Wednesday Open Thread: 35 Years of Roe v. Wade
Posted by Roger, January 23rd, 2008
Yesterday, we marked the 35 "anniversary" of the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision - Roe v. Wade. Planned Parenthood "celebrated" the day, while we in the pro-life community solemnly note the day with prayers and action - March for Life, prayer services, etc.
For today's Open Discussion Thread, I wanted to ask:
How has the decision to legalize abortion affected the United States? Are we better off or are we worse? How so?
Planned Parenthood has a slogan that says "Choice on Earth", replacing "Peace" with "Choice".
Which would you rather have, "choice" or "peace"?
God Bless,
Roger
You cannot have peace unless you choose life.
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:07 am
1st question: Worse off. 50 million dead souls. God bless America????
2nd question: Peace, of course, but the peace that comes from the choice to accept Christ as Savior. Unfortunately, that's not the choice PP has in mind.
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:09 am
respect-integrity-morals—look at what is shown on the television and at the movies. The nations values-like the stock market have taken a huge dive-(maybe not the best comparison)but we seem to self destroy. Greed and money have become many peoples gods, and the babies that cannot speak, are the helpless victims.
Peace in mind heart and soul will always bring the peace of "choice". Pray for peace so the babies may live.
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:22 pm
One of the things that Roe did was legitimize the choice for abortion in the minds of many Americans, perhaps a majority. If it's a constitutional right, the thinking goes, how wrong can it be? It took away from the people the right to govern themselves on a terribly emotional and difficult public policy matter.
On the other issue, choice on earth is the essence of original sin. You shall be as gods. You have all power over yourselves, and you shall decide what's right or wrong. That abortion is the destruction of a life is of little consequence in this thinking because the life is inconvenient.
One other issue I've been thinking about is the rise of RU-486 use. Logically, the destruction of a life at 2 days post conception is the same as destruction of a life subsequent to that, but I don't really feel that it's as awful (and I know that this belief is not based on pure logic, more on how a life looks in the first couple days, the absence of a heart or brain, etc.). Does anyone have a compelling argument (other than life is life) why my lack of complete discomfort about the morning after pill is wrong? I'd love to be convinced.
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Coral Ridge Ministries (D. James Kennedy)produced and aired a 12 minute piece on the Planned Parenthood situation here in Aurora. In case you missed it Sunday morning, go to http://www.coralridge.org to watch it. They did a great job. Includes interviews with Eric, Father Martin Heinz and Elizabeth Earl.
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Brian,
While living in a world with evils like partial birth abortion and Born Alive abortions it is logical to feel more tolerance for the morning after pill. Tolerance however does not mean we should not speak out loudly and clearly that we oppose the taking of human life at any stage, for our sakes and the sakes of our childrfen and grandchildren.
January 24th, 2008 at 12:07 am
You cannot have peace unless you choose life?
I am against abortion and find it to be a rotten apple, spoiling the barrel that is our country.
As for not being able to have peace unless you choose life, I would agree short term. However, through our savior Jesus Christ all things are possible and achieving peace after a monumental mistake is not impossible, in my humble opinion.
Brian, I share your perception, but I need to remind myself that we don't need to go there. If we simply invoke a respect for life in society by society, shame can affect behavior and decision making. It would be nice to end abortion completely, but I am not that much of a visionary to see it.
I heard Mrs. Clinton in a debate scoff at Barak on how he voted present to keep sex shops away from schools. WOW there's the kettle calling the pot black. Is she a MORAL authority??? I thought of an analogy, if sex shops are such a big deal, why do they teach it in school??? Why do they allow Abortion clinics to build so close to schools??
I believe that would be akin to keeping cigarette shops away from schools, having classes on how to inhale correctly, and if the student feels bad can get exploratory surgery to look for cancer without parental notification.
Is this type of policy going to ht help kids to not smoke???
Why is our current policy on sex going to help either?
January 24th, 2008 at 6:46 am
I wanted to keep it simple.
I still stand by my statement that you cannot have peace unless you choose life.
Jesus is the ultimate peace and life and if you don't have Him in your life you cannot have true life and peace.
January 24th, 2008 at 8:33 am
But,
Please remeber that several of the States had legalized abortion before Roe. Ths taking of small lives began maybe five years before Roe.
The recent discussions of how many lives have been lost to abortion and whether the count is up or down is a poor count, at best. In many States, including Illinois, Planned Parenthood does not report abortions (or any other public info) to the State health depts. In fact PPs affiliate Alan Guttmacher Institute reports that in many states 40-50% of abortions go unreported and several States including California have no reporting mechanism at all. Guttmacher says that they use the State health reports to project the number of abortions in each state and countrywide. This means that the numbers are incomplete and faulty. The actual numbers could be considerably higher….
I think that showing a declining number of abortions over several years could benefit Planned Parenthood. PP could say to Congress that their condum program is working and so PP should receive more funding for even greater results. At the same time, PP knows that the greater condum use (and other methods to a greater or lesser degree) the larger number of abortions they will perform over the long term.
The numbers cannot be trusted. The slaughter of children and grandchildren has probably continued at the same or greater rate than in prior years. Our protectors in government do not want us to know…
January 24th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Brian,
Though you have a "lack of complete discomfort" with the "morning after pill", your God-given conscience is speaking to you in that you are not completely comfortable with it either. When the "morning after pill" (not RU 486, but rather a higher dose of normal birth control pills) kills a newly conceived baby, you recognize deep down it is wrong. I think everyone would have to admit this if they were to actually listen to their consciences instead of trying to drown them out with the noise and blather of selfish pride, society, and the media. God usually speaks to us in whispers. The Devil tries hard to create noise and confusion so
we can't hear God. But God keeps calling us just the same.
