Pro-life blog buzz 6-24-14
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.
- Clinic Quotes shares a quote from an abortionist who admits he does “mental gymnastics” in order to perform abortions:
… I started doing abortions on an altruistic basis. I’ve done a couple thousand, and it turned into a significant financial boon, but I also feel I’ve provided an important service. The only way I can do an abortion is to consider only the woman as my patient and block out the baby. I’ve delivered enough babies, seen enough divorces, and seen enough abused kids to do abortions with a clear conscience. This may be some kind of mental gymnastics on my part, but I really feel that parenthood is so tough that people shouldn’t back into it.
- ProLifeBlogs.com links to a Life News report regarding a decision by the Presbyterian Church (USA) to refuse to condemn the killing of babies born alive following botched abortions:
… 78 percent of the PCUSA General Assembly struck down a resolution condemning the killing of babies born alive during abortions, as occurred with notorious abortionist Kermit Gosnell. Initiated by the South Alabama presbytery, it called for inclusion of pro-life Presbyterians and an investigation into doctrinal and financial support of abortion. Dissenters cited pro-abortion stances, while others noted past affirmation of viable babies and reservations in commenting on criminal cases.
In other words, PCUSA sees no problem with what abortionists like Gosnell do for a living. It appears that gay marriage (which was approved by the assembly) matters to PCUSA, while the right to life itself doesn’t matter at all. (Maybe the “PC” in PCUSA should really stand for “politically correct”.)
- A Culture of Life finds both good and bad news in the latest abortion statistics out of New Zealand:
The recorded abortions have dropped for the sixth consecutive year to 14,073. This is the lowest since 2007 when there were 18,382 abortions reported….Significantly, younger women are leading the way in the rejection of abortion. Since 2007, when the number of teen abortions reached their highest in history, the number of 15 to 19 year olds having abortions has decreased by half!…
Unfortunately women aged 40 to 44 are having more abortions. 637 – up from 590 in 2012. It is the highest number of abortions in this age bracket since 2010 when 655 were recorded.
- Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life has an excellent article pointing out the importance of fathers regarding the abortion issue. Abortion is NOT just a women’s issue.
- At Live Action, Cassy Fiano reports on some “Nazi thinking” comments made by a Czech government advisor who was forced to resign due to public outcry. But would the outcry have been so swift had his verbiage been a bit more… nuanced?
Miroslav Mitloehner drew strong protests after he argued in a recent article published in the Journal of Medical Law and Bioethics that “it makes no sense to prolong the life of a baby born as a monster….
Mitloehner said doctors should be allowed to terminate babies’ lives without parents’ consent, adding that their disabilities led to the question “whether such a freak is a human being at all.”
Mitloehner said society should have the courage to agree to “legally end their life in the course of pregnancy or immediately after the birth.”
- At National Review, Michael J. New points out the media’s pro-abortion bias and how it does a disservice to women by neglecting to report the connection between abortion and preterm birth:
… [E]ven though the Bloomberg article reports extensively on both high abortion rates and the high rate of preterm births in the same story, it never bothers to draw a connection between the two. This is despite the fact that there exist 127 studies documenting such a link. These studies date back until 1963 and include a wide range of methodological approaches.They also include recent, methodologically rich studies from Italy and China, each of which analyzed thousands of women; as well as a 2009 meta-study of the literature from 1995 to 2007 authored by both pro-life and pro-choice researchers, which found a 64 percent increased risk of a preterm birth with just a single induced abortion.
[Injection photo via immortalhumans.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.
There are plenty of people who agree with this Czech creep, take for example the “esteemed” (but not by me) ethicist Peter Singer.
“There are plenty of people who agree with this Czech creep, take for example the “esteemed” (but not by me) ethicist Peter Singer.”
True. Personally, when referring to him I always put “ethicist” in quotes as well.
In other words, PCUSA sees no problem with what Gosnell did.
This is a bald-faced lie. The PCUSA actually said, “Regardless of one’s support or opposition to legal abortion, the case of Dr. Gosnell is abhorrent to all.” It went on to say that “statements in opposition to Dr. Gosnell’s actions would accurately reflect church policy,” but that the PCUSA does not comment on criminal cases.
Susie and Kelli, why do you believe that your readers deserve lies instead of truth?
PCUSA statement (you’ll need to cut and paste the link): http://pc-biz.org/PC-Biz.WebApp_deploy/(S(wsuwhjdigwts4p1gfa4n1n5s))/IOBView.aspx?m=ro&id=4579
“This is a bald-faced lie.”
