Also don't your people go to church on Saturdays ...
Pro-lifers DO adopt unwanted babies (and adopt leftover IVF embryos and give money to crisis pregnancy centers, etc.). As I mentioned previously, there are apparently many more prospective adoptive parents than available children.
The Dark Side
We Know They Are Killing Children — All Of Us Know
by John Piper
Jan. 22, 2013
One biblical principle of justice is that the more knowledge we have that our action is wrong, the more guilty we are, and the more deserving of punishment (Luke 12:47–48). The point of this blog post is that we know what we are doing — all America knows. We are killing children. Pro-choice and Pro-life people both know this.
But before I show that, let’s clarify what the Supreme Court did forty years ago today. InRoe v. Wade the Supreme Court in effect made abortion on demand untouchable by law. The way this was done was with two steps.
One step was to say, laws may not prevent abortion, even during the full nine months, if the abortion is “to preserve the life or health of the mother.” The other step was to define “health” as “all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman’s age — relevant to the well-being of the patient.”
For forty years this has meant that any perceived stress is a legal ground for eliminating the child. We have killed fifty million babies. And what increases our guilt as a nation is that we know what we are doing. Here’s the evidence that we know we are killing children.
1. Anecdotally, abortionists will admit they are killing children.
Many simply say it is the lesser of two evils. I took an abortionist out to lunch once, prepared to give him ten reasons why the unborn are human beings. He stopped me, and said, “I know that. We are killing children.” I was stunned. He said, “It’s simply a matter of justice for women. It would be a greater evil to deny women the equal right of reproductive freedom.” Which means women should be no more encumbered by the consequences of an unplanned pregnancy than men. That equal freedom from the burden of bearing unwanted children is the basis for abortion that President Obama refers to again and again when he talks about equal rights for women. We know we are killing children.
2. States treat the killing of the unborn as a homicide.
We know what we are doing because 38 States (including Minnesota) treat the killing of an unborn child as a form of homicide. They have what are called “fetal homicide laws.”
It is illegal to take the life of the unborn if the mother wants the baby, but it is legal to take the life of the unborn if she doesn’t. In the first case the law treats the fetus as a human with rights; in the second case the law treats the fetus as non-human with no rights.
Humanness is defined by the desire of the strong. Might makes right. We reject this right to define personhood in the case of **** anti-Semitism, Confederate race-based slavery, and Soviet Gulags. When we define the humanness of the unborn by the will of the powerful we know what we are doing.
3. Fetal surgery treats the unborn as children and patients.
High risk pregnancy specialist, Dr. Steve Calvin, in a letter some years ago to the Arizona Daily Star, wrote, “There is inescapable schizophrenia in aborting a perfectly normal 22 week fetus while at the same hospital, performing intra-uterine surgery on its cousin.” When the unborn are wanted, they are treated as children and patients. When they are not wanted, they are not children. We know what we are doing.
4. Being small does not disqualify personhood.
The five-foot-eight frame of a teenage son guarantees him no more right to life than the 23-inch frame of his little sister in her mother’s arms. Size is morally irrelevant. One inch, 23 inches, 68 inches — does not matter. It is morally irrelevant in deciding who should be protected. We know what we are doing in killing the smallest.
5. Not having developed reasoning does not disqualify personhood.
A one-month-old infant, nursing at his mother’s breast, does not have reasoning powers. But only a few dare argue that infanticide is therefore acceptable. Most know better. Outside and inside the womb the infant cannot yet reason, but is a human person. We know what we are doing.
6. Being in the womb does not disqualify human personhood.
Location or environment does not determine a right to life. Scott Klusendorf asks, “How does a simple journey of seven inches down the birth canal suddenly transform the essential nature of the fetus from non-person to person?” We know what we are doing.
7. Being dependent on mommy does not disqualify personhood.
We consider persons on respirators or dialysis to be human beings. The unborn cannot be disqualified from human personhood because they are dependent on their mother for food and oxygen. In fact, we operate on the exact opposite principle: The more dependent a little one is on us, the more responsibility we feel to protect him, not the less. We know what we are doing.
(Those last four observations, #4-7, were summed up by Scott Klusendorf under the acronym SLED: Size, Level of development, Environment, Degree of dependence — none is morally relevant for the definition of human life.)
8. The genetic make up of humans is unique.
The genetic make up of a human is different from all other creatures from the moment of conception. The human code is complete and unique from the start. Once that was not known. Now we know.
9. All the organs are present at eight weeks of gestation.
At eight weeks of gestation all the organs are present. The brain is functioning, the heart pumping, the liver making blood cells, the kidney cleaning the fluids, the finger has a print. Yet almost all abortions happen later than this date. We know what we are doing.
10. We have seen the photographs.
The marvel of ultrasound has given a stunning window into the womb that shows the unborn, for example, at 8 weeks sucking his thumb, recoiling from pricking, responding to sound. Watch this four-minute video of the developing unborn child. We know that they are children.
