Issues of Pro-Life Concern|
[Most Recent Entries]
Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in
Pro Life Debate's LiveJournal:
[ << Previous 20 ]
[ << Previous 20 ]
|Tuesday, April 11th, 2006|
i find it very amusing when people say that abortion and euthanasia are like treating our people as we do our pets.
no. actually we treat our pets better. my dad is a veterinarian, and when an animal is suffering &/or crippled to the point of being incapacitated, we euthanize it b/c we dont want our pets to live a life of no dignity and in misery. but the CHRISTIAN thing to do with our humans that are suffering and have no quality of life and have to be cared for for their entire life, is let them live on feeding tubes, lay in diapers full of their own waste, drooling on themselves and a not have any clue who they are.
as far as abortion specifically goes, if you had an ultra-sound and saw that your child was going to be mentally retarded &/or severly handicapped, why in the name of god would you want that child to be born? what quaility of life will that child have: grow into an adult that can not take care of themselves.----before anyone says i am advocating killing all handicapped kids, I AM NOT. i am saying it should be a choice of the parents (hence the name PRO-CHOICE) since it will be thier responsibilty to care for the child.
and this whole SD debacle. let me ask you...say you were the product of a rape or from your grandfather having incestous sex with your mother (his daughter). i could not imagine living with that shame of knowing my father was a rapist or an incestous grandfather. when that child is born, and if the mother has to keep it, everyday she will look at that child and remeber being raped or being fucked by her own father. that child will not know love. and if the child is aware of how it came about, it will only know shame and embaressment.
another aspect i find compelling is our state of the nation. do you guys honestly think that we have the natural resources or job market to support millions of more people? if we keep piling more people into the mix, we eventually find ourselves in a wasteland and collapsed econmy. period. hell, i know people in their mid-20's with master degrees in engineering that cant find work...so adding more and more people to a country that is already HEAVILY populated will not help.
so it seems to me the pets have it better.
p.s jesus, i dont want kids, so if you stop sending them, i will stop sending them back.
|Thursday, March 30th, 2006|
South Dakota: How They Will Kill Babies...
I have taken (a rather unpopular) stance on the South Dakota Abortion Ban, to which I can only say has become more solidified in my mind as time goes on. To be frank, South Dakota is helping Roe vs. Wade become further solidified into our country's laws.
Allow me to explain:
Right now, we do not have enough justices on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs. Wade. We need one more (at the retirement or death of Judge Stevens) before that can be accomplished. Currently, if this ban was to go to the Supreme Court, it would be struck down. So babies will have been saved.
So what's the big deal? The more unsuccessful abortion cases go through the Surpreme Court, the more abortion will be accepted and condoned by American society. South Dakota's abortion ban--the second similar bill they did a few years ago and was unsuccessful due to the courageous work by the National Right to Life
--will head directly for the Surpreme Court where, without a miracle, it will be struck down.
People continually tell me that I should pray for a miracle (oh, I am) and that I should view this as a positive thing for the pro-life movement: America is, after all, seeing this happen.
But America is full of ignorant people in regards to abortion. I am constantly running into people--even pro-lifers
-- who don't even know that abortion is legal in the 9th month. They seriously cannot imagine something so terrible. America is told by the media that this is an extreme bill that does not include rape and incest--which we all know account for less than 1% of America's 1.3 annual abortions.
But America is not ready for a ban without a rape and incest exception, because, frankly, they think that rape and incest somehow account for the majority of abortions. This is not the case, but who is going to tell them otherwise? Only the pro-life movement; but since we do not own the media, it takes a while. For the love of Pete, put a "rape and incest" exception in the bill, save 99% of the babies, work on saving the others, and for goodness sake do it when we know it can be accomplished, not in vain!
The Surpreme Court has, sadly, become a political tool. Thus, in order to get it to work with us, we have to work the system. Putting a bill that will be struck down is not a politically-savvy move, and it will end up killing more babies for another 33 years (when all we have to do is wait for one more Supreme Court justice--a very real possibility soon). Gee, thanks South Dakota.
|Thursday, February 16th, 2006|
Please read with an open mind :-)
cross-posted on prolife
For those of you who do not think that birth control pills or emergency contraception (basically any drug with progestin in it) can cause abortions by preventing implantation at times, please please read this article:http://www.epm.org/articles/bcp5400.html
or for a shorter version of the article, go here:http://www.epm.org/articles/bcp3300.html
It cites many peer-reveiwed journals as sources (scroll down to the bottom to see), as well as the Physicians' Desk Reference
, which is the best source of info to use for understanding the mechanism of any drug since doctors use it! :-) Public libraries should have copies of it, too, if you are interested in going to one and looking the drugs up in it. Happy reading.
|Wednesday, November 23rd, 2005|
What do you think of this:Norma McCorvey has changed her view on abortion and now directs the Crossing Over Ministry, a nonprofit anti-abortion organization. Last year she filed a motion with the U.S. District Court in Dallas requesting that Roe v. Wade be reversed, and more recently a federal judge agreed to hear her arguments.http://womensissues.about.com/od/abortionlaw/i/roevwade.htm
Norma McCorvey is the person that challenged anti-abortion laws and brought Roe v. Wade about in the first place.
