You meant evil against me…
Posted by Matt Yonke, April 10th, 2008
Of course the young lady was upset. She had just found out she was pregnant and was coming to Planned Parenthood to "deal with the problem". Planned Parenthood is always billed as some sort of panacea for women, where everything is happy, safe, and wonderful. Women go to Planned Parenthood for routine procedures that should cause no moral qualms in the women themselves or the surrounding community.
But then there are the facts. Yesterday afternoon, a young lady coming to Planned Parenthood sped towards two of our sidewalk counselors—Karen and Scott—and pulled away at the last second with one hand while delivering a rude hand gesture with the other. She then pulled into Planned Parenthood and entered the building with her friend. Not the behavior you would expect from someone on their way to obtain routine medical care.
Unfortunately, intentionally swerving your vehicle towards another human being is against the law, even if you don't hit them, so the police were called. The young lady was arrested on disorderly conduct charges.
Later the woman's friend came across the street to apologize on her friend's behalf to our sidewalk counselors. She explained that her friend had just found out about her pregnancy and was in a very bad mood.
The pregnant girl's friend took a good sized packet of literature from them and said she would pass it on to her friend. Now this young mother will have some time to think about the choice to abort, a stack of literature encouraging her not to, and doubtless a bad taste in her mouth for Planned Parenthood—all because she acted out against pro-lifers.
As Joseph said to his brothers in Egypt, "As for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today." Genesis 50:20
Today, this young woman's baby is still alive. Let's pray that tomorrow she finds the help she needs to make the choice for life.
Thanks to Karen and Scott for sharing this story and for being there to "take the hits" and offer hope.
I'm sorry for the young lady, that she felt so distraught that she pulled a stunt like this. We will pray for her and her situation. Hopefully, she will realize that we are here to help.
God Bless,
Roger
April 10th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Roger,
I wouldn't call driving a vehicle at people a stunt. I hope she gets prosecuted unless she shows shows sincere regret about her actions by apologizing directly to the people she threatened. Her friend coming over and apologizing doesn't count. Let's hope her friend reads the literature the sidewalk counselors gave to her. God works in mysterious ways, maybe the literature will end up relieving some of the pain and insecurity she is feeling.
April 10th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Truthseeker,
The young lady has already been arrested and charged. It'll be up to a judge what happens to her from here. I would imagine she already regrets what she's done. In her defense, she couldn't go talk to the sidewalk counselors since she was being arrested.
There's no excuse for aiming a car at people, but at this point prayer and compassion are in order.
In Christ,
Matt
April 10th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
hmmm…now why would she be angry at the counselors even if she found out she was pregnant?
Did the counselors make her pregnant?
Did the counseleors force her to get pregnant?
Or is this a case of her guilty conscience lashing out?
April 11th, 2008 at 8:53 am
She certainly had no business aiming her car at anyone (if that's what she did). However, my guess is that she's angry that other people are sitting in judgment of her. She may be angry that on top of everything else she's dealing with, she now has to face people protesting the fact that she is going to a clinic to which she legally entitled to do.
April 11th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Student,
Nobody was "judging" her when she aimed her car towards the counselors…and pls note, she didn't even have the chance to "face" the counselors (except for trying to run them down)…she immediately went into the parking lot…
Are you rationalizing the irrational act of another person? Well, good luck and have fun…
April 11th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Ramir,
Perhaps you missed the first sentence of my post #5? Of course people were there judging her. Perhaps you'd like her to think it was just a social gathering of people out for a picnic?
I have spoken with MANY women entering PP and MOST feel as if they are being judged and MOST are angry that you are there. Obviously, you have a legal right to stand there (which, while I completely disagree with your position, you are legally entitled to do). However, let's not pretend the women entering the clinic are so stupid as to not realize why you are, in fact, there.
April 12th, 2008 at 7:52 am
Student,
It's probably useless trying to convince you as you have already decided..but for the record - I am there because I want to save lives..and not just physical. I have enough junk in my life that I don't have the right nor the time or energy to judge anyone. But I can be there to offer help and let them know there are other ways out of the situation they are in that don't include death.
I myself was 20, pregnant, not married, and wondering what to do not so long ago. I walked thru protestors at an abortion clinic in Wichita, KS to get counseling prior to an abortion. I wasn't angry at the protestors, I was scared of them and didnt understand what they were trying to say. I was more scared of my situation and how I was going to manage it.
So I know at least some of the feelings of where these women are and I do my best to try to relieve their fears and get help into their hands and I will continue to sidewalk counsel and pray and do my best to show these women we are not judging them but offering them hope.
By the way, I didn't have the abortion. It was a very tough first 3 years but my 'embryo' is now 21 and has a child of her own. I will pray for the woman because I know behind her action is fear and uncertainty and that we have the help and hope that she needs - all she needs to do is reach out for it.
April 12th, 2008 at 8:41 am
WD,
I said nothing of "your reasons" for being there. I do not doubt that, to your way of thinking, the reasons are anything but noble.
I did tell you my experiences in talking with the women entering the clinic and what their thoughts have been. However, you did touch on something I missed — many ARE afraid of you. The yelling doesn't help (my opinion).
April 12th, 2008 at 8:52 am
Yes, they are afraid, afraid of the truth!
Do not kill! If it is not a life, then why are they coming for an abortion? To kill it! Simply and ugly as that! The child is innocent and defenseless. It is not responsible for under what circumstances it was conceived. It is no less human because of not being wanted! Two wrongs don't make a right. Mother Theresa, "It is a shame that someone has to die so that others may live the way they wish." Everyone is always looking for a quick fix to their problems, but some "quick fixes" end a human life!
April 12th, 2008 at 11:24 am
I have spoken with MANY women entering PP and MOST feel as if they are being judged and MOST are angry that you are there.
*****
Student, if you think it's a bad idea then my first thought would be that I should probably be doing more yelling, but on second thought, it would probably be best just to ignore you since you haven't had a productive thought on this blog now in well over a month. Other than expressing your "feelings", which are almost always contrary to the God loving Christians who are part of FVFAPP, what have you contributed?
April 12th, 2008 at 11:38 am
The counselors are there not only to prevent a murder, but to offer help to the mother, to let her know she is not alone, and there are so many caring and loving people and organizations ready and willing to help her and her child. Not to mention the multitudes of people looking and waiting to adopt a child. Let them live.
April 12th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Truthseeker,
Do whatever you think best….you will anyway.
What a typically extremist christian attitude of you! Clearly anyone with a differing opinion can't have "a productive thought."
April 12th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
KarenK,
Actually, as even WD stated above, many are afraid of the protesters. But don't take my word for it, keep doing it. It will only mean that even fewer people will bother talking with you.
April 12th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Student,
I'm more afraid for the human beings in the womb; they have more to fear than any other, counselor or customer!
April 12th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Student,
I have not seen you offering these pregnant mothers any help except for your support for their right to terminate their pregnancy. You had previously posted about your teenage niece who has multiple children. In the post you seemed to speak of her in a disparaging fashion. You were then asked what kind of relationship you have with your niece, but you did not respond. Are you active in helping her since she decided not to commit abortion? Would you donate to the baby shower we are having as part of our pro-life rally on April 26th?
April 12th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
truthseeker,
Regarding #11, you've hit on truth.
Student,
Your posts often seem unproductive, at least in my limited experience with you, as you do not reply to direct questions that require thought and reflection, nor acknowledge error when evidence contrary to your accusations is presented. Openness to "differing opinions" is also not one of your strengths.
However, I hope that at least through your postings, others may come to acknowledge the humanity of the preborn through the often well-written rebuttals and well-meaning corrections that people have spent so much time writing. May you one day find the Truth.