Science tells us that a newly conceived human being is unique, with a genetic code that was never seen before, nor will ever be seen again. What potential! What characteristics does this person have? Who is this person? A future doctor to cure cancer? An artist or scholar? A missionary? A beloved wife or husband? A best friend? Only God knows. Who are we to end this life of infinite potential?
Even as science tells us this newly conceived human being is unique, God tells us he/she is unique by infusing this person with a one-of-a-kind soul. Each and every person is CREATED in the image and likeness of God. At what point is a human being created? Well, obviously at conception. So anything that deliberately destroys that human life after conception is murder. The "morning after pill", if it kills a baby by preventing implantation, is an instrument of murder.
Even if the pill prevents or delays ovulation, it is wrong. Few people are courageous enough to speak out against the idol of contraception. But you know what? Contraception is at the heart of abortion. It has dulled people's consciences, making abortion more palatable. If we want pleasure without consequences, sex without babies, babies and life are devalued. Babies get in the way. They require selflessness and sacrifice. How many married couples put off having babies (or don't want them at all) because they want their careers, houses, vacations, etc.? But babies and children are also the greatest source of joy in a marriage. Love is made stronger with sacrifice.
Contraception was first pushed to married couples, then spread to the unmarried. Now look at our society. If you have never read Humanae Vitae ("On Human Life"), Pope Paul VI's encyclical that speaks out against contraception, I'd highly recommend it. It's incredibly
prophetic. Keep in mind the date it was written - 1968 - and see how our society has fulfilled the prophecy. It's easy to read and not very long. It's well worth your time, and will help you see how we got where we are.
Abortion naturally follows contraception, most forms of which are also abortifacient. They are inextricably linked. The "morning after pill" is no exception. It's just one more way of saying "No" to God's design. Sex belongs in marriage, where it binds a couple and gives them a chance to share in God's creative power–something even the angels are not capable of. Procreation is not something to be trifled with.
The only licit form of spacing or postponing pregnancies for serious reason is Natural Family Planning (NFP). It's 100% safe, over 99% effective (better than the Pill), and marriage building. Check it out.
January 24th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Why not have a tax on Abortion???
We have it on alcohol and tobacco???
Gambling, Driving on the Tollway, Driving with Gasoline, earning income.
One of the government's clear oversights is the non taxation of abortions?
On another note, what is with the insurance company that insures planned parenthood??? Wouldn't they demand to know how many abortions are being performed??
Doesn't a doctor who never does a surgery pay less in malpractice than a doctor who is a surgeon who does it constantly?? How could a rational insurance company rate their risk???
January 24th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
"Choice on earth is the essence of original sin". Brian really zeroes in on the heart of matter. But lest anyone claim we are against choice in its truest sense; i.e. making decisions in our lives based upon well formed consciences, it should be understood that there are two diametrically opposed definitions of what "choice" is.
To begin, there is the difference between "choice" that enslaves and "choice" that gives freedom. "Choice on earth" is Planned Parenthood's mockery of the Christian celebration of the birth of the Prince of Peace, our Lord Jesus. The type of "choice" PP touts is in essence anti-Christian in that it espouses their founder's(Margaret Sanger's) philosophy of giving free reign to things such as multiple sexual partners and abortion on demand for any reason. On the other hand, the Christian doctrine of free will presupposes moral formation and the necessity of self control and thoughtful reflection and prayer in guiding our decisions. When we pray "thy will be done," we are making a "choice" for our lives to yield to the will of our heavenly Father.
The Creator intended sexuality to be a beautiful expression of mutual self-giving. A series of reflections given by the late John Paul II in what he termed "The Theology of the Body" is a profound analysis of the nuptual and spiritual meaning of our bodies, male and female. He proposes that the dynamic of our sexuality is realized in an interconnectedness to the broader themes of all of life's experiences and our quest for happiness. The theological meaning of our masculinity or feminimity, formed in the image of the Creator, defines who we are as persons created for unity and mutual self-giving.
A mere passing reference to his great work cannot begin to do it justice. The author and lecturer Christopher West and, closer to home, Fr. Thomas Loya of Annunciation Parish in Homer Glen, Illinois, are two widely quoted sources for information on this topic. Any adult Christian or serious student of theology and the meaning of human sexuality owes it to him or herself to avail themselves to the original text of John Paul and the thoughtful analysis given by these authors.
January 24th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Well thought.
Well Put.
Thanks Jerry
January 25th, 2008 at 6:35 am
"Choice on earth" is Planned Parenthood's mockery of the Christian celebration of the birth of the Prince of Peace, our Lord Jesus.
————————————————
..and the pro-abort slogan of "My body, My Choice" is also another mockery of the supreme sacrifice made by Christ…"This is My body, which will be given up for you".
There really is no doubt on who the real mastermind is behind all these lies, confusion and death.
Heaven help us keep the faith and to Saint Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle, be our protection against the malice and snares of the devil.
January 25th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Dan the Methodist,
I thought you might like to read this article:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,325458,00.html
January 25th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Thanks Tara,
GREAT NEWS!!
