Pro-life blog buzz 6-19-15
by Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN, and Kelli
- Wesley J. Smith says the French are trying to bring euthanasia in gradually, by first offering to sedate terminally ill patients until death. Smith discusses the difference between palliative and terminal sedation, and explains why terminal sedation is not so humane:
That’s killing by slow motion because it involves putting a patient into a coma and depriving them of food and fluids so they dehydrate to death. Pushing terminal sedation is egregious for another reason: It confuses people as to whether the legitimate pain controlling technique – palliative sedation – is killing by another name. - ProLife NZ announces the continuation of a downward trend in abortion that started in 2007. Good news!
- John Smeaton says that “[o]f the 184,571 abortions performed in England and Wales last year[,] over 80% were performed on unmarried women and girls.” He quotes Paul Tully of SPUC, who suggests that marriage – the mere suggestion of which is often met with shock by women dealing with unplanned pregnancies – is often “hugely important to providing women with the security to continue their pregnancies.”
- Secular Pro-Life posts an interview with a gay atheist who converted from pro-abortion to pro-life and now believes “[h]omosexuals are natural pro-lifers because they are still insufficiently legal persons, like the preborn” and “The very same artificial legal boundaries that define what rights I may or may not have are the very same artificial legal boundaries that objectify our youngest human beings as mere body parts that could be thrown away at will.” The interview is an interesting read.
- At ProWomanProLife, Faye Sonier points out an essay from a self-described college-educated, pro-abortion liberal atheist who credits her mother’s conservative pro-life beliefs with her very existence. However, she seems to reject those beliefs herself.
- At Women’s Rights without Frontiers, Reggie Littlejohn shares an article by Paul Strand on the real reason for China’s one child policy, which goes far beyond population control. The goal is absolute control of the population by use of terror. But some effects were not intended:
… [D]emographer Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute… said the one-child policy has been so ruthlessly effective at killing hundreds of millions of unborn Chinese – especially baby girls – the country now faces a dangerous dearth of workers and women.“It has helped create a declining labor force for the future,” Eberstadt explained, “a rapidly aging society, a marriage squeeze for prospective brides and grooms from the gender-imbalanced generation, and a fragmentation of family.”
[youtube]https://youtu.be/9xuB2K6nceg[/youtube]
[Photo via theidomoment.com]
Jun.19, 2015 3:30 pm |
Blogs |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
There is a difference between sedation and pain control.
It’s really possible for an institution to drain down their supply of certain sedatives on a patient who really needs pain control.
Even worse is the thought of paralytic drugs being used when there should be pain control…
Even an argumentative old cynic was moved by this:
http://i1377.photobucket.com/albums/ah56/porkloin1/Isabella_zpsstsrmras.png
He quotes Paul Tully of SPUC, who suggests that marriage – the mere suggestion of which is often met with shock by women dealing with unplanned pregnancies – is often “hugely important to providing women with the security to continue their pregnancies.”
Women generally are not anti-marriage, but abortion advocates often are. Plenty of unmarried moms would be happy to marry, but abortion advocates would not be so happy to see them marry.
John Smeaton says that “of the 184,571 abortions performed in England and Wales last year, over 80% were performed on unmarried women and girls.”
I doubt that is a surprise to anybody – it makes a huge amount of gut-basic sense that married women will likely have less unwanted pregnancies, on average.
He quotes Paul Tully of SPUC, who suggests that marriage – the mere suggestion of which is often met with shock by women dealing with unplanned pregnancies – is often “hugely important to providing women with the security to continue their pregnancies.”
I don’t see why anybody would take issue with what is said, there. As above, certainly – marriage is going to be a significant factor. Yet if the pregnant woman is single, you can’t just “plug in” marriage as if that would “fix” things.
Women are not generally going to be looking to get hitched to a stranger. As for the father of the baby, if marriage is not already there or on the way, then I’d say it’s pretty likely a non-starter, and fairly often no wonder the woman would react with shock – she already knows he ain’t the guy for her.
“Women are not generally going to be looking to get hitched to a stranger. As for the father of the baby, if marriage is not already there or on the way, then I’d say it’s pretty likely a non-starter, and fairly often no wonder the woman would react with shock – she already knows he ain’t the guy for her. ”
think about what you are saying here. A stranger? Unless we are talking about rape, the guy is a stranger?? For the man, if marriage is not already on the way, the pregnancy would not motivate him. Sad, but true in many cases. Often when asking a woman who just found out she is pregnant and it is unplanned and you ask if marriage is an option, you will hear her say….what, marry him? I wouldn’t want to marry him!! Really, you just had sex with someone that you would not consider marrying?? Very sad.
