OMFSerge at Imago Dei is providing the text of a rebuttal he used against Carl Sagan's thinking on abortion and when the unborn become "human." It's long but worth the read.
I think the most interesting part is when Sagan admits that "(t)he trouble with these particular developmental milestones (he previously named the times when an unborn child attains the ability to breathe on its own, becomes responsive to stimuli, when the face becomes distinctly "human", etc.) is not just that they're arbitrary."
He admits that these criteria are arbitrary. He then goes on to assert his own arbitrary criteria yet doesn't recognize it as such.
Sagan asserts that "If we are forced to choose a developmental criterion, then this is where we draw the line: when the beginning of characteristically human thinking becomes barely possible."
Why not fully possible? Why not totally possible? Or inherently possible? Who needs biology when we have Carl to arbitrarily choose a developmental criteria?
And what is "characteristically human thinking anyway?" Carl discusses the attainment of regular brain waves and neuron connections in the 3rd trimester but how is that "characteristically human thinking?" My newborn niece has no "characteristically human thinking" as far as I can tell. She stares into space, cries, burps, farts, looks cute, and sleeps. She's not thinking as grown humans do or even thinking at the level of toddler. If she is thinking, what's she thinking about?
On the other hand my kitten, Rascal, is deceptive and intelligent. She often exhibits thinking at a much higher level than a newborn human ever could. In the morning, Rascal uses my leg as a launching pad to get up to kitchen table so she can try to steal some of my cereal milk. She fetches in a way by bringing tiny balls of aluminum back to me to throw. She devises cheap shot attacks my other cats and then plays dead when they fight back. I've taught my other cat, Belushi, how to shake hands/paws.
It is plainly obvious to me that my cats are more intelligent than my niece is currently. Yet my niece is a human being and my cats are, well, they're cats. What tells us this? Unfortunately for Carl, it's biological facts not arbitrary developmental criteria.
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
Sarcasm and Satire
Doug Bandow has a column at Townhall that asks "Can Democrats be pro-life?" and mentions this post by the satirical BlameBush blog.
Liberal blogger Atrois is linking to this blog that links to Bandow's column and seems to copy and paste part of the article.
It appears as though Bandow's column has been changed (on his realization that BlameBush is satrical) or that TBogg has posted something that wasn't in Bandow's column. TBogg calls Bandow an "(expletive) tool" for not realizing that the site is satire.
The real funny/sad thing is that the liberals (Atrois and TBogg) don't understand how closely the language and arguments of abortion rights activists mirror and parrot the satirical arguments of BlameBush. Numerous people who posted comments on BlameBush's post were equally appalled/fooled by the language that was used.
Why? Because prolifers hear those kinds of ridiculous arguments all the time so when you don't know its satire, it doesn't seem like satire. Bandow isn't a tool for not knowing BlameBush is satire (though he should have checked), pro-choicers and liberals who actually use that kind of rhetoric are the real tools.
Liberal blogger Atrois is linking to this blog that links to Bandow's column and seems to copy and paste part of the article.
It appears as though Bandow's column has been changed (on his realization that BlameBush is satrical) or that TBogg has posted something that wasn't in Bandow's column. TBogg calls Bandow an "(expletive) tool" for not realizing that the site is satire.
The real funny/sad thing is that the liberals (Atrois and TBogg) don't understand how closely the language and arguments of abortion rights activists mirror and parrot the satirical arguments of BlameBush. Numerous people who posted comments on BlameBush's post were equally appalled/fooled by the language that was used.
Why? Because prolifers hear those kinds of ridiculous arguments all the time so when you don't know its satire, it doesn't seem like satire. Bandow isn't a tool for not knowing BlameBush is satire (though he should have checked), pro-choicers and liberals who actually use that kind of rhetoric are the real tools.
How Pro-choicers Argue: Part One - Ad Hominem Attacks
Intro to how pro-choicers argue
Part One: Ad Hominem attacks
Ad hominem (which means "to the man" in Latin) attacks are usually the simplest arguments to defeat because they aren't really arguments but rather personal attacks. They attack the arguer and not the argument.
Example 1: "You anti-choicers are just a bunch of religious fanatics and extremists. You don't care about women."
These are insults and attacks against prolifers based on who we supposedly are not on what we are saying. Even if these attacks were true, even if prolifers were just of a bunch of religious extremists who didn't care about women, would it do anything to disprove the prolife assertions that abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings and that intentionally killing innocent human beings is wrong? The obvious answer is no.
These attacks are irrelevant to the argument at hand: does abortion end the life of an innocent human being? Most of time people use ad hominem arguments because they can't use facts or logic to disprove their opponent's argument.
Example 2: "As a man who can never get pregnant you shouldn't be telling women what to do."
No male human being should never feel afraid or ashamed to speak up for life and against abortion simply because they're a male and can't get pregnant. Just because someone doesn't have the ability to become pregnant has absolutely no bearing on whether or not they can argue about abortion or whether or not the unborn are innocent human beings.
If men shouldn't have a say in abortion that means that Roe v. Wade should be overturned because it was decided by nine men, right? What about women who can no longer get pregnant because of age or a hysterectomy? Must they be silent as well? What pro-choicers are really saying when they use this attack is that no male who disagrees with them should be able to speak about abortion. This is completely sexist and intolerant.
This attack is like a deadbeat dad telling a woman that she has no right to tell him he should pay child support because she has never paid child support. It makes absolutely no sense.
Example 3: "Anti-abortionists only care about fetuses. They don't do anything to care for women or children once those children are born."
Even if prolifers didn't do anything for born children, how would that prove that the unborn aren't human beings? This argument says that prolifers can't talk about abortion because they supposedly don't do enough for women in crisis and children once they are born. Why must prolifers take their scarce resources and spread them to stop every evil imaginable? That's like telling the American Lung and Heart Association that they have no business focusing on lung and heart diseases unless they first find a cure for Alzheimer's.
Even if prolifers only cared about fetuses, how would that prove that the unborn aren't human beings?
Plus, the fact is that many prolifers do an extraordinary amount for born children and women in crisis. The 3,000+ crisis pregnancy centers in our country are staffed and financed by prolifers.
On to Part Two
Part One: Ad Hominem attacks
Ad hominem (which means "to the man" in Latin) attacks are usually the simplest arguments to defeat because they aren't really arguments but rather personal attacks. They attack the arguer and not the argument.
Example 1: "You anti-choicers are just a bunch of religious fanatics and extremists. You don't care about women."
These are insults and attacks against prolifers based on who we supposedly are not on what we are saying. Even if these attacks were true, even if prolifers were just of a bunch of religious extremists who didn't care about women, would it do anything to disprove the prolife assertions that abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings and that intentionally killing innocent human beings is wrong? The obvious answer is no.
