BET: Yes, Planned Parenthood might be targeting blacks, but…
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed into a law a bill earlier this week that bans abortion on the premise of race or gender….
Critics of the new law say the true purpose of the bill is to polarize the public on an already sensitive subject. The African-American community is still reeling from Life Always’ anti-abortion billboard campaigns in Chicago and New York City.
While it seems unlikely, pro-life groups similar to Life Always could reasonably make the argument that Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers are systemically aborting Black babies, potentially incurring legal action against health centers that provide a myriad of health services to low-income women and children….
~ BET.com, March 31
Flashback to LiveAction.org’s Racism Project, wherein a white actor called numerous Planned Parenthoods and offered donations specifically to target black babies for abortion. All PPs accepted his terms. For example, in Ohio…
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iQhCv00dZY&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
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.
The black community is “reeling” from a bill board? They ought to be reeling that their unborn babies are being targeted for annihilation!
Sydney, you said it! The word ‘reeling’ also stuck out to me. I don’t think people are reeling enough! BET: 60% is okay with you?! You honestly think abortions are a solution to any community’s problems?
“We wouldn’t want word to get out that we are exterminating the negro population.” -Margaret Sanger, foundress of Planned Parenthood, on why eugenicists should target the religious leaders of the black community.
I’m sorry, but this phone call proved nothing. The caller could have inserted any “color” of person in there and PP would be fine. That’s not targeting anyone other than babies.
“Flashback to LiveAction.org’s Racism Project, wherein a white actor called numerous Planned Parenthoods and offered donations specifically to target black babies for abortion. All PPs accepted his terms. For example, in Ohio…”
So? Whatever happened to “money is fungible, it doesn’t matter what Congress says the federal money that Planned Parenthood receives is used for” line that’s popular here? If they can do good work with that money, why not take it?
Guess you consider killing babies and damaging their mothers “good work”, Joan?
Intersting. It is hilarious that all the responses are from White pro-lifers. Forget it . Your screaming to death ears. You will not use the Black community to further your cause. The prolife Cult led by Utah paligamists and men.
And you would know we are all white prolifers because………..????
Good grief, Jennifer.
Joan, are you saying that Planned Parenthood lies to their donors in order to get money off of them? Should the taxpayers be funding such a dishonest organization?
Jennifer, funny that you say that the pro-life movement is run by men. Let me ask you something. Do you know that this website is run by a pro-life leader? And that her name is Jill Stanek? And that she is a woman? Most of the pro-life leaders I have met are also women. Today one of them led me and a group of mostly women in praying for the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, another woman, to save babies from being aborted.
But don’t worry, Jennifer. We Catholics will soon have another great woman to pray to for her intercession in ending abortion. Mother Teresa of Calcutta, one of the greatest pro-life activists in history, has already been beatified, and it’s only a matter of time before she will officially be declared St. Teresa of Calcutta.
Bl. Teresa of Calcutta, pray for us!
Jennifer, you know nothing about my ethnicity. I assume you are a white racist who wants abortion to keep being unleashed upon the black community just like your girl Margaret Sanger envisioned. You can take your black baby killing KKK mindset somewhere else. 6 out of 10 black pregnancies are ended violently in NYC. You okay with that? You must be dancing around in your white cone-hat in glee.
Btw, you mean “DEAF” ears, not death ears… although given what we are talking about… death ears is chillingly appropriate. And its spelled INTERESTING and POLYGAMY. I can forgive one misspelled word but not this many. But I’m sure amidst your frothing it was hard to run spell check.
Intersting. It is hilarious that all the responses are from White pro-lifers. Forget it . Your screaming to death ears. You will not use the Black community to further your cause. The prolife Cult led by Utah paligamists and men.
LOL! Thanks for the laugh. “Death” ears? Is that like something from Star Wars? “Paligamists?”
This is a joke, right?
Are you aware that 60% of all black children conceived in NYC are aborted? Just thought you might want to know that, since you seem to be clueless about… well, pretty much everything.
In the sixties and seventies, abortion and Planned Parenthood clinics were built in POOR neighborhoods to serve POOR women. A disproportionate number of black women were and are poor. That is why there is a disproportionate number of clinics in black neighborhoods.
As for Margaret Sanger, yes, she had ideas that would today be considered racist, but so did MOST American intellectuals of the 1920s. People didn’t know what a bad thing eugenics was until the 1940s when they saw what the Nazis were doing. Look at what Sanger wrote about later in her life.
And hey, let’s look at what the black community thinks of all this. It’s been public knowledge for years that there are lots of PP clinics in black neighborhoods. Does the community seem to be offended by this? No. Does the community seem to be offended by the billboard campaign? Yes.
Saw what the Nazis were doing? And which founder of what became Planned Parenthood gave them advice on how to implement the final solution? Could it have been Margaret Sanger? Yes, one and the same.
If abortion solved poverty, then after so many millions of pre-born children murdered, I’d have expected a little less poverty by now. Guess it isn’t working so well, huh?
Planned Parenthood serves the poor like that old twilight zone episode: how to serve man.
Jennifer also misspelled “you’re” as in “you are screaming to deaf ears”.
Guess the pro-death crowd is sending in children(who haven’t yet learned grammar or spelling) to make their point to us…ironic.
My observation is that there is genuflection towards people like Joe Scheidler by most of you. When someone like that Gerard Nadal chap writes something there is an element of sycophancy. Fr. Frank Pavone draws ‘oo’s and ah’s”. And of course many of you prostrate yourselves in the name of a certain patriarchal deity.
So to me it does appear that it is men who drive the anti-choice cause even if it occurs succinctly. Which makes sense since it’s all about men controlling women via their fertility.
And hey, let’s look at what the black community thinks of all this. It’s been public knowledge for years that there are lots of PP clinics in black neighborhoods. Does the community seem to be offended by this? No. Does the community seem to be offended by the billboard campaign? Yes.
The truth often offends people. With an abortion rate as high as it is in the Black community, the leaders need to take notice – and some finally are. Also in recent years, some Black leaders are taking notice of the problem of fatherlessness among Black families. They are pointing out how injurious this has been. If this offends some people, that’s unfortunate, but it’s obvious that there is a problem and someone must point it out. I’m thankful for my pastor friends in the Black community who have made it their mission to speak out against the issues harming their community.
Given that one of ‘your team’ made five spelling errors in one short paragraph the other day Pamela, where is the irony? I’ve also noticed some ‘outstanding’ grammar from time to time. And how could pro-choicers ‘send in children’, according to some here we kill them all, remember.