April 12th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Sylvia,
Could you be specific as to where I have not replied to a direct question or where I have not acknowledged error (a post # and topic title would help)? If so, I would be happy to address same. I have gone out of my way to be respectful — even though I have felt some of the positions taken were simply ridiculous. The same has not been true of others here. I have avoided name calling (but am certainly capable of thinking of plenty which would be applicable) because I don't think it productive. Again, the same is not true of the other side.
May you one day find the truth also.
April 12th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Truthseeker stated:
No, you haven't "seen" me do anything one way or the other, nor have I "seen" you. You know nothing of what I do and/or don't do.
What did I say re my niece that you found disparaging….could you be specific?
You are correct. I no longer respond to that particular poster who, in my opinion, is a bigot and who simply cannot engage in conversation without name calling.
Commit abortion? She lives on the other side of the country. There's not a lot I can do for her. For the record, the same is also true of the PL groups that offered to help her during the first pregnancy and are nowhere to be found now.
For whom are you having this baby shower? I'm in the middle of organizing a baby shower and have my hands full with that.
April 12th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
For whom are you having this baby shower? I'm in the middle of organizing a baby shower and have my hands full with that.
Posted by Student April 12th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Student,
The baby shower donations would go for pregnancy centers that offer assistance to expectant mothers.
April 12th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Truthseeker,
Out of my entire reply I find it ironic that the only thing you chose to respond to was the questions of the baby shower. Even though you ignored mine, I'll answer yours. Yes, I would be happy to donate something assuming that you'll be donating something to my friend's baby shower as well.
April 12th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Student,
I am glad to hear that you find compassion enough to support pregnant mothers. I think this is an area of common ground that pro-choice people and pro-life people can and should agree on. I would be happy to give a gift to any pregnant mother as a gesture of support and kindness. I do find it odd though that you qualify your support for the pregnancy center with getting something for your friends shower. That would be like you requesting a donation from me to support a college fund for students , and me saying to you, "sure I will but that's assuming you'll give me something for my kid who starts college next year". It just doesn't sound right and strikes me as unseemly to attach strings like that when donating to a charitable cause.
Anyway, come on down to the Rally outside PP in Aurora on the 26th and bring your gift for the baby shower. I'll have an extra pack of diapers for you to give your friend at her shower. I'll have them set aside next to the crib that people put gifts into and I'll have a sign with your name and a little white cross in the ground marking the gift (diapers). I think we can all agree that offering mothers pregnancy assistance is a good way to help stop abortion.
April 12th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
VIDEO: Fr. Frank Pavone explains suction and dismemberment abortions
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/04/suction_and_dis.html#comments
Mike
April 13th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
VIDEO: Planned Parenthood Racism Investigation (Part 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUZmngdfmrQ
Mike
April 13th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Student,
Regarding 18, refer to topic listed Feb. 12, 2008. Paul2 in post #71 asks you a question–twice even. No response. Beginning post #85 I chime in. I discredited your "frontal cortex as unique" position for deciding when human life begins. No response. It continues down to 140, 144.
I hadn't read any posts on that thread until today–like I had said, I felt I was wasting my time. I notice you made a couple of errors in 157–first, that I had not before posted sources (see #85), and second, that my source was unreliable. Yes, it was an accumulation of quotes that I linked you to, but the quotes are not to be discredited because they are quotes, especially the one from Norma McCorvey, a.k.a. Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade, as she is a public figure whose quote, if inaccurate, would have been refuted.
You fail to answer logically and adequately, when does human life begin? I showed you that your "frontal cortex" argument was in error. If you will not consider that question, there is no starting point for real discussion, as that question and its answer are the foundation for any logical decisions regarding abortion.
April 13th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Sylvia:
Your are correct. I did not (and will not) respond to any question from this poster. See post 19 above for rationale.
An accumulation of quotes does not tell one where and when said quote was made. I can type here that you said "XYZ" but unless I can cite when and where it's pretty meaningless.
You may not like my answer, but I did give you one. On the other hand, in that same forum, you pretty much ignored everything I had to say — and that's fine. You are certainly not required to respond.
April 13th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Sorry, Mike, but I can't take seriously anything that Jill Stanek has to say. Sweet & Sour Fetus? Give me a break. That woman has some serious mental issues!
April 13th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Student,
Jill Stanek's website happens to be one of the top Pro-Life websites on the internet.
I know your type. If you can't put up a winning argument against the topic; attack the individual.
Mike
April 13th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Has anyone read this…
Abortion Supporters State Ultrasounds Would Cost $700. Then Why Are Crisis Pregnancy Centers Doing Them for FREE?
——-
A Miami Heraldstory is about abortionists being legally required to show a women an ultrasound picture if she wants to see it. It is not required otherwise:
"Rep. Joyce Cusack, a Democrat… noted that not every abortion clinic has ultrasound equipment and those that do will have to charge patients more to offer the procedures.
Opponents of the measure said the procedure could cost a woman as much as $700, while supporters said the cost would likely be less than $100."
What I find interesting is that crisis pregnancy centers manage to do them for free.
Another thought, how do these people verify gestational age, without the ultrasound, to make sure the safest procedure is being performed?
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/04/show_me_the_mon.html#comments
Mike
April 13th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Not only that, Mike, but it's not Jill Stanek making the point, but Priests for Life.
In the other video that I watched, Father Pavone illustrated the D&E method of 2nd trimester abortion. It is brutal. As an interesting aside, its brutality was used as an argument in favor of keeping partial birth abortion legal (both by Judge Posner of the 7th Circuit and by the Supreme Court in the first partial birth abortion case). The argument was how is it rational for the government to ban one form of brutality while conceding the legality of another equally brutal method of abortion? Of course, I think they should both be illegal, but the government did conced that D&E abortions were legal under the statute (and the Casey and Roe decisions).
While I'm glad that partial birth abortions are illegal, pro-lifers should temper their gladness by knowing that instead of partial birth abortions, 20 week gestation-aged babies are being torn apart limb by limb and then having their heads crushed in utero. Almost all of these abortions are for personal choice as opposed to the life of the mother. It's a profoundly horrible thing that this is legally protected. For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
April 13th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
I can already anticipate the objection to my statement that the vast majority of these abortions are elective. I'm just making it up. But it's true, as admitted by the National Coalition of Abortion Providers: the vast majority of partial birth abortions were performed on health mothers with healthy babies. See New York Times, Feb 26, 1997, p. A11 "An Abortion Rights Advocate Says He Lied About Procedure." Check out the Party of Death by Ramesh Ponnuru. It will change your mind about life issues (or strengthen your resolve if you're already there).
April 13th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Did anyone see the piece on Planned Parenthood tonight on "Hannity's America"?
I'm sure if you missed it, Jill Stanek will have the video on her website tomorrow.
I just don't get it — every week there's something new coming out about the dark side of Planned Parenthood, yet they keep getting an unbelievable amount of tax payer money.
Mike
April 13th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Student,
Admit it, you have no logical defense for your positions. You've been shown to be wrong on many occasions. You were still responding to Paul2 in other regards, but you didn't answer that question. You cannot use your defense of post 19 here.
What difference would it make to say Norma McCorvey said "XYZ" on November 22, 2006, 8:37am? OK everyone, get out your watches and calendars so you can legitimize your quotes. See the absurdity? The quotes stand on their own. There were many people who attached their names (not "Anonymous") to their witnesses of what went on in abortion facilities. Student, show me a reliable source that says abortionists never ask non-medical employees to reassemble the dismembered bodies of aborted babies.
I also showed you how your belief in when human life begins (with frontal cortex development) was based on erroneous information/assumptions. Logically, that should cause you to rethink your position. So you have still not answered my question: When does human life begin?
Finally, I had answered every point you made with facts and information refuting the assumptions you were basing your arguments on–that is, until the post where I told you I could tell I was wasting my time and would not be posting for a while. What did I "ignore"?
April 14th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Oh, and Student, Truth is not a something but a Someone.