These attacks are irrelevant to the argument at hand: does abortion end the life of an innocent human being? Most of time people use ad hominem arguments because they can't use facts or logic to disprove their opponent's argument.
Example 2: "As a man who can never get pregnant you shouldn't be telling women what to do."
No male human being should never feel afraid or ashamed to speak up for life and against abortion simply because they're a male and can't get pregnant. Just because someone doesn't have the ability to become pregnant has absolutely no bearing on whether or not they can argue about abortion or whether or not the unborn are innocent human beings.
If men shouldn't have a say in abortion that means that Roe v. Wade should be overturned because it was decided by nine men, right? What about women who can no longer get pregnant because of age or a hysterectomy? Must they be silent as well? What pro-choicers are really saying when they use this attack is that no male who disagrees with them should be able to speak about abortion. This is completely sexist and intolerant.
This attack is like a deadbeat dad telling a woman that she has no right to tell him he should pay child support because she has never paid child support. It makes absolutely no sense.
Example 3: "Anti-abortionists only care about fetuses. They don't do anything to care for women or children once those children are born."
Even if prolifers didn't do anything for born children, how would that prove that the unborn aren't human beings? This argument says that prolifers can't talk about abortion because they supposedly don't do enough for women in crisis and children once they are born. Why must prolifers take their scarce resources and spread them to stop every evil imaginable? That's like telling the American Lung and Heart Association that they have no business focusing on lung and heart diseases unless they first find a cure for Alzheimer's.
Even if prolifers only cared about fetuses, how would that prove that the unborn aren't human beings?
Plus, the fact is that many prolifers do an extraordinary amount for born children and women in crisis. The 3,000+ crisis pregnancy centers in our country are staffed and financed by prolifers.
On to Part Two
Monday, January 10, 2005
How Pro-Choicers Argue: Intro
This will be my introduction into a series of posts regarding how pro-choicers argue and why these arguments don't work. Many of the ideas that will follow are directly or indirectly from the writings of a man named Scott Klusendorf who now runs Life Training Institute.
In the last 30+ years, the two sides of the abortion debate and some in between have presented various arguments as to why abortion should be legal or illegal, if abortion should be illegal in some circumstances but legal in others, and in what ways should abortion be restricted.
Too often we have ended up in shouting matches that solve nothing and hardly ever change hearts and minds. Prolifers must engage the opposition in civil discussions and force the pro-choice side to explain and justify their beliefs by asking them questions that cut to the center of the abortion debate. Those in favor of abortion must somehow conclusively prove that abortion doesn't end the life of a human being. They must prove that the unborn either aren't alive, aren't whole, distinct, unified human beings, or prove that even though the unborn are living human beings they aren't deserving of protection because of some principle reason we all should accept. Continuously spouting empty words like "choice," "reproductive freedom," and "fundamental rights" are simply means of trying to convince themselves that killing innocent children isn't wrong. Prolifers need to push past this rhetoric and challenge the opposition to intelligent, thoughtful debates.
Pro-choice organizations and individuals use a variety of tactics to avoid the central issues in the abortion debate: Are the unborn human beings? If the unborn are innocent human beings why should it be legal to intentionally kill them when it isn't legal to intentionally kill other innocent human beings?
The Truth is on Our Side
The truth is on the side of the prolife position. The unborn are living human beings. This is a scientific fact that has been established for decades. Scientific textbooks and experts on embryology agree that at conception the life of a distinct human being has begun.
The following are some references from textbooks that discuss when human beings begin:
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]
"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]
"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zygtos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]
The Law of Biogenesis
Also, there is a scientific law called the Law of Biogenesis. This law came from work of a man named Louis Pasteur, among others, almost 150 years ago. This law states that all life comes from life and that life produces after it's own kind. So when two animals that are of the same kind of being(organism) reproduce, they reproduce something that is the same kind of being that they are. So, for example, cats reproduce cats, cockroaches reproduce cockroaches, human beings reproduce human beings, etc. It's also basic common sense but it says that the type of being that is growing inside a human female who has reproduced with a human male must be a human being. There is no denying this. Pro-choicers must prove scientifically that two human beings can reproduce something that is not a human being but then later becomes a human being even though the Law of Biogenesis says this is impossible. How can something have two parents that are human beings but then not be a human being themselves?
Since pro-choicers are unable to use science to prove that the unborn aren't living human beings or provide a principle reason as to why it should be legal to kill some innocent human beings but not others, they have relied on various different ways to argue, all of which don't work logically.
Knowing what kind of tactic they are using will allow prolifers to better refute pro-choice arguments.
On to Part One
In the last 30+ years, the two sides of the abortion debate and some in between have presented various arguments as to why abortion should be legal or illegal, if abortion should be illegal in some circumstances but legal in others, and in what ways should abortion be restricted.
Too often we have ended up in shouting matches that solve nothing and hardly ever change hearts and minds. Prolifers must engage the opposition in civil discussions and force the pro-choice side to explain and justify their beliefs by asking them questions that cut to the center of the abortion debate. Those in favor of abortion must somehow conclusively prove that abortion doesn't end the life of a human being. They must prove that the unborn either aren't alive, aren't whole, distinct, unified human beings, or prove that even though the unborn are living human beings they aren't deserving of protection because of some principle reason we all should accept. Continuously spouting empty words like "choice," "reproductive freedom," and "fundamental rights" are simply means of trying to convince themselves that killing innocent children isn't wrong. Prolifers need to push past this rhetoric and challenge the opposition to intelligent, thoughtful debates.
Pro-choice organizations and individuals use a variety of tactics to avoid the central issues in the abortion debate: Are the unborn human beings? If the unborn are innocent human beings why should it be legal to intentionally kill them when it isn't legal to intentionally kill other innocent human beings?
The Truth is on Our Side
The truth is on the side of the prolife position. The unborn are living human beings. This is a scientific fact that has been established for decades. Scientific textbooks and experts on embryology agree that at conception the life of a distinct human being has begun.
The following are some references from textbooks that discuss when human beings begin:
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]
"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]
"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zygtos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]
The Law of Biogenesis
Also, there is a scientific law called the Law of Biogenesis. This law came from work of a man named Louis Pasteur, among others, almost 150 years ago. This law states that all life comes from life and that life produces after it's own kind. So when two animals that are of the same kind of being(organism) reproduce, they reproduce something that is the same kind of being that they are. So, for example, cats reproduce cats, cockroaches reproduce cockroaches, human beings reproduce human beings, etc. It's also basic common sense but it says that the type of being that is growing inside a human female who has reproduced with a human male must be a human being. There is no denying this. Pro-choicers must prove scientifically that two human beings can reproduce something that is not a human being but then later becomes a human being even though the Law of Biogenesis says this is impossible. How can something have two parents that are human beings but then not be a human being themselves?
