Stanek weekend question: Your response to Planned Parenthood CEO’s contention that life begins at delivery?
Barack Obama said that answering the question of when life begins was above his pay grade.
Not so for Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards, although it took a persistent interviewer three attempts to drag it out of her.
Richards appeared on Fusion Channel’s America with Jorge Ramos on February 27 and first tried to say such a question was not “really relevant” to the abortion debate, although the American public would disagree.
Richards finally responded, “For me, I’m the mother of three children, for me, life began when I delivered them. They’ve been probably the most important thing ever since. But that was my own personal decision.”
As if for 27 months of pregnancy Richards didn’t realize she was growing babies inside her – had no relationship with them, didn’t ponder names or plan a nursery, was surprised to see them but began loving them more than anything else in her life from that moment on – simply a ludicrous answer. See for yourself…
[youtube]http://youtu.be/lN2HJHUOMyg[/youtube]
How would you respond to Richards if she made such a statement to you?
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.
These people are so nutty I don’t even want to respond anymore. Its basic biology and if they don’t get it it’s because that would mean they would have to face the guilt of their sins.
ive has 2 transvaginal ultrasounds performed by a female tech. Ive never felt raped from it!! What next? Will a PAP smear be rape or molestation?
Dear PP president Cecile,
If your children only became alive right at birth, what were you feeling moving all those months before??! Your bowels?? Please retake your basic high school biology class. You obviously failed.
In disgust,
Nalida Besson,
Mother of 3 with at least a B in college biology.
Science is not even my forte and I understand when life begins. Scientists are searching for even ONE cell in Mars to determine if there is life–from one living cell. And this woman whose abortion clinics are predominantly in black neighborhoods all over the country–I’m calling it as it is because I’m not making this up–is saying the baby is not alive until he/she goes through that birth canal, not until they are born. Even her own children, she said, were not alive until they were born. God forbid if she were a crime victim and shot in the stomach at 8 months 2 weeks pregnant and the baby died (oops by her standard that “baby” wasn’t alive yet even though that heart that’s been beating since several weeks after conception has stopped) she would say, “that criminal killed my BABY!” I’m sorry, I just can’t stand when people say obviously stupid things to defend their “cause.” She wouldn’t say “the fetus didn’t make it.” And by the way, fetus means BABY in Latin–a subject that WAS my forte.
I appreciated this video. The interviewer was quite good and questioned the pro-abortion rhetoric put forth by Ms. Richards. Ms. Richard fumbled her response and appeared shaken by the most obvious and important question. But I should remember that bullies always wilt when confronted but so should’ve Ms. Richards. For Ms. Richards to say that each woman gets to decide when life begins reveals that Ms. Richards has a complete lack of respect for science and wants to impose her will on reality no matter how violent and incompatible her will is with reality.
Those boots were made for stomping on fetuses.
It is funny how Ms. Richards always brings up the birth of her three children to make herself look good and when she has to defend her silly philosophical, and scientifically ignorant, understanding of when life begins. (Things that make you go…hmmmm.)
I started taking care of my baby as soon as I found out I was pregnant. I knew life was growing inside of me.
I recently had a very similar conversation and while common sense seemed to be out the picture, her reasoning was that it does not have a soul until it is born — like the birth canal is some kind of transformative, magical tunnel. I would assume that is the case with many others. What would you say, lovingly, to someone that tries to argue that? I already tried basic science since the opposing side likes to argue it over every other topic — interestingly enough, not when it comes to life and death, though. :(
So you CAN drink and smoke and shoot up while pregnant?
Roller coasters, shooting ranges and saunas all good?
Good.
Amazingly, Cecile is one small step ahead of Barbara Boxer, who thinks life begins when you take your baby home from the hospital.
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/danielle-bean/barbara-boxer-pro-choice-until-you-bring-baby-home
I kinda like the arguments about pre-natal surgery: ‘Oh, the baby is alive and a baby outside the womb, but magically returns to being dead, and just a fetus after the operation.’ And, “caesarean-born children are only human-babies when their moms say they are.”[Barry Obama’s notion.]
They’ve been probably the most important thing ever since.
It’s good she added the word ‘probably’ when she referred to her children, because we all know what has really been the most important thing to Cecile.
And they call those of us who question climate change anti-science.
How to answer Cece:
If I were just talking with Cece, I would just stop talking with Cece.
But if this were a public interview with educable people watching, I would say that her response sounds very much like the ancient Roman practice of presenting the child to the household patriarch, looking for his decision whether or not the newborn child should be permitted to live.