Peace.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:25 am
I don't understand why no one can see the judgement… Students response (#5) is the comment that makes the most sense in this thread, and yet no one wants to open their eyes to see it.
We would rather deny the fact that some of the folks going in to get an abortion DO in fact perceive a level of judgement from some of those standing outside the clinic.
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that we are all mostly arrogant, radical Christian hypocrites who can't see the issues objectively. Whatever the reason is, I find it totally embarrassing.
And I consider myself pro-life…
April 14th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
We would rather deny the fact that some of the folks going in to get an abortion DO in fact perceive a level of judgement from some of those standing outside the clinic.
Posted by StudentFL April 14th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
****
StudentFL,
I do perceive judgement. I will admit that our presence out there is because we judge abortion as being intrinsically wrong. You may have missed my post a month ago, but I in front of that same clinic praying when somebody aimed their car at me and my children who were simply praying. But for you to somehow construe that our presence is causing these people to drive their cars into us is ludicrous. The real "reason" for their actions is "their own" deeply-felt judgement that they feel inside themselves regarding the morally wrenching act they are about to commit that causes them to strike out. You said you are pro-life, and I understand that a lot of people who are pro-life are not comfortable with sidewalk counseling, but do you really think the mere presence of these sidewalk counselors is the reason these people are "driving" their automobiles into them? While it is true that they could not drive their cars into us if we were not their, it is NOT true that our presence is what causes them to drive into us. Can't you see it is a rage they are carrying with them because of what "they" are about to do.
April 14th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
StudentFL stated:
Thanks for your comments. It isn't just the women going in for abortion services who perceive that judgment, it's also the women going in for check ups or birth control. However, I do not condone driving a car toward (it was not into — big difference) the protesers (or anyone else).
April 14th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Mike,
Allow me to explain. I think Jill Stanek is a nut based on her assumption that the Chinese eat "Sweet & Sour Fetus." Please don't take my word for it, look it up for yourself — my bet is that there's still a link on her webiste.
The claim that baby or fetus eating is an accepted practice in China (or Thailand, or Japan, or Korea, or Israel, as other variants of this same rumor claim) is more or less a modernized version of an ancient legend known as "Blood Libel." It has typically taken the form of one culture accusing another (or a subculture) of ritually sacrificing infants and in some cases eating them. The Greeks accused the Jews of it, the Romans accused the Christians, Christians accused the Jews again, and so on throughout history. And now, blogger Jill Stanek accuses the Chinese of the same thing. So, yes, I did attack her personally. However, I attacked her for HER words. Sorry, she's a kook……unless, of course, you actually buy into this nonsense.
April 14th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Student,
I have to disagree with you on Jill Stanek. I think she is excellent and her blog is also.
As for Chinese Sweet & Sour, as I remember it Jill stated she was not sure if this was really true in her blog. I agree this seems odd but I would not put it past the Chinese who murder most of their female population in the mothers womb due to its one child per family policy.
Mike
April 14th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Sylvia,
I do not have the time, or the inclination, to go back and re-read old posts. If you disappear for a bit, don't expect me to help you play catch up. However, I will attempt to respond to your latest post.
The quotes stand on their own.
I'm sorry, but quotes DO NOT stand on their own. Have you ever tried submitting something like that on a research paper? I can say you said anything I like but it doesn't make it true. I can say that President Bush was quoted as saying, "I wear women's undergarments when addressing Congress." However, if I can't back it up, it's pretty darn meaningless.
There's no way to prove that someone "never" said anything. We both know that and it can be stated for just about anything.
I believe I have, but will do so one last time. It depends upon what you mean by "life." Every cell in my body is alive. The eggs in my ovaries are alive and have DNA distinct from mine. My partner's sperm have distinct DNA from him — they are also alive. If the egg and sperm were to join, that blastocyst would also be alive. All are human and all are alive. I maintain that that which makes us human occurs in the brain and, in my opinion, that development is not there in a first trimester fetus. You are welcome to disagree.
I had asked you a series of questions as to how we would handle a multitude of things with women if we completely outlaw Roe. I am not about to go back and re-read the posting to find out "exactly" what was asked. If you have the time and inclination to do so, knock yourself out.
Finally, you are under no obligation whatsoever to respond or answer any post I submit nor am I likely to answer every single question asked of me by each and ever poster. I will get to the ones I can and will do my best to answer those people who really want to dialogue about this, however, I'm not interested in belly bumping just for the sake of it.
April 14th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Mike,
Kinda racist don't you think. Isn't that like saying, "I wouldn't put it past those dirty Jews either?" Sorry, BS is BS.
April 14th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
*****VIDEO/PICS: Pro-Abort Uses Fake Gun, Devil Costume, Loud Speaker, Horse Dung and More Against Pro-Lifers*****
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/04/post_62.html#comments
Mike
April 14th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Here's more.
http://prolifecorner.com/files/video/Warningkeith.swf
——
Student,
Can you keep your friend under control?
Mike
April 14th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Paul2: "But for you to somehow construe that our presence is causing these people
to drive their cars into us is ludicrous."
I never even implied that in my post. In fact, where in my post do I even mention the people who are driving their cars into us? I was referring solely to Student's initial post and how most everyone on here attacked her from the get-go. My arguments are not ludicrous Mr. Paul2, I assure you.
Paul2: "You said you are pro-life, and I understand that a lot of people who are pro-life are not comfortable with sidewalk counseling, but do you really think the mere presence of these sidewalk counselors is the reason these people are 'driving' their automobiles into them?"
Paul2, I AM a sidewalk counselor… And I find it absolutely counter-productive, inconsiderate, and irrational when I'm trying to counsel at PP and I have to stand next to some radical holding up a sign that says 'Abortion is Murder'
How am I suppose to turn hearts, when I am automatically associated with this sign? How are the customers not suppose to think we believe they are murderers when we have this going on?
Our presence is not driving folks to battery and assault, but our presence CAN push folks away from our message of hope if we are irrational about the way we put out the message.
April 14th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Student and Mike,
From an objective standpoint, it is easy to see how Jill Stanek's website is little more than an attempt to feed the stereotype of being pro-life as being Christian, Conservative, and homophobic.
Jill Stanek actually had a poll over the Easter season that asked what the difference is between Christianity and all other religions… How is this suppose to bring people together???
It doesn't… And that's because Jill Stanek's site is an attempt to monopolize the pro-life movement. It's truly truly dissapointing.
April 14th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
StudentFL,
In all seriousness, I wish there was a way of knowing who you are. You are the type of person that I would feel comfortable personally directing a woman with any doubt at all to go talk with. If you are ever comfortable with meeting in person, you are just the type of person I'd love to converse with face-to-face about some of these issues. There are kooks on BOTH sides of this issue and they are all harmful to everyone involved.
April 14th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Mike,
What "friend" are you referencing? I really have no idea what you're talking about.
April 14th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Sylvia stated:
Are you referring to Sojourner Truth?
April 14th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Student,
I'm a member of Students for Life of Illinois, and much of all of this has been a discussion amongst some of my good friends from different colleges around the area. We sincerely believe that both sides need to work together, or else we will never be able to solve the crisis of unwanted pregnancies. I totally agree that there are crazies on both sides. I look forward to hearing from you, or anyone who wishes to email me, on these issues.
You can reach me at gguest724@hotmail.com
I don't know if I'm allowed to put my email on here, but I trust that everyone will be mature about identity and not try to pretend to be 'Student' if they're not. Let's hope I'm not overconfident.
-StudentFL
April 14th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
StudentFL,
I'll post mine as well (just in case) and will certainly get a message off to you tomorrow. Thanks!
law_research_student@yahoo.com
April 14th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
StudentFL,
Before I head upstairs to study and get some sleep, I just want to tell you how refreshing it is to find someone who wants to work toward solutions. THIS is how progress will be made on this issue — the bickering, judgment and sniping (on both sides) does no good whatsoever! Thanks again. I look forward to more conversation later.
