Tag Archives: Abortion

True Colors

Posted on October 21, 2009 | 1 Comment

The following video is a clip of a debate on abortion at McGill University.  Take special note at what starts to happen at around the 1 minute mark when pro-lifer Jo Ruba gets up to make his opening statement.

Aah, yes.  The new tolerance shows its fangs.

Truly ironic, isn’t it?  For some folks, free speech only applies to those views of which they already approve.

I hope the protesters realize they didn’t do the pro-choice case any favors.  If I was a pro-choicer, I’d be hissing at them to knock it off, because they make the pro-choice side look downright fearful.

Thanks for the reference, Neil!

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , ,

A Darn Good Day

Posted on October 20, 2009 | 1 Comment

The seniors I teach are embarking on their research paper this week.  For many of them, it’s “freak out” time.

It’s an enjoyable time for me, though, for most of the students choose interesting topics, many of which I’m quite familiar with.  Today, a surprising number of girls chose abortion, for instance.  All of them except one were arguing for the pro-life position, and the one girl that wasn’t solidly in that camp was leaning that way.  She was pro-choice with pro-life intuitions (most girls that choose the topic argue the pro-life position, I’ve found).  This is all very encouraging to me, if only from an anecdotal standpoint.

I was able to discuss sources with them and point them towards some excellent pro-life papers and books, all written from a scholarly view.  I also pointed them towards what many consider the most famous pro-choice argument ever made: the “violinist” argument of Judith Jarvis Thompson (after I mentioned the paper, one student even found it in a book she checked out!).  I’ve lost count of the times I’ve ran into that paper ever since my college freshman ethics course.
Why would I point them to that source?  I’m not worried: quite a few of the pro-life sources I pointed them towards do an excellent job of answering Jarvis’ argument.  Besides, why should I fear?  When the truth is put next to the lie, truth wins every time.  In my mind, this experience will do nothing but strengthen their ability to argue and dialogue effectively  in the public square.

Then there was another student–one of the many class clowns in this one particular class.  Good kid…makes class interesting.

I asked him what he was doing his paper on.  “Religion and war,” he said.  “I love arguing those topics…I HATE religion!  Religion has caused so much bloodshed over the years.”

Hmmm..Ok.  Well, I’m kinda glad he chose the topic, because I know a thing or two about it.

Without overwhelming him or outright showing my cards, I brought up the fact that he’d need to even-handedly deal with counter-arguments to his thesis (same point I made to the pro-lifers…that’s why I mentioned the Thompson paper) and I pointed him towards “Christianity’s Real Record,” a paper on the whole “religion and bloodshed” deal by Greg Koukl.  Before that, though, I asked him why he hated religion, and he told me about his experience in private school.  Supposedly, a priest told him he was going to hell.  “Why would that matter?” I asked.  “That’s horrible,” he replied, “don’t impose your beliefs on me.” (the judgment was directed towards the priest, not me.)  Supposedly the priest did just that.

This was curious to me.  I mean, I get the fact that many in our modern society are offended at that.  It’s just, well, why is offense a good reason to reject a religion or claim?  If I have cancer, that fact might horrify and offend me, but that’s not the question I’ll be asking.  The real issue is, “do I have cancer?”  In that respect, the bottom line question the student should ask is, “does hell, completely aside from my feelings in the matter, really exist?”

I hope that question really makes him think twice about putting anything like that in his research paper (using his feelings of offense as a litmus test for truth).  Offense isn’t much to stand on when you are writing what is supposed to be a scholarly paper.

→ 1 Comment

Posted in random

Tagged , , , , , ,

Epic Fail: Planned Parenthood Shows its True Colors…Again

Posted on June 30, 2009 | 7 Comments

Another video of a Planned Parenthood employee covering up allegations of sexual abuse…

Pro-lifer Lila Rose, 20 years old, went to a PP clinic in Alabama, posed as a 14 year old girl who became pregnant by her 31 year old boyfriend.  When Rose asks for an abortion, the PP worker she talks with says she needs parental consent.  Ok, so far so good…that’s a better start than the other clinics that have been caught willing to break the law.

But then Rose balks, saying her parents can’t know.  She reveals the reason: her boyfriend is 31.  Alabama state law requires health care officials to disclose cases of adult-child sex to the proper authorities.  The PP worker assures Rose, “as long as you consented to having sex with him, there’s nothing we can truly do about that.”

PPPPHHTTTT!!!

