90% of Children with Down Syndrome are Aborted

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
841

Pro-Life Protestors Interrupt Sebelius’ Georgetown Address
by Steven Ertelt 5/18/12

As promised, pro-life advocates interrupted the speech pro-abortion HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius gave at Georgetown University today. The speech has drawn condemnation from the Archdiocese of Washington, which has complained that the Catholic university should not be giving a platform to the abortion advocate.

More than 30,000 people have signed petitions complaining to Georgetown about allowing Sebelius to give a commencement speech.

The protesters were about two dozen people from the Society for Truth and Justice organization spearheaded by activist Randall Terry.

Father Frank Pavone, director of Priests for Life, criticized Georgetown for allowing Sebelius to speak there.

“It was outrageous when Notre Dame University awarded an honorary degree to President Obama during commencement exercises in 2009,” said Father Pavone, who was invited by pro-life students to lead an alternative graduation ceremony at the Indiana university. “Georgetown’s decision to invite Secretary Sebelius is just as bad. She is leading the assault on religious freedom that has grave implications for the Catholic Church. By inviting her to speak, Georgetown offers the image of a Church that is, at best divided and at worst hypocritical. What we need instead is a show of unity and resolve.”

Priests for Life in February filed the fourth of what are now 11 lawsuits against the Health and Human Services mandate that would require most faith-based employers to provide their employees with insurance coverage for contraception, sterilization services and abortifacient drugs.

Father Pavone stated, “Not only do we urge the bishops to voice their objections regarding the Sebelius invitation just as they did over Notre Dame’s invitation of Obama, but we further urge the bishops to join in the legal action that we and others have taken against Sebelius and the HHS.”

842

Special Needs and Marriage
by Joe and Cindi Ferrini

God gives us a biblical perspective for building oneness in marriage: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24, NIV). God’s original design was for oneness - leaving parents, uniting with our spouse and becoming one.

Achieving that oneness takes place when we are in agreement with God’s design for marriage. It’s the leaving of our childhood families to start our own and to be “one” in doing so â?? one in our thinking, one in communicating, one in our dreaming and one in sexual intimacy.

But while God’s blueprint, His plan, is contained in that verse, the realities of life often cause us to lose sight of that plan. Most couples start off marriage thinking that their time is their own, that there will be time to think and dream together, and that they’ll enjoy the “better, richer and in health” parts of the vows they took. The “worse, poorer and sickness” parts don’t enter most pre-marriage thoughts, or, if they do, they’re dismissed as something that will happen to someone else.

But somewhere along the way, expectations collide with real life and our hopes and dreams give way to hindrances and obstacles that begin to make marriage hard.

Hindrances can be anything from the differences in our individual personalities to our particular needs and wants to general differences that simply get in the way of things running smoothly. Hindrances are things we figured we’d deal with, but weren’t sure to what degree. Obstacles, meanwhile, are those things we weren’t prepared for. For Joe and me, our obstacle was the drastic change to our lives when we started trying to build oneness in marriage while dealing with the stress of caring for someone with special needs. Needless to say, it’s a major obstacle facing many marriages.

Perhaps we never thought it could happen to us. But it did, and we are now among those who deal with the daily stress of caring for those with special needs, finding ourselves disappointed and discouraged, and experiencing the death of a vision we once had.

We have learned that a strong marriage is essential. Without it, caring for someone with special needs is that much more difficult and challenging. Combine high frustration levels with tumultuous emotions, medical concerns, behavior problems, housing considerations and family and other relationship issues, it appears to be a job with no end.

In the articles that follow, we will address building oneness in marriage while caring for someone with special needs. We’ll discuss about managing the daily stress that comes with providing 24/7 care. And we will present ideas for building oneness, including how to deal with communication, conflict, creative dating, romance, intimacy and the importance of leaving a godly legacy like any other marriage. There is nothing like a crisis in marriage to help us determine our true priorities.
Copyright © 2010, Joe and Cindi Ferrini. All rights reserved.

http://www.focusonthefamily.com/marriage/marriage_challenges/special-needs-and-marriage.aspx

843

Quite amazing, the logic of those people who are pro-death. Read for yourselves if you want to see greater examples of willful ignorance.

Abortionist: banning aborting pain-capable babies would make people â??conflate murder and abortionâ??
by Kathleen Gilbert Mon May 21, 2012

WASHINGTON, May 21, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) - Banning abortion on children old enough to feel pain would make people feel more morally justified in opposing abortion as â??murder,â?? and would therefore create negative feelings toward late-term abortionists, said one D.C. abortionist on Monday.

Washington-based abortionist Willie Parkerr told The Washington Postâ??s Sarah Kliff that a Congressional measure banning abortion on children older than 20 weeks in the District of Columbia would jeopardize late-term abortionists and stigmatize them as â??callous.â??

â??These laws put providers in a position where they have to turn away patients who have great need. I also think they create this impression that abortion providers are callous and allow people to conflate murder and abortion,â?? Parker said.