April 14th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
I never even implied that in my post. In fact, where in my post do I even mention the people who are driving their cars into us? I was referring solely to Student's initial post and how most everyone on here attacked her from the get-go. My arguments are not ludicrous Mr. Paul2, I assure you.
Posted by StudentFL April 14th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
StudentFL,
Student's POST#5 that you first blogged about says:
"She certainly had no business aiming her car at anyone (if that's what she did). However, my guess is that she's angry that other people are sitting in judgment of her. She may be angry that on top of everything else she's dealing with, she now has to face people protesting the fact that she is going to a clinic to which she legally entitled to do."
The topic of the article on this blog line is a person who drove their car at the counselors. STudents POST stated that the person who droive their car into the protesters was angry at "them" for being there. When you supported her POST#5 I presumed you felt the same way. Now that I read your response "Our presence is not driving folks to battery and assault, but our presence CAN push folks away from our message of hope if we are irrational about the way we put out the message", then your POST was not ludicrous, it appears it was just a misunderstanding due to the reasons posted above.
About those signs. There was a time not too long ago when most people were unaware that these 1st trimester babies were anything but blobs of cells. Are you aware that it was just the past couple years where Planned Parenthood lost a Supreme Court decision that prevents them from continuing the practice of delivering babies to the chest, sliding a scissors up the spine to the bottom of the head, jabbing it through their skull and then opening the scissors up as they remove it so that there is a gaping hole to suck the babies brains out and make sure it is dead before they finish delivering the baby. This organization is abominable, and the signs show their handiwork of the people who work inside. Showing the truth of what that House of Horrors stands for is very important to getting people to stop supporting them. Sometimes the truth hurts, but the people who fight for the right to commit these atrocoities would much rather we didn't bring it to the light, but I rather people know?
We all have a role to play in stopping this madness known as abortion. If your role is able to get someone like Student to refer pregnant mothers to you in order to save them from abortion, then you go girl. I am all for it and I honestly wish you the best. That is exactly what I was trying to do with my POST#22. Looking for common ground.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Thank you truthseeker. But the first sentence of Post #5 shows that Student does not in any way condone driving a car into the counselors, so even if my own stance was mistaken for hers, I still would not be supporting the frenzied act of driving a car into the counselors.
I understand just as much as any pro-lifer, that the truth does hurt, but the brief 12 seconds that we counselors have between the time she gets out of the car and the time she reaches the door cannot be wasted on making her know what we think of abortion. We can do that on New York street to the passers-by. We can do that with the citizens of Aurora. But that is not the way to help a woman who very well could be thinking that abortion is the only route she can take to stay in school, or to keep her job, or to keep her social life.
We as pro-lifers need to start getting outside of ourselves to find the answers. We need to try to feel what they feel, and not necessarily what we think they feel.
April 15th, 2008 at 7:52 am
We as pro-lifers need to start getting outside of ourselves to find the answers. We need to try to feel what they feel, and not necessarily what we think they feel.
Posted by StudentFL April 15th, 2008 at 7:52 am
StudentFL, When I am out there my role is typically as a prayer warrior in support of the sidewalk counselors. We all have our own place in God's plan and I feel as though mine is to fighting the spiritual battle for the souls of these mothers and their babies, and our country as a whole.
I am not sure when or how often you are out there, but
if you are uncomfortable counseling next to a person holding a sign then I recommend being completely open and honest with the people you are out there with. I can guarantee you that the person holding those signs is after one result only, stopping abortion. Address them personally and express how you believe they could best support you while you are counseling. I think you'd probably find they would be happy you are out there and they don't have to hold the sign and sidewalk counsel at the same time. Each person may have a different comfort zone and will have I could not be sure exactly which kinds of signs you are uncomfortable with. I have held those signs that say "Planned Parenthood Kills Babies" while praying. Would you consider that too offensive?
Having had the privilege of watching the pro-life sidewalk counselors that I have been blessed to protest with, they do focus on feeling what the pregnant women feel. And based on my experiences I think the sidewalk counselors almost all have been trained to look at things from the perspective of the mother, so I am not arguing with you at all about that. Rather, what I am saying is that I have nothing but love and respect for everyone who is out there trying to help, the sign holders, the prayer warriors, and the sidewalk counselors. One of the objectives of the prayer warriors and sign holders is to "support" the sidewalk counselors. One of our goals is to help you to save a mother and her baby from abortion. One difference between our roles is that the sidewalk counselors focus on helping the pregnant mothers who might be coming to the clinic to commit abortion. The prayer warriors and sign holders are delighted when this occurs, but our fight is a more general battle to shut down PP and forever close the doors to that House of Horrors.
Did you know that FVFAPP holds sidewalk counseling seminars a couple times a year? I hear the women who come out of these seminars speaking about what they learned there and you are 100% correct that the "best" sidewalk counselors I have worked with are trying to approach these women according to how "the pregnant mother's" feel inside rather than how they themselves feel about abortion.
Thank you for your support and time counseling outside of PP and God bless you in your service to pregnant mother's and their children.
truthseeker
April 15th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Truthseeker,
How is yelling at these women focusing
In my volunteer work with PP I've had the opportunity to speak with many of its clients. I've yet to meet a woman who thinks being yelled at is appropriate. The signs don't help your cause with many of these women either.
My advice to women who really aren't sure about their decision is to do nothing. Go home and think about your options more. Never make a choice that you don't feel comfortable with. Nobody is pushing abortion. However, never before have I known anyone on your side of the street that I would feel comfortable sending such a woman to talk with. StudentFL appears to be an exception — we need more exceptions!
April 15th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Truthseeker, I did a poor job of making the point that it's difficult to donate/give to EVERY pregnant woman or EVERY charitable cause. There is no need to purchase a gift for my friend's shower.
While I am happy to donate a gift, I will not attend your rally. While I'm sure your heart is in the right place, I don't condone your methods or tactics. If you will provide me with the name of the pregnancy center, I will be happy to send them a new baby stroller.
I think a better way is to offer significantly more education and free birth control.
April 15th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Student,
You ask for references to past posts in 18, but now you say, "I do not have the time, or the inclination, to go back and re-read old posts." Oh come on, Student, play fair.
As regards quotes, your logic is full of holes. The quote I gave you was from Norma McCorvey and others who have attached their names. It is in a prominent site, with many quotes taken from the "Meet the Abortion Providers" conferences–footnoted even, for your research paper. Although it is a pro-life site (which in your opinion automatically disqualifies it–a ridiulous, bigoted assumption, I might add), there is no reason to believe the quotes were falsified. If you said President Bush was quoted as saying, "I wear women's undergarments when addressing Congress," I would ask for more proof. However, if a reputable web site or paper contained the same quote with Bush's name attached as contributor, and the quote was in line with his public personality, and lawsuits for libel were not filed and/or demands were not made for its removal, I would consider it more likely.
In any case, I was simply responding to your attack in which you said I was "just plain wrong" that clinic workers have reassembled aborted baby parts. Admittedly, doctors probably most often reassemble the parts, but a clinic worker doing so is not unheard of. If you can demonstrate you are capable and competent at doing so, they may have a job for you. Furthermore, the fact that babies are recognizable in their parts: hands, feet, head, rib cage, etc., should emphasize the fact that we are talking about tiny murdered HUMAN BEINGS.
As for your definition of "life", I pointed out to you that your belief in a part of the brain unique to humans was erroneous, included a link to a site on neuroscience, and refuted your assumptions. Logically, that should cause you to reassess your position.