Wait, it gets better.  Tanisha, the PP worker, then proceeds to tell Rose that the clinic manager, Dr. Desiree Bates, “sometimes bends the rules a little bit…whatever you say stays within these walls…we can’t disclose any information to anybody.”

Epic…Fail.  The law says otherwise.  Ed Morrissey:

In this case, the clinic worker seems more interested in passing the buck to her boss rather than make a decision herself. Unlike other PP workers, Tanisha insists on having parental consent for the abortion — but then Tanisha tries helping what she thinks is a 14-year-old evade that requirement by seeing if she has an older sister who can pose as her mother. She then tells Lila that HIPAA requirements keep them from saying anything about the felonious relationship to anyone else, but that’s clearly not true, and Planned Parenthood knows better.

Dang!   How many times is that now?  It seems like there’s an incidence coming out just about every month now!

Jeez Louise–how stupid can you get?  I mean, forget, just for a moment, the obvious wickedness of failing to protect a child by turning a blind eye to statutory rape.  That’s the biggest issue, but put that to the side for a sec.  Wouldn’t you think, just as a matter of CYA, that PP would smarten up?  No–they get snookered by this gal every…single…time.  LaShawn Barber has blogged on the many other times the same thing has happened in other clinics.

Personally, I don’t mind that PP hasn’t smartened up.  It just gives folks like Rose more opportunity to expose PP’s true colors.  They are more interested in the almighty dollar than they are protecting young girls.  They’ll use the “we’re all about women” line to justify their cause, but actions like this speak louder than words.

Wake up, folks.  This is who many of your tax dollars go to.

I absolutely love PP’s reaction to these undercover vids in the past.   Barber notes,

U.S. News and World Report blogger Bonnie Erbe wants to know why the pro-life crusader hasn’t been arrested for trespassing or fraud, and – get this – Planned Parenthood has posted Lila Rose’s picture so its disgraceful workers will be on the alert.

Barber continues,

#1: On the alert for what? As long as PP reports statutory rapes and stops encouraging teenagers to lie about it, what difference does it make who comes into the mill? Whether a sting operation or the real deal, as long as PP workers do what they’re required to do by law (and common decency, for crying out loud), what’s the problem? Unless they plan on continuing the “you rape ‘em, we muzzle ‘em” policy.

#2 – Instead of posting Lila Rose’s face on the wall, how about posting pics of the women who failed to report the rapes, alerting girls and women seeking “services” to stay clear of workers who’ll not only allow abuse to continue, but advise them to keep their mouths shut, too?

Right on target.

______________________________________________________

Be sure to check out the following related post:

Sober Thoughts on Torture

______________________________________________________

If this post made you think, please consider subscribing to my RSS feed (RSS button at the top right in the sidebar).

Also, check out my other posts on abortion

→ 7 Comments

Posted in politics

Tagged , , ,

Forcing the Ostrich to Take His Head out of the Sand

Posted on June 17, 2009 | 1 Comment

***Warning: by clicking on the link, you will see graphic and disturbing images.***

One of the most common arguments against showing pictures of aborted fetuses is that they are too graphic and tasteless.  They shock and anger people.

When someone says this, I usually ask: who should you be angry at–the person showing you the picture, or the doctor that did that to the child?

I used to be one of those folks that said showing such pictures is inappropriate at best, but years ago I changed my mind.  I simply started to call the culture’s bluff.  Graphic pictures and images have been effectively used for centuries.

I get the line of thinking that points out there is a right and wrong way to do this.  Best to warn beforehand, and one ought not force a person to view images they don’t want to see.  But then again, what if apathy persists in the face of arguments, discussions, and abortion-prevention through care for women?  In the movie Amazing Grace, there are several scenes where apathetic persons are more or less forced to view stunningly graphic images (example: the famous “Madagascar” scene, where Wilberforce, perched atop a former slave ship, interrupts a group eating dinner, telling them to remove their handkerchiefs from their noses and take in the smell of death.) regarding slavery, and those instances strike me as entirely morally right.   When I saw the movie, I thought, “duh…he’s gotta grab them somehow and shake them up…we’re talking about selling human beings as property, and he’s gotta take it to the next level!”  I don’t think I’m alone in that thought.  Why should it be different with abortion?

Also, we need to make sure that we offer the hope of forgiveness and restoration in Christ for those who have had abortions.

Here are some poignant examples of famous pictures.  Not all of these pictures are graphic, but most are, and many of them sparked large revolutions of change in society.  From Lawrence Beitler’s famous photo of a lynching, to the pictures of starvation in Africa, the media sure didn’t balk at using them for their own purposes.  Most of us don’t balk either, simply because we recognize those purposes were good and morally right.  We call them “powerful,” “gut wrenching,”  “thought-provoking,” or “moving.”