Talk about men controlling women’s fertility Reality. The idea that “Hey, I am going to ejaculate into you and if you get pregnant (which your body is DESIGNED to do) I am going to haul you off to a clinic where you will be subjected to the risks of anesthesia and surgery to have our baby scraped out of you. It may cost you your future fertility, give you cancer, cause emotional harm and screw up your periods in the future but hey… if thats the price you have to pay so I can ejaculate in you and not be bothered then so be it. And then after you go through all this I am going to disappear and never call you again. Cause really, I don’t care about you as a human being. You are just a warm piece of meat for me to ejaculate in.” That is how many many many men use abortion to control women. It was just in the news in my area that a married veterinarian was fooling around with one of his vet techs. He got her pregnant. When she would not abort their son he shot her in the head and stomach. Talk about controlling women!
And of course many of you prostrate yourselves in the name of a certain patriarchal deity.
Start spending time with Our Lady and see where she leads you. If you have fingers, you won’t even need a rosary.
DRF: In the sixties and seventies, abortion and Planned Parenthood clinics were built in POOR neighborhoods to serve POOR women. A disproportionate number of black women were and are poor. That is why there is a disproportionate number of clinics in black neighborhoods.
And hey, let’s look at what the black community thinks of all this. It’s been public knowledge for years that there are lots of PP clinics in black neighborhoods. Does the community seem to be offended by this? No. Does the community seem to be offended by the billboard campaign? Yes.
_____
Good comments, DRF. Rather than some imaginary nefarious “conspiracy” at work, the reality is that black women in the US give birth to more kids, on average, than do white women. That is by their own choice, just as it’s the choice of the given, individual woman to end an unwanted pregnancy.
Black women are not some “unthinking herd,” and there is an element of that in the billboard campaigns, and no wonder there is offense taken at the inference. My wife is a teacher in the Atlanta area, and we know many black women in their late teens and early 20’s, and if anything, there is a “Who the heck are they (those behind the billboards) that they think they know me” feeling.
What you have cited does indeed occur Sydney M. Mind you, the associated propagandizing of spurious claims takes some focus off the real issue.
Some people drink-drive and kill people too, so shall we ban driving and cars? Some parents abuse their kids, shall we ban parenthood? There are always people who ‘do the wrong thing’ or use and abuse others.
So tell me, what percentage of copulating couples is this “many, many, many”? While you’re at it how about you tell me how many men prevent women from participating in the workforce? How many hold the family finances and dole out the necessary minimum to women? Oh, and how many don’t let women participate in church rituals on an equal footing?
It’s all about controlling women isn’t it. Some do it by enforcing abortions. Some do it by limiting womens’ opportunities and ability to participate.
The men you have cited would conduct themselves similarly even if abortion were not legal.
It’s about power, not abortion. Something that republicans and patriarchal organizations know and practice only too well.
Some people drink-drive and kill people too, so shall we ban driving and cars?
No, but we should not legalize and promote drunk driving.
Some parents abuse their kids, shall we ban parenthood?
No, but we should not legalize and promote abuse.
Some mothers kill their preborn children, so shall we ban sex and pregnancy?
No, but killing preborn humans should not be legalized and promoted either.
“killing preborn humans should not be legalized” – well it has been, and with good cause.
“and promoted either.” – it’s not ‘promoted’.
Ah when all else fails play its all about men wanting to control women or religion (pretending many men love abortion since it provides a way out for them and many women want to do away with it since they see it as murder). But in Reality’s men-hating fantasy it is all about how men wants to control women. And your men-hating argument is just cover for your own hatred of babies and your own need to have power of life and death over them. Something liberals and Denocrats who love abortion know and do too well.
Never mind we see abortion as murder. No, somehow it got to be about men wanting to control women- conspiracy theories like that is what turn people off to feminism at all. Of course Susan B. Anthony would laugh at such though given she saw abortion as a horrific act and child murder and abuse.
Reality: Some people drink-drive and kill people too, so shall we ban driving and cars?
Praxedes: No, but we should not legalize and promote drunk driving.
I don’t think there’s going to be any banning of having sex, drinking, driving, nor of cars.
From the above, sometimes an undesirable situation arises – somebody will drive drunk, or have an unwanted pregnancy. Abortion, whether one is for it being legal or not, remedies the unwanted pregnancy, and drunk driving laws are an attempt to remedy drunk driving.
“Remedies.” Another nice, squeaky-clean word meant to obscure the reality and truth of abortion.
Abortion “remedies” through the intentional killing of another human.
Abortion seeks to intentionally eradicate a human life, thereby ending a pregnancy, but in the case of laws against drunk driving, we’re attempting to save and protect life. Though they both “remedy” something, they have very, very different results.
Kel, sure, different results, because the things that are not wanted are different themselves.
Right, Doug. In one case, a human life is not valued or protected, and in the other case, human life is considered valuable enough that we seek to restrict the freedom of other persons to take an action that could harm others.
Again, Kel, no argument. The difference is that with respect to drunk driving, rights and personhood have been attributed, and are not even at issue, while with abortion that is not the case. Another difference is that the unborn are inside the body of a person, and while I realize that doesn’t matter enough to you, it does to many people.
I have a question for all of you pro-aborts who have commented on here. You seem to want to focus on men controlling women, what the pro-lifers race is, what our religion is, if the black communities are offended at our telling the truth and even on the “choice” issue. But as I see it, in all of these arguments you are forgetting the real issue at hand. Every pro-abort that I have ever heard runs from this issue. They try to draw the attention elsewhere every time just as you have done over and over in this thread. The real issue is this: after all the arguments, the politics, the choice, the “right’s” of women,etc , after those are all put aside, we are left with two things, a dead baby and a woman wounded in her soul. so my question to you is this: what do you do in your mind with that dead baby? Do you ignore it so that you can’t feel in your heart what you are condoning? Do you admit what it is but harden your heart to just simply not care? Do you admit that you have just killed a child but think yourself worth more than that child so it’s death does nothing to your heart? I’m just curious as to how the thought processes reach the point that a death is something to be valued and fought for with harsh words and sometimes violence. How did we as a nation get to the point of being so cold hearted that mothers wait in line to kill their children and husbands, boyfriends, mothers and sisters help them? What has happened to our hearts? I would like to hear a genuine response to my question from the pro-aborts. You have been brave so far,be brave enough to look at the question and answer it.
Deanna: The real issue is this: after all the arguments, the politics, the choice, the “right’s” of women,etc , after those are all put aside, we are left with two things, a dead baby and a woman wounded in her soul. so my question to you is this: what do you do in your mind with that dead baby?