Since pro-choicers are unable to use science to prove that the unborn aren't living human beings or provide a principle reason as to why it should be legal to kill some innocent human beings but not others, they have relied on various different ways to argue, all of which don't work logically.
Knowing what kind of tactic they are using will allow prolifers to better refute pro-choice arguments.
On to Part One
Evangelical Outpost's First Blogposium
Joe Carter at the Evangelical Outpost is running a symposium for anyone who wants to blog an opinion or review of David Gelernter's piece "Americanism and Its Enemies" in Commentary magazine. Joe is offering prizes for the top three entrees and a random drawing prize for all the entrants so I can't say no. It's like that contest at elementary school fairs to guess the number of jelly beans in the enormous jar. I know I don't have a shot but the opportunity at winning a prize (even the random drawing prize) is too enticing. So here goes:
Gelernter defines Americanism by saying, "(b)y Americanism I mean the set of beliefs that are thought to constitute America's essence and to set it apart; the beliefs that make Americans positive that their nation is superior to all others, morally superior, closer to God."
He then goes on to present Americanism as a religion with a "conceptual triangle in which one fundamental fact (the Bible is God's word) creates two premises (every member of the American community has his own individual dignity, insofar as he deals individually with God; second, the community has a divine mission to all mankind) that create three conclusions (every human being everywhere is entitled to freedom, equality, and democracy)."
Gelernter also theorizes that his Americanism is Puritanism "transformed" and that "part of Americanism is the American version of biblical Zionism: in short, American Zionism" where Americans are a "chosen people," "living in a promised land" with a "divinely ordained mission."
I would be sad if the Americanism that Gelernter proposes is what happened to the Puritan movement. The Americanism that Gelernter proposes is more of a idolatrous nationalism than a "Judeo-Christian" religion. This nationalism sees America as a new Israel, a "city on the hill" which is a godly nation that shines the light to lead the way for other nations. It seems to deify the American nation and its institutions over God. It makes the spread of freedom and democracy primary over the spreading the Gospel. It takes promises, such as 2nd Chronicles 7:14, intended for the immortal body of Christian believers around the world and converts them into promises for a mortal nation-state whose geography and inhabitants have changed dramatically over time. This Americanism seems to think that salvation is brought about by allowing people to be "free" and not thru faith in Jesus Christ and the grace of God who sent His Son to die and atone for our sins.
1 Peter 2:9 says, "But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light."
The "holy nation" in this verse isn't America but the people who belong to God. The people of God have been called out of the darkness and into His light, not America, even though many people who belong to the body of believers also take pride in America and its institutions.
Though I believe America is the greatest nation on earth and I strongly agree with the notion of spreading freedom to the people of nation-states that have been brutalized by dictators or regimes, I can't see America as the or a "holy nation." We hardly have the market cornered on biblical values or behavior. Though our nation might not be as bad as the Netherlands or China, we are hardly a "city on the hill" when it comes to biblical morals. Our nation allows 1.3 million abortions every year. We tolerated the adultery of our former President. Sexual fornication is the main subject of numerous popular television shows and movies. Humbleness is too often replaced by pride and boasting. We've spread freedom to Afghanistan and Iraq but haven't dealt well with the genocidal atrocities in the Sudan and Rwanda.
Gelernter's triangle of one fact, two premises, and three conclusions seems to break down after the first fact. If the Bible is the Word of God - how is America the "holy nation?" The Bible never says that. It seems like to make the rest of Gelernter's triangle work, the one fact must be the incorrect assertion that "America is God's Holy Nation." Wouldn't there be different premises if the one fact was that the Bible is the Word of God? Wouldn't the premises be more along the lines of "every member of the Christian community has his own individual dignity, insofar as he deals individually with God; second, the community of Christian believers has a divine mission to all mankind." This mission then, instead of offering "freedom, equality, and democracy" would be to offer the good news of salvation by grace thru faith in Jesus Christ.
I also disagree somewhat with Gelernter's perception that "Anti-Americans are still fascinated and enraged by Americans' bizarre tendency to believe in God." Though this certainly might fit for some in Europe it hardly makes sense for the numerous Muslims who despise our freedom. They have a belief in a higher being and even consider Christians to be "people of the book". They seem to despise Americans less for their belief in God and more for the way they perceive us materialistic, greedy, and prideful along with various military maneuvers, especially our support for Israel.
Overall, I thought this was an extremely interesting piece that was well-researched and quite thought provoking. Gelernter might be right. Puritanism may have transformed into Gelernter's Americanism. But if it has transformed, it was not for the better.
Gelernter defines Americanism by saying, "(b)y Americanism I mean the set of beliefs that are thought to constitute America's essence and to set it apart; the beliefs that make Americans positive that their nation is superior to all others, morally superior, closer to God."
He then goes on to present Americanism as a religion with a "conceptual triangle in which one fundamental fact (the Bible is God's word) creates two premises (every member of the American community has his own individual dignity, insofar as he deals individually with God; second, the community has a divine mission to all mankind) that create three conclusions (every human being everywhere is entitled to freedom, equality, and democracy)."
Gelernter also theorizes that his Americanism is Puritanism "transformed" and that "part of Americanism is the American version of biblical Zionism: in short, American Zionism" where Americans are a "chosen people," "living in a promised land" with a "divinely ordained mission."
I would be sad if the Americanism that Gelernter proposes is what happened to the Puritan movement. The Americanism that Gelernter proposes is more of a idolatrous nationalism than a "Judeo-Christian" religion. This nationalism sees America as a new Israel, a "city on the hill" which is a godly nation that shines the light to lead the way for other nations. It seems to deify the American nation and its institutions over God. It makes the spread of freedom and democracy primary over the spreading the Gospel. It takes promises, such as 2nd Chronicles 7:14, intended for the immortal body of Christian believers around the world and converts them into promises for a mortal nation-state whose geography and inhabitants have changed dramatically over time. This Americanism seems to think that salvation is brought about by allowing people to be "free" and not thru faith in Jesus Christ and the grace of God who sent His Son to die and atone for our sins.
1 Peter 2:9 says, "But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light."
The "holy nation" in this verse isn't America but the people who belong to God. The people of God have been called out of the darkness and into His light, not America, even though many people who belong to the body of believers also take pride in America and its institutions.