January 25th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Dan the Methodist,
She is an amzing woman and mom, but I wish they would have talked about her husband. He must be just as amazing, and we should pray for him and his children.
January 26th, 2008 at 10:36 am
First of all, there are TOO MANY people in this world
If everyone that got pregnant kept their baby, we'd all die out of overpopulation
BESIDES who are you to say whether a woman should keep a child or not? That is like making it illegal for a woman to stay with a man that beats her. It's CHOICE about her LIFE
Get a f***ing new hobby
(Comment edited for profanity)
January 28th, 2008 at 8:22 am
Were on our way to becoming a disease to earth instead of its caretaker.
January 28th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Marie S. — you said "You cannot have peace unless you choose life."
+++
Those are the same words uttered by [Now Blessed] Mother Teresa of Calcutta. She said "There will never be peace in the Western world as long as their mothers are allowed to kill their own young." So you are among good company.
+++
Now, we have just started a new Web site called Silent Souls for Huckabee for women who regret their abortions and are now behind Mike Huckabee, a fervent pro-life candidate running for the presidency of the United States. (By the way, Bobby Schindler has endorsed Mike Huckabee — I'm thinking through the prayers of his sister Terri.) Now what we have found from the women who have contacted us (in addition to myself!) is that there is an incredible silence among them. Decades of silence. Of course, this would be initiated by the devil himself and that is why he is so successful in keeping abortion "alive." If the women who are so pained regarding abortion cannot even speak and the babies themselves are dead, then what does that leave us? Of course, all you fine folk who are fighting, but the numbers should be 1,000 fold. We started a "speak out" page on our site … it's brand new, but here is the link … Silent Souls for Huckabee Speak Out
God love you all who fight for the young.
January 28th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
"BESIDES who are you to say whether a woman should keep a child or not?…It's CHOICE about her LIFE"
———————————————-
ME,
Who are you to say the Mother should kill their child rather than give it up for adoption?
And what about the child's CHOICE in the matter of his/her life?
*you pro-aborts can't even say it straight…if you truly believe in abortion and stand by it…accept it for what it is…the KILLING of life, instead of hiding behind the word "Choice".
January 28th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Me, there are certain areas of the world that have a higher population density, but the world is NOT overpopulated- that is a myth.
Animals sometimes kill their children because they cannot reason, they don't know any better- but we should certainly know better.
And Tom, yes, we should be stewards of the earth, but that does not take priority over protecting innocent lives.
January 28th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
"Me"
If you feel this way, there are plenty of places in the world that have less people. Try Canada, Australia, or the old Soviet Union. Check out this color World Population Density map. You do not have to live in an area with "TOO MANY people" as you put it.
Or if you want to still with the US, try this List of US States by Population Density. Alaska is the lowest, but Wyoming and Montana are also there, and may be warmer.
God Bless,
Roger
January 29th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Roger,
Great post. The media has done a great job of making up the "excess population myth". As a whole the world population has actually decreased in the last 25-50 years.
Most of Western Europe doesn't have enough people replace the workforce. Germany for exaample will start to feel the consequences of this within 10-15 years.
In Russia, the population has declined in some areas so much, that government officals gave workers a day off with pay to procreate.
The West is so "advanced" that it is actually in the process of killing itself off. One group that this is not happening to is Evengelicals. The average number of children Evengelical women have is 3. Whereas those who are Non-Christians or athiest average 1.5 children. Hence we could see a turn around toward abortion in the next few generations. It gives me hope.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Excellent article out of Catholic.org on Mike Huckabee, the only candidate that will work hard to reverse Roe v. Wade:
Huckabee the Best Catholic?
Domers for Huckabee
January 29th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
I am sorry to interrupt, but I would like some advice. The Pastor of The Church I go to in Sugar Grove, who has allowed me to submit daily prayers, just asked me to stop doing it with the abortion issue.
I wish I had my prayers to recite for you, but they are benign, uplifting, relevant, non-vulgar or even borderline prayers for the youngest of ears.
This has me steamed and I am not sure what I should do??
I do not want to go quietly into that goodnight and I do not to give up on these Christians just because the church is too weak to.
I thought about wearing an abortion T-shirt.
Any suggestions would be welcome.
Again, Sorry for the interruption
January 30th, 2008 at 6:39 am
Dan,
I have had this problem in the past in a Catholic Church. I think that you must do what you can to leave this method of communication open so that your fellow church members can benefit from your grace. Very few people have received the grace needed to perceive the problems of abortion and the ability to act on this perception. You must allow others to benefit from your love of the unborn.
To answer your pastor, you might broaden your scope a little to cover other Pro-Life issues like the death penalty, euthanasia, stem cell, etc. that are not abortion issues. There are plenty of needs on end-of-life issues. (You can guess that this is true because the media are all in favor of mercy killing, etc.)
You could also broaden your view, and prayers, to cover adoption and other very voluntary areas in which people volunteer to devote their life to the nuturing of another person!
January 30th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Dan the Methodist,
Ricko has some good advice. Broadening the understanding of life issues is very important. We belong to God from before conception to natural death, when we go home to Him. It is important for all Christians to understand that.
I don't know if your church has an Adult Education time, but that may be a great place to hold a class about life issues. I have great resources to run a class if you are ever interested.