That was the “moment when life begins” according to standards from 2000 years ago. Have we learned nothing since?
My response would be that if somebody’s going to ask her a question, she’s got the right to her opinion – and as crazy as people think her opinion might be, there’s a large number of people who think it’s crazy some of the answers those on this board would give.
It’s an interesting question society needs to figure out at some point. We don’t give life insurance payments if somebody loses a baby, but we do occasionally charge people for killing an unborn baby – but not always. And though my family experienced a miscarriage once, I certainly wouldn’t tell somebody who lost a 2 year old that I went through the same thing. But it was also something that we went through.
Legally, she’s mostly right, and that’s where we’ve got issues in this country on this subject.
When life begins is not a matter of opinion.
So, in her framework, is partial birth abortion okay, not okay or half okay?
Ex, it does not matter how long we knew them or loved them. It matter that they were THERE.
Do you EVER weary from carrying all that water?
Does she ever get tired from such mental gymnastics? Her answer was beyond stupid.
Almost as stupid is thinking the answer to when life begins can be found by looking at life insurance policies and laws.
If you can’t accept the facts of science or biology, maybe you should just stick to your regular Sunday worship of your idols, the socialist democrats.
As for the CEO of an organization that uses my tax money to kill children (but diverts some $ to aforementioned socialist democrats), I have this reply: for several years I’ve wanted to tell you what I think of you, but now, being a Christian woman, I can’t say it.
(Apologies to Aunt Em).
So were Faye Wattleton and Alan Guttmacher wrong when they acknowledged that abortion is killing and that life begins at fertilization (respectively)?
Please. Where did their toes come from? Where did their hearts? Where did their baby cheeks? Where did their arms and hands? Did it all just magically appear in your vagina the day you went into labor? If there was no baby there then how did your body know to go into labor in the first place? What exactly was kicking away in your womb for half the pregnancy–well, you felt it for half the pregnancy but what was it that was moving in your womb from the second month on? What created those “heart tones” on the fetal doppler if it wasn’t your living, human child?
Seriously. These nutjobs say pro-lifers don’t understand science and then spout utter tosh like this? Mkay.
I don’t expect that Cecile would welcome even five public minutes that her two predecessors spent with me.
She is, however, being paid handsomely to be professionally stupid. Apparently the money is worth it to her, but I consider her job to be much more degrading than the oldest profession.
Courtnay – I’m just saying, we have a lot of mixed messages/laws/reactions to kids pre-birth.
Yeah, Ex. Beginning with that slimeball leader of yours, Obama.
All that fence sitting must HURT.
Courtnay -
I voted for him because I felt like he’d be a better president than McCain, and then Romney. I still feel that way. There’s things I like about his positions, and things I don’t like about his positions.
If you want to say pro-lifers are defined first and foremost by their voting position, then you’ll need to knock down the percentage of those you think are pro-life – the majority of this country is then pro-choice.
Including you.
Anti-science fundamentalist.
When life begins is settled.
When life matters is not settled for many sadly.
It depends on how much life matters to people.
Courtnay – I actually consider myself more pro-life than most on this board. My family chose life – never worked in a clinic, never participated in an abortion – nobody in my family has or will. People around me know I’m pro-life. And my other views – death penalty, health coverage – I feel those are consistent with the pro-life view.
Some will disagree, which, quite frankly I don’t care about. In my personal belief, from reading others viewpoints and past on this board, I’d put myself pretty far on the pro-life spectrum compared to most.
Though some use prettier words and vote for candidates who oppose a percent or two of abortions out there. If you feel that makes a person more pro-life, than that’s your choice.
“It’s an interesting question society needs to figure out at some point. We don’t give life insurance payments if somebody loses a baby, but we do occasionally charge people for killing an unborn baby – but not always. And though my family experienced a miscarriage once, I certainly wouldn’t tell somebody who lost a 2 year old that I went through the same thing. But it was also something that we went through. ”
Yeah, well the legal stuff mostly all stems from the lack of legal standing of unborn humans as actual humans rather than extensions of their mother. I wouldn’t have a problem with unborn babies being added to health/life/whatever insurance policies, do you think most pro-lifers would? And fetal homicide laws should apply across the board too. I don’t really get your point, I think most people are aware that our laws are contradictory and most people who want legal protection for unborn babies want the laws to apply to them too.
Oh and I’m really sorry y’all lost your baby. I do think losing a born child might hurt someone more in some cases (but not nearly all), but so does losing your spouse of fifteen years versus your boy/girlfriend of six months (in most cases). The longer the relationship you have with someone, generally the more attached you are to them, especially when it comes to babies that you can’t really “meet” and interact with much until they are born. But the amount of attachment you have to someone doesn’t make their worth less. I would be much more sad if my child died than if you died (though your death would be sad too!!) but that doesn’t mean you’re any less important or human than my children.
