potential life based on some philosophical discussion that has no grounding in concrete elements. We leave that to the pro-abortionists…
Thomas R, why are you calling unborn humans “potential life”? They are living, therefore they already have a life. Nothing “potential” about it.
“And, did you think about my counter-question to you?” – yes, that’s why I answered it. Did you think about your initial claim let alone your counter-question?
How can you possibly know if a life wants to be born?
And as I stated, the question “did you want to be born” is one that cannot be answered by anyone.
I understand Lrning, but since I am attempting to discuss this wonderful phenomenon with Reality, I am forced to simplify it a bit for.
You missed this part of my reply, so read it again.
I wrote above “Did you ask yourself if, conversely life does not want to be born? This spin on the superficial question to begin with, would inform you that precisely because you do not know the answer – than the most logical and fair thing to do is to allow this potential life to be born. But instead, you run away from this conclusion and continue to advocate for an abortion of a life that you acknowledge, may want to be born. ”
You are forcing me to quote myself Reality. Or perhaps you are just avoiding to apply this discussion to you as a living human being afforded the opportunity to be. Why is that?
For a start Thomas R., when you made your claim “To deny a life wanting to be born, is to deny humanity.” I asked you how do you could know if a life wants to be born. You have failed to even attempt to answer the question. Instead you have asked “did you want to be born?”
I answered that question – and the same answer applies to the question that I asked of you – a gestating fetus lacks the capacity to want to be born. Your choice or inability to offer anything in regards to how you could know otherwise speaks for itself. Your claim is impossible and your question pointless.
What speaks for itself Reality is that you would prefer to abort this fetus rather than, not knowing the answer, allowing this human being the opportunity to be born.
I engaged you in your game of philosphical mongering by this question: “did you ask yourself if, conversely life does not want to be born?” and followed up with ”than the most logical and fair thing to do is to allow this potential life to be born.” Instead of examining this statement and discerning this conclusion, you retreated to the same convolusion that is familiar to you. I offered that we do not know (you missed that ,heh?) but I also offered a very reasonable solution, one that does not involve self-mutilation.
You also for some reason avoid referencing this issue to your own existence. What is impossible here is that you seem to discount the fact that pro-abortionists were afforded the opportunity to be only to deny it to others. What irony, heh!
Humanity and the miracle of life is not some abstract academic exercise. This self-mutilation pro-abortionists are so fond of has consequences beyond one’s nose. Do you understand that?!
“you would prefer to abort this fetus rather than, not knowing the answer” – I do know the answer. I provided you with it.
It would appear that the game you are engaging in is more one of philosophical mongrelling.
“I offered that we do not know (you missed that ,heh?)” – no you didn’t. You said that I didn’t know therefore I should follow a certain course of action predicated on ignoring the fact that we do know the answer.
“but I also offered a very reasonable solution,” – an unnecessary one.
“one that does not involve self-mutilation.” – huh?
“You also for some reason avoid referencing this issue to your own existence.” – nonsense. The same answer applies for myself – a gestating fetus lacks the capacity to want to be born.
“This self-mutilation pro-abortionists are so fond of” – again?
Let me know when you have anything rational and factual which demonstrates that any fetus has the cognitive capacity to want to be born.
I can’t respond right at this moment. Too busy praying for the two – year old who died after serving as best man at his parents’ wedding and for the parents that they are blessed with many more offspring.
“This self-mutilation pro-abortionists are so fond of” – again? Well there ya go, per your request again.
How droll. Ah, the things they say…..
Please explain this ‘self-mutilation’ in the context you allude to. (I’m sure this’ll go from droll to straight up funny)
Reality to Thomas R: “It would appear that the game you are engaging in is more one of philosophical mongrelling.”
I am not sure how you can confuse mongering (my original comment to you) with mongrelling unless of course, you have attempted to insult me in very dishonorable way. Are you becoming so weak in your comebacks as to resolve to vulgarity in your responses?
My description of abortion as self-mutilation does not need elaboration. I take you are smart enough to figure it out on your own.
Your thinking that use of the term philosophical mongrelling is vulgarity or a dishonerable insult reinforces your apparent failure to research.
Knowing what you mean by abortion being self-mutilation doesn’t mean it is either rational or accurate.
I do understand your motives behind using that term Reality. That you used that term in direct reference to me (as “you are engaging”) indicates your disgust for anyone who disagrees with your pro-abortionist worldview.
Soon enough you will be throwing other vulgar expressions in your comments as this is all pro-abortionists know.
Not at all. It was an observation that your attempt to use a philosophical approach was confused and contradictory.
I don’t have disgust for the anti-choice view. Just disappointment and sometimes annoyance.
It is more often the anti-choicers who expresss disgust, quite clearly.
Even a casual observer would note that I do not use vulgarity.
So stop your pathetic little attempts at disparagement.