Though I believe America is the greatest nation on earth and I strongly agree with the notion of spreading freedom to the people of nation-states that have been brutalized by dictators or regimes, I can't see America as the or a "holy nation." We hardly have the market cornered on biblical values or behavior. Though our nation might not be as bad as the Netherlands or China, we are hardly a "city on the hill" when it comes to biblical morals. Our nation allows 1.3 million abortions every year. We tolerated the adultery of our former President. Sexual fornication is the main subject of numerous popular television shows and movies. Humbleness is too often replaced by pride and boasting. We've spread freedom to Afghanistan and Iraq but haven't dealt well with the genocidal atrocities in the Sudan and Rwanda.
Gelernter's triangle of one fact, two premises, and three conclusions seems to break down after the first fact. If the Bible is the Word of God - how is America the "holy nation?" The Bible never says that. It seems like to make the rest of Gelernter's triangle work, the one fact must be the incorrect assertion that "America is God's Holy Nation." Wouldn't there be different premises if the one fact was that the Bible is the Word of God? Wouldn't the premises be more along the lines of "every member of the Christian community has his own individual dignity, insofar as he deals individually with God; second, the community of Christian believers has a divine mission to all mankind." This mission then, instead of offering "freedom, equality, and democracy" would be to offer the good news of salvation by grace thru faith in Jesus Christ.
I also disagree somewhat with Gelernter's perception that "Anti-Americans are still fascinated and enraged by Americans' bizarre tendency to believe in God." Though this certainly might fit for some in Europe it hardly makes sense for the numerous Muslims who despise our freedom. They have a belief in a higher being and even consider Christians to be "people of the book". They seem to despise Americans less for their belief in God and more for the way they perceive us materialistic, greedy, and prideful along with various military maneuvers, especially our support for Israel.
Overall, I thought this was an extremely interesting piece that was well-researched and quite thought provoking. Gelernter might be right. Puritanism may have transformed into Gelernter's Americanism. But if it has transformed, it was not for the better.
Stem cells and spinal cord injuries
The Detroit Free Press is continuing its series on a Michigan teen who traveled to Portugal for an adult stem cell transplant with this article.
I'm so glad that the Free Press is spending time and effort to educate people about a stem cell procedure that is actually working on human beings and is completely ethical.
I'm so glad that the Free Press is spending time and effort to educate people about a stem cell procedure that is actually working on human beings and is completely ethical.
Slaves to Cellphone
This guest column in the Grand Rapids Press by a high schooler is a great examination of our cell phone obsessed culture.
Friday, January 07, 2005
Consumer reports and abortion
There has been a lot of attention given to this article which discusses a Consumer Reports article on condoms where some of Planned Parenthood's condoms weren't quite top of the line. Planned Parenthood has even spent a good deal of space on their web site trying to defend their condoms here and here.
However, I haven't seen an commentary on the Consumer Reports article on abortion. They list off a variety of birth control measures but then have information on medical abortion (RU-486) and surgical abortion (they just talk about vacuum aspiration).
Under medical abortion they say, "misoprostol completely expels the pregnancy in more than 90 percent of users, usually within a day."
Though they also use the term "embryo" to describe the unborn in the medical abortion section, I'm dismayed by the use of this "pregnancy" terminology. No pregnancy is expelled, the pregnancy is ended because the unborn child has been killed.
In another display of terminology gone wrong under surgical abortion they say, "The uterine contents are sucked out using a manual or electrical pump while the woman is under local anesthesia." (emphasis mine)
Uterine contents? Could you be a bit more specific? Do mean unborn human being?
Why is Consumer Reports sugarcoating what abortion is? Shouldn't consumers be aware of what is being aborted in an abortion?
Update
Consumer reports has moved their information on abortion to this web page
However, I haven't seen an commentary on the Consumer Reports article on abortion. They list off a variety of birth control measures but then have information on medical abortion (RU-486) and surgical abortion (they just talk about vacuum aspiration).
Under medical abortion they say, "misoprostol completely expels the pregnancy in more than 90 percent of users, usually within a day."
Though they also use the term "embryo" to describe the unborn in the medical abortion section, I'm dismayed by the use of this "pregnancy" terminology. No pregnancy is expelled, the pregnancy is ended because the unborn child has been killed.
In another display of terminology gone wrong under surgical abortion they say, "The uterine contents are sucked out using a manual or electrical pump while the woman is under local anesthesia." (emphasis mine)
Uterine contents? Could you be a bit more specific? Do mean unborn human being?
Why is Consumer Reports sugarcoating what abortion is? Shouldn't consumers be aware of what is being aborted in an abortion?
Update
Consumer reports has moved their information on abortion to this web page
Thursday, January 06, 2005
Embryology quote of the week
"the term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops. It is synonymous with the terms fecundation, impregnation and fertilization ... The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life." (J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Freidman. Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers, pages 17 and 23.)
You've got to be kidding me
Laura Berman is a pro-choice columnist for the Detroit News. In today's newspaper she is talking about the charges against the teenager from Macomb County who ended the life of his unborn child by hitting his willing girlfried in the stomach with a souvenir baseball bat over the span of several weeks.
In this column, Berman has probably one of the most ridiculous/stupid/inaccurate pro-choice quotes I have ever heard in my life. She says,
"At this point, abortion is officially legal but, in practice, minimally so in Michigan -- to the point that even many educated adult women wouldn't know how to obtain one."
You have got to be kidding me. In 2003, there were 29,540 abortions in Michigan.
Do educated adult women know how to use the yellow pages? Because if they do, they'll find large full color ads advertising abortion if they look under "abortion." Do they know how to use the internet? Because if they do, they'll be able to type "abortion" and "Michigan" into any search engine and be able to find an abortion provider who would willingly take their $400 and the life of their unborn child.
Another thing I noticed was how Berman uses "unborn child" to describe Connor Peterson but then chides Right to Life of Michigan for working to "give legal status to fetuses in the womb" and for nudging "lawmakers and the public into viewing fetuses as tiny babies who need the state's protection from their would- or -wouldn't-be mothers. (my emphasis)"
So wanted Connor was "an unborn child" while the unwanted Macomb County child is a "fetus?"
In this column, Berman has probably one of the most ridiculous/stupid/inaccurate pro-choice quotes I have ever heard in my life. She says,
"At this point, abortion is officially legal but, in practice, minimally so in Michigan -- to the point that even many educated adult women wouldn't know how to obtain one."
You have got to be kidding me. In 2003, there were 29,540 abortions in Michigan.
Do educated adult women know how to use the yellow pages? Because if they do, they'll find large full color ads advertising abortion if they look under "abortion." Do they know how to use the internet? Because if they do, they'll be able to type "abortion" and "Michigan" into any search engine and be able to find an abortion provider who would willingly take their $400 and the life of their unborn child.