DLPL –
Most right wingers these days oppose food stamps and insurance for those post-birth – so you tell me – if a poor family of four finds out they are having a fifth, do you think society is ready to let folks get a child tax credit, earned income credit, and food stamps for another?
Quite frankly, my only point is that I believe life begins at conception – but I see all sorts of reasons to then see birth as a separate defining step as well.
Well, not everyone’s a right winger. Of course I’m not. I would definitely want the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eight, etc child to be taken care of like the older kids would be. We’d first have to get spending and such under control though (universal healthcare, etc) but I think it’s doable, only a small minority of people want that many kids.
“Quite frankly, my only point is that I believe life begins at conception – but I see all sorts of reasons to then see birth as a separate defining step as well.”
I get that, but I don’t really get where you think that should apply. Like health insurance makes sense, because while the mom is pregnant the baby is covered under her healthcare. What else?
“Most right wingers these days oppose food stamps and insurance for those post-birth.”
Hahahaha. No they don’t. They don’t OPPOSE food stamps. They oppose abuses, creating dependency, and inefficiencies in the bureaucracy pertaining to these programs. Go burn the strawman and come back with new material.
Oh and not with food stamps, but I know that programs like WIC increase their benefits when a woman is pregnant but hasn’t given birth yet. And pregnant women who are low-income can usually get on their state’s Medicaid or whatever without having to wait until she has the child.
So she’s inferring she didn’t follow her doctor’s and all established practices? Why do doctors say do not drink, don’t take certain medicatons, why are our stomaches covered with a lead apron if we have an x-ray? If the babies in our wombs are not lives, not alive, then they are not growing or developing. Inert things do not grow or move, yet the babies, the living, , taking nutrient, human lives in our wombs, do move and grow. Pro-abortionists can hem and haw, lie all they like, but they can not change the facts, a fetus is a living baby, no matter how small.
Courtnay: And they call those of us who question climate change anti-science.
I agree that life is there at conception. However, there really is no “questioning climate change.” It’s here, demonstrably so.
The question, if any, is how much human activity is responsible for it. When one looks at the facts, there is no sensible answer that says, “None of it.”
Doug, Is it the same science that pro-choicer’s use the cervical vortex as the life giving passage from fetus to baby the same science that uses this winter’s polar vortex as proof that CO2 emissions are causing global warming?
Doug,
Do you look to people like AL Gore among leaders who you rely on for your global warming proof?
Another interesting point is how precisely the SCOTUS was able to pinpoint the point in delivery at which a fetus becomes human. You can deliver the fetus feet first all the way to the shoulders and reach in and stab the fetus in the skull with a scissors and deliver a dead fetus; but delivering te same baby past the shoulders and snipping off the baby’s spinal chord at the neck is obviously just grisly and scientifically more murderous. It is a farce. They hail the doctors that perform deliveries to the neck and stab babies in the head with a scissors ‘ while ‘abhorring abortionists like Gosnell who snip the necks a few seconds later. There is NO science to back up this kind of thinking. Anyone like Cecile Richards or Planned Parenthood or Obama who can claim to see a difference is a deranged psychopath. It is really really sad that people who think like that actually do exist? I wonder if their purpose is just to show everybody with brain the abject insanity of the positions pro-aborts can twist themselves into. Same with sex-selective abortions in China and India…nothing to see there cause they are still just fetus’ and not girls being selectively murdered. God help us all when they can think that deranged and get elected.
The head of PP thinks she is ‘hot stuff’. Makes me think of the childhood chant of ‘liar, liar, pants on fire’. Do not think that anyone can be that unbelieving of the basic fact of life.
What a crock of doo-doo. Everyone knows when life begins but some stifle the truth. Shame on you!! LL
P.S. Best comment on thread goes to Nalida Besson.
“Courtnay – I actually consider myself more pro-life than most on this board.” OMG-LOL
Ex-RINO, you have also said that you consider abortion to be murder. And yet your staunch support for Obama shpws you as the most forked-tongugued lilly-livered mind-impaired ;ogic twisited pro-lifer on this board too.
The question was, “How would you respond to Richards if she made that statement to you?”
Personally, I would do my best to not laugh or panic. Then I would just keep asking her questions until she completely exposed her own foolishness…
How does that work?
Why do you think that?
What would you say to those who disagree?