Well, perhaps the woman really ends up regretting having an abortion, and perhaps not. For those that really do, then I think that’s too bad, and while we don’t know how their lives would have been had they not had the abortion, I personally don’t wish them to suffer. There is no guarantee that we won’t later regret some of our decisions.
To a point in gestation, I do not think there is any mental awareness in the unborn; no cognition, no sentience or ability to suffer, to care about anything. Yes, there is a life there, there is a living organism, but for such a life to end is not all that bad a thing, per se, in my opinion. And it’s not a totally unconnected thing, here, as there is the desire of the woman to end the pregnancy. Contrast that with a woman having a miscarriage, a woman who really wants to have a baby, and I think the latter is far, far sadder.
I’m fine with saying, “unborn baby,” and after an abortion or a miscarriage, there is then a dead baby. What “do we do with it in our minds?” I certainly acknowledge the existence of it. I realize that it may be a tremendously sad thing for the woman who was pregnant and possibly other members of her family. Or maybe it is not, maybe the woman is glad of it, on balance.
I also am not saying that abortion is a good thing, per se. I would rather have pregnancies prevented than ended by abortion.
Doug,
Just because you don’t think that the child has any awareness or ability to feel or ability to suffer doesn’t make it fact. Science disagrees with you as does the Bible. Granted you may not believe what the Bible says so we will just stick with the scientific parts. Fetal pain bills are being passed in states around the nation almost weekly based on the scientific FACT that the babies feel pain. As far as ability to think and awareness goes how could you possibly know that? It is a very convenient conclusion to come to with no scientific fact to back it up. The writer of this blog was a nurse who took care of babies all the time and she can attest to the fact that they were every bit a human being, not just an organism, as you called it. In almost every state in this nation abortions up to 26 weeks are available at many clinics just for the asking. Babies of that same gestational age are cared for in hospital neo-natal units right down the road from the clinics that do the abortions. I can guarantee you that every one of those babies in the neo-natal unit feel pain AS DO the ones in the clinics. Again, it is a convenient mindset not based in fact. A person can come up with all sorts of justifications for their acts when they want it bad enough. It is no different than Hilter making the Jews non-persons in his thinking to justify his actions or slave owners making blacks non-persons, or human traffickers making their victims non-persons. They all do this in order to be able to justify their horrible acts. You pro-aborts do the same thing. So, my question still stands, what does one do with that dead baby? If the mother wants it or not is not the issue either, that is another one of those arguments meant to get the attention off of the real issue, which is the dead baby! Also, just to show you how ridiculous that argument is lets do a little scenario here. Since you said the babies are mere organisms that feel no pain, have no awareness, and no ability to suffer what if someone drugged you, put you into a coma, then hacked you to pieces. The argument would be the same, would it not? You would have no awareness, no ability to feel pain, no ability to suffer. You would be a living organism. What’s the difference? The difference is that you have experienced life outside the womb so that makes you valuable to yourself while the ones still inside the womb are reduced to no value in your mind. When in reality it is we are all the same. Somehow we in our high value of ourselves have set ourselves up as supreme beings who get to choose who lives and who dies at our whims. What an arrogant detestable species we have become!
For Doug:
Summary of a presentation given by Dr. Paul Ranalli on “Pain, Fetal Development, and Partial-birth abortion” on June 27, 1997. (I personally attended this presentation). Related links are included below.
The fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks. This is probably a conservatively late estimate, but it is scientifically solid. Elements of the pain-conveying system (spino-thalamic system) begin to be assembled at 7 weeks; enough development has occurred by 12-14 weeks that some pain perception is likely, and continues to build through the second trimester. By 20 weeks, the spino- thalamic system is fully established and connected.
There are three different indicators providing evidence that the fetus feels pain.
Anatomical
– pain receptors spread over the body in stages: 8-16 weeks
– pain impulse connections in the spinal cord link up and reach the thalamus (the brain’s reception center): 7-20 weeks (summarized by Anand, K.J.S., Atlanta)
Physiological/Hormonal
– fetuses withdraw from painful stimulation
– two types of stress hormones, normally released by adults subjected to pain, are released by adults subjected to pain, are releases in massive amounts by the fetus subjected to a needle puncture to draw a blood sample:
(a) from 19 weeks onward (N. Fisk; London, England)
(b) from 16 weeks onward (J. Partch; Kiel, Germany)
Behavioral
– withdraw from pain
– change in vital signs
A 20-30 week old fetus actually will feel more pain than an adult. The period between 20-30 weeks is a uniquely vulnerable time, since the pain system is fully established, yet the higher level pain-modifying system has barely begun to develop.
For more info here is the link: http://www.gargaro.com/fetalpain.html
Also for Doug:
SIR ALBERT LILLEY widely considered the “Father of Fetology”, in an interview for his book, The Tiniest Humans.
Fetal pain bills are being passed in states around the nation almost weekly based on the scientific FACT that the babies feel pain. As far as ability to think and awareness goes how could you possibly know that? It is a very convenient conclusion to come to with no scientific fact to back it up. The writer of this blog was a nurse who took care of babies all the time and she can attest to the fact that they were every bit a human being, not just an organism, as you called it.
Deanna, if it was up to me to “draw the line on abortion,” I’d put it at 22 weeks, as far as elective abortions. That nurse may have cared for a huge number of babies, but we are not talking about preemies that were born before that. As far as I know, only one has ever survived, and that was 21 weeks, 6 days. That nurse is talking about babies born after that, very likely well after that, I think – and when we get to 26 weeks, 30 weeks, etc., then I’m not arguing – by that time in gestation most fetuses have some senses working. On the “every bit a human being,” no debate there – and that does not include anything beyond being merely a living, human organism. That’s not what we’re talking about.
I am not saying that pain is the whole deal, but it is certainly part of it, for me, as is when there is “somebody” there, some personality, some congizance, mental awareness, etc. On awareness and mental perception, for many decades we’ve been able to detect the presence of brainwaves, easily. If they are not there, they are not there. If we can detect the activity in the cerebral cortex that corresponds with real consciousness, that is one thing, but there is still a vast amount of debate on fetal pain earlier than 26 weeks or 24 weeks.
____
In almost every state in this nation abortions up to 26 weeks are available at many clinics just for the asking.