Doug, did you happen to keep a copy of your last posts in our conversation regarding the value of the unborn in Scripture? I didn’t realize when the discussion timed out that all the comments disappeared.
Jonathan – holy crow! : P
The comments are still there – that would be brutal if they all disappeared.
Below the list of latest posts/comments, click on “Archives” and you can go back to the thread.
Susie Allen: think about what you are saying here. A stranger? Unless we are talking about rape, the guy is a stranger??
Susie, yes, I realize that sounds odd, but as I also said – “you can’t just “plug in” marriage as if that would “fix” things.”
For the man, if marriage is not already on the way, the pregnancy would not motivate him. Sad, but true in many cases.
No doubt at all.
Often when asking a woman who just found out she is pregnant and it is unplanned and you ask if marriage is an option, you will hear her say….what, marry him? I wouldn’t want to marry him!! Really, you just had sex with someone that you would not consider marrying?? Very sad.
By far, most episodes of sex are not with “making a baby” in mind, nor, if the people are unmarried, are they necessarily leading to marriage. I didn’t get married until I was 41 years old, and thank goodness I didn’t – my wife is the one for me.
Now, I wasn’t any “super horn dog” or anything during the prior 20+ years, but I wasn’t celibate, either.
Progressives in the US would love a one-child policy. In their minds it would help resolve so many of the problems they see in our society. Hunger, pollution, resource conservation etc etc. In an honest discussion with your typical progressive Planned Parenthood and abortion supporting liberal/progressive will openly confess the wisdom of a Margaret Sanger.
Progressives in the US would love a one-child policy. In their minds it would help resolve so many of the problems they see in our society. Hunger, pollution, resource conservation etc etc. – many progressives have more than one child, rendering your claim shallow.
In an honest discussion with your typical progressive Planned Parenthood and abortion supporting liberal/progressive will openly confess the wisdom of a Margaret Sanger. – what an exaggeration.
Reality, Margaret Sanger is the founder of Planned Parenthood. Where is the exaggeration?
The ‘confession’ you claim would be made by very few.
Margaret Sanger did not found Planned Parenthood.
Tying PP as it is now to Margaret Sanger is like tying the catholic church as it is now to Pope Lucius 3.
Uh, Margaret Sanger plainly did found Planned Parenthood. Good night, they even call their early years the “Sanger Years” on their website. She’s as much Planned Parenthood and population control as Susan B. Anthony is women’s voting rights or FDR was the New Deal.
Have you read Pivot of Civilization, Reality? It’s free online.
Uh, Margaret Sanger plainly did found Planned Parenthood – uh, do a bit more reading.
Reality,
you never did let facts get in the way of your blather. Start with something simple like this passage wikipedia on Planned Parenthood and work your way up from there.
“The organization has its roots in Brooklyn, New York, where Margaret Sanger opened the country’s first birth-control clinic.”
Are you not supportive of Margaret Sanger?
You didn’t read enough of the Wikipedia piece then did you truthseeker.
“The organization has its roots in Brooklyn, New York, where Margaret Sanger opened the country’s first birth-control clinic.” does not mean that she founded Planned Parenthood.
Are you not supportive of Margaret Sanger? – on which particular topic?
It’s really possible for an institution to drain down their supply of certain sedatives on a patient who really needs pain control.
But Pharmer, what if someone who is currently legally of sound mind knows she wants sedation at the end in certain situations, rather than pain control? I really hope nobody tries to get in my way about what I’ve chosen freely for myself and put into writing already. My family is on board, and, frankly, nobody else’s opinion matters.
Honestly, while there are serious problems with the idea of euthanasia being forced onto people who don’t want it, I find it incredibly insulting that some of the same people who agree with me that abortion is barbaric because it takes away the rights of an individual could then get all sanctimonious and insist they know what’s good for me.
Get bent, busybodies!
(Not aimed at anyone in particular, just the general attitude that tries to take control of others, particularly when it’s highly unwelcome.)
Palliative care is legal and a great way for a terminally ill patient to go at his or her request.
And busybodies like Randall Terry can’t interfere or try to interfere like with Schiavo.