We typically don’t express ire at the media outlet that circulates the pictures (Though, in one case, the photographer came under much critique because he spent 20 minutes gathering the photo, rather than helping and comforting the child.)…sometimes, we even assist in the circulating, for good reason.

The public needed be woken up to the wicked evil of racism, for example, and they needed to see just how dire things were (and are!) in parts of Africa.

…And the public needs to face the darkness of a culture that allows men and women to dismember and chemically burn their unborn children, audaciosly labeling it “choice.”

→ 1 Comment

Posted in media discernment, philosophy, politics

Tagged , , ,

It is Still Murder no Matter How Many Times He Calls it Otherwise

Posted on May 15, 2009 | 2 Comments

John Piper issues a strong rebuke to Barack Obama.  It is sad that so many have been charmed by our president’s sweet-sounding rhetoric.

HT: Between Two Worlds

→ 2 Comments

Posted in politics

Tagged , , , ,

Fool of a Took!

Posted on May 5, 2009 | 7 Comments

Pastor praises Obama’s first 100 days, as well as Obama’s supposedly “pro-life” decisions.

GAH!

The self-deception continues.

HT: Between Two Worlds

→ 7 Comments

Posted in politics

Tagged , , , ,

The Emperor has no Clothes…and no Condom

Posted on April 28, 2009 | 3 Comments

…sorry, couldn’t resist.

A common line of thinking that’s all the rage these days is that we can reduce abortions through greater access to contraception.  This has never sat right with me.  The argument looks fair, but smells foul.

oops

oops

Here’s one of the many reasons why.  New York Times columnist William Saletan, himself no frothing-at-the-mouth pro-lifer, recently wrote:

Eight years ago, the Alan Guttmacher Institute surveyed over 10,000 American women who had abortions. Nearly half said they hadn’t used birth control in the month they conceived. When asked why not, 8 percent cited financial problems, and 2 percent said they didn’t know where to get it. By comparison, 28 percent said they had thought they wouldn’t get pregnant, 26 percent said they hadn’t expected to have sex and 23 percent said they had never thought about using birth control, had never gotten around to it or had stopped using it. Ten percent said their partners had objected to it. Three percent said they had thought it would make sex less fun.

In other words, only 10% of the women surveyed didn’t use birth control due to lack of access.  This blows a big hole in the “greater access” argument above.  As Saletan goes on to say, “this isn’t a shortage of pills or condoms. It’s a shortage of cultural and personal responsibility.”

By attacking an irrelevant detail (lack of access to birth control, and, I add, education about why and how to use birth control), we leave the root cause (a “shortage of cultural and personal responsibility”) untouched.  This will make the problem worse…it’s the law of unintended consequences.

Granted, Saletan defines “cultural and personal responsibility” to include use of contraception, and his definition is much different than mine–chastity.

My response to Saletan: starting a fire outside the fire place, even if you use mitts to handle the hot coals, is not responsible…catch my drift?  When we implicitly send the message that one can sever sex from it’s intended purpose–especially with government policy–the consequences will be dire.

By the way, I am not here making the case for abstinence only sex education…that’s a subject for another post.

Despite  the above gem, the rest of his column is confusing.  He offers a “compromise” on abortion that he thinks will help.  One proposal is to legalize same-sex marriage…I’m not clear on how that would help.  Two of his other proposals, strangely, turn on contraception…and this despite what he just said about lack of access.  As Public Discourse writer Michael New notes, true blue pro-lifers won’t find much to like in the column.  However, the above admission is striking.  New quips:

While most pro-lifers will find little to like in his proposals, Saletan does the pro-life movement an extremely valuable service by effectively debunking the notion that better access to contraceptives will significantly lower abortion rates. In so doing, he inadvertently succeeds in making the case that a more chaste culture is the only way for pro-lifers to achieve their long term objective of assuring that every unborn child sees the light of day.  Given all the already existing programs, it is by no means clear that there are policy instruments that could increase contraceptive use among this subset of women.

Right now the pro-life movement is having a crisis of thought.  Because the perception is that pro-life political policies were not working (not true…see here), many, I think, have suffered a loss of hope and have been wooed by a bunch of claptrap.  It’s all the rage these days, but few pause to consider the real consequences.

The woods are a-teeming with contraception fans, but they’re gonna end up burning down the forest.

→ 3 Comments

Posted in politics

Tagged , , ,