If you know others in your congregation who think the same way, then maybe as a group you can talk with your pastor. You might find him/her more open if he/she knows there is a strong group who feel and think the same. Also, there is also nothing wrong with asking your pastor why this is bothersome to him/her.
Remeber, we live for an audience of one (as my pastor says), and that is GOD! And when we meet Him, we will be accountable for what we did or did not do for His people. Jesus calls us to be the salt and light of the world. He told us that whatever we've done to the least (the sick, widowed, unborn, elderly, poor) we have done to Him.
So don't lose heart, God is always working. His Spirit is always calling and convicting His people's hearts. Continue to pray and Jesus will show you the way:) But most of all Don't Give Up!!! That is what Satan would have us do.
January 30th, 2008 at 9:48 am
ricko says:
"Very few people have received the grace needed to perceive the problems of abortion and the ability to act on this perception."
Is it possible that it could simply be an honest difference of opinion?
January 30th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Of course, it is an honest difference of opinion. It's just that those who are on this website believe that the opinion of pro-abortion rights supporters countenance the destruction of human life.
January 30th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Student,
You may be correct, but their are others in the congregation who have come up to me to thank me for taking a strong role on this matter.
A pastor is not a politician, however would you allow a presidential candidate to duck issues?? If the pastor is really a leader then why isn't he leading?? Why should he not address the issue? Is it because it would make some people uncomfortable?? It might force some people to deal with issues that may or already have effected them?? Isn't that what leaders do???
It was already divulged to me that the pastor had received complaints about my written prayers. It seemed to poke at a subject that was too difficult for some/someone. Wouldn't you think that would be a great opportunity to council those who have life issue scabs?
What kind of feel good, good time rock "n" roller Christianity is this? All smiles and consoling?? No direction with the ability to slalom the unpleasantries of the real world?
I feel like I am going there more for others who feel the same that I do than for myself.
Here is an example of a prayer I submitted a couple of weeks ago.
A Prayer for Church Leaders, that they redirect our moral compasses toward life and that we take that direction and use it to effect our decisions and actions.
How offensive is that????
January 30th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
And student, that wasn't meant to be snarky. Honestly, if you believe that over a million babies are killed every year and that that is a most profound injustice, you would want your religious leader to talk about it. For the leader to ignroe it would make me question whether I want to be associated with that religion. Honest disagreement or not, and you have to get into our mode of thinking on this to appreciate it, a horror is occuring in our town, and some want to paper it over because of its divisiveness.
January 30th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Dan ~ I will admit to some naivete when it comes to church matters and am just trying to understand how it works where you go. I've never been familiar with the concept of "submitting prayers." I was raised in the Pentecostal church and perhaps it's a denominational thing? I always thought (at least where I went as a kid) that prayer was between the individual and God. I found nothing personally offensive in the written prayer you submitted — I'm just unfamiliar with the entire concept.
As to politicians ducking issues….I don't think they should have anything to say about it at all. I do get why a pastor/minister (are they the same thing?) might take a stand on something they believe incompatible with their faith.
DAN: "It was already divulged to me that the pastor had received complaints about my written prayers."
What right would ANYONE have to complain about a written prayer? Who has access to your written prayers? Are prayers required to be written? If you believe in a God, isn't it acceptable to pray to him/her/it about anything you want?
DAN: "What kind of feel good, good time rock "n" roller Christianity is this? All smiles and consoling??"
Are Methodists "hell & brimstone" along the same lines as Pentecostals?
I know we have significant differences of opinion, however, I hope I've not been offensive with my questions. I really am curious as to how this works. Thanks for any response you may feel like posting.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Veteran prolifer Randy reports that a baby's life was saved Saturday, Feb. 2, when an expectant mother headed towards Planned Parenthood, Aurora, IL saw Randy's sign CHOICE. Randy says the mother burst into tears and repented of her evil plan to abort her baby. The sign is disgusting but it tells the truth and lives are saved.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
I beg to differ with you Dennis (although do agree that the sign is disgusting). However, it isn't even close to resembling a first trimester abortion.
February 8th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
That's a picture of a third trimester abortion. But Dennis never said it was a first trimester abortion, so I'm not sure what exactly you are differing with him about. Sounds like the mother made a choice to accept the life growing inside her. It seems like something we should all be happy about.
February 8th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Today a couple who had gone into Planned Parenthood came out and talked with a counselor and took her information and said they had changed their minds. Praise God!
February 8th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Praise God!
February 8th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Brian,
My only point is that the sign is more than a bit disingenuous as to Planned Parenthood. Are you under the mistaken impression that they perform 3rd trimester abortions? If so, you are incorrect.
Several weeks ago a woman said to me, "Even if I wanted to talk to those people (the protesters outside of PP), that sign tells me they are 'sick and crazy.'" I find it personally offensive, not to mention disturbing to children, but I don't think it's having the effect you desire. In my opinion (for what it's worth — if anything), it keeps people from talking with you.
****************
Sandy,
A couple of weeks ago two different women exited PP — one had decided to continue her pregnancy and the other decided to continue the pregnancy and go the adoption route AFTER speaking to the counselor at PP (these same women wanted nothing to do with the protesters). I know you are under the mistaken impression that PP pushes for abortions. I know first-hand that they do not. All of the options are explained thoroughly. It is about CHOICE.