I think you are wrong about this. Been a long time since I checked, but the number of states with restrictions at 24 weeks or earlier makes your statement untrue, IMO. Additionally, it matters if there are clinics willing to do abortions that late, regardless if it is legal, and there too I think you’re not on track. Even years ago, there were only a handful of states, if not less, that had clinics that would do abortions to 26 weeks.
____
Since you said the babies are mere organisms that feel no pain, have no awareness, and no ability to suffer what if someone drugged you, put you into a coma, then hacked you to pieces. The argument would be the same, would it not? You would have no awareness, no ability to feel pain, no ability to suffer. You would be a living organism. What’s the difference?
You are way over-generalizing, Deanna. *To a point in gestation* I am saying that babies don’t feel pain, and have no mental awareness whatsoever. I’m not making unqualified statements about all babies. They are also inside the body of a person, and that is not true of me.
Hey – if there was the body of another organism inside me, it would be a far different thing that if we’re talking about another person walking down the street, or a person drugged, put into a coma, etc.
____
The difference is that you have experienced life outside the womb so that makes you valuable to yourself while the ones still inside the womb are reduced to no value in your mind.
No, no, no. Many unborn babies have great value to the pregnant woman or the man and the woman who are the parents. No question about it. It’s not up to me – it’s up to them.
____
The fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks. This is probably a conservatively late estimate, but it is scientifically solid. Elements of the pain-conveying system (spino-thalamic system) begin to be assembled at 7 weeks; enough development has occurred by 12-14 weeks that some pain perception is likely, and continues to build through the second trimester. By 20 weeks, the spino- thalamic system is fully established and connected.
The problem here is that while at least some of that is true, for real conscious awareness of pain, the cerebral cortex has to be developed, operational, and connected enough, and that is not true until later on. 20 weeks, the spino-thalamic system is established and connected – fine, but that is not enough to have conscious pain perception.
Such half-truths and obfuscations as you refer to were part of “The Silent Scream” movie, now well-discredited.
http://prochoicechristian1.blogspot.com/2009/11/silent-scream-is-lie.html
“Claim: The 12-week fetus experiences pain.
Facts: At this stage of the pregnancy, the brain and nervous system are still in a very early stage of development. The beginnings of the brain stem, which includes a rudimentary thalamus and spinal cord, is being formed. Most brain cells are not developed. Without a cerebral cortex (gray matter covering the brain), pain impulses cannot be received or perceived. Additionally, experts find that newborns at 26-27 weeks’ gestation (24-25 weeks’ fetal age) who survive have significantly less response to pain than do full term newborns.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Statement on Pain of the Fetus:
We know of no legitimate scientific information that supports the statement that a fetus experiences pain early in pregnancy. We do know that the cerebellum attains its final configuration in the seventh month and that mylenization (or covering) of the spinal cord and the brain begins between the 20th and 40th weeks of pregnancy. These, as well as other neurological developments, would have to be in place for the fetus to receive pain.
To feel pain, a fetus needs neurotransmitted hormones. In animals, these complex chemicals develop in the last third of gestation. We know of no evidence that humans are different.”
We often see people pretending that reflexive movement is conscious response to pain, and that is behind many of the claims of “pain” at 12 weeks, 16 weeks, etc.
Fetal pain bills are being passed in states around the nation almost weekly based on the scientific FACT that the babies feel pain. As far as ability to think and awareness goes how could you possibly know that? It is a very convenient conclusion to come to with no scientific fact to back it up. The writer of this blog was a nurse who took care of babies all the time and she can attest to the fact that they were every bit a human being, not just an organism, as you called it.
Deanna, if it was up to me to “draw the line on abortion,” I’d put it at 22 weeks, as far as elective abortions. That nurse may have cared for a huge number of babies, but we are not talking about preemies that were born before that. As far as I know, only one has ever survived, and that was 21 weeks, 6 days. That nurse is talking about babies born after that, very likely well after that, I think – and when we get to 26 weeks, 30 weeks, etc., then I’m not arguing – by that time in gestation most fetuses have some senses working. On the “every bit a human being,” no debate there – and that does not include anything beyond being merely a living, human organism. That’s not what we’re talking about.
I am not saying that pain is the whole deal, but it is certainly part of it, for me, as is when there is “somebody” there, some personality, some congizance, mental awareness, etc. On awareness and mental perception, for many decades we’ve been able to detect the presence of brainwaves, easily. If they are not there, they are not there. If we can detect the activity in the cerebral cortex that corresponds with real consciousness, that is one thing, but there is still a vast amount of debate on fetal pain earlier than 26 weeks or 24 weeks.
You are correct about the debate and as long as there is one shred of doubt on the subject then we need to ere on the side of compassion and assume that they feel pain. It is the humane thing to do.
In almost every state in this nation abortions up to 26 weeks are available at many clinics just for the asking.
I think you are wrong about this. Been a long time since I checked, but the number of states with restrictions at 24 weeks or earlier makes your statement untrue, IMO. Additionally, it matters if there are clinics willing to do abortions that late, regardless if it is legal, and there too I think you’re not on track. Even years ago, there were only a handful of states, if not less, that had clinics that would do abortions to 26 weeks.
Technicaly you are correct, most states cut of the aage for elective abortion at 24 weeks but you and I both and everyone else knows that it is common practice to “fudge” the date of conception to get the job done. No surprises there.
____
Since you said the babies are mere organisms that feel no pain, have no awareness, and no ability to suffer what if someone drugged you, put you into a coma, then hacked you to pieces. The argument would be the same, would it not? You would have no awareness, no ability to feel pain, no ability to suffer. You would be a living organism. What’s the difference?
You are way over-generalizing, Deanna. *To a point in gestation* I am saying that babies don’t feel pain, and have no mental awareness whatsoever. I’m not making unqualified statements about all babies. They are also inside the body of a person, and that is not true of me.
Geographical location has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on a human beings worth.
Hey – if there was the body of another organism inside me, it would be a far different thing that if we’re talking about another person walking down the street, or a person drugged, put into a coma, etc.
Again you are mistakenly calling the child an “organism” meant to de-humanize it. The child is fully human during the gestational period and only continues to grow. Science knows this, I know it and you know it. This is part of that ignoring the facts stuff that you guys do to make yourselves be able to sleep at night. If it’s just an organism then no big deal to kill it, but if it’s a human being then thats a different story all together. You decieve yourself!
____
The difference is that you have experienced life outside the womb so that makes you valuable to yourself while the ones still inside the womb are reduced to no value in your mind.
No, no, no. Many unborn babies have great value to the pregnant woman or the man and the woman who are the parents. No question about it. It’s not up to me – it’s up to them.