11. When two rights conflict, the higher value should be protected.
We know the principle of justice that when two legitimate rights conflict, the right that protects the higher value should prevail. We deny the right to drive at 100 miles per hour because the value of life is greater than the value of being on time or getting thrills. The right of the unborn not to be killed and the right of a woman not to be pregnant may be at odds. But they are not equal rights. Staying alive is more precious and more basic than not being pregnant. We know what we are doing when we kill a child.
This statement ruined was would have been a decent postFirst things first they should have made sure she was on BC
Secondly, you just got done saying that a 16 year old should make the huge decision on getting an abortion or not and the parents shouldn't be able to force her into a certain decision. But it is ok that the parents force her to be on BC?
Teen takes parents to court over abortion fight
We asked KTRK legal analyst Joel Androphy to weigh in on this case.
"Her parents cannot force her to have an abortion," Androphy said. "If the parents force an abortion on a minor, the parents can not only be subject to civil responsibility, but they can also be criminally liable under our fetal homicide laws, because not only does the minor have a right to be protected, but the fetus does, even under Texas law."
On a different occasion, the pregnant teen claims her dad told her "he was going to take her to have an abortion and that the decision was his, end of story."
The girl claims her parents already removed her phone, kept her from school and took her car as punishment for failing to get an abortion.
We spoke to the teen's father who claims the allegations are false. He says he believes someone is putting his daughter up to this lawsuit and had no further comment about the case.
**** anything else we say and decides it's a great idea to be the school ****. I can't stop her from having sex, but I can try to stop her from changing her life in a way she doesn't understand, nor want.
And no.. I wouldn't force pills down her throat.. but she probably wouldn't have many privileges allowed to her if that's how she chooses to behave.
But before all that.. I hope I will be able to raise my child to have a (somewhat) level head for a teenager.
Jennifer McKenna-Morbelli Death: Pro-Life Group Demands Justice After Abortion-Related Passing
Jennifer McKenna-Morbelli, a teacher in New Rochelle, N.Y., was admitted to Shady Grove Adventist Hospital after reportedly complaining of chest pain and other discomfort. She died a few hours later after suffering massive internal bleeding into her abdominal cavity.
Four days prior to her death, McKenna-Morbelli visited a Germantown, Md., abortion clinic to begin a several-day procedure to terminate her 33-week pregnancy after discovering her unborn child had developed fetal abnormalities.
The circumstances surrounding such abnormalities remain unclear. A gift registry for McKenna-Morbelli and her husband indicated that their daughter, whom the couple planned on naming Madison Leigh, was due March 20, according to the Washington Post.
LeRoy Carhart, the doctor who performed the abortion on McKenna-Morbelli, gained national attention in 2005 when another patient of his died after undergoing a similar procedure.
[ ... ]
Maryland currently allows late-term abortions for instances when the unborn baby develops a fetal abnormality. Under New York law, where McKenna-Morbelli lived, she would not have been able to obtain a legal abortion since her own health or life was not in danger.
[ ... ]
"The people who are pushing for laws to ban abortion after a certain point cannot possibly know the circumstances of every woman and her doctor who are making medical decisions about her pregnancy," the statement continued. "Every pregnancy is different, and we believe that every woman has the right to make her own medical decisions based on the unique circumstances in her life.”
Abortion foes may sue over death of N.Y. teacher
Sullenger and Operation Rescue President Troy Newman said the Maryland case is more egregious, in large part because it resulted in Morbelli's death. They also claimed the doctor in Maryland, LeRoy Carhart, left town shortly after completing the abortion last week and was not reachable when Morbelli needed emergency care.
[ ... ]
Catherine Lederer-Plaskett of Choice Matters, a Westchester abortions-rights advocacy group, said that legal actions such as the one being considered by Operation Rescue fail to take into account the risks of any surgery.
"It's malicious and wrong to say that the doctor was at fault or the woman was at fault because there was a terrible outcome," she said. "You wouldn't do that with a death from any other surgery."
[ ... ]
"We are not casting any judgment on this young lady or her family," Newman said. "Our problem is with the predator. LeRoy Carhart has killed before. We make it our business to track this man's misdoings."
Last edited by VUGear; February 20th, 2013 at 09:08 AM.
See the thing is a pro life generation of young people is also a generation of young people who understands the need for sex ed, contraception access. Unfortunately you can't have it one black and white way and you will always have people against the real preventative measures of abortion.
you mean those people who continue to perpetuate lies about "life" and when it begins and when it is "self aware".....and all the other excuses.....
as long as people believe the lies....there's no real reason for women to be concerned about getting pregnant.....
keep them dumb and in the dark.....
The only thing I can even come close to seeing as a possible preventive measure would be terminating a pregnancy if it was almost certain that the pregnancy would kill the mother.
I was merely discussing the philosophical underpinnings of why we allow any sort of abortion in the first place. Don't you see? The discussion was not an attempt to convince you to be pro-choice. It was an attempt to explain, in part, why we already are pro-choice.