Another thing I noticed was how Berman uses "unborn child" to describe Connor Peterson but then chides Right to Life of Michigan for working to "give legal status to fetuses in the womb" and for nudging "lawmakers and the public into viewing fetuses as tiny babies who need the state's protection from their would- or -wouldn't-be mothers. (my emphasis)"
So wanted Connor was "an unborn child" while the unwanted Macomb County child is a "fetus?"
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
Souvenir bat wielding boyfriend is charged
The PRNewswire is reporting that Macomb County prosecutors will charge a teenager for killing his unborn child by hitting the stomach of his pregnant girlfriend with souvenir baseball bat over the span of weeks.
I first commented on this story(not the charges - that's new news) when it ran in the Detroit newspapers in November.
I'm glad they are charging the boyfriend but find it odd that the girlfriend is not being charged since she was a willing participant and if I recall correctly, one story even suggested that it might have been her idea but I guess they can't charge her if the law doesn't say you can.
Hat tip: Blogicus
I first commented on this story(not the charges - that's new news) when it ran in the Detroit newspapers in November.
I'm glad they are charging the boyfriend but find it odd that the girlfriend is not being charged since she was a willing participant and if I recall correctly, one story even suggested that it might have been her idea but I guess they can't charge her if the law doesn't say you can.
Hat tip: Blogicus
Adult stem cell research for spinal cord injuries may be coming to Michigan
Yesterday the Detroit Free Press ran this story about how the Portuguese procedure of extracting olfactory stem cells from patients and using them to heal/help spinal cord injuries could be coming to Michigan in the future.
They also featured this story on a young woman who has gone to Portugal and is currently in the process of improving after the treatment and rehabilitation.
Blogicus has other stories here and here regarding ethical stem cell success.
They also featured this story on a young woman who has gone to Portugal and is currently in the process of improving after the treatment and rehabilitation.
Blogicus has other stories here and here regarding ethical stem cell success.
10 reasons? We can think of more than that
Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost provides Ten Reasons to Despise Planned Parenthood. Though I think his list is a great start, the prolifers in the blogsphere can come up with a lot more than 10. Here are an additional 10 reasons I came up with:
11. Over the last 6 years, the number of abortions performed at Planned Parenthood facilities have increased from 165,174 in 1997 to 244,628 in 2003. That's an increase of 48.1%.
12. Over that same time period, adoption referrals provided by Planned Parenthood have gone down from 9,381 in 1997 to 1,774 in 2003. A decrease of 81.1%.
13. Planned Parenthood is well aware that a fetus is a living human organism (click on fetus) yet they have no problem advocating the legal killing of these organisms. UPDATE The link above is broken. But you can go to Teenwire.com type "fetus" into the purple box at the top right of the page and then click on quick definition.
14. They claim that the Supreme Court only supports Roe v. Wade by a "razor-thin margin" when only 3 (Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas) out of 9 justices have shown a willingness to overturn Roe.
15. The Karen Hughes watch
16. They are "pro-choice" on whether women should be legally allowed to have abortions but are anti-choice when it comes to whether health providers and pharmacists should be able to refuse to provide abortion or contraceptive services.
17. They claim that The Number of Abortions after the First Trimester Is Relatively Small even though more than 100,000 abortion are performed after the first trimester every year.
18. Holly Patterson's death
19. They have no problem with judge shopping so teenage girls can get around parental consent laws.
20. Their complete denial that some women without prior psychological problems who abort an unintended pregnancy might be negatively affected emotionally by abortion.
11. Over the last 6 years, the number of abortions performed at Planned Parenthood facilities have increased from 165,174 in 1997 to 244,628 in 2003. That's an increase of 48.1%.
12. Over that same time period, adoption referrals provided by Planned Parenthood have gone down from 9,381 in 1997 to 1,774 in 2003. A decrease of 81.1%.
13. Planned Parenthood is well aware that a fetus is a living human organism (click on fetus) yet they have no problem advocating the legal killing of these organisms. UPDATE The link above is broken. But you can go to Teenwire.com type "fetus" into the purple box at the top right of the page and then click on quick definition.
14. They claim that the Supreme Court only supports Roe v. Wade by a "razor-thin margin" when only 3 (Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas) out of 9 justices have shown a willingness to overturn Roe.
15. The Karen Hughes watch
16. They are "pro-choice" on whether women should be legally allowed to have abortions but are anti-choice when it comes to whether health providers and pharmacists should be able to refuse to provide abortion or contraceptive services.
17. They claim that The Number of Abortions after the First Trimester Is Relatively Small even though more than 100,000 abortion are performed after the first trimester every year.
18. Holly Patterson's death
19. They have no problem with judge shopping so teenage girls can get around parental consent laws.
20. Their complete denial that some women without prior psychological problems who abort an unintended pregnancy might be negatively affected emotionally by abortion.
Tuesday, January 04, 2005
Are Fetuses part of a woman?
JT of Between Two Worlds is linking to blogger Andrew Coulson of Gantelope. In his first post about this subject , Coulson talks about an e-mail he sent James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal and Taranto's response. Coulson without any evidence from science, logic or reasoning (besides his assumptions about how women feel about their unborn children) seems to conclude that fetuses are part of a woman's body.
He also mentions that abortion is a "sad business?" I'm wondering why Coulson thinks abortion is a "sad business" if the unborn are merely part of the woman's body. It makes absolutely no sense logically. If the unborn are merely part of a woman's body as Coulson asserts then abortion should have the same moral relevance and feelings attached to it as a tooth removal or appendectomy. It wasn't "sad business" when my unwanted wisdom teeth were removed so why should it be "sad business" when an unwanted fetus is removed/destroyed?
In his second post on this subject, Coulson attempts to take on those that have e-mailed him (his comment section doesn't allow commments longer than a line). He interestingly doesn't provide quotes from any of his commenters but summarizes their arguments. If he posted JT's response, Coulson's readers would easily recognize who was in the right. I thought that I had seen JT leave a trackback (I'm probably mistaken) but there unfortunately isn't a trackback from JT at this point.
He says, "Virtually all of the commenters asserted that fetuses are not part of the pregnant woman's body. This, I should point out, would be considered a preposterous notion by most women. I'll address it anyway."
For one, what does a pregnant woman's opinion have to do with it? If a pregnant woman thought that a banana was part of her body would that mean that the banana was part of her body? The obvious answer is no.
Secondly, I would guess that most women who are pregnant have the good sense to realize that the child they see on the ultrasound and feel kicking them is not a part of their body but a different living human being that happens to be attached to them and located inside of them.
Instead of using science to back up his opinions, Coulson is forced to attempt to use logic to prove his completely unscientific position. But he again, doesn't seem to provide his reasoning as to why the unborn are part of a woman's body. He simply asserts it and expects others to prove him wrong instead of trying to prove himself right.