They have value to more than just parents who happen to want them. They have value to God and to every pro-life person alive. And you are right, sadly, it is up to the parents what they do with the child. But it shouldn’t be. Life and death should never be at one persons whim.
____
The fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks. This is probably a conservatively late estimate, but it is scientifically solid. Elements of the pain-conveying system (spino-thalamic system) begin to be assembled at 7 weeks; enough development has occurred by 12-14 weeks that some pain perception is likely, and continues to build through the second trimester. By 20 weeks, the spino- thalamic system is fully established and connected.
The problem here is that while at least some of that is true, for real conscious awareness of pain, the cerebral cortex has to be developed, operational, and connected enough, and that is not true until later on. 20 weeks, the spino-thalamic system is established and connected – fine, but that is not enough to have conscious pain perception.
Such half-truths and obfuscations as you refer to were part of “The Silent Scream” movie, now well-discredited.
Well-discredited ia an obviosu choice of words that I don’t buy. It was never discredited. What they said was that what Dr. Nathenson described as voluntary movement was involunatary based on the fact that “there is no documented evidence to show the fetus does anything as a conscious reaction at this fetal stage”(loose quote.) Just because they can’t document it yet doesnt make it reality. I think that perhaps the Dr. that I quoted knows a bit about that subject also.
“Claim: The 12-week fetus experiences pain.
Facts: At this stage of the pregnancy, the brain and nervous system are still in a very early stage of development. The beginnings of the brain stem, which includes a rudimentary thalamus and spinal cord, is being formed. Most brain cells are not developed. Without a cerebral cortex (gray matter covering the brain), pain impulses cannot be received or perceived. Additionally, experts find that newborns at 26-27 weeks’ gestation (24-25 weeks’ fetal age) who survive have significantly less response to pain than do full term newborns.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Statement on Pain of the Fetus:
We know of no legitimate scientific information that supports the statement that a fetus experiences pain early in pregnancy. We do know that the cerebellum attains its final configuration in the seventh month and that mylenization (or covering) of the spinal cord and the brain begins between the 20th and 40th weeks of pregnancy. These, as well as other neurological developments, would have to be in place for the fetus to receive pain.
To feel pain, a fetus needs neurotransmitted hormones. In animals, these complex chemicals develop in the last third of gestation. We know of no evidence that humans are different.”
We often see people pretending that reflexive movement is conscious response to pain, and that is behind many of the claims of “pain” at 12 weeks, 16 weeks, etc.
For the sake of argument lets assume that you are right and the child feels no pain whatsoever. That STILL does not give us the right to determine if it lives or dies. One thing really has nothing to do with the other. That is just another one of those smoke screens that you huys throw up to try and legitimize a heneous act. “If it doesn’t feel pain then I can kill it”. NONSENSE! We don’t have the moral right to kill innocent babies PERIOD!!!
Also. I would like to interject a word here about Dr. Nathenson (Silent Scream). Dr. Nathenson was the founder of NARAL and an abortionist. Much later in life he stopped doing abortions and started advocating for the protection of the unborn. His conversion from this line of work to being pro-life had EVERYTHING to do with what he knew to be true as an abortionist but that he blocked from his mind. As he began to admit even to himself what it was all about he became increasingly sure that he had to get out of it. This same scenario has happened many times with former abortionists and those who work in that field. They admit openly that they blocked the truth from their minds until they became hard hearted about the issue. When they began to think about it they could no longer participate. What is astonishing to me is that while Dr.Nathenson was in NARAL pro-aborts hung on every word of his false (he openly admitted that he lied) scenarios and statistics but then we he decided that his conscious could no longer bear it and he began to openly speak the truth he became the enemy, someone to be discredited. One day he’s a hero, the next he’s the villain all because he decided to tell the truth. The reason is because pro-aborts don’t want the truth and they certainly don’t want the general public to be enlightened because then they would have to think about the fact that they are cold hearted and they do things that no human should ever take part in. It seems to me that if we are going to believe anyone’s testimony of these things it should be those who once were part of it and then risked loosing reputation,money and status to tell the truth. They had nothing to gain. On the other hand the pro-aborts have a lot to gain, mostly money, at the loss of their conscious and at the cost of dead babies. How very sad
You are correct about the debate and as long as there is one shred of doubt on the subject then we need to ere on the side of compassion and assume that they feel pain. It is the humane thing to do.
Deanna, it’s not as simple as that, though, since there is also the pregnant woman to consider.
____
Technicaly you are correct, most states cut of the aage for elective abortion at 24 weeks but you and I both and everyone else knows that it is common practice to “fudge” the date of conception to get the job done. No surprises there.
I’m not for fudging things, although it’s only a very, very tiny percentage of abortions that occur that late in the first place. I’d be okay with a “hard number” at say, 22 weeks. However, pro-lifers are not going to be happy with that, though, are they? And not even with the line drawn earlier in pregnancy, like say, 16 weeks. So I don’t see this as all that important an overall debate in the context of the abortion argument.
____
Geographical location has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on a human beings worth.
You actually don’t mean “geographical location.” Whether inside the woman’s body or not, the geographical location can be the same. But being inside a person’s body does indeed make a difference. If Joe Blow is walking down the street, that is one thing. But if old Joe is inside my body, it’s gonna be, “Uh, Joe, we have to have a talk about this….”
____
Again you are mistakenly calling the child an “organism” meant to de-humanize it. The child is fully human during the gestational period and only continues to grow. Science knows this, I know it and you know it.
No – you are pretending your opinion of “child” is scientific, and it is not. I’ve never said anything about the unborn here being less than fully human. “Child” or not is entirely subjective. Some people consider the unborn as “children” and some do not. Really doesn’t matter to the abortion debate.
____
Well-discredited ia an obviosu choice of words that I don’t buy. It was never discredited. What they said was that what Dr. Nathenson described as voluntary movement was involunatary based on the fact that “there is no documented evidence to show the fetus does anything as a conscious reaction at this fetal stage”(loose quote.) Just because they can’t document it yet doesnt make it reality. I think that perhaps the Dr. that I quoted knows a bit about that subject also.
Some of the people who made “The Silent Scream” later admitted some things were faked. Reflexive movement was said to be conscious, and pictures of later-term fetuses were claimed to be of earlier-term fetuses. Those are 2 things I remember, and there were others too. Some pro-life organizations had a policy of not mentioning that film as it made them look bad, since so many people knew it was faked. This is all “ancient history,” really now – it’s surprising to see people still bringing it up.