This from Lisa C. the grammar Nazi. Lisa, present tense participles and transitive verbs aside; what is a bald-faced lie? We can only hope it was a typo and was supposed to be bold-faced lie.
In any case Lisa do you not believe that “78 percent of the PCUSA General Assembly struck down a resolution condemning the killing of babies born alive during abortions.” Do you seriously think Jesus would ‘not’ condemn the killing of babies born alive in botched abortions? What a blight that vote was on Christianity in the US.
what is a bald-faced lie?
A bald-faced lie is an open, blatant, shameless lie; a lie as plain as the nose on your face. Look it up. When Susie and Kelli said that the PCUSA had “no problem with what Gosnell did,” they were blatantly lying. The PCUSA actually said Gosnell’s actions were appalling.
Do you seriously think Jesus would ‘not’ condemn the killing of babies born alive in botched abortions?
Well, Jesus wasn’t a moron, so I think he would understand that not approving a particular resolution is not the same thing as condoning an act. For example, refer to the account of Jesus, the Pharisees, and the woman caught in adultery in John 8. The Pharisees probably went home and told their friends that Jesus refused to condemn a woman taken in adultery. They probably went on to say that this proved that “Jesus sees no problem with what the adulterous woman did.” Would they be telling the truth?
To understand the PCUSA’s vote, you’ll need to read and understand the entire document linked in my previous post. I’m happy to discuss it further once you’ve done so.
“When Susie and Kelli said that the PCUSA had “no problem with what Gosnell did,” they were blatantly lying.”
Or misread or misunderstood, or read a source that lied or misread or misunderstood. You take the worst possible interpretation a lot Lisa.
I can’t read your link, it jus to won’t work for me, maybe you could paraphrase of summarize why they would vote against born alive protections? The justifications I’ve heard from pro-choicers so far have to do with worrying about infringing on late-terms (which obviously I think is a terrible reason), or Reality telling me that the woman wanted an abortion, not a live baby, which is even worse.
So PCUSA said what Gosnell did was appalling however they voted down a resolution condemning the killing of babies that survived a botched abortion? If they would not condemn the killing what did they find so appalling from Gosnell? His method??
I can sympathize with you about belonging to a denomination for years that now embraces abortion. I know it is hard to decide what to do now…stay or go??
As for your example of Jesus stopping a woman caught in adultery from being stoned to death…He told her to go and sin no more. He did not say I don’t condemn you and go and continue to sin. He was not winking at sin. He saved her life (Jesus is pro life) and told her to go and sin no more.
So to get back to your argument. Some pro lifers in PUSA brought a resolution asking them to condemn the killing of babies born alive following a botched abortion and also to stop supporting abortion with their finances and doctrinal support….sounds like a good resolution to me. But it was voted down by 78%!!?? I am so sorry. I know this hurts but your denomination supports abortion.
Lisa C, your link doesn’t work. Susie Allen, thank you for post. I’d bet in a random poll less that 78% of atheists would have voted Yes on that resolution. That vote was a serious blight on the Presbyterians and on any other Christians who proclaim to follow Christ.
Lisa C was quick to correct me on something the other day…..these posts arent college papers being graded and I use medical term. at work so I dont much care about typos on a blog. However since youve corrected me before I will now correct you. It is bold faced lie! Anyway naturally you are post abortive and could probably care less about methods used to abort. And trust me..that abortionist is dehumanizing women also. They are all a bunch of perverted quacks in this for power and greed. No DOCTOR would kill a baby yet they will tell you what you want to hear. Products of conceeption. What product do you think of when a sperm and an egg meet? Its called a baby.
And how do you feel about babies born alive who are killed outside of the womb? Drowning strangled or thrown in the trash. Is that okay? Now you have your autonomy back so what about the living aborted baby and his or her autonomy?
“I will now correct you. It is bold faced lie!”
To be fair, it does seem that both forms are in use these days.
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-bal2.htm
JDC they are. My friend said it once and I couldnt stop laughing. She asked why. I told her because that was the first time id ever heard it.
Jack, you can get to the document either by cutting and pasting the address in my post, or by following the link within the LifeNews story. It’s the first link in the sentence beginning with “Also Thursday, 78 percent of the PCUSA…”
Or misread or misunderstood, or read a source that lied or misread or misunderstood. You take the worst possible interpretation a lot Lisa.
