Monday, 22 April 2013
Video of the Week: Sr. Antoniana Maria on The Sisters of Life
This is a beautiful interview from Sr. Antoniana Maria about her vocation to become a nun with the Sisters of Life.
Monday, 15 April 2013
Quote of the Week: "My baby's alive"
Failed abortions do happen.
Former abortionist Dr. Paul Jarrett tells of one of his experiences:
"Since hypertonic saline was so toxic if it was injected into the uterine wall instead of the amiotic sac; there was a constant search for the ideal drug. Prostaglandin has now become the drug of choice, but one of the early experiments was with hypertonic urea. The pajor disadvantage in using it, was the problem of live births. I remember using it on a patient that the psychiatric residence brought to us from their clinic from an institutionailized patient who really was crazy. I'll never forget delivering her nearly two pound baby, and hearing her screams, 'My baby's alive, my baby's alive.' It lived for several days."
Read more from clinic workers and abortion doctors at Clinic Quotes.
And don't forget, Planned Parenthood believes that a baby born alive after an abortion should be treated or killed according to the mother's and doctor's wishes.
Former abortionist Dr. Paul Jarrett tells of one of his experiences:
"Since hypertonic saline was so toxic if it was injected into the uterine wall instead of the amiotic sac; there was a constant search for the ideal drug. Prostaglandin has now become the drug of choice, but one of the early experiments was with hypertonic urea. The pajor disadvantage in using it, was the problem of live births. I remember using it on a patient that the psychiatric residence brought to us from their clinic from an institutionailized patient who really was crazy. I'll never forget delivering her nearly two pound baby, and hearing her screams, 'My baby's alive, my baby's alive.' It lived for several days."
Read more from clinic workers and abortion doctors at Clinic Quotes.
And don't forget, Planned Parenthood believes that a baby born alive after an abortion should be treated or killed according to the mother's and doctor's wishes.
Sunday, 14 April 2013
Why the abortion debate is still not about bodily rights
Most pro-lifers agree that the strongest argument for the legality of abortion is the bodily rights argument. In fact, there's been recent chatter in the pro-life blogosphere that bodily rights is what the abortion debate boils down to, and that we should be focusing on these arguments in order to win public opinion to the pro-life side.
But while I agree that bodily rights are an important part of the pro-choice philosophy (and are, in fact, the only "good" - though not necessarily strong - argument in favour of abortion in my opinion), we Canadian pro-lifers should not make that our only focus.
Why?
Because abortion is not about bodily rights.
If it was, late term abortions would be illegal across the board. After all, birth can be induced, and with proper treatment, the baby would survive. But in Canada, there are no laws restricting the availability of abortions, regardless of the age of the baby.
Instead, we find that bodily autonomy is not the real reason that pro-choice advocates are in favour of abortion. If it was, we would not have the average abortion advocate:
At a time when there is a chance that a 21-week-old (~5-and-a-quarter-month-old) baby can survive birth with almost no developmental complications, this kind of sentiment is so tragic. And it demonstrates how the debate is still not about about bodily autonomy. However, it is about personhood. It is about what the unborn baby truly is. It is about the value of a life.
If you want to know how to talk about abortion with a pro-choicer who believes that aborting a baby in the womb at any time, for any reason, is a moral choice, go to Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform's website, and get educated.
But while I agree that bodily rights are an important part of the pro-choice philosophy (and are, in fact, the only "good" - though not necessarily strong - argument in favour of abortion in my opinion), we Canadian pro-lifers should not make that our only focus.
Why?
Because abortion is not about bodily rights.
If it was, late term abortions would be illegal across the board. After all, birth can be induced, and with proper treatment, the baby would survive. But in Canada, there are no laws restricting the availability of abortions, regardless of the age of the baby.
Instead, we find that bodily autonomy is not the real reason that pro-choice advocates are in favour of abortion. If it was, we would not have the average abortion advocate:
At a time when there is a chance that a 21-week-old (~5-and-a-quarter-month-old) baby can survive birth with almost no developmental complications, this kind of sentiment is so tragic. And it demonstrates how the debate is still not about about bodily autonomy. However, it is about personhood. It is about what the unborn baby truly is. It is about the value of a life.
If you want to know how to talk about abortion with a pro-choicer who believes that aborting a baby in the womb at any time, for any reason, is a moral choice, go to Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform's website, and get educated.
Friday, 12 April 2013
Friday, 5 April 2013
Discouragement
For me, one of the most discouraging things about being pro-life is seeing what other people think of the abortion issue and how cavalier or celebratory they are with regards to issues surrounding the grossly misnamed "reproductive freedom" issue. I just can't understand how someone, even someone who supports abortion in most cases, can be happy about the fact that abortions occur at all. Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, is it not a tragedy when someone decides that they aren't able or don't want to help their own family live? Mom's having abortions because they can't afford their children, or because they found themselves in a situation where they don't want to be attached to the father, or because their family or partner is not supportive of any choice other than abortion, or because they aren't given the resources necessary to raise a special needs child.