Coulson then goes on to fight off a weak argument. My guess is he ignored most of the good arguments and went with one he could beat.
He says, "In any event, the medical community is unanimous in describing the placenta as an organ of the mother, and the placenta is tightly contiguous with the umbilical cord which is tightly contiguous with the fetus. So, using the definitions of the medical community, the fetus is logically part of the mother."
Umm.. Is that logic or connections by leaps and bounds? Coulson, though willing to take the medical communitiy's description of the placenta as an organ of the mother is seemingly unwilling to accept their description of the umbilical cord as an organ of the fetus. Or their description of the fetus as an organism unto itself. Why doesn't he just provide the definition of the medical community with regards to umbilical cord and fetus instead of attempting to use logic to find out what they are?
He continues with another argument, "What about the third argument, that the fetus could, under certain circumstances, survive outside of the mother's body and hence is not a part of the mother? This is a non-sequitor. My sister is a micro-biologist. If she wanted to, she could extract a variety of soft tissues from your body and culture them in a Petri dish, allowing them to survive apart from your body. Does that mean they weren't part of your body to begin with? No. Q.E.D.: this is not a proper criteria for determining whether or not something is a part of a human body."
I would point out that there is a large difference between a child (a separate organism) being born/deattached from his or her mother and surviving and a micro-biologist keeping a part of woman (such as a skin cell) alive in a petri dish. The skin cell will never become an organism unto itself. It will always be part of the woman because that is what it is. A fetus, however, even according to Coulson must at some time becomes an organism unto itself or we're all still part of our mothers.
This takes me to another point. When does the fetus become an organism unto itself according to Coulson? He hasn't provided his reasoning as to why the fetus is part of the mother so I'll have to guess. Maybe it is when the child is born. But the problem with this criteria is newly born children are still attached to their mother via the child's umbilical cord. They are outside their mother but still attached and therefore possibly still part of the woman. Maybe then it is when the doctor clamps the umbilical cord and prevents blood from transfering to the child? Or maybe it is when the doctor finally cuts the umbilical cord and the separation is made permanent? How does birth or cord cutting create a new organism? Is their any evidence from science to back up this position? How can a part of a human organism become another human organism? Are there any other times when this happens?
Coulson concludes with this, "Finally, a number of commenters suggested that the fetus has its own DNA and hence is a distinct biological entity, and hence is not part of a woman's body. This is a non-sequitor. There is nothing about the distinctness of the fetus's DNA that automatically separates it from the woman's body. It is both genetically distinct AND a part of the woman's body (as demonstrated in the preceding discussion)."
How is it a non-sequitor? Coulson is simply supplying a weak assertion to cover up his other weak assertion. He provides nothing from science or logic. He is simply stating his opinion based in basically nothing but his previous opinion.
He also mentions that abortion is a "sad business?" I'm wondering why Coulson thinks abortion is a "sad business" if the unborn are merely part of the woman's body. It makes absolutely no sense logically. If the unborn are merely part of a woman's body as Coulson asserts then abortion should have the same moral relevance and feelings attached to it as a tooth removal or appendectomy. It wasn't "sad business" when my unwanted wisdom teeth were removed so why should it be "sad business" when an unwanted fetus is removed/destroyed?
In his second post on this subject, Coulson attempts to take on those that have e-mailed him (his comment section doesn't allow commments longer than a line). He interestingly doesn't provide quotes from any of his commenters but summarizes their arguments. If he posted JT's response, Coulson's readers would easily recognize who was in the right. I thought that I had seen JT leave a trackback (I'm probably mistaken) but there unfortunately isn't a trackback from JT at this point.
He says, "Virtually all of the commenters asserted that fetuses are not part of the pregnant woman's body. This, I should point out, would be considered a preposterous notion by most women. I'll address it anyway."
For one, what does a pregnant woman's opinion have to do with it? If a pregnant woman thought that a banana was part of her body would that mean that the banana was part of her body? The obvious answer is no.
Secondly, I would guess that most women who are pregnant have the good sense to realize that the child they see on the ultrasound and feel kicking them is not a part of their body but a different living human being that happens to be attached to them and located inside of them.
Instead of using science to back up his opinions, Coulson is forced to attempt to use logic to prove his completely unscientific position. But he again, doesn't seem to provide his reasoning as to why the unborn are part of a woman's body. He simply asserts it and expects others to prove him wrong instead of trying to prove himself right.
Coulson then goes on to fight off a weak argument. My guess is he ignored most of the good arguments and went with one he could beat.
He says, "In any event, the medical community is unanimous in describing the placenta as an organ of the mother, and the placenta is tightly contiguous with the umbilical cord which is tightly contiguous with the fetus. So, using the definitions of the medical community, the fetus is logically part of the mother."
Umm.. Is that logic or connections by leaps and bounds? Coulson, though willing to take the medical communitiy's description of the placenta as an organ of the mother is seemingly unwilling to accept their description of the umbilical cord as an organ of the fetus. Or their description of the fetus as an organism unto itself. Why doesn't he just provide the definition of the medical community with regards to umbilical cord and fetus instead of attempting to use logic to find out what they are?
He continues with another argument, "What about the third argument, that the fetus could, under certain circumstances, survive outside of the mother's body and hence is not a part of the mother? This is a non-sequitor. My sister is a micro-biologist. If she wanted to, she could extract a variety of soft tissues from your body and culture them in a Petri dish, allowing them to survive apart from your body. Does that mean they weren't part of your body to begin with? No. Q.E.D.: this is not a proper criteria for determining whether or not something is a part of a human body."
I would point out that there is a large difference between a child (a separate organism) being born/deattached from his or her mother and surviving and a micro-biologist keeping a part of woman (such as a skin cell) alive in a petri dish. The skin cell will never become an organism unto itself. It will always be part of the woman because that is what it is. A fetus, however, even according to Coulson must at some time becomes an organism unto itself or we're all still part of our mothers.
This takes me to another point. When does the fetus become an organism unto itself according to Coulson? He hasn't provided his reasoning as to why the fetus is part of the mother so I'll have to guess. Maybe it is when the child is born. But the problem with this criteria is newly born children are still attached to their mother via the child's umbilical cord. They are outside their mother but still attached and therefore possibly still part of the woman. Maybe then it is when the doctor clamps the umbilical cord and prevents blood from transfering to the child? Or maybe it is when the doctor finally cuts the umbilical cord and the separation is made permanent? How does birth or cord cutting create a new organism? Is their any evidence from science to back up this position? How can a part of a human organism become another human organism? Are there any other times when this happens?