I’m holding this site accountable for the things that it says. The authors make a very specific claim about the PCUSA’s statement, and that claim is obviously false. This is not a matter of opinion: it is a matter of basic reading competence. Why give the benefit of the doubt to a post that shows so little respect for your intelligence?
maybe you could paraphrase of summarize why they would vote against born alive protections?
The born alive protections were part of larger proposed resolution, discussed below. The PCUSA’s response to the specific issue of Gosnell was as follows:
a) the PCUSA has previously issued resolutions stating that viable babies should be delivered alive and “preserved and cared for” rather than aborted, and anyone who is not dumber than a box of rocks understands that “preserved and cared for” by definition means “not killed” (note: the Assembly did not actually say the “dumber than a box of rocks” part), and
b) Gosnell’s actions were abhorrent but the PCUSA does not comment on criminal cases.
The rest of the proposal enjoined the PCUSA to budget $75,000 to establish an ad hoc committee to investigate whether the PCUSA gave any financial support to Planned Parenthood, and to review PCUSA’s policies about abortion and propose policy changes if the ad hoc committee thought they were needed.
The PCUSA responded that (paraphrased below)
a) The Assembly voted two years ago to reaffirm their existing resolutions on abortion rather than to revisit the issue,
b) Under PCUSA guidelines, it was impossible to make new policy in the manner suggested by the resolution, and
c) Because the PCUSA had committed to lowering its spending and was reducing staff for that purpose, it was irresponsible to spend $75,000 to find financial information that was already available. (Namely, that PCUSA does not give any money to Planned Parenthood).
It’s hard to believe that the group that proposed the resolution didn’t know from the beginning that it was unpassable simply on procedural grounds. A cynic would speculate that they proposed it merely for the purpose of generating headlines like “PCUSA votes to kill babies.”
Lisa C was quick to correct me on something the other day…However since youve corrected me before I will now correct you. It is bold faced lie!
Heather, if I really were “quick” to correct you, I’d spend all day doing nothing else. Usually, I ignore you. The phrase “bald-faced lie” is, unlike my purported abortion, real.
Susie, I am not a Presbyterian. You are correct that Jesus did not condone adultery. But by the “logic” you used above, the fact that he did not announce “I oppose adultery!” is proof that he “had no problem” with it.
Addendum: I guess Susie and Kelli really did not bother to read the resolution before “reporting” on it. Remind me why any rational person would believe anything this site says?
“I’m holding this site accountable for the things that it says. The authors make a very specific claim about the PCUSA’s statement, and that claim is obviously false. This is not a matter of opinion: it is a matter of basic reading competence. Why give the benefit of the doubt to a post that shows so little respect for your intelligence?”
Well, I give Kelli the benefit of the doubt because she’s my friend and I know she’s not a liar. I don’t know Susie well or whatever but I’d rather assume the best about the people here or elsewhere than the worst, you know? And you’re assuming I just read things here and never verify independently. Nope. I’m not entirely stupid lol. People can misinterpret or be mistaken, or even lie. I’m just not gonna assume they did lie.
Thanks for the summary I’ll look into it if these links ever work for me, lol.
I have two words in response to PCUSA’s supposed objection to what Kermit Gosnell did:
Window dressing.
What did Gosnell do? He killed children who were born alive after botched abortions. He did not save them. He snipped their necks. Whether it is by drowning in bleach or snipping the neck or allowing a child to suffocate or by providing “comfort care” instead of actual medical care, the result is the same. 78% of the assembly wanted nothing to do with saving babies who were born alive during abortions. We’re not talking PREborn, we’re talking POSTborn.
But gosh, we can’t comment on a criminal case (even though this guy was tried for doing the very thing the PCUSA assembly refused to condemn). And golly gee, we just think what Gosnell did was horrible (but not quite horrible enough for us to condemn the killing of children born alive after botched abortions).
This source has more actual quotes from the PCUSA statements: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/presbyterian-church-usa-voted-down-measure-to-condemn-abortion-of-babies-bo
“Fully 78 percent of delegates of the 1.8 million–member PCUSA voted against a “two year season of reflection on the plight of unwanted children,” which called on church leaders to ‘issue statements that denounce the practice of killing babies born live following an abortion procedure, such as was revealed in the Dr. Kermit Gosnell clinic in Philadelphia.'”
The response? “While the committee conceded that ‘the case of Dr. Gosnell is abhorrent to all’ and that ‘statements in opposition to Dr. Gosnell’s actions would accurately reflect church policy,’ they explained that ‘the Moderator and Stated Clerk do not typically comment on criminal cases.'”