February 9th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Student,
PP are a bunch of predators and baby killers. A mojority of people believe that abortion should only be allowed in cases of rape and/or when the health of the women is at risk. Another 40% would never personally choose an abortion but believe that the choice should be left to the woman That makes 90% od the people who do not feel it it is "o.k." to have an abortion. What a stigma that leaves on PP and all those like you who support them. Does it bother you that such a great majority of the people think that a twelve week old baby in the womb is nothing less than a human being? PP is a predatory institution whose goal is to corrupt our youth into making a "choice" to decive their parents
and to kill their babies, and to leave them without the counseling necessary for them to heal properly because PP refuses to even acknowledge that a woman "needs" any counseling after going through something as traumatic as an abortion. PP refuses to help them bring the "men" to did thizs to these young girls to justice in a court of law. PP knows that the younger a girl is and the lower their socioeconic class the more likely she is to be economically and emotionally unable to deal with their pregnancies so they target them for abortion. Did you know that on a per capita basis four times as many black babies are aborted then all the races? Doesn't that bother you? Do you really not care that PP performs abortions on minors without ever making any attempt to bring any rapists to justice? You should step back and take an honest look at all "problems" with the way PP processes and targets our young and poor. Most people are repulsed by abortion. Even more are repulsed by the way PP wants unfettered access to the our youth and their lack of post-abortive support for these youth. They, like you, are in deny any need for post-abortive support and don't really care about the rest of that girls life any more than they care about the babies that they kill.
February 9th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Paul2,
Well, I guess you must have a degree in psychiatry/psychology to make those types of assumptions about someone you don't even know. You know nothing about me and/or what I believe.
However, I'll take a stab at one of the things you said. What "exactly" do you want PP to do as to teenagers? They are legally obligated to keep their medical information confidential. Thus, they are unable to call the police and let them know anything UNLESS & UNTIL the young woman grants permission.
A teenage girl is not required to give any information about her partner at all. Furthermore, PP has no way to determine whether or not anyone is being honest as to the age of a partner IF it is given.
So, under current law, what would you like them to do?
Finally, if you are correct that "90% of people are opposed to abortion" why is there such difficulty getting a PL candidate in office? And, for those who do get there, they do nothing to change things. Ronald Reagan, the hero of the Republican Party, only made a few speeches and did nothing to change things. In an over 700+ page autobiography the word abortion doesn't appear once.
I think your assessment of things is about as accurate as your statement that "the Constitution was written by God fearing christians."
If you're capable of a discussion without personal judgment and insults, I'm happy to have one. If the best you can do is personal insults, inherently inaccurate assumptions and blanket statements without facts to back them up, I'll pass.
February 9th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Student,
If the pregnant girl is aminor then the behaviour of the male may very well be illicit and/or illegal. How about asking the unemancipated minor how they got pregnant for starters? It's not as easy as telling them to keep quiet bu it at least would show them that somebody cares about them and how they got into that position. And as far as the Constitution being written by God fearing Christians, I'll ask Tara to pipe in on tha one if she is out there. If she does not respond in the next two days then I will out a response together for you.
February 9th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Tara,
Can you help Student out with the US Constitution and the Christian influences of the people who wrote it? I know you have posted about this to me in the past.
Thanks,
Paul2
February 9th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Paul2,
Significant counseling goes on at PP prior to any treatment. Asking an unemancipated minor how they got pregnant is ridiculous. Basic biology is that pregnancy is a direct result of sex. If "anyone" reports a rape and wishes the authorities to be called then that happens. If, however, an unemancipated minor choses to give no information as to her partner, that is her right BY LAW and there is simply nothing anyone at the clinic can do about that. Now, under current law, what exactly is PP not doing that they should be doing? If you think the law should be changed, then by all means, feel free to work toward that goal. However, giving out another's medical information (including that of a minor) is against federal law.
I note that you didn't address my question in response to your post. If 90% of the populace is opposed to abortion, why is it so difficult to get a PL candidate elected? Also why, when elected, do they do nothing?
Finally, I did respond to your post as to the founding fathers on another thread. I believe if one makes a statement, one should be able to back it up.
February 9th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Student says: "Ronald Reagan, the hero of the Republican Party, only made a few speeches and did nothing to change things."
Ronald Reagan wrote a book against abortion as President called Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation. Reagan nominated Scalia and Bork, and if Bork had been confirmed, Roe would have been overturned. Because Roe remained the law of the land, there are only incedental things that pro-lifers can do as to abortion law. But facts, schmacts.
February 9th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Student said:
"Asking an unemancipated minor how they got pregnant is ridiculous. Basic biology is that pregnancy is a direct result of sex. "
Student, Of course they got pregnant through sex. By asking how they got pregnant I was referring to asking "who got them pregnant". Who got someone pregnant is not medical information and is no way protected as medical information. But who got thm pregnant is important to know in order for the minor to get complete care. It is not ridiculous at all to ask them who got them pregnant. If you think it is ridiculous it shows a lack of compassion or understanding of the needs of a minor. The entire Illinois assembly unanimously believes thait is in the minors best interest to have that kind of oversight and guidance provided to a minor that is going through an abortion. It is known as the Parental Notification of Abortion Act of 1995:
the Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1995.
(750 ILCS 70/5) Sec. 5. Legislative findings and purpose. The General Assembly finds that notification of a family member as defined in this Act is in the best interest of an unemancipated minor, and the General Assembly's purpose in enacting this parental notice law is to further and protect the best interests of an unemancipated minor. The medical, emotional, and psychological consequences of abortion are sometimes serious and long?lasting, and immature minors often lack the ability to make fully informed choices that consider both the immediate and long?range consequences. Parental consultation is usually in the best interest of the minor and is desirable since the capacity to become pregnant and the capacity for mature judgment concerning the wisdom of an abortion are not necessarily related.