I don’t disagree with what Dr. Ranalli says, but you see thosse quotes on pro-life websites as if they prove that the unborn can feel pain then, and that’s what is misleading. Yes, those things have to be present for pain to be felt. But there is more that is also required – the brain’s cortex being developed, operational and connected enough – and Dr. Ranalli correctly doesn’t say that is present. In the end, there can’t be conscious perception of pain at that point. Later on, when the fetus’s cortex has gotten to the necessary point, then pain can be felt.
____
Also. I would like to interject a word here about Dr. Nathenson (Silent Scream). Dr. Nathenson was the founder of NARAL and an abortionist. Much later in life he stopped doing abortions and started advocating for the protection of the unborn.
The doc was certainly an old fraud when he made “The Silent Scream.” He may well have been false earlier in his life, too.
Actually Doug you have proven my point very well. You took the attention off the dead baby and put it on fetal pain, the silent scream, the woman’s choice and numerous other arguments. Furthermore, you made the baby an organism and declared that it had no worth whatsoever as long as the parents didn’t want it. You stated what your personal limitations are and have decided within yourself that those younger than about 22 weeks are dispensable. This sums up my entire argument: No one has the moral right to condemn an innocent baby to death. The arguments of gestational age are of no importance in the morality issue. It is simply immoral and pro-aborts dance all around the morality of it by throwing up one smoke screen after another to not have to face the real issue. ONCE THE WOMAN IS PREGNANT THE DECISION HAS BEEN MADE BY DEFAULT. SHE IS AT THAT POINT A MOTHER. THE CHOICE IS NOT IF SHE IS A MOTHER BUT RATHER IS SHE TO BE THE MOTHER OF A DEAD CHILD OR A LIVE CHILD. THAT IS THE TRUE CHOICE.
I’m not sure if this was mentioned, but good old science actually thought newborns felt no pain either – and they would routinely do surgery without anesthesia – now they certainly know better.
Pain is only a small part of the equation. If the unborn are human, then why can we end their life before birth? The pain legislation reminds us who we are dealing with – our first human neighbors.
if we can perform surgery to save in-utero humans, then we should not try purposely to kill them in utero – no matter the circumstances.
Save the pre-born humans! As one who was born at 24 weeks, I personally find it unimaginable that people can actually think that hurting or killing the unborn at any stage is perfectly ok.
And I would have thought that since we were all in-utero at one time, that we as a species would recognize our origins as something special, something worth protecting. I am amazed sometimes at the quickness of throwing away the good.
Actually Doug you have proven my point very well. You took the attention off the dead baby and put it on fetal pain, the silent scream, the woman’s choice and numerous other arguments.
Well, Deanna, you had some big posts about pain. I felt like answering – what can I say? ; ) The issue of pain perception or not *is* about the baby. And no matter what, there is the woman to consider.
_____
Furthermore, you made the baby an organism and declared that it had no worth whatsoever as long as the parents didn’t want it.
My point with “living human organism” is that it indeed does apply to the unborn, just as it does to you and me. The unborn in this debate are just as much “human beings” as you and I are too – I’ve never argued otherwise. That is not the same thing as personhood, rights, citizenship, etc. If the pregnancy is unwanted, then I do not think we need it continued to the extent that we try and force the woman to continue it.
______
You stated what your personal limitations are and have decided within yourself that those younger than about 22 weeks are dispensable. This sums up my entire argument: No one has the moral right to condemn an innocent baby to death.
“Innocent” doesn’t mean much in the absence of the capacity for guilt. I’m not saying the unborn are “guilty,” anyway. I’m for leaving it up to the woman or couple. The 22 week figure comes from where the lower limit of viability is, now, as well as from the issue of pain perception, mental awareness, etc. If the baby is viable, it could be delivered and kept alive, which greatly changes the abortion argument, as then the woman could have the pregnancy ended, satisfying her wishes, without the baby necessarily dying. On what is morally right, I don’t see that your opinion should overrule the opinion of the pregnant woman herself, and thus we have the abortion debate.
______
The arguments of gestational age are of no importance in the morality issue. It is simply immoral and pro-aborts dance all around the morality of it by throwing up one smoke screen after another to not have to face the real issue. ONCE THE WOMAN IS PREGNANT THE DECISION HAS BEEN MADE BY DEFAULT. SHE IS AT THAT POINT A MOTHER. THE CHOICE IS NOT IF SHE IS A MOTHER BUT RATHER IS SHE TO BE THE MOTHER OF A DAD CHILD OR A LIVE CHILD. THAT IS THE TRUE CHOICE.
You can say she’s a mother, but that’s entirely subjective. You can also say, “she became a mother today” on the day she gives birth, just like the man might be handing out cigars saying he became a father that day, and the next-older generation became grandparents that day. It’s not “dancing around the morality” to note that in no way does your opinion determine what is moral and what is not. You can have your say, sure, but when it comes to the pregnant woman, I’d rather that her wishes determine things than yours.
I agree Joy. I myself am a survivor of a failed abortion attempt. My parents tried to abort me because they thought they couldn’t afford me. Here I am now as a voice for those who have no voice. The pro-aborts can throw all their arguments around all day long about how the fetus feels no pain, has no worth and how it’s all about the woman’s choice but I am living proof that it’s not about choice. The arguments mean nothing to me because I know from experience that the fetus does have worth. Here I am many years later, a productive member of society, the mother to six children, four of them adopted, with one being special needs (Fetal Alcohol Syndrome) that would have himself been aborted in most circumstances but his birth mother gave him a chance to live. I have worth and he has worth. Two of my other adopted children would have probably been aborted if it were not for the fact that one was adopted from a country with no access to abortion and the other was from a country where abortion is illegal. So, here we are, myself and three members of my immediate family who wouldn’t be here if the abortion industry and pro-aborts had their way. So to hear the pro-aborts throw around all their ridiculous reasonings as to why me and my children at one point in our lives were worthless and dispensable makes me angry. Let them walk a mile in my shoes loving these little ones that would be dead in the pro-aborts world then come tell me they have no worth. They only have no worth to those that take their worth from them for selfish reasons. Their arguments will never be good enough!
Do the women who gave birth to those children have equal worth, Deanna?
Do the women who gave birth to those children have equal worth, Deanna?
This is your response to all of what Deanna wrote? THIS?
You really are myopic, Megan. Shut. Up.
By the way, Deanna, thanks for sharing your story here.
Special need: A friend of mine just let me know there is a mother who found out her 20 week unborn baby girl has severe birth defects (I do not have the details). She is set to abort this Friday unless someone steps forward who would like to adopt her. If that’s YOU, please post here and I will email you.