You should brush up on your biology too. The eggs in your ovaries do not contain DNA distinct from yours, but rather half your DNA (as sperm contain only half a man's DNA). And egg + sperm = zygote, not blastocyst. And do you actually believe a zygote with totally unique, heretofore unseen DNA is the same as a skin cell or a sperm cell? We've been over this. One more time, this time in more detail: The zygote (newly conceived human being) is genetically distinct. It is not a part of an organism like a skin cell. It is an organism in it's entirety. In biology, there is a structure of organization in an organism, from least to most complex: cell, tissue, organ, system, organism. Cells that are part of a complex organism, while alive, are not considered "life" in the same sense as the whole. The zygote is at the beginning of the process of development. He/she is complete in his/her genetic makeup. Nothing more will be added other than nutrients to help him/her grow and develop. The womb is a "privileged site", which, like the brain, does not contain the full battery of immunological defenses that would cause harm to the zygote (later, the blastocyst, embryo, then fetus–all names for distinct stages of the developing baby), whom the mother's body would recognize as an invader because of the distinct genetic makeup. The difference between zygote and skin cell should be obvious.
Returning to an old post, especially when I've given you the date and post numbers, is not difficult. I'll answer now the questions you asked after I told you I would not be posting any longer: What do I think should happen to a woman who aborts her baby if Roe is overturned and laws are created to defend the preborn? First, I think the abortionist should be charged with murder, as most doctors are intelligent enough people who at some point know that they are committing murder. (See numerous stories from former abortionists, some at the link I gave you.) But you asked about the woman. If a woman were educated (the duty of the society) as to the personhood of her unborn child and the help for her that is available, knew about fetal development, knew the legal consequences (a murder charge), was not mentally impaired, and still chose to abort, she should logically be charged with murder, should she not? If anyone pressured her into it, they should be charged as accessories. The courts would then determine the proper sentence according to her degree of culpability, chance of repeat offense, and other factors, as they now do with murderers. Would it be any different for a mother who kills her children because her boyfriend finds them inconvenient, as has happened in recent years?
For those who abuse drugs and alcohol during pregnancy, I believe the courts already have the power to refer the woman for counseling and treatment at rehab facilities to protect the preborn child. Nicotine is a drug which I personally think society would be better off without, but we as a society are not there yet, so there is not much we can do about smoking.
Dangerous jobs have their own controls. A friend of mine, a veterinarian, was not allowed to do surgery during her pregnancy due to the extremely small risk of anaesthetics. Prenatal vitamins are helpful, but their lack does not necessarily (or even usually) cause significant risk to the child. What do you consider "non-traditional" births? "Traditional birth" involves a woman giving birth vaginally following labor. It all started with Eve.
And regarding Truth, the Someone is Jesus Christ.
April 15th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
When I am sidewalk counseling I never yell at the people. I do try and project my voice so as to be heard from across the road. There is a difference between that and "yelling" at them. All counselors should always have respect for all people there; treat them as you would want to be treated. Never do I feel that I am better than they are, always I have love in my heart to help them in any way that I can. Each time I've spoken with someone the conversation is as unique as they are. I have been able to constructively connect close to 50 "customers" in the 8 days that I have been out there being a counselor. Let me tell you it is not my doing it is our Lord's. He works through people. You must let Him; I've learned and am still learning to get out of His way. Also offer up your sufferings and He will bring great fruit out of it. We are all sinners, we are not there to condem, we are there to love the born and unborn.
April 15th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Sylvia says:
Ok, then I'm sure you'll accept any references from NARAL as completely acceptable as well. Correct?
Just guessing you think the Chinese eat Sweet & Sour Fetus too? After all, it's on a PL website so why think that claim is falsified.
You have not proven to me that a first trimester embryo/fetus feels pain (or anything else) See BrainMind for more details (peer reviewed). I am not in favor of 2nd or 3rd trimester abortion primarily because these things are beginning to be present.
For the record, I did go back and look at the 2/12 post and didn't find a link to any study from you at all. If I've missed it and you'd care to put it here (or give me the date & post # where I can find it), I would be happy to look at whatever you have to refute my position.
1/2 of mine would make it distinct, however, the point is not worth arguing over.
You are correct — my mistake.
I've never claimed the similarity is anything other than they're human and alive.
No, they are not "committing murder" or they would be tried in a court.
Ok, at least you're consistent.
Yes! See current laws….although if we're talking about reversing Roe there would be no difference.
No, if you're going to define embryo/fetus as a person than that entity would have the same legal rights as you — including the right to sue. I don't see a suit against a parent as too far fetched.
It sounds to me like you want to live in a world with the state having ultimate control over pregnant women. No thanks!
I would consider giving birth in a bathtub nontraditional…..although I personally know of two people who have done so.
American Heritage Dictionary definitions:
Jesus–A teacher and prophet whose life and teachings form the basis of Christianity. Christians believe Jesus to be Son of God and the Christ.
Truth–Conformity to fact or actuality.
A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
Sincerity; integrity.
Fidelity to an original or standard.
Nope, not the same at all.
April 15th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Dear Student, Could you explain why you think abortion isn't murder? Just because the current law says so, doesn't make it morally right. Remember slavery use to be "not against the law." So, until the law was changed it was morally acceptable to have slaves? It was legally acceptable but not morally acceptable. The same holds true for the murder of an unborn human being. Also how come abortion is not considered murder but when a pregnant woman is murdered it is many times considered a double homicide? You know that is illogical. See the further we get from God's moral law the more illogical we become. If the baby is wanted it is murder, if is not wanted it is not murder.
April 15th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Personally, I think the 'double homicide' designation is a stupid concession to PLers. I would say that an assault that causes the loss of a fetus or embryo is a major assault (like it would be for the loss of an organ), but certainly not a homicide.
The simple reason that abortion is not morally wrong for early pregnancy is that there is not a 'person'. The brain at that stage simply is not developed enough to allow any form of perception. In particular, a whole host of studies show that pain perception is impossible before the 26th week of pregnancy and probably before that 28th week.
April 15th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Karen,
I think Student would say that abortion is not murder because (1) it's legal, (2) it's not a person yet, and (3) it does not have value. (Student, see if I'm following your logic correctly.)
It's true, that abortion is currently legal, but not true on the other points. A "zygote" or any other stage of an unborn baby's development, is a unique human person. And every person has value.
God Bless,
Roger
April 15th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Professor said:
So, we can kill something if it doesn't feel pain? Then perhaps we can kill anyone as long as they don't feel pain when being killed. We have all kinds of drugs that can be useful in this regard.
Drugs can also be used to change a person's "perception". If they don't perceive that they are being killed, is it ok then?
God Bless,
Roger
April 15th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
I think a better way is to offer significantly more education and free birth control.
Posted by Student April 15th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Student, do you not like agreeing with people? I can appreciate that you think those ways are "better", but I do not agree with you about it.
What I said was that "we can ALL agree that offering mothers pregnancy assistance is a good way to help stop abortion." We have found common ground and that is a good place to begin to work together towards our goal of reducing/stopping abortion.
April 15th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
What people might deem to be the "best" way to stop abortion will always vary based upon the culture or the circumstances of the people you are talking about. But one thing we can ALL agree on, is that any time a woman gets pregnant we want her to feel she has the support necessary to say "YES" to life.
April 15th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
And sorry you won't make it down to the rally this April 26th outside of PP on Oakhurst in Aurorto to personally drop off your gift. I will find you the address for the pregnancy center when I go down to the rally though and post it for you then. And they'll be a whole lot of education going on there. Teaching one another it is important to value all "life" and keep a focus on the well being of others as we make decisions throughout our lives here on earth. I think yesterday on this blog Lucille Bates referred to it as our earthly journey
April 15th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
It is your opinion that it is a person. I would say that it isn't a person until around 24-28 weeks. The difficulty, of course, is that this is not a scientific question, but a religious and social one.
No. But there is no moral value for something that cannot now and has never been able to feel *anything*. There is no perception there *at all*. The brain, which is the organ that defines us, has not developed to the place that awareness of any sort is even possible. When, exactly, that happens, I don't know. But it clearly hasn't happened in the first trimester and most likely not even in the second.