So I guess you think the entire Illimois Assembly is ridiculous then????
February 10th, 2008 at 1:40 am
Student said:
I note that you didn't address my question in response to your post. If 90% of the populace is opposed to abortion, why is it so difficult to get a PL candidate elected? Also why, when elected, do they do nothing?
Student, why do you delude yourself like that. Three of the last four presidents were pro-life candates. They do what they can. They got partial birth abortion outlawed recently didn't they? 90% of the people are against abortion. And we do what we can to expose abortion as the evil it is. Do you deny that even when the Democratic party candidates are asked about abortion they always sat that they are personally against it but believe a mother should have control of her pregnancy? The problem is that since RoeVWade predators like PP take advantage and create an abortion industry and market it as "glamorous" to teens etc… see link below:
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/01/abortion_as_fas.html#comments
Why don't you care that they try to make abortion look attractive to these minors?
February 10th, 2008 at 2:11 am
Student,
I posted my response about the founding fathers on the other thread where had started it. Now maybe you can tell me why you think asking a minor who got her pregnant is "ridiculous"?
February 10th, 2008 at 6:42 am
Paul2: "So I guess you think the entire Illimois Assembly is ridiculous then"
First of all, I would greatly appreciate it if you could hone your debate skills to avoid personal attack AND putting words in my mouth. I have not done that to you and would appreciate the same consideration.
Now, in answer to your question, no, I do not think the Illinois Assembly is ridiculous. I do, however, pay attention to what's going on. As I'm sure you're aware, the Parental Notice Act is currently under an injunction. Put simply, the law is on hold and under review by a federal court judge. As such, it currently does not apply. If and when the injunction is lifted, obviously different rules will apply.
If you're asking MY personal beliefs as to notification, that is a different matter. I strongly believe that if a minor is seeking an abortion she should have the knowledge and support of her parents. However, as a parent of 3, I also believe that if my teenage daughter cannot talk to me about something that important, it is a failing on MY part — not hers. The said truth of the matter is that many teenagers do not have the kind of relationship that would allow this to happen. I am not opposed to parental notification (not consent) as long as there is an easy and fast judicial bypass option available.
February 10th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Paul2: "Do you deny that even when the Democratic party candidates are asked about abortion they always sat that they are personally against it but believe a mother should have control of her pregnancy?"
Of course not. That notwithstanding, I challenge you to find me anyone who is "for" abortion. I've yet to meet a woman or teenager who gets up in the morning and says, "Great. Today I'm going to have an abortion. I've been looking forward to this forever." Many (not all) in the PL camp want to paint those of us who favor choice as "pro-abortion." That is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. I support a woman's right to have a child. I support a woman's right never to have children. I support a woman's right to adopt. And, I support a woman's right to abort. Ironically, I've had friends in all 4 categories this past year alone. Each made the best decision for themselves and their families and I fully support each and every one.
You stated, "Why don't you care that they try to make abortion look attractive to these minors?"
Please STOP telling me what I do and don't care about. You simply don't know any more than I know your feelings on a myriad of things.
As to your Stanek link, I found it ridiculous (sorry, my opinion). I read the comments and clearly those folks have difficulty reading. Please show me where it says "abortion" is "fashionable." It simply doesn't. There seems to be a significant problem understanding the difference between the words "choice" and "abortion."
Abortion IS NOT attractive nor have I seen anything that makes it attractive. I would like to live in a world where it's never necessary. To that end, I think we fail teenagers with abstinance only education. I believe they need more facts — not less. Knowledge is power.
February 10th, 2008 at 10:02 am
I never know if I am blogging in the right place so here goes! I am a counselor st PP and I would like you all to know the 2 miracles that have happened in the last 2 Saturdays. Last Sat. Feb2 a woman and her aunt were going to turn into PP and were distracted by us waving our literature as they passed us up they saw Randy's sign and started to cry, leaving an open door for us to talk and pray with them. It was the last day she could have an abortion because of how far long she was. I feel sometimes the signs are disturbing but the Lord showed me not to judge and allowed me to witness how affective the signs are. The girls name is Sasha please continue to pray for her. This Sat Feb 9, a young girl and her boyfriend went to pull into PP but stopped to talk to us. They both started to cry and the PP escorts came over and tried to tell them not to listen to us. We let the PP say what they wanted to say without interuppting them. The couple pulled into PP parking lot and the escorts procedded to go up and get them to come in. After 20 minutes of some serious spiritual warefare on the part of the councelors and the prayer warriors out their the couple pulled out with tears streaming down their faces and said they were keeping their baby, they thanked us and we prayed for both of them! I just want to thank all of you who are praying it makes sa HUGE difference when us councelors are out their. As we all work together in this fight may we continue to see the miracles of lives being saved! Peace
February 10th, 2008 at 10:45 am
The coupless name this week was Jackie and Jose please keep them in your prayers also!
February 10th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Student said:
If 90% of the populace is opposed to abortion, why is it so difficult to get a PL candidate elected? Also why, when elected, do they do nothing?
Then Student said:
I challenge you to find me anyone who is "for" abortion.