Thank you Deanna, I will email my friend and send her your contact info. She has more info than I do, as she helps with these special needs adoptions.
By the way, I forgot to mention this would be a NO FEE, subsidized adoption.
And Deanna, I unpublished your email addy for your privacy. Thanks again for responding!
In reply to Megan:
Yes, absolutely yes, the women who gave birth to those children have equal worth. I think the problem lies in your definition of “worth”. Worth to me means that the children and the mother have the same access and rights to LIFE. Pro-aborts define the “worth” of the mother as moral permission to take a life for various reasons. They are not the same thing. I believe that both the mother and the baby have equal rights to life and I absolutely believe that the mother has no moral right to kill her child. Your definition of worth is very skewed by your mindset. One cannot decide that one has value enough to live and the other does not. If it is human it is human and worth saving. The vast majority of abortions are done for either convenience (as in I don’t want to change my life) or economic reasons. None of these are worth killing over. The issue is life and death. Our society has demoted the unborn to the status of a nuisance, an organism, something to be thrown out with the trash, and something for money to be made off it’s death. If these women would only realize that the moral thing to do would be to sacrifice a few short months of their lives in order to give life to another instead of killing. But we are too self centered and driven by our own “worth” to sacrifice anything for another, not even a few short months. Think about the reality of that. We would rather kill than give up a few short months of our lives and a little bit of our reputations. As, I stated before, we are an arrogant disgusting species to think that somehow we can have life and yet deny others that right. The decision to be a parent or not starts BEFORE one is pregnant, not after. After one is pregnant she is already a mother to either a dead baby at the hands of abortion or a live baby. Pro-aborts want to chant about the mothers body, etc. Her body is one aspect and a dead baby is the other aspect. The dead baby trumps the womans control over her body, at least morally. I’m going to say this and it’s probably going to make many of you furious but it’s the reality of the situation. If she has such a need to control her body so much then maybe she should consider keeping her pants on until such a time that she can prevent a pregnancy. The time to consider if she wants to be a mother or not is before she has sex. Not after she is pregnant. Same thing goes for the father’s. If you don’t want to be a dad then man up and grow a little self control. Again, I’m sure I will get some backlash off that remark but I really don’t care. Babies die by the thousands every day because we want to have sex with whomever, whenever and not have any consequences. Ah! If I get pregnant I will just have an abortion (i.e KILL IT!). Wake up people!!!1
“This is your response to all of what Deanna wrote? THIS? You really are myopic, Megan. Shut. Up.”
I don’t like you either, Kel. Glad that’s out of the way. But my question is a valid one in this context where you believe two sets of rights are in contention. If you think preborn children are people deserving of legal rights, then women must forfeit their physical sovereignty if the pregnancy is unwanted. The unborn child’s rights trump the mother’s. No argument there, right?
But see, at least in this culture, the ability to control what happens to our bodies is a fundamental component of personhood. We don’t condone slavery, torture, punishment without fair arbitration, child abuse, etc. because we respect the dignity of people’s bodies. Claiming that an unborn child has an inherent right to life–a right that trumps any of the mother’s concerns–diminishes the mother’s personhood status. As a person, she becomes worth less. And Deanna’s post really hammers home that point. Where are the mothers of her adopted children? Are they healthy? Happy? Depressed? Alive? Yes, you could say that these children are good things that resulted from unfortunate circumstances–but where are these women now? By promoting life at all costs, what are you sacrificing?
Deanna,
God bless you and your amazing family!! Thank you for sharing. I am grateful to God for you and your life and your voice!!
I am glad you are here!
Megan,
Tell Deanna and her three children that they should be dead. Tell her that you would have been fine with their deaths way back when.
Deanna,
I have sought abortion recovery after my abortion 20 years ago. Found forgiveness and healing and hope.
Megan has not. Hence her justifying the killing.
But see, at least in this culture, the ability to control what happens to our bodies is a fundamental component of personhood.
Yup. So control your body and don’t have sex with men if you can’t deal with the possible consequences. But you see, you are not mature enough to be having a sexual relationship with a man if you are willing to kill someone because of your and his selfish urges and choices.
In reference to post abortive women. I would like to add that I have great compassion for them. I cannot imagine what that must feel like. I have had two miscarriages and the emptiness and sense of loss with them was overwhelming. How much harder it must be to be post abortive. I am a former director of a crisis pregnancy center and have had extensive training in post-abortion counseling so I understand as much as is possible for someone who hasn’t gone through it personally what women go through after the fact. We have a great deception going on in our country and in that deception women are convinced that they will feel nothing afterwards, that the baby has no worth, and that life will go on as normal. At some point in their lives, some immediately after and some many years later, MOST realize that they were lied to and it all comes crashing in. Others know what they are doing because they have done it before and simply harden their hearts to the process and become angry pro-aborts. But with that said there is forgiveness and healing for every woman who has ever aborted. But that will never come as long as they are screaming from the rooftops that their body is supreme and it’s all that matters because deep inside they know this is a lie. Our very instincts teach us that. To abort a baby is to deny those instincts. So they must scream loud to drown out the voice of their own conscience. Anytime I see pro-aborts screaming about their bodies being “sovereign” I know that they have some things they need to deal with. They are trying to convince themselves by convincing us. And when they can’t convince us they become angry. I find that very sad and as I said I have compassion for them BUT that compassion does not override the truth of the matter. IF someone doesn’t speak up and be a voice babies will continue to die on the alter of “my body is sovereign.” I have a responsibility as a human being to not only warn the women about what they are doing but to try and save that baby’s life and I will continue to do so just as loudly as I can.
Also, to Megan: Demanding that your body is “sovereign” and worth more than your unborn child does not make it so. Also, the women who carried my children are worth no more or no less than my children. But as I said before, worth is not defined by the ability to kill a child for convenience. Worth is defined by being valued enough to be given life. yes, the life of one person definitely trumps the convenience of another.
Megan : “We don’t condone slavery, torture, punishment without fair arbitration, child abuse, etc. because we respect the dignity of people’s bodies. Claiming that an unborn child has an inherent right to life–a right that trumps any of the mother’s concerns–diminishes the mother’s personhood status. As a person, she becomes worth less. ”
Megan that is nonsense. Every abortion tortures a baby and is child abuse. Having arms and legs torn off or brains sucked out is torture and most definitely abuse. You “respect the dignity” of your body but what about respecting the dignity of the baby’s body enough to not rip it apart? It has a body. It has a heartbeat. It has lungs and blood and eyes. Why is it ok to rip it apart but it is demanded that we “respect” your body, and not only respect it but you also demand that we respect your body enough to agree that it is ok to rip apart another’s body. Sorry, it doesn’t compute. I am simply to rationale to be able to wrap my mind around that kind of nonsense.