Do you have any evidence for that?
How does that work?
Can you name someone who agrees with this?
How does that work?
Then summarize her thought for her so she can hear it out loud. And ask, “Is that what you are saying?”
Wow!! Pathetic explanation Celeste. But what else could you really expect from the CEO of Dead Babies R Us.
Ex-Gop “I’m prolife and I love BHO” still doesn’t pass the smell test. If it looks like a duck or should I say smells like a skunk….
Got to go. Carry on true prolifers.
truth -
You were one of the people I was thinking of. Anybody who can freely admit that the delay or loss of insurance kills people, and then argues for a system in which less people have insurance – there’s a certain amount of disconnect there.
If I remember right, you are against the DP – so that helps your cause.
I wholeheartedly reject the premise that health care services must be distributed through a middleman (whether insurance company or government) to move from provider to patient. Lack of health care kills people. Lack of insurance does not. Please note, I am not saying that lack of insurance does not often equal a lack of access to health care. I am saying that it should not be that way. I refuse to lose sight of the fact that although so many choose to pay for their medical care via insurance companies, health insurance is not health care!
I agree 100% Lrning.
Now, the real question comes in when people say what their solution (alternative to what we’ve been doing in the US) is to your above statement…
Those fence pickets must be pretty pokey for political sitters of the pro-choice persuasion.
9ek – who are you referring to?
Pharmer1 is right, also Klan Parenthood is the largest domestic terrorist organization
“Please note, I am not saying that lack of insurance does not often equal a lack of access to health care. I am saying that it should not be that way. I refuse to lose sight of the fact that although so many choose to pay for their medical care via insurance companies, health insurance is not health care!”
I agree Lrning, but there’s literally no way for the average American with the average salary to go without insurance without risking bankruptcy. All it would take is one accident, one serious illness. I’ve said it before, I’m in tons of debt because of two health events, just one accident and one illnesses and I owe thousands upon thousands. People don’t really choose to pay through insurances, it’s just that prices are such that it’s basically impossible unless you’re very financially savvy or wealthy to pay your own medical bills and not carry insurance. I really don’t know if that can be fixed at this point, it looks like universal is the only chance now imo.
Truthseeker: Doug, Do you look to people like AL Gore among leaders who you rely on for your global warming proof?
No, TS, and he is busy inventing The Internet II anyway. : P
____
Is it the same science that pro-choicer’s use the cervical vortex as the life giving passage from fetus to baby the same science that uses this winter’s polar vortex as proof that CO2 emissions are causing global warming?
No, TS. The Arctic is the region of the world that’s been warming up the fastest – decreasing the temperature boundary between “warm” and “cold” air regions, i.e. between the polar and temperate areas. The greater that temperature differential, the more the polar jet stream is held in place – going around in a “flatter” path.
Now, with the lesser differential, the polar jet stream has been on more of a meandering course, and it’s been “dropping down” more. Last year, Europe got the comparatively rough winter, this year it’s the central and eastern US.
So if you don’t hold to the cervical vortex theory then you agree that a fetus is a baby inside the womb?
So are you saying that you are not a believer in climate warming but rather you are just a believer in climate change? That is certainly a more tenable than the global warming crowd has.
Now as far as the effect mankind has on these global vortexes that can make winter’s 20 degrees colder in the US and 20 degrees warmer in the arctic; are you saying these are caused by CO2 emissions or by something else mankind does (perhaps increased bivine flatulation due to milk and beef production)?
I am just trying to find some kind of scientific consensus from the climate change crowd. In the recent past the global warming crowd was all the craze and then all the so-called scientific evidence they used turned out to be fabricated and now the scientific data seems to point to the fact that we are heading toward an global cooling and not a global warming. How does today’s global warming crowd justify that and how do scientifically justify that?
TS: So if you don’t hold to the cervical vortex theory then you agree that a fetus is a baby inside the womb?
“cervical vortex theory” hahahahahahaaa! : )
My point is that the fetus is most definitely alive. The fertilized egg is alive. What we call it really does not matter. We can say, “she has a baby inside her,” or we can say “she is going to have a baby.” It’s entirely subjective.
There are definitions that support it being from birth to a certain age (same as for “child”) and there are definitions that support it applying before birth. It’s subjective – it really does not matter in the context of the abortion debate. Anybody can stomp their feet all day and insist that “it’s a baby,” or that “it’s not a baby,” and the whole abortion argument remains to be addressed.
____
So are you saying that you are not a believer in climate warming but rather you are just a believer in climate change? That is certainly a more tenable than the global warming crowd has.