How can I prove to you it's not an argument IN FAVOR of abortion? Well, it's easy: you don't have to change your pro-life stance in order to agree about the various reasons we value cognizant human life.
Such as preventative measures like birth control ...don't spin what I said... Bounce and the Catholics will not start believing in Birth control and will instead rely on humans to just not have sex... this is not prevention it is a clouded day dream of craziness... sorry some of us are just realists like that
**** ... women should get to choose if they are ****d period .. why do GOP pro life people not want to say this ... most are willing to give in with the "if the mom is in danger" but the **** thing is well a blessing ...drives me ****ing crazy.
****d .. good try though ... sorry it is a woman's choice if she is ****d... no ifs ands or buts ...
Pregnant teen wins battle to stop forced abortion
The recently filed lawsuit ended Monday with an agreement that the teen's parents would not use physical force or psychological coercion. They also agreed to pay half of the hospital bill if the girl has not married when the baby is delivered and let her use her car to go to school and work.
[ ... ]
The pregnant teen also did not comment after the ruling. The father, who is also 16, said he plans to marry his girlfriend and raise the child.
Texas parents agree not to pressure teen to have abortion
The parents of the girl, who is 10 weeks pregnant, agreed Monday in a state court not to coerce her to have an abortion, an anti-abortion group representing the girl said.
[ ... ]
Madison, 16, said he and the girl plan to get married. The legal age to marry in Texas is 16 with parental consent.
[ ... ]
The lawyers were first contacted by the boy's mother, who said that the girl's parents were threatening both teens, according to Casey, who said the center then contacted the girl and offered their services gratis.
The lawsuit alleged that the girl's mother threatened to "slip (the teen) an abortion pill," took her daughter's phone and car and kept her home from school to punish her for choosing not to abort her fetus. The mother told the teen that she was "making the biggest mistake of her life" by choosing to have the child and that the mother herself had undergone numerous abortions, so her daughter should, too, the lawsuit said.
It added that the pregnant girl's father told her he "was going to look into canceling" her health insurance. He texted his daughter that she "needs an ass whoopin'," the document said.
The parents told their daughter she could "continue to live in misery" in their home or she could "have the abortion and tell everyone it was a miscarriage," the lawsuit added.
**** is wrong and I believe forcing a woman to carry her rapists baby is wrong. I also think it is ****ed up that in several states the rapists can ask for rights to see the kid...
You have a choice it's it's called the pill or a condom. Don't be a murdering ****. That's my take on it.
Anti-Choicers Shamelessly Abuse Dead Woman Because She Chose Medically-Indicated Surgery
It's not about the woman choosing an abortion. It's about the doctor who botched the abortion which led to the woman's death. The pro-life criticism in this situation has been toward the doctor, and by extension the state for letting him continue to harm women. Not toward the victim. Or her decision.[W]elcome to the next phase, which involves attempts to humiliate a dead woman for getting a medically indicated abortion. Obviously, anti-choicers are sensitive to P.R. and so know better than to admit openly they’re trying to shame a dead woman and harass her family, so they pretend that they’re sharing her private information and putting her face and name on placards out of “concern.”
But doesn't the Maryland law allow abortion for any genetic defect, not just a serious one?Here’s the reality: Maryland prohibits post-viability abortions unless the mother’s health is in danger or the fetus has a serious defect. We may not know the particulars of this woman’s case, but we know that she had a medically necessary reason for her abortion, and was likely referred by her obstetrician. [ ... ] This woman had a pregnancy gone horribly wrong and needed an abortion for medical reasons, an abortion that was no doubt difficult to choose because it represented the loss of a much-wanted baby.
Plus, it was already known that the abortion was for a fetal abnormality, not for the mother's health or life. If they were really trying to save her life, why would she have traveled all the way to Maryland from New York? And gone though dilation over the course of several days? And in a non-hospital setting?
Exactly who has portrayed the victim as a moron?To paint her as some sort of moron who was hoodwinked into an abortion because she was too dumb to know better is beyond vile. That’s a level of misogyny that assumes women have no brains at all, that assumes women are too stupid to make even the most basic decisions about their lives with the assistance of expert advice.
Which pro-lifer disclaims the risk of surgery?They’re idiots, pretending not to know that surgery carries risk and that doesn’t mean that people have to weigh benefits against the risk.
Where is the evidence that it was a "dangerous" pregnancy?And they’re deeply, deeply sadistic, not only in wanting to force women to undergo dangerous pregnancies gone horribly wrong, but also not even letting the few who pass away have any peace from their vicious shaming of women for making complex reproductive decisions, even women who, for medical reasons, had no good choice at all.
Typical Marcotte column: shamelessly portray pro-lifers as something they're not, twist the facts to suit the "choice" narrative, and make excuses for a dangerous physician.
****d I should not be forced to have a baby I did not want. Maybe I could ask my rapists to use a condom while I pee on myself to try to get him to not **** me... Seems like a plan right...