The fact that abortion happens is not a good thing. This is our culture refusing to help mothers and children in need, and pushing a "quick fix" solution towards moms who find themselves in less than ideal circumstances. The existence of abortion is a tragedy.
Which is why things like this make me so sad:
Free abortion for all women - yay!! This isn't about killing our children, no, this is about having freedom! This isn't about helping women and children escape their circumstances, no, this is about having rights!
How do you convince people that they support something that has caused the deaths of billions of people? How have we gotten to the point where this is even something that has to be done?
Sometimes this world is just so discouraging.
At least things like this really highlight how necessary it is for those of us who are pro-life to speak up and engage our peers. It can be so difficult to do sometimes, but it is so, SO necessary!
Thursday, 4 April 2013
Failed Abortions and the Washington Post Commentaters
I just came across this article from the Washington Post, about the appalling youtube video where a Planned Parenthood representative claims that any decisions regarding care towards an infant born alive after a failed abortion should be up to the medical practitioner, the mother, and her family. In other words, abortionists should not be required to provide basic or lifesaving care for an infant born alive after an abortion attempt.
Chilling.
But what I really wanted to point out was the reaction this article received in the comments section. Beyond the usual "Republicans only care about your right to life from conception to birth!!!" vitriol (I find it odd that no one seems to recognize the ridiculousness of these rants considering this issue in question deals with a baby after birth), a lot of people are expressing disbelief that such a situation could ever happen at all. For instance, OldUncleTom writes:
"I would be very surprised to see any legitimate case of an infant born alive not receiving care. This line of questioning sounded very hypothetical, and agenda-driven."
AnnabelleLee16615 says:
"There was no proof of this [infants born alive and left to die] occurring, no examples provided, this was an agenda driven attack by a group of Republicans looking to earn points for denying women health services."
and
"When and where are these live births occurring after botched abortions? Most states don't allow abortions after 24 weeks. Babies born at less than 24 weeks of gestation tend not survive. This seems like a disingenous line of questioning designed to inflame the base, not address a real concern."
Curwood writes:
"One might question 'botched abortions" ...and if here are actual proof of babies being born ... that far along developmentally... and who would pay for the 100 of thousands it takes to keep any preemie alive."
These people seem to be forgetting Kermit Gosnell, who is facing the death penalty for allegedly "deliver[ing] live babies and then deliberately sever[ing] their spinal cords, killing them." (from the Toronto Star).
I really do wonder where people get their information regarding late term abortion practices. And I wonder how these people can live with themselves, for instance: "who would pay for the 100 of thousands it takes to keep any preemie alive" as a reason in support of dismissing this rare (but not unheard of) event.
Never mind that I like to think the "100 of thousands" of dollars it took to keep me alive after I was born premature were worth it ... tell me to my face that I should have been left to die because keeping me alive is too expensive.
Seriously, abortion advocates, if even only one baby who is born (and is therefore considered a live human being by the law) is left to die or is deliberately killed by a doctor, then it is an outrage and even if you support abortion up to birth, YOU SHOULD BE PROTESTING AGAINST THIS PRACTICE.
Chilling.
But what I really wanted to point out was the reaction this article received in the comments section. Beyond the usual "Republicans only care about your right to life from conception to birth!!!" vitriol (I find it odd that no one seems to recognize the ridiculousness of these rants considering this issue in question deals with a baby after birth), a lot of people are expressing disbelief that such a situation could ever happen at all. For instance, OldUncleTom writes:
"I would be very surprised to see any legitimate case of an infant born alive not receiving care. This line of questioning sounded very hypothetical, and agenda-driven."
AnnabelleLee16615 says:
"There was no proof of this [infants born alive and left to die] occurring, no examples provided, this was an agenda driven attack by a group of Republicans looking to earn points for denying women health services."
and
"When and where are these live births occurring after botched abortions? Most states don't allow abortions after 24 weeks. Babies born at less than 24 weeks of gestation tend not survive. This seems like a disingenous line of questioning designed to inflame the base, not address a real concern."
Curwood writes:
"One might question 'botched abortions" ...and if here are actual proof of babies being born ... that far along developmentally... and who would pay for the 100 of thousands it takes to keep any preemie alive."
These people seem to be forgetting Kermit Gosnell, who is facing the death penalty for allegedly "deliver[ing] live babies and then deliberately sever[ing] their spinal cords, killing them." (from the Toronto Star).
I really do wonder where people get their information regarding late term abortion practices. And I wonder how these people can live with themselves, for instance: "who would pay for the 100 of thousands it takes to keep any preemie alive" as a reason in support of dismissing this rare (but not unheard of) event.
Never mind that I like to think the "100 of thousands" of dollars it took to keep me alive after I was born premature were worth it ... tell me to my face that I should have been left to die because keeping me alive is too expensive.
Seriously, abortion advocates, if even only one baby who is born (and is therefore considered a live human being by the law) is left to die or is deliberately killed by a doctor, then it is an outrage and even if you support abortion up to birth, YOU SHOULD BE PROTESTING AGAINST THIS PRACTICE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)