Honestly, TS, that is nonsensical. Climate warming is a fact. The debate is over how much of it is caused by human activity.
Now as far as the effect mankind has on these global vortexes that can make winter’s 20 degrees colder in the US and 20 degrees warmer in the arctic; are you saying these are caused by CO2 emissions or by something else mankind does (perhaps increased bivine flatulation due to milk and beef production)?
“Global vortices”? Dude, you crack me up. The oscillating polar jet stream has been dropping down unusually far, and sometimes a “piece” of the cold polar air breaks off with its own circulation, and they have been calling that a “polar vortex.” I don’t really like that. There is a polar vortex over the north pole, and one over the south pole – big circulating areas of cold air. To start calling other stuff polar vortices is confusing, in my opinion.
There’s no “20 degrees warmer” in the arctic. If there was, it’d be a “whole new world,” so to speak. I think we’ve had about 4°C warming in the arctic.
The deal with carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gases” is that the earth’s production and absorption of them are in balance. On that alone, the amount of those gases in the atmosphere remains pretty stable.
Human activity produces about a quarter of what the earth does, as far as CO2. The earth is still absorbing the same amount, roughly, and thus this extra portion that humanity makes builds up in the atmosphere (and acidifies the oceans). The CO2 content of the air has risen fast, demonstrably.
We’ve gone from around 280 parts per million of CO2 in the air in pre-industrial times to about 400 now.
TS: In the recent past the global warming crowd was all the craze and then all the so-called scientific evidence they used turned out to be fabricated
No – the earth is warming up and the climate is changing. There is no doubt about this.
____
and now the scientific data seems to point to the fact that we are heading toward an global cooling and not a global warming.
Where did you see this?
Doug, I’m not an expert on global warming (unlike everyone else in the world :D), but I have read several pieces in the past year providing evidence against global warming. A couple examples:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/16/another-year-of-global-cooling/
You might not be convinced, but to say there is “no doubt” is simply not true.
SM, google “forbes global warming” and you will see that Forbes has had a steady drumbeat against global warming. The author, Peter Ferrara, is a lawyer for ‘The Heartland Institute.’ C’mon, man…..
But anyway, let’s see what he says.
He says, “Check out the 20th century temperature record, and you will find that its up and down pattern does not follow the industrial revolution’s upward march of atmospheric carbon dioxide”
Sure, but it doesn’t have to, for “global warming” to be accurate. The industrial revolution began in the mid 1700s and really got going in the 1800s. The big, fast, rise in CO2 didn’t get going until the 1960s. While it is certainly true that when we talk about human activity meaningfully changing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, we are talking about since the Industrial Revolution began, there is nothing that says it has to be a steady, linear relationship. The fact is that it’s only the last 50 years where it’s really kicked in.
Then he brings up the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and here he is really just laying on the BS. The PDO really just moves heat from air to water, and vice-versa. In no way does it “create heat” and cannot affect long-term warming or cooling trends. If the PDO were actually warming the surface of the earth, then the oceans would have to be cooling, and that is not happening.
http://imageshack.com/a/img802/2985/v4ev.png
There’s a chart – you can see that the PDO cycles up and down all the time, and this is with global temperatures being in an overall uptrend.
He speculates about sunspots, but we really cannot predict future sunspot activity very well, beyond the relatively short, known cycles. He says, We are also currently experiencing a surprisingly long period with very low sunspot activity. That is associated in the earth’s history with even lower, colder temperatures.
Well yeah, dude, and look what’s happened this time around – even with relatively little sunspot activity, the temperature has been going up. Shows you that sunspots have limited effect on global temperature, and that there is something else going on now that overcomes past tendencies with respect to temperatures on earth and sunspot activity.
He says, “The earth is cooling,” but that’s just not true. This past January (2014) was the 4th-highest on record for the average global temperature over the oceans and over land. This is since records began being kept in the 1880s. It’s also the warmest January since 2007. As of 2012, the 10 warmest years on record were all from 1998 to 2012.
The 2nd article says, “The mean global temperature has not risen in 17 years and has been slowly falling for approximately the past 10 years.”
That’s just not true. Globally, the hottest 12-month period ever recorded was from June 2009 to May 2010.
He then mentions a bunch of anecdotal stuff that means nothing as to overall global temperatures and the trend of temperature increase.
I am saying there is no doubt that the earth is warming. It is farfetched to assume that human activity means nothing here. The debate is over how much we affect things.
I’m not saying the world is coming to an end or that it’s necessarily catastrophic. We simply do not know what’s going to happen in the future, nor what all the effects will be.