There’s just one problem: Nobody ASKED them to comment on Gosnell’s actions. They were asked to “denounce the practice of killing babies born live following an abortion procedure such as was revealed in the Dr. Kermit Gosnell clinic in Philadelphia“, meaning this was effectively meant to be an evidential phrase supporting the fact that babies are indeed born alive and killed following abortion procedures, as proven by the Gosnell case.
Their rejection was window dressing. Notice in the link I provided it states: “multiple forms of ‘support that the PC(USA) provides to organizations such as Planned Parenthood, Presbyterians Affirming Reproductive Options, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, and other abortion providers or pro-choice organizations.’ ” They are pro-choice.
This: “Dissenters cited pro-abortion stances” – you don’t say!
“while others noted past affirmation of viable babies” – what about non-viable babies? And in light of the fact that PCUSA supports so many pro-choice groups, perhaps another “affirmation” would be wise.
You want me to remove the “BALD-faced lie” allegedly posted above? I can remove the sentence, but the truth remains that PCUSA’s statements are window dressing. 78% of the assembly voted NOT to speak against the killing of children born alive during abortions. There is no pretty way to paint that.
By the way, keep it up with the “dumber than a box of rocks” and other insults that seem to flow so fluidly from you, and you’ll find yourself banned for breaking commenting rules, LisaC.
Have a nice day.
Lisa C,
If a bearded man tells a bold faced lie is he also called a bald-faced liar?
Lisa C…snip snip. You see you can correct me all you see fit but Im smarter than you anyway. I know that when a sperm meets an egg a human life has formed. You dont. And you also do NOT impress me.
Lisa C….your last comment at the end…are you serious? Speaking of ppl who arent rational. And if you called me dumber than a box of rocks ive gotta LOL.
If a bearded man tells a bold faced lie is he also called a bald-faced liar?
That might be a good question for you and Heather to puzzle over.
And you also do NOT impress me.
Likewise.
By the way, keep it up with the “dumber than a box of rocks”
I apologize. I had realized by that point that the authors of the post had not read the text, and honestly didn’t think that anyone who did read the text wouldn’t understand it.
You want me to remove the “BALD-faced lie” allegedly posted above? I can remove the sentence
Given that I was wrong to assume that Susie and Kelli would have read the document they were writing about, it is indeed wrong to call it a lie. I’m okay with changing it to “fabrication” or “unsubstantiated invention,” for the reasons explained below.
but the truth remains that PCUSA’s statements are window dressing.
No, that “truth” doesn’t remain, really. We’re all entitled to our own opinions, but we are not entitled to our own facts. The facts are as follows:
FACT: The resolution was a three-part resolution: to condemn killin’ babies AND to appoint a committee that would spend 2 years and $75,000 BOTH investigating PCUSA’s financial support of various organizations (pro-choice and pro-life ones) AND proposing new policies if the committee felt like it. There was not an option to vote YES on one part and NO on another part.
FACT: The PCUSA provided the financial information to be investigated on the spot, eliminating the need to spend two years and $75,000 looking for it.
FACT: The PCUSA’s procedures for proposing new policies are substantially different from those that the resolution mandated.
TRUTH: you have no clue which part(s) of the resolution the “No” voters objected to.
If the 78% of the assembly that voted against the resolution contacted this blog and said, “I really, really wanted to spend two years and $75,000 finding information that we already have, but I had to vote ‘no’ because I didn’t want anyone to think that I oppose killing babies,” then the assertion that the PCUSA sees no problem with what abortionists like Gosnell do for a living is valid. If Susie and Kelli do not have actual evidence that the “no” voters opposed condemning infanticide but did not object to wasting time or money or to any other part of the resolution, then the assertion that the PCUSA sees no problem with what abortionists like Gosnell do for a living is simply something that they made up.
Try reading the whole document, Kel. It won’t hurt, I promise.
“That might be a good question for you and Heather to puzzle over.”
Lisa C.,
If enough people say the wrong thing (like for instance bald-faced liar when they mean to say bold-faced liar) enough times does the wrong thing take on the same meaning what the correct thing means?
Truthseeker, it’s objectively, demonstrably true that the term exists in spite of its absence from your lexicon, and that I used it correctly. I’ve bet myself a quarter that you can easily grasp this simple fact. Don’t let me down!
Actually yes truthseeker, language is descriptive, not prescriptive. Otherwise we would all still be speaking old Germanic languages or something. Language is fluid and words and phrases change their meanings over the years. That’s how we get different slang and new words, among other things.