And, truthfully, even if we give personhood to a fetus, there is *still* the question of whether that person can *require* another person to give up the use of their body to preserve that personhood. Think of it like this: if I have a rare blood type and need transfusion daily and you are the only person that can donate that blood, do I have the right to *require* you to give me that blood? What about the right to require you to continue to give blood if you have done so in the past? In my view, I do *not* have that right. You can *choose* to give me your blood, but I cannot require you to do so.
The fetus is in my position here. The woman carrying it has given up some use of her body. If she wants to stop doing so, she has that right, even if it means the death of another person who requires the use of her body to live. Now, once the fetus does *not* require the woman's body to live, I think we can insist that she terminate the pregnancy in a way that preserves the life of the fetus. But that is only after viability and, again, only if we grant rights to that fetus.
April 16th, 2008 at 6:56 am
Professor, I see your point, but your blood transfusion analogy has little to do with a pregnant woman, since a pregnant woman, (except in cases of rape) in a way caused the existence of the one that requires her to live, whereas in the case of a blood transfusion, the one donor only comes into the picture only after it is discovered that you needed blood. The donor did not *cause* the need for your transfusion.
Also, during sleep our brain moves to a lower state of consciousness. Are we any less human when we are sleeping? Is there any less of dignity to a sleeping person than there is to a person awake and aware of reality around them?
Finally, once we begin to play the 1st trimester, 2nd trimester game, we begin to play god. e.g. let's say that human life gains viability, or personhood, or consciousness, during the third trimester. Does this mean that every unborn gains personhood at seven months? What about the child that grew just a bit faster? Even if life does not begin at conception, there cannot be an exact time at which we can say, "all from here on out are human, and anything and everything before can be aborted because they are not human."
StudentFL
April 16th, 2008 at 7:46 am
Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. Psalm 51:5
You were not a mistake, for all your days are written in my book. Psalm 139:15-16
WE STAND FOR LIFE
April 16th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Karen & Roger,
There are so many posts here I'm going to try to consolidate. I don't see a 1st trimester abortion as murder because it's not legally defineid as such and, more importantly, I don't see a first trimester pregnancy as a person. We use brain death to determine end of life issues and I see no reason why the same standard shouldn't be applied to beginning of life issues. I realize this is something we are just going to disagree on. However, I think the more important thing here is finding a way to prevent unwanted pregnancy in the first place which will, in turn, lead to fewer abortions.
April 16th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Margo,
It's just unfathomable to me how you, or anyone else, can think that a nonsentient being can be "sinful." The Bible is full of examples of god murdering women, children and women with child. I don't think it's a good book to make your case.
Why then do many women miscarry even before they know they are pregnant? Doesn't that seem a little silly?
April 16th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
StudentFL stated:
Finally, once we begin to play the 1st trimester, 2nd trimester game, we begin to play god. e.g. let's say that human life gains viability, or personhood, or consciousness, during the third trimester. Does this mean that every unborn gains personhood at seven months? What about the child that grew just a bit faster? Even if life does not begin at conception, there cannot be an exact time at which we can say, "all from here on out are human, and anything and everything before can be aborted because they are not human."
This is why I'm in favor of limiting elective abortion to the first trimester. Everything I've read shows that the brain is more fully developed later in the pregnancy — mid/late 2nd trimester at the earliest. Even if one particular fetus develops more quickly than another, there will never be development occuring prior to the end of the 1st trimester that, in my opinion, would grant personhood.
April 16th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Truthseeker stated:
I'm really not trying to be disagreeable, however, I think the best way to reduce/stop abortion is to reduce/stop unwanted pregnancy.
April 16th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
StudentFL,
I apologize for the way Post 72 came out. I meant to blockquote what you had said. To avoid confusion for others, yours is the first paragraph and my response was the 2nd.
April 16th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Student,
While I would not agree with NARAL's opinions, that does not mean their factual information is necessarily incorrect. In fact, I've often gone to pro-abort sites to gather information–for example, on political candidates. If NARAL gives them high marks, I will not vote for them.
Your determination of when life begins in Feb.12 posts had nothing to do with pain, but uniqueness of brain structure and determination of death. Go review your postings. My link was in #85. Suddenly you've changed your tune, which is what's to be expected when previous assumptions are shown incorrect. That's fine, but don't act as if fetal pain were your original argument.
Distinctness of the newly formed person ("zygote") IS worth exploring. Your eggs contain 1/2 your DNA. For an analogy, say I have 2 identical decks of cards. I cut 1 deck in half. Now I wouldn't say my 1/2 deck is truly a unique deck of cards. I'd say it is an incomplete deck, and that the cards I have are identical to 1/2 the cards in the other deck. Furthermore, the 1/2 deck is now useless for playing most games. Similarly, your eggs contain 1/2 your DNA, making them "distinct" from someone else's eggs, but not so different from your other cells, besides the fact they've been halved. Like the 1/2 deck, they are useless except for one purpose: TO CREATE NEW LIFE. It is only when they are united to another 1/2 that they become a whole, and that whole is an entirely new creation, a new HUMAN LIFE.
April 16th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
"Those who search for the truth search for God, even without knowing it."–St. Edith Stein
April 16th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Student,
Brain development is not even finished at birth and newborns are completely helpless and dependent on others for their survival, infringing on their "freedoms", so should we be able to kill them if we so wish?
"Brain death" is subjective–see Feb. 12, we've been over this.
April 16th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Feb.12, post 85
April 16th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Student,
Do you have children? Have you ever felt a baby kicking in your womb or put your hand on the belly of a pregnant woman? Do you honestly think that kicking, moving baby is not alive?
April 16th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Sylvia #79:
"Student,
Do you have children? Have you ever felt a baby kicking in your womb or put your hand on the belly of a pregnant woman? Do you honestly think that kicking, moving baby is not alive?"
Sylvia, Student just specified in #72 that she believes the baby is not necessarily alive only within the first trimester. Does a pregnant mother feel the kicking and the moving of her unborn baby within the first trimester? (Honest question… I have no idea personally.)
April 16th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Sylvia,
Yes, I have children — three to be exact. One adopted and two biological. I felt no movement whatsoever until almost my 5th month — and both were very large babies 10+#s.
A man full of faith is simply one who has lost (or never had) the capacity for clear and realistic thought. He is not a mere ass; he is actually ill. Worse, he is incurable.
H. L. Mencken
April 16th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Sylvia,
Feb.12, post 85 has nothing to do with neonatal brain development–it compares the brain of humans to primates. This has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Furthermore, I believe my opinion is based on more than one aspect of development. I'm sorry if you don't feel I condensed it enough for your consideration and listed every possible reason I have for my belief. Good luck in your struggle.
April 16th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
StudentFL,
I've felt my babies move by at least the 14th week. Thinner women and those who have had previous children tend to feel movement sooner. I have 5 children.
That's pretty early to feel movement. Even so, ultrasounds show babies moving much earlier. There's a very well done video, Baby Steps, that should really leave no doubt as to the humanity of the unborn in the first trimester. It uses 4D ultrasound to show development during pregnancy.
April 16th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
And, truthfully, even if we give personhood to a fetus, there is *still* the question of whether that person can *require* another person to give up the use of their body to preserve that personhood. Think of it like this: if I have a rare blood type and need transfusion daily and you are the only person that can donate that blood, do I have the right to *require* you to give me that blood? What about the right to require you to continue to give blood if you have done so in the past? In my view, I do *not* have that right. You can *choose* to give me your blood, but I cannot require you to do so.
Posted by Professor April 16th, 2008 at 6:56 am
Professor,
Comparing a mother sharing her blood and an adult being tied down to some other adult during a transfusion is completely invalid. The only thing a pregnancy and a blood transfusion have in common is that both circulate blood between two persons. It is a natural bodily function for a woman to share her blood with her baby and it does not limit the woman like a typical blood transfusion. Realistic analogies are more "truthful".