Coulson concludes with this, "Finally, a number of commenters suggested that the fetus has its own DNA and hence is a distinct biological entity, and hence is not part of a woman's body. This is a non-sequitor. There is nothing about the distinctness of the fetus's DNA that automatically separates it from the woman's body. It is both genetically distinct AND a part of the woman's body (as demonstrated in the preceding discussion)."
How is it a non-sequitor? Coulson is simply supplying a weak assertion to cover up his other weak assertion. He provides nothing from science or logic. He is simply stating his opinion based in basically nothing but his previous opinion.
Abortion "Doctor's" confession
K-Lo at the Corner links to this article in Boston magazine about the confessions of a female abortion provider.
Interesting excerpts include:
"Doing them over and over and over again can be really taxing. All of us who provide abortions believe in what we're doing and think it's a good thing and a right that needs to be available. But when you're in the clinic and in that group of people doing it, it can be tough, and you can get really tired. I don't think it'll ever make me stop doing terminations, but it can move people to tears. And it's not just me -- it extends to the nurses and the people who help us in the operating room. It's not unusual that you'll have only a couple of nurses who will help you out with it. There are nurses that will say, "No, I won't help you take care of this patient." I even know people who feel they can't tell their families what they do; their families think they work on labor and delivery. "
Why is abortion "taxing" and "tough?" Why are people moved to tears?
" I always find those are good days -- when a woman walks out and says, 'No, I'm keeping it.'"
Why are those better days or as you say "good days" compared to when all the women choose abortion? According to the pro-choicer, they are both valid choices so why does one choice (a woman choosing not to abort) lead to a "good day" while abortions are "taxing" and "tough?" Is keeping the child better than abortion? If so, why?
"I have the utmost respect for life; I appreciate that life starts early in the womb, but also believe that I'm ending it for good reasons. Often I'm saving the woman, or I'm improving the lives of the other children in the family. I also believe that women have a life they have to consider. If a woman is working full-time, has one child already, and is barely getting by, having another child that would financially push her to go on public assistance is going to lessen the quality of her life. And it's also an issue for the child, if it would not have had a good life. Life's hard enough when you're wanted and everything's prepared for. So yes, I end life, but even when it's hard, it's for a good reason. "
I have the utmost respect for life but I end the lives of up to 20 unborn children a week? Ending lives to improve the lives of others? It (do you mean "the child" or "he or she?") would not have had a good life? I guess I get to decide whether lives will be good enough to deserve not to be killed in the womb. The illogical hulahoops that abortionists have to weave themselves through to rationalize their killings is always amazing. But they have no other choice unless they have the courage to admit what they're doing is wrong.
"Obviously, the threat of violence is something that's always in the back of my mind, that it could happen, but I feel like I'm doing something so right. How could people think it's wrong?"
Because they are rationale enough to understand that abortionists shouldn't be deciding which children live or die. Because they realize that intentionally killing innocent human beings is wrong. Because their opinions are framed by reality. Because they know why abortions are taxing on you. Because they've seen the hurt that abortion can cause to women.
Hat tip: Comment, No Comment
Interesting excerpts include:
"Doing them over and over and over again can be really taxing. All of us who provide abortions believe in what we're doing and think it's a good thing and a right that needs to be available. But when you're in the clinic and in that group of people doing it, it can be tough, and you can get really tired. I don't think it'll ever make me stop doing terminations, but it can move people to tears. And it's not just me -- it extends to the nurses and the people who help us in the operating room. It's not unusual that you'll have only a couple of nurses who will help you out with it. There are nurses that will say, "No, I won't help you take care of this patient." I even know people who feel they can't tell their families what they do; their families think they work on labor and delivery. "
Why is abortion "taxing" and "tough?" Why are people moved to tears?
" I always find those are good days -- when a woman walks out and says, 'No, I'm keeping it.'"
Why are those better days or as you say "good days" compared to when all the women choose abortion? According to the pro-choicer, they are both valid choices so why does one choice (a woman choosing not to abort) lead to a "good day" while abortions are "taxing" and "tough?" Is keeping the child better than abortion? If so, why?
"I have the utmost respect for life; I appreciate that life starts early in the womb, but also believe that I'm ending it for good reasons. Often I'm saving the woman, or I'm improving the lives of the other children in the family. I also believe that women have a life they have to consider. If a woman is working full-time, has one child already, and is barely getting by, having another child that would financially push her to go on public assistance is going to lessen the quality of her life. And it's also an issue for the child, if it would not have had a good life. Life's hard enough when you're wanted and everything's prepared for. So yes, I end life, but even when it's hard, it's for a good reason. "
I have the utmost respect for life but I end the lives of up to 20 unborn children a week? Ending lives to improve the lives of others? It (do you mean "the child" or "he or she?") would not have had a good life? I guess I get to decide whether lives will be good enough to deserve not to be killed in the womb. The illogical hulahoops that abortionists have to weave themselves through to rationalize their killings is always amazing. But they have no other choice unless they have the courage to admit what they're doing is wrong.
"Obviously, the threat of violence is something that's always in the back of my mind, that it could happen, but I feel like I'm doing something so right. How could people think it's wrong?"
Because they are rationale enough to understand that abortionists shouldn't be deciding which children live or die. Because they realize that intentionally killing innocent human beings is wrong. Because their opinions are framed by reality. Because they know why abortions are taxing on you. Because they've seen the hurt that abortion can cause to women.
Hat tip: Comment, No Comment
Thursday, December 30, 2004
When prolife Dems attack
Ardent pro-choicers around America are deeply disturbed that the Democratic party over the last few weeks has hinted that there could be some slight possibility that they may be moving ever so slightly away from their hardcore pro-choice position.
They find it appalling and terrifying that as the LA Times reports, Democratic "Party leaders say...they are looking at ways to soften the hard line, such as promoting adoption and embracing parental notification requirements for minors and bans on late-term abortions."
Liberal Oasis tries to defend the importance of the Dems keeping the hardline position by saying that they've de-emphasized it enough, "Did Kerry give one speech on the subject since the March For Women’s Lives back in April? Did the campaign run a single TV ad about abortion?"
Never thinking that maybe Kerry didn't speak out on abortion because he knew that it was an issue that would hurt him, especially if he ever got away from or had to actually explain the "personally opposed but" line. The reason: Liberal Oasis is still buying into the "majority of people/voters are pro-choice" myth. The linking to the less-than-accurate and broad-answer-option exit poll abortion question won't help. Another problem is that they also fail to realize that the current position of the Democratic party is that abortion should always be legal not mostly and always. This position only goes along with 21% of the poll's respondents. And that's not mentioning the other issues, i.e. tax dollars should be spent to pay for abortions, parents shouldn't be notified before their child's abortion, partial-birth abortion should stay legal, informed consent, etc., etc. that the majority of voters disagree with the hardline position of the Democratic party.