So control your body and don’t have sex with men if you can’t deal with the possible consequences. But you see, you are not mature enough to be having a sexual relationship with a man if you are willing to kill someone because of your and his selfish urges and choices.
Well, that pretty much says it all!
Regarding my earlier post about the woman pregnant with a baby girl with spina bifida, pro-lifers were able to spread the word and this particular case has had a huge outpouring of responses. So much so that the special needs adoption group has taken down her profile because her birth mother has many waiting families to now choose from. :)
Kel that is wonderful! My sister heard about this and wanted to adopt but is Canada and Canada makes it almost impossible for Canadian families to adopt American babies. :-( But so glad this little girl will get a forever family and her mother won’t go through the horror and guilt of a second trimester abortion.
Hello Carla,
It doesn’t make any sense to say what should or shouldn’t have happened in the past. I don’t deal with hypotheticals. But really, think about the question you asked and extend it to other situations. If you could go back in time and somehow prevent Rebecca Kiessling’s mother from getting raped and ultimately preventing Rebecca’s , conception, would you do so?
Deanna,
Do you think for a minute that I find abortion to be a pleasant procedure? No. It’s pretty miserable, actually, and certainly gruesome. There’s no getting around that. But I still don’t think an entity that exists inside another human being can demand the same “bodily respect” as the adult human vessel carrying it. And since you ran a CPC yourself, you should know that women choose abortion for maaany more, complex reasons than merely for “convenience.” And if you’re going to present a consistent moral argument (which you’ve done), you might want to go all the way and be consistent in your portrayal of abortion-minded women. Are they hysterical nuts or self-centered witches? You can’t have it both ways.
Oh, and by the way: do you have the same amount of concern for women who continued pregnancies they didn’t want as you do for post-abortive women?
Hi Praxedes and Kel,
Thanks for the continual assessments of my sit-ee-ation. But I’ll take a rain check on the maturity talk when you both can say you have healthy, completely functional marriages with all baggage dropped at the door.
“Canada makes it almost impossible for Canadian families to adopt American babies.”
That seems reallys stupid. Is there a concern about dual-citizenship or something?
Megan you said: “Deanna,
Do you think for a minute that I find abortion to be a pleasant procedure? No. It’s pretty miserable, actually, and certainly gruesome. There’s no getting around that.
I never said it was pleasant and I made a point that it was gruesome.
But I still don’t think an entity that exists inside another human being can demand the same “bodily respect” as the adult human vessel carrying it.
That “entity” that you refer to is a HUMAN BEING!!!! YOUR CHILD! HALF YOU! That you de-humanize by referring to it as an “entity” so that you don’t have to face the reality of it. And yes by virtue of it being a human being it can and should demand respect.
And since you ran a CPC yourself, you should know that women choose abortion for maaany more, complex reasons than merely for “convenience.”
Actually according to statistics the vast majority almost 99% are done for reasons of “convenience”. Meaning, “I don’t want to quit school, can’t handle a baby or another baby, can’t afford a baby, etc.” Less than one percent are due to health reasons including health issues in the fetus. Health issues in the fetus are no reason to kill the child anyway. There are many organizations with WAITING LISTS of parents available to adopt these babies, even those with the worst of deformities and health issues. The reality is that the mother just doesn’t want to deal with it most of the time or she is lied to or pressured into getting an abortion. So, yes, most are for convenience. None of the reasons that most people give are acceptable reasons to kill over. The infamous late term abortionist Dr. Curtis Boyd not only admits that he is killing a baby when he does and abortion but “prays that the spirit goes back to God”. How plain does it have to be. It is human, a baby and it is murdered. You having “sovereignty”over your body will never change that fact.
And if you’re going to present a consistent moral argument (which you’ve done), you might want to go all the way and be consistent in your portrayal of abortion-minded women. Are they hysterical nuts or self-centered witches? You can’t have it both ways.
Actually what I think is that it is both. There are women in very serious situations that can be pushed and pressured by relationships and society to have an abortion when she doesn’t really want one and then i think that there are many who do it because they are self centered and just want to get on with their lives at the cost of another persons life.
Oh, and by the way: do you have the same amount of concern for women who continued pregnancies they didn’t want as you do for post-abortive women?
Um, actually yes I do. I have taken several pregnant women into my home to LIVE with my family and I. I babysat one baby that was not aborted for several years (for free) to help the mother. I have been involved with and supported financially several organizations that help mothers. I was on the board of directors for one organization that runs a home for unwed mothers. I could go on.
Megan, you need to understand that the reason pro-life people are pro-life is because we care about people. We have nothing to gain by doing what we do. Most involved spend their free time trying hard to help save lives, preserve the emotional and sometimes physical health of the women and help those who choose to give life. We are not self serving people with agendas for no reason. To us it is a matter of life and death so we do what we can. So in general trying to pick us apart and “prove” to yourself that we are at worst the enemy and at best uncaring in some area will generally get you nowhere. Instead of focusing on what you can find wrong with us and how we serve humanity try focusing on the “real” issue, which is what my initial statement was about in the first place. There is a dead baby! What are you going to do with that in your mind?
Megan, I have healthy, completely functional marriage.
I am unsure what you mean by “with all baggage dropped at the door.” Please clarify for me what you consider baggage.
Hi Praxedes and Kel,
Thanks for the continual assessments of my sit-ee-ation. But I’ll take a rain check on the maturity talk when you both can say you have healthy, completely functional marriages with all baggage dropped at the door.
Pardon me? I don’t believe I commented on your situation. What are you talking about?
Well, a sad update, friends. And take note, pro-aborts:
THIRTY couples contacted this young woman I mentioned yesterday who is 20 weeks pregnant with a little girl with spina bifida. And the young woman, I’m told, still wants to abort.
Oh, if only we’d step up to adopt all these “unwanted” babies. it’s all our fault that women abort, right pro-aborts? Wrong.
Pro-life friends, please join me in praying today for the life of this child and for her mother. PRAY.
Praying, Kel. Spina bifida is not a death sentence, unless your mother wants you dead. Heavenly Father, please give this mother a softened heart, eyes to see & ears to hear TRUTH! Lay workers across her path and preserve this little one from evil, in Jesus’ name, Amen.