April 16th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Student,
Your point had been that the frontal cortex was what made humans uniquely human. Reread your post #81. Here, I'll help you:
You said, "This is the structure that makes humans unique: it is this that we use to reason, plan, and is the basic structure for awareness. It is also the structure we use to determine when someone has died." I showed you it was a) not unique, and b) only one of the many past and present indicators used to determine death.
April 16th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Student,
If you felt your babies move by the 5th month, about 20 weeks (a little late by most estimates but still normal), that is still before Professor's "whole host of studies" attributing pain perception at 26-28 weeks. So were your babies alive when you felt them move?
When you found out you were pregnant, did you say "Woohoo! I have a bundle of cells inside me, a 'potential life' that will suddenly become a baby at 26 weeks!" Or did you say to yourself that there is a baby inside of you, and did you then feel the first joys of motherhood?
April 16th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
"Those who search for the truth search for God, even without knowing it."–St. Edith Stein
St. Edith Stein is a 20th Century saint. She was born and raised as a Jew, became an atheist, and finally converted to Catholicism as a result of her quest for truth. She was one of Europe's preeminent philosophers, an extremely intelligent woman. After her conversion she became a Carmelite nun, taking the name Sister Teresa Benedict. She died in the gas chambers of Auschwitz in 1942.
Her words:
"Those who seek the truth, seek God, even if they do not know it…. Some may be nonbelievers through no fault of their own (for they may be totally ignorant of God) and, for this reason, the images of Holy Scripture make no sense to them. We know that the burden of original sin causes a darkening of the spirit. But when this is further darkened by the environment in which we live, what blame and responsibility it must bear! Still, the unbeliever always bears a share of the responsibility. It is increasingly rare for a person never to come into any contact with God…. God leads each one of us in his own way. Some reach the goal sooner and more easily, others later and with more effort. Everything we do is a trifle compared to what we receive. But that little trifle we must do ourselves. Above all, we must pray constantly for knowledge of the right path and, once knowing it, embark on that path freely, under the inspiration of grace. Those who embark on this path, and bear it patiently, cannot say their efforts are useless; only we must not impose deadlines on God" (The Mind of Edith Stein, pp.46-47).
April 16th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Sylvia,
I didn't really want to get into a religious conversation with you, but if you insist……can you tell me when, in your opinion, man first arrived on the scene? Is modern man 1000 years old, 10,000, 100,000, 1,000,000, etc.?
April 17th, 2008 at 7:34 am
Sylvia,
What does "pain perception" have to do with feeling movement at 20 weeks? At what point have I stated that there wasn't "life?"
No, I didn't say that. I think it was something along the lines of, "Wow….this really isn't stomach flu." As to the "joys of motherhood," that's highly
objectivesubjective. I don't think I really felt much of anything (other than sick to my stomach — I had several very rough months with both) until late into my 2nd trimester. Would you like to demonize me for that as well?Edited by admin: change "objective" to "subjective"
April 17th, 2008 at 7:38 am
I meant "subjective" — no "objective" in the above post.
April 17th, 2008 at 8:49 am
"Yes, they are afraid, afraid of the truth!
Do not kill! If it is not a life, then why are they coming for an abortion? To kill it!"
…Whoever said an embryo isn't life? Are you a pro-bacteria pacifist vegan?
"Simply and ugly as that! The child is innocent and defenseless."
…The embryos inability to defend itself in no way constitutes a right to life, especially not one that overrides a woman's bodily autonomy. There is no right to exist off the body of another organism against his or her will. The very idea is ludicrous.
"It is no less human because of not being wanted!"
…The same can be said of my fingernails, which also possess human DNA.
"Mother Theresa, "It is a shame that someone has to die so that others may live the way they wish." Everyone is always looking for a quick fix to their problems, but some "quick fixes" end a human life!"
…It's sad that you reduce women and their families reasons for choosing abortion, such as wishing to continue education, health problems, an inability to pay for prenatal and hospital fees, financial constraints due to the children they ALREADY have….to "a quick fix." This is a dreadfully simplistic and, quite frankly, WRONG interpretation of thier motivations….perhaps by assigning these women and their families selfish motivations which they don't actually have, you can attempt to justify the idea that forced pregnancy is somehow the "moral" scenario? Is this the case?
"The counselors are there not only to prevent a murder"
Whoa, whoa, whoa, sweetie. "Murder" is defined as the intentional and malicious act of killing a person. Hate to break it to you, but there is no real societal concensus on whether the embryo is a person. The woman and her family, believe it or not, ARE PEOPLE.
"but to offer help to the mother"
A pregnant woman is not a mother, she is a pregnant woman.
Mothering involves many years of love and sacrifice, not being forced to continue a pregnany against your will.
"Not to mention the multitudes of people looking and waiting to adopt a child."
Haha. If this was true, why are there hundreds of thousands of orphans in orphanages and foster homes, many of them abusive? Is this evidence of the "baby shortage" which you imply exists? The fact is, these kids are racial minorities, and many of them suffer from physical and mental disabilities. It isn't pregnant women's job to pop out the perfect baby for discriminatory would-be parents.
I respect your personal beliefs, but I also suspect that you're severely lacking in facts.
April 18th, 2008 at 7:20 am
In a Christian home there is no such thing as an unwanted pregnancy.
April 18th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Jesus said to him, “I am the way and the truth and the life." John 14:6
April 19th, 2008 at 1:24 am
christian4reason, not to call your bluff but if you were really Christian you would have capitalized the word Christian in your name. what is your reason for calling yourself Christian when you post? Is it to make a mockery of Christians or a mockery of Jesus Christ. Woe Woe Woe Woe unto you if it is.
April 19th, 2008 at 1:30 am
The "enlighten ones" all thought contraception, free love, and sex education would solve all the problems. For a long time the secular world and even the Christians bought into the ideology of a more liberal attitude toward morality. Guess what? There are more abortions than ever, more divorces than ever, more venereal diseases than ever, more suicide etc.. Wake up! God is smarter than we are, His creatures! When are we going to learn? Why don't you try doing it His way! You will be happily surprised. People are always looking for joy in their lives, right? Well, without virtue, you will never, never, attain true joy. That is why people turn to alcohol, drugs, adultery, and sex outside of marriage with one person after another etc…Try as they might, they are never satisfied and eventually become board and the spiral downward continues. Just look at the movie stars. They have all the money in the world, for a while they might be "happy", but most eventually end up pretty trashed, because they are not in line with their creator and will never be able to find joy without Him, Jesus who is the truth for how to live our lives. The truth of who we are, and where He wants us to go, back to Him. But he will not force you to do so. That would take your free will away. He loves us in such a beautiful way that He gave us the gift of deciding for ourselves, without us being His robots. And like a good father he taught us everything we need to know in order to come to Him. It is up to us to see that love and say, yes, yes I trust in you, Jesus, help me to understand and do Your Will. He will help you, He will not abandon you! He will give you grace to say no to Satan and all his lies. Try Jesus, you will not be sorry.
If those who read this say, I know some people who are very happy and they aren’t living as you say, in line with Jesus. Well, like it says in the bible Jesus said that those already got their reward on earth. In other words, "That's all folks". Jesus said, what is it to gain the world and lose your soul in the process. This life here is all too fast, eternity is forever. Atheists say they don't believe, well I say, boy, you better hope you are 100% right!
April 19th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Paul2,
Nonsense. One of my best friends is a born again Christian. Her husband had a vasectomy because they don't want any more children. Pregnancy for her would be very much unwanted.
April 20th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
KarenK,
Are you aware that the countries with more sex education and more accessibility to birth control have fewer teen pregnancies, fewer STDs and fewer abortions? We should wake up! Wake up to the fact that we are doing a very poor job of education our youth.