Student, you just went from challenging my assertion that 90% of the populace is against abortion and then in your next post you are challenging me to find "anyone" who is for abortion. What point are you trying to make?
February 10th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Kristine, I will keep you in my prayers.
February 10th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
And I will keep Jackie and Jose in my prayers also
February 10th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Student,
We found some common ground. Neither of us thinks abortion should be marketed as glamorous. We both agree that it is completely against human nature to be
"for" abortion. We both strongly believe that if a minor is seeking an abortion it is her best interset to have her parents notified. But you still did not respond to me about what I think PP should be doing to better care for any minors that they process. You had stated:
"If, however, an unemancipated minor choses to give no information as to her partner, that is her right BY LAW and there is simply nothing anyone at the clinic can do about that. Now, under current law, what exactly is PP not doing that they should be doing? "
I then replied:
Who got someone pregnant is not medical information and is no way protected as medical information. But who got thm pregnant is important to know in order for the minor to get complete care. It is not ridiculous at all to ask them who got them pregnant. If you think it is ridiculous it shows a lack of compassion or understanding of the needs of a minor.
Student, don't you see the danger in your hands off approach. It is "known to be extremely difficult for minors to come forward when they are abused." To put the onus on them to come forward with inormation is an extremely dangerous hands off approach to nthe problem. The abusers most ofen threaten them against telling anyone about it and make the minor feel like they are responsible for the abuse. To put the onus completely on them to come forward and speak about there abuse is to completely abandon them.
I am still not sure if you agree with you still did not respond to me about what I think PP should be doing
February 10th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Re post 41, Ronald Reagan pleaded a common sense argument with regard to abortion, saying in essence that if we are not sure when life begins, ought we not err on the side of defending life? He mentioned abortion in just about every State of the Union address during his presidency, usually in the context of appealing to Congress to send him pro-life legislation. With the exception of the Hyde amendment which forbade the use of tax dollars to pay for abortions, other pro-life efforts were consistently stymied by the Democrats. This is not to say that all Republicans are marching in lockstep on abortion, but any objective observer must admit that Democrats are by far in the majority when it comes to fighting efforts to eliminate or dilute in any manner laws favoring abortion.
President Reagan also issued directives prohibiting the use of federal funding used to promote abortions outside our borders in what became know as the Mexico City policy. That he was not able to accomplish more reflects the general tenor of the times.
Even now with many more pro-lifers holding office than in Reagan's day, there are still legislative and judicial roadblocks that make it difficult to advance legislation into law. Look how hard it was to get even the partial-birth abortion legislation passed and signed and upheld by the Supreme Court. It had passed in a number of states only to be struck down repeatedly by the courts. It wasn't until federal legislative action passed the measure and was signed by President Bush and was upheld by the court that we finally prevailed. So it is that bringing all three branches of government together on a single issue, despite the dogged resistance of the fourth branch of government (the strongly pro-abort press), getting pro-life legislation passed is a momentous task indeed.
Student, I will take your word for it that Reagan's autobiography may not have mentioned abortion even once in 700 pages, but if the reason you know that is because you read his book I hope you found his life story inspiring. By the way, as long as we are talking about legalized abortion, the Constitution does not mention the word "abortion" or phrase "right to abortion" a single time. Even pro-abortion jurists acknowledge that Roe v. Wade was a real stretch, even though they of course agree that abortion should be legal. Also, FYI it is not all that difficult to get pro-lifers elected to office. It happens all the time.
February 10th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Paul2 stated: "Student, you just went from challenging my assertion that 90% of the populace is against abortion and then in your next post you are challenging me to find "anyone" who is for abortion. What point are you trying to make?"
As you noted above, they were two separate post — not intended to be taken together. I do not believe that 90% of the population is opposed to a woman's right to choice.
The second point I was making is to point out the fallacy of the language you (and MANY others use). I do not believe there is anything as a "pro-abort" stance. It's a hot button word used by many PLs just as "pro-birth" is a hot button word used by many PCs. Both are used to get a reaction and add nothing to a substantive discussion. We can trade insults all day but, ultimately, it doesn't accomplish anything.
February 10th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Response to Post 56.
Paul2 stated: "We found some common ground. Neither of us thinks abortion should be marketed as glamorous. We both agree that it is completely against human nature to be "for" abortion. We both strongly believe that if a minor is seeking an abortion it is her best interset to have her parents notified."
I agree with "most" of what you said but, again, you're putting words in my mouth. I never said I believe it is in the best interest to notify parents. I do believe it is in a minor's best interests to have the knowledge and support of her parents. Unfortunately, in many families the relationship isn't such to allow this. In my mind, that is the fault of the parent — not the teenager.
Paul2 stated: "Who got someone pregnant is not medical information and is no way protected as medical information. But who got thm pregnant is important to know in order for the minor to get complete care. It is not ridiculous at all to ask them who got them pregnant."
The fact that someone is even seeking medical attention at all is PHI (protected healthcare information). Knowing the name, age, etc. of a teenagers partner does nothing to further her medical care. However, counseling at PP does attempt to assess whether or not there are any emotional problems that need to be addressed and counseling is offered. If abuse is suspected, women are strongly encouraged to contact the authorities and are offered assistance to do so. However, whether or not anyone shares that information with PP staff is strictly up to them. Furthermore, if the information is offered there is no way to guage the accuracy of the information given.