In related news, this piece byWilliam McGurn in First Things describes the revenge of the late great prolife Democrat Robert Casey who said, "But the Democrats’ national decline—or better, their national disintegration—will continue relentlessly and inexorably until they come to grips with these values issues, primarily abortion."
Or this piece by Democrats for Life Executive Director Kristen Day.
They find it appalling and terrifying that as the LA Times reports, Democratic "Party leaders say...they are looking at ways to soften the hard line, such as promoting adoption and embracing parental notification requirements for minors and bans on late-term abortions."
Liberal Oasis tries to defend the importance of the Dems keeping the hardline position by saying that they've de-emphasized it enough, "Did Kerry give one speech on the subject since the March For Women’s Lives back in April? Did the campaign run a single TV ad about abortion?"
Never thinking that maybe Kerry didn't speak out on abortion because he knew that it was an issue that would hurt him, especially if he ever got away from or had to actually explain the "personally opposed but" line. The reason: Liberal Oasis is still buying into the "majority of people/voters are pro-choice" myth. The linking to the less-than-accurate and broad-answer-option exit poll abortion question won't help. Another problem is that they also fail to realize that the current position of the Democratic party is that abortion should always be legal not mostly and always. This position only goes along with 21% of the poll's respondents. And that's not mentioning the other issues, i.e. tax dollars should be spent to pay for abortions, parents shouldn't be notified before their child's abortion, partial-birth abortion should stay legal, informed consent, etc., etc. that the majority of voters disagree with the hardline position of the Democratic party.
In related news, this piece byWilliam McGurn in First Things describes the revenge of the late great prolife Democrat Robert Casey who said, "But the Democrats’ national decline—or better, their national disintegration—will continue relentlessly and inexorably until they come to grips with these values issues, primarily abortion."
Or this piece by Democrats for Life Executive Director Kristen Day.
Granholm signs Senate Bill 72
In what I consider a somewhat surprising move, Governor Jennifer Granholm has signed Senate Bill 72. More information and links to the actual bill are here.
Will EMILY's List disapprove or did Granholm get their permission first?
Will EMILY's List disapprove or did Granholm get their permission first?
Tuesday, December 28, 2004
The Crime of Offering Low Prices
On January 3, 2005, The Nation will waste loads of paper by printing this joke of an article by Liza Featherstone.
The article demonizes Wal-mart for offering low prices and attacks Wal-mart for placing stores in low-income areas where low prices for basic goods are needed the most. The author feels Wal-mart should be unionized because we all know how teenagers who stock shelves need to get paid $16 an hour.
Featherstone never thinks once about how unionizing Wal-mart would lead to large price increases which would hurt the poor families she attempts to advocate for.
Bill Steigerwald at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review provides a complete take down on Featherstone's piece.
The article demonizes Wal-mart for offering low prices and attacks Wal-mart for placing stores in low-income areas where low prices for basic goods are needed the most. The author feels Wal-mart should be unionized because we all know how teenagers who stock shelves need to get paid $16 an hour.
Featherstone never thinks once about how unionizing Wal-mart would lead to large price increases which would hurt the poor families she attempts to advocate for.
Bill Steigerwald at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review provides a complete take down on Featherstone's piece.
Wednesday, December 22, 2004
Could Michigan's state legislature be the Zero of the Year?
It's tough competition but Michigan's state legislature is up for NARAL's most depressing (I mean coveted) award of the year at this web site. They're up against stiff competition like Ashcroft, Coburn, and W so don't expect a win but I'm still hopeful.
Michigan's state legislature is up for NARAL's Zero of the Year award "for passing a near-total ban on abortion. We expect anti-choice advocates to use the new law in the courts to overturn Roe v. Wade."
As usual, NARAL has no evidence to back up some of their ludicrous claims. The legislation, called the Legal Birth Definition, isn't even really an abortion ban per se and there is no way that it could be considered by anyone who has read it to be a "near-total ban on abortion."
It is one of the brightest recent ideas in the history of prolife legislation. Its aim is to prevent partial birth abortion by defining legal birth and therefore the commencement of legal rights at the time when any non-severed portion of a child's body has been removed from their mother. Once part of the child has been removed, that child is considered born and is therefore a born person deserving the same right to life that you and I have. It doesn't come out and ban partial birth abortion but turns partial birth abortion into infanticide by defining birth.
The legislation was originally passed with near veto proof majorities in the Michigan House and Senate. It was vetoed by Governor Granholm. Michigan's constituion thankfully has a clause that allows citizens to initiate legislation through a petition process that cannot be vetoed by the governor and becomes law if passed by both legislative houses. Right to Life of Michigan then launched a petition drive that allowed the citizens of Michigan to override Granholm's veto.
Michigan's state legislature is up for NARAL's Zero of the Year award "for passing a near-total ban on abortion. We expect anti-choice advocates to use the new law in the courts to overturn Roe v. Wade."
As usual, NARAL has no evidence to back up some of their ludicrous claims. The legislation, called the Legal Birth Definition, isn't even really an abortion ban per se and there is no way that it could be considered by anyone who has read it to be a "near-total ban on abortion."
It is one of the brightest recent ideas in the history of prolife legislation. Its aim is to prevent partial birth abortion by defining legal birth and therefore the commencement of legal rights at the time when any non-severed portion of a child's body has been removed from their mother. Once part of the child has been removed, that child is considered born and is therefore a born person deserving the same right to life that you and I have. It doesn't come out and ban partial birth abortion but turns partial birth abortion into infanticide by defining birth.
The legislation was originally passed with near veto proof majorities in the Michigan House and Senate. It was vetoed by Governor Granholm. Michigan's constituion thankfully has a clause that allows citizens to initiate legislation through a petition process that cannot be vetoed by the governor and becomes law if passed by both legislative houses. Right to Life of Michigan then launched a petition drive that allowed the citizens of Michigan to override Granholm's veto.
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
World's smallest newborn
Blogicus is linking to this story about a child (Rumaisa Rahman) who weighed just 8.6 ounces at birth. To convert that into metric, that's about 250 grams. Rumaisa's twin sister, Hiba, weighed 20 ounces or about 570 grams at birth.
In Michigan for the year 2003, there were at least 106 children aborted who weighed over 400 grams and at least 508 children who weighed between 100 and 400 grams when they were aborted.
Rumaisa
In Michigan for the year 2003, there were at least 106 children aborted who weighed over 400 grams and at least 508 children who weighed between 100 and 400 grams when they were aborted.
Rumaisa
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