April 20th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Nonsense. One of my best friends is a born again Christian. Her husband had a vasectomy because they don't want any more children. Pregnancy for her would be very much unwanted.
Posted by Student April 20th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
I stand corrected. I fell into a mode where I was equivocating unwanted pregnancy with abortion and they are definitely two different things. What I meant to say is that a Christian would never abort a child.
April 20th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Paul2,
Christians do have abortions. Catholics are as likely as women in the general population to have an abortion, while Protestants are only 69% as likely and Evangelical or born-again Christians are only 39% as likely. Source
April 21st, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Student says:
Paul2,
Christians do have abortions. Catholics are as likely as women in the general population to have an abortion, while Protestants are only 69% as likely and Evangelical or born-again Christians are only 39% as likely. Source
April 21st, 2008 at 6:12 pm
The devil is not picky who he invites to Hell.
April 21st, 2008 at 7:25 pm
KarenK,
But you're not being judgmental, right?
FYI: Your name link doesn't work.
April 22nd, 2008 at 7:40 am
Christians do have abortions. Catholics are as likely as women in the general population to have an abortion, while Protestants are only 69% as likely and Evangelical or born-again Christians are only 39% as likely.
Posted by Student April 21st, 2008 at 6:12 pm
It is their actions that condemn them and place them outside of the Christian community. Much in the same way that there is NO such thing as a Catholic that commits abortion. All you have to do is read the Catechism. If you don't practice what is in the Catechism then you are not a Catholic.
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:27 am
Here is what Catholics MUST believe:
Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.
Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.
Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.
"One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."
April 23rd, 2008 at 1:32 am
Student says:
KarenK,
The “enlighten ones” all thought contraception, free love, and sex education would solve all the problems. For a long time the secular world and even the Christians bought into the ideology of a more liberal attitude toward morality. Guess what? There are more abortions than ever, more divorces than ever, more venereal diseases than ever, more suicide etc.. Wake up!
Are you aware that the countries with more sex education and more accessibility to birth control have fewer teen pregnancies, fewer STDs and fewer abortions? We should wake up! Wake up to the fact that we are doing a very poor job of education our youth.
April 20th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Two new studies presented at the National Press Club provide encouraging findings about abstinence education.
The first study by Dr. Stan Weed, Institute of Research and Evaluation, evaluated the impact of abstinence education in reducing the initiation of sexual activity by seventh graders in suburban Virginia. Dr. Weed's findings demonstrate that abstinence education programs cut the rate of sexual initiation among students almost in half and that gender and race did not affect the outcome. Dr. Weed is scheduled to present his findings at a hearing in the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday, April 23, 2008.
The second paper is a background paper published by Heritage Foundation's Christine Kim and Robert Rector. This paper reviews twenty-one abstinence education programs and finds that sixteen overall reported statistically positive results such as delayed sexual initiation and reduced levels of early sexual activity.
Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America, concludes, "Refraining from sexual initiation is the healthiest decision for youth. It protects them from pregnancy, STDs, other risk behaviors and emotional entanglements that are too intimate for immature youth to handle. This is the main criteria on which sex education programs should be evaluated, and these new studies show that abstinence education successfully reduces sexual initiation."
Dr. Janice Crouse, senior fellow of the Beverly LaHaye Institute stated, "It is amazing that some legislators would want to cut abstinence education funding when it is such a drop in the bucket to the amount of money that goes to comprehensive sex education programs. And, look at what happened when all that money was spent for all those years on comprehensive sex education — teen sexual activity went up, teen pregnancies went up and abortions went up. Now that we have more abstinence programs in more schools, all three trends are going down. Now, THAT is what ought to happen and the programs that make that happen are what we ought to support."
April 30th, 2008 at 12:37 am
Karen,
Sorry, but AO education doesn't get the results you're after. Do you want to keep kids in the dark about sexuality or do you want to reduce the number of abortions? If you want to reduce abortion (supposedly the stated goal here, then AO is not the way to go.
Science and common sense, not wishful thinking and hypocrisy, should guide what we teach kids about sex.
Arthur Caplan — Director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania
Cite
************
The study found that while abstinence-only efforts appear to have little positive impact, more comprehensive sex education programs were having "positive outcomes" including teenagers "delaying the initiation of sex, reducing the frequency of sex, reducing the number of sexual partners and increasing condom or contraceptive use."
"Two-thirds of the 48 comprehensive programs that supported both abstinence and the use of condoms and contraceptives for sexually active teens had positive behavior effect," said the report.
Cite
****************
1) Scientific evidence simply does not support an abstinence-only-until-marriage approach.
2) Researchers concluded that recent declines in the U.S. rate of teen pregnancy are most likely the result of improved use of contraception rather than a decrease in sexual activity.
3)One of the study’s investigators said, “we didn’t see any strong indications these programs were
having an impact in the direction desired…these programs seem to be much more concerned about
politics than kids, and we need to get over that.” NO SURPRISE HERE!
4) Researchers concluded, “rather than focusing on Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage, data suggests
that including information on contraceptive use may be more effective at decreasing teen pregnancies.”
Cite
**********************
Study Casts Doubt on Abstinence-Only Programs
Cite
***************
“After 10 years and $1.5 billion in public funds these failed abstinence-only-until-marriage programs will go down as an ideological boondoggle of historic proportions,” said James Wagoner, President of Advocates for Youth.
“The tragedy is not simply the waste of taxpayer dollars, it is the damage done to the young people who have been on the receiving end of distorted, inaccurate information about condoms and birth control. We have been promoting ignorance in the era of AIDS, and that’s not just bad public health policy, its bad ethics”.
“This report should serve as the final verdict on the failure of the abstinence-only industry in this country,” said William Smith, vice president for public policy of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S. (SIECUS). “It shows, once again, that these programs fail miserably in actually helping young people behave more responsibly when it comes to their sexuality,” Smith continued.
Cite
Report itself
April 30th, 2008 at 10:34 am
The link for the Caplan study didn't work. Sorry. It may be found here
April 30th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Dear Student, With all due respect
I read your link. It did not impress me. It is very upsetting to see people degrading the human species to the likes of animals. As if we have no self control, integrity, or self respect. The attitude that, kids are going to have sex anyway so let’s "protect them" is where the trouble lies. That's like saying; kids are going to do drugs, so let’s give them reputable drugs, so they are safer. How about teaching them that some things in life are wrong, also that they can have self control, self respect, and learn to respect others. How about teaching them there is a right and a wrong. How about telling them there are consequences to their actions. That they have to be responsible for those actions. Most teens living in this day and age know about the so called "safe sex". They don't need more people telling them about that lie any more, they need people telling them the risk lies in having sex outside of marriage, period! How about telling them that they should strive for a life that is honorable; to not use people, to respect one another and learn what it is to really love. Waiting until marriage does show the one you love that you are not using them. It helps in that you are able to more clearly see the other person for who he or she is. That you take seriously the word commitment, and until death do us part. This wisdom is not to hurt them but will help them live a life without regret. I talk with the older generations and they are appalled at how things are now. Their parents did tell them when something was wrong. The family was stronger. The TV shows and commercials were decent. People had manners and were more courteous of one another. I honestly think the reason you did not hear about homeschooling back then was because it was a world where most of the society had a good moral base. There was respect of God and the Ten Commandments. Now we exclude God or deny Him entirely and make believe we have all the answers, as if we are little gods. That’s like trying to reinvent the wheel, and doing a really bad job of it. The family is falling apart in our world. Life is not respected, and trashed, literally trashed as evidence of babies who are aborted and then thrown in the trash cans at abortion clinics.
May 1st, 2008 at 9:39 pm
To bolster Karen's points, look at Uganda. They've reduced their AIDS rate through abstinence/fidelity education while rejecting UN-led attempts to force condoms on their country. When people live moral lives, saving sex for marriage, the "benefits" are countless. Go, Uganda!
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:24 am