Personally, I think it shows the affect abortion has on a person after the fact...the emotional stress and regret that it can cause.
|Saturday, August 6th, 2005|
Do Facts Really Matter?
Some prochoicers think they are clever when they can show a prolifer doesn't know a particular fact about how abortion occurs. When prochoicers know the exact procedures of how abortion clinics work, they think they prove the ignorance of prolifers.
I don't think one necessarily needs to know any of the specifics of abortion procedures in order to be rationally prolife. These piddly facts don't ultimately matter.
I'm sure folks are thinking this is off the wall. But consider this analogy.
Many leftists and peaceniks are against the Iraq War, but I presume just about none of them know the specifics of military campaigns.
Ask a peacenik or lefty this:
What type of weapons do infantry use?
What type of ammunition do ground soldiers use?
Who manufacturers these weapons?
How does one assemble a bomb?
How long does it take for a bomb to blow up?
What are the dimensions of each type of bomb?
What model of vehicles does each unit use?
How many miles to the gallon do these vehicles get?
How many majors are in the U.S. army?
How many lieutenants are in the U.S. army?
What is the exact procedure for removing casualties?
What material are helmets made out of?
How many miles per hour do army vehicles travel at?
It seems that most of the opponents of the war, oppose it on moral grounds, and thus none of these specific issues matter. Certainly some military expert could talk circles around peaceniks about these technical matters, but ultimately, so what?
In Michael Shremer's book, Denying History
, he describes how holocaust deniers poke holes in small factual errors of those who say the holocaust happened. He told one story of a Donahue episode on the Holocaust, where Donahue starting showing footage from Dachau Concentration Camp, which caused one of the Holocaust Deniers to say something along the lines, "Dachau was not an extermination
camp", which Shremer concedes is true. Shremer notes that Holocaust Deniers are very good at pointing out small factual errors, and thus believe doing such bolsters their case.
A radical need not worry about small little facts, because as the saying goes "A radical gets to the root of the problem". Showing that someone else's facts are wrong does little more than cause one to feel superiority without addressing the fundamental issue at stake. Perhaps, ultimately, philosophical arguments only matter.
|Monday, July 11th, 2005|
|Sunday, July 10th, 2005|
|Wednesday, June 29th, 2005|
|Friday, June 10th, 2005|
|Thursday, June 9th, 2005|
|Friday, May 6th, 2005|
The boundaries of our prolife views
For those that think that rape should be an exception in which abortion is permitted, do you include statutory rape? If the girl is 13 and impregnated by a 17-year-old? How about 17 and impregnated by a 20-year-old? Where do you draw the line?
If you don't include rape, but you do include incest, why is that?
Finally, how inclusive is the exception of health of the mother? Is it just physical health? If a woman was at an extreme risk of severe mental disorders, or was already mentally ill and pregnancy could aggravate her condition, would abortion be justified? How much of a risk would be acceptable and which is more important: the increase in risk or how much risk there is? In other words, if the mother is 5 times more likely to suffer mental disorders because of her condition, but her risk is still 2%, is an abortion justified?
|Wednesday, May 4th, 2005|
( 2000 abortionists under one roofCollapse )</div>
Here is a copy of an email i recieved , and wanted to share for comments and opinions.
what would you do or say if you were able to attend and speak to 2,000 abortionists?
this was x-posted in my own journal....
Current Mood: curious
|Saturday, April 23rd, 2005|
|Tuesday, April 19th, 2005|
Questions for the Catholics and others regarding the new Pope
The thread over on prolife blew up, so I figured I'd just ask these here. I'm not Catholic myself (although I was raised and baptized Roman Catholic), so I don't follow the Catholic Church much, but it is very influential in the world, so here goes:
How does the new Pope compare morally and politically with the old Pope as far as pro-life issues go? Does he have the power and the will to strengthen, or weaken, our movement? Catholicism is a large religion, and will his lead be more, or less, conservative than the prior Pope? What does this mean specifically to the pro-life movement, if anything?
|Sunday, April 10th, 2005|
Do you think that uniting with abortion-supporters on areas we all agree on is counterproductive?