Paul2 stated: It is "known to be extremely difficult for minors to come forward when they are abused."
This is yet another reason I think parental notification is a bad idea. What do you do with a teenager who is being abused at home? Do you want her potential abuser notified?
If I have failed to address anything else you brought up, it is an error of ommission — I'm not trying to dodge issues. I do enjoy discussing differing opinions (when it can be done respectfully) as I think there are things both sides can learn from the other.
February 10th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Response to Post 57.
Jerry N stated: "Student, I will take your word for it that Reagan's autobiography may not have mentioned abortion even once in 700 pages, but if the reason you know that is because you read his book I hope you found his life story inspiring."
I have a penchant for poltical biographies and autobiographies. Believe it or not, I actually enjoyed 'The Supreme Court' by William Rehnquist.
***************
Jerry N stated: "By the way, as long as we are talking about legalized abortion, the Constitution does not mention the word "abortion" or phrase "right to abortion" a single time."
I agree. It also doesn't mention the right to marry, the right to drive a car, the right to color my hair, the right to have your appendix removed, etc.
***************
Jerry N stated: "Also, FYI it is not all that difficult to get pro-lifers elected to office. It happens all the time."
You are correct and I apologize for my mis-statement. There are PLs elected to office. However, they aren't in the majority and there isn't enough will among the populace to put people there who will change the law in the manner in which, I assume, you'd like.
February 10th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Student,
It is just as important to bring abusive parents to justice as it is to bring any other abuser to justice. We both agree that Parental Notification would help without question in the cases where the parent is not the abuser (this is the vast majority of cases). The minor also needs to know there is help for her if the parent is the abuser. And in the cases with abusive parents it is just as important for the minor to be encoyraged to speak up if she is being molested by a parent so she can be removed from the abusive household. So I fail to see how you reason that getting an abused minor to inform somebody about an abusive parent would be bad thing.
February 10th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Student said:
Knowing the name, age, etc. of a teenagers partner does nothing to further her medical care.
That is just flat out wrong. Understanding the ircumstances that put the minor in this dreadful position in the first place is an absolutely essential part of her care. Do you really not see that?
February 10th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Paul2,
Let me rephrase as I think you're looking past what I'm trying to say. It does nothing to further her "medical" care. And, as I've told you a couple of times now, she is not obligated to give that information and, if given, PP is prohibited by law from discussing it with anyone without her permission.
I do think it helpful to discuss it during counseling — especially to avoid ending up with an unintended pregnancy in the future.
February 10th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Paul2 stated: "It is just as important to bring abusive parents to justice as it is to bring any other abuser to justice."
I agree, however, parental notification WILL NOT accomplish this.
**********
Paul2 stated: "We both agree that Parental Notification would help without question in the cases where the parent is not the abuser (this is the vast majority of cases)."
No, we DO NOT agree on this either. Again, I believe parental knowledge and support helps. However, if a teenager cannot discuss this issue with her parent I don't think it helps to insist that she do so. I blame the parent for this — not the teenager. This is why it is so important to cultivate a good relationship with one's children.
************
Paul2 stated: "The minor also needs to know there is help for her if the parent is the abuser. And in the cases with abusive parents it is just as important for the minor to be encoyraged to speak up if she is being molested by a parent so she can be removed from the abusive household. So I fail to see how you reason that getting an abused minor to inform somebody about an abusive parent would be bad thing."
I don't think it's a bad thing. And if it appears that a minor is being abused all of her options are explained and she is encouraged to seek help AND is offered much assistance in doing so. However, correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears to me that what you're looking for is mandating that a teenager give that information. I'm sorry, but that is not the law at this time.
February 10th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Student said:
***********
However, correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears to me that what you're looking for is mandating that a teenager give that information. I'm sorry, but that is not the law at this time.
************
We don't need to mandate anything or pass any laws to ask minors how they got pregnant. And there is NO law preventing us from asking them questions about the circumstances that put them in this sorry situation. It is just common sense to ask a pregnant minor who got them pregnant. It is a very logical and efective way to get abused kids out of abusive situations and we need to care enough to stop the abuse. We owe it to our children to understand that they are not "adults" and if they get into trouble they should not be treated in the same fashion as adults. Asking a minor how she got into such a deplorable situation is our best, and often the only way to rescue a minor from an abusivive situation. That is all part of competent medical care to minors who are going through an abortion. Keep youeye on the goal here…. To help the minor through her troubles and to take as many abusers as possible off the streets.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:07 am
Paul2,
I never said there was a law against asking who a teenagers partner is. However, they are under no obligation to provide that information. Are you under the impression that "most" teenagers seeking abortive services have been abused? If so, I don't believe statistics will support that conclusion.
February 11th, 2008 at 8:12 am
Student,
There is also a legal reason to ask these minors who got them pregnant. There are age of consent laws and if they girl is below the age of consent for the laws in their state then "any" sex is actually illegal to begin with and we need to make sure the perpetrator of this crime is, at a minimum, made aware that they are breaking the law. And depending on the circumstance (if they are an adult) prosecuted could be warranted. We must not turn a blind eye and leave these perverts to rape again.
Also, please provide me statistics you mentioned if you have them. Sick as it is and as much as I don't like to believe this abuse goes on, it is a sad fact that many minors are in fact abused by adults. Lets work together to reduce that number.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:07 am
Student,
Have you had a chance to think about it?
February 16th, 2008 at 7:50 pm