I personally think that the two groups (pro-life and pro-choice) can find many things in common and if we work together more will be accomplished and I wouldn't hesitate to work with people who support abortion towards these goals. Such as pregnancy prevention, helping better women's lives, helping women who have older born children, helping women who want to adopt, helping underprivileged women recieve help, medical treatment, and basic needs during and after pregnancy, and other such "middle ground" areas.
But I have come across some pro-lifers who insist that they would never band together with anyone who supports abortion. Frankly, I just don't get it. I'd love to hear from people who believe we shouldn't mix with abortion-supporters, just to hear the arguments behind it. And of course it would be wonderful to hear from people who believe we should mix, so as to get more suggestions on how the two groups can find common ground..
|Thursday, March 31st, 2005|
The Catholic Church is establishing a new priestly order dedicated to fighting abortion.
What does everyone here, especially the religious folks, think about this? I think it's fantastic, although I'm not Catholic. I found it interesting that, although the main focus of the priests will be anti-abortion, they will be dedicated to working towards a "culture of life" in general, and will be fighting against euthanasia and the death penalty, as well. I've always known that the Catholic Church officially
opposes the death penalty, but it doesn't seem like it's talked about much here in the US, I'm guessing because so many Catholics are also conservatives, and that by speaking out against the death penalty, the Church would be alienating a lot of its followers. If that's the case, then I think it's a pretty big deal for them to be speaking out about it now. Do any of the Catholics in this community have thoughts about that aspect of this?
How do the non-religious people here feel about it? Is all help good help, or do you think this will just serve to increase people's misconceptions of pro-lifers as religious zealots?
I just want to add that I find it *extremely* cool that a religious organization is putting themselves out there and taking steps to become politically active. It's something that I really, really respect - I'm fascinated by Quakers because of that aspect of their faith. I understand the "need" for separation of church and state, but at the same time, I think that anyone who is truly a person of faith should be passionate enough about what they believe for it to spill over into ALL areas of their lives,
|Tuesday, March 22nd, 2005|
A HUGE part of my opposition to abortion is due to my vehement belief that Roe v Wade was a ludicrously flawed decision that never should have been allowed, because it was a clear instance of the federal government interfering in an issue that should be left to the states. By federally "protecting" abortion, the states were prevented from enforcing laws that disallow it. That seems fundamentally wrong to me.
Now, the federal government has intervened again. In the Terri Schiavo case, the President has passed a bill allowing the Schindler's to take the fight for their daughter's life into a federal court, despite the fact that it has been ruled on *numerous* times by Florida state and local courts. Again, this strikes me as fundamentally wrong.
Regardless of your personal views on the Sciavo case, **do you think that the federal government was right to intervene in this matter?
** Do you support any action the government takes in trying to preserve life? Or, do you think there should be some consistency in just how much the gov't is allowed to butt in to issues typically handled by the states? Current Mood: cynical
|Saturday, March 19th, 2005|
Questions about Terri Schiavo
I've been following the case pretty closely, but there is one thing I haven't seen a straight answer on: what is the nature of the neurological tests that have been performed on her, what results do they show, and how reliable are these results?
I see people insisting that she is so badly brain damaged that she can't possibly think or feel (now or ever), but I have yet to see a reliable source for this information.
At this point, I am in support of the Schindlers and am very concerned that an injustice is being done to her by our court system. My objections are two-fold:
1. I don't think the nature of her condition is clear enough to decide that it's one in which she would not want to continue living, and
2. I don't think the nature of her wishes on the matter of "being kept alive by extraordinary means" are clear enough to make a final decision.
But I admit most of my information on the matter has come from pro-life news sources. The articles I've read from other sources have failed to adequately address my concerns. Can anyone point me to more information from the other side's perspective? I am not
looking for opinion pieces like the really nauseating one I read in the St. Petersberg Times today, but for documented facts about the nature of her condition. ETA:
I found a (pro-Schindler) article discussing the neurological testing issue in more depth than any article I've yet seen: Starving for a Fair Diagnosis
. It gives detailed information on how Terri was diagnosed as PVS, and why that diagnosis is highly questionable. It seems to me, just as a general principle, that we ought to be on the side of those who seek truth rather than those who oppress it. As far as I can see, the side of truth-seeking in this case is the Schindlers' side. I think I'm sticking with them, at least for the time being.
x-posted to right_over_easy
and my own LJ
|Friday, March 18th, 2005|
A number of interesting issues were raised in my post in prolife
about the Schiavo case. I don't want to turn that post into a debate, because that will likely result in having it deleted, so I'd like to invite people to tell me more about their opinions here.
For anyone who doesn't read prolife
, I posted to ask whether anyone knew why Terry's husband hasn't divorced her (ie, whether FL law prevents it, or he stands to inherit anything, etc).
Debate away, folks!!