â??People feel morally justified to say â??this is wrongâ?? because theyâ??re led to think itâ??s close to murder. I think that jeopardizes us, by conflating abortion with an issue that would cause moral outrage.â??

Congress is currently debating tighter restrictions on the nationâ??s capital. The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday held a hearing on H.R. 3803, the District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act introduced by Rep. Trent Franks, R-AZ. Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress sets policy in the city.

The bill would follow seven U.S. states in challenging the boundaries set by the U.S. Supreme Court by Roe v. Wade, which declared a constitutional right to abortion at any point before the child is viable outside the womb, a threshold usually placed at 22-24 weeks.

Parker said such a measure â??vilifies the women who might need an abortion the most.â??

Parker said he was inspired to begin performing abortions when he â??thought a lot about what Dr. [Martin Luther] King has said about having concern for other people,â?? and downplayed concerns about the risk to his own safety from the pro-life movement. â??I was more concerned about what might happen to them than what might happen to me. And I feel like thatâ??s an appropriate value system to operate around,â?? he said.

My interpretation - By passing laws that stop abortions, people will then see the unborn baby as alive. Because. well, they are alive.

844

Video: I had an abortion in 1979 and I still remember my babyâ??s â??birthdayâ??
by Kathleen Gilbert Tue May 22, 2012

PLEASANT HILL, Tennessee, May 22, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A Tennessee woman who had an abortion in 1979 says she still mourns each anniversary of the procedure - as well as the birthday that might have been - and notes how little information was given her about the biological facts of her baby’s development.

Debbie Hensley, 57, shared her story in a video as part of a series by The Tennessean on women who have faced abortion.

Hensley says she “felt like I had no choice” but abortion when, with a son only two years old, she found herself pregnant fresh out of a divorce.

“I was very uneducated. I thought there was no life before a certain time. I had no idea that at 12 weeks when I aborted my baby, the baby was developed and had feeling and had a heartbeat,” she said. "I just didn’t have any idea. We didn’t have any education back then. It was just like, ‘do it, get out and that’s it.’

“And I didn’t deal with it for a long time.”

Hensley said that she believes women often take “years to deal with the abortion” and the emotional fallout, which she says began to influence her life without her even knowing the cause.

After she was remarried and began raising a family with her new husband, said Hensley, “I began to be really depressed. I began to be really ugly to my children. I didn’t know what was wrong.” She says that she finally attended a post-abortion healing weekend at her local pregnancy center that “changed her life.”

“You’ll always remember the anniversary of the abortion. You’ll remember the anniversary of what their birthday would have been,” said Hensley. "I still cry. I still have emotions, but it’s okay.

“It still hurts, but it don’t hurt like it did then.”

Another video in the series tells the story of a Nashville woman, whose face is hidden from the camera, who says she does not regret the abortion she chose in 2007 after facing what seemed like insurmountable pressures, both from a high-risk pregnancy and her financial situation.

When she learned she was pregnant, said Lisa, “Tears just started flowing down my face [at] the thought of going through such a bad pregnancy and the thought of bringing a child into this world I could not afford.”

She said her husband wanted to keep the baby, but ultimately agreed to her decision. Today, she says she takes comfort in the idea that “God forgives.”

“God forgives. He forgives over and over again. I had to pray about it. And I had to move on,” she said. “I think God forgives and I will be fine.”

845

President Obama: The best thing to happen to the pro-life movement in years?
by Susan Michelle Wed May 23, 2012

May 23, 2012 (Bound4Life.com) - As election talk increases and pro-lifers debate their best strategies, an article this weekend reminds me of an assertion that many may see as controversial but which I think we can reasonably conclude: The election of president Obama was the best thing for the pro-life movement in years.

Before you stone me for defending the most pro-abortion president United States history, consider the complacency that prevailed when we had political leaders who were seemingly more pro-life. It was easier to sit back and just say â??abortion is bad. Donâ??t have one.â?? But we went on about our days. Little vision drove us; little reality sunk in.

When the 2008 elections rolled around and we were faced with President Obama, pro-lifers began to examine his voting records and views on abortion. His alignment with Planned Parenthood was alarming. And his prompt appointments of pro-abortion judges on the Supreme Court told us that we were looking at a lifetime of his legacy. We got scared.

Many positive things happened. Pro-lifers got loud, politicians ran on pro-life platforms in the mid-term elections. And the face of abortion in the nation, while sharply divided, also began to change for the positive.

The Tennessean reports:

In 2011, states passed a record number of abortion restrictions, with 92 new laws taking effect in 24 states.

Momentum has continued in 2012 in what has become a two-year major overhaul in many of the statesâ?? abortion laws.

The laws range from imposing new penalties on doctors to requiring women to undergo more medical procedures, but they all serve to make it more difficult for a woman to legally end a pregnancy.

Of course thereâ??s no scientific correlation between Obamaâ??s election and an overhaul of abortion laws. We, theoretically, could have seen the same thing if McCain had been elected, but even pro-abortion experts agree, itâ??s a backlash from Obamaâ??s election:

Both sides in the abortion debate say the flurry of lawmaking is a legacy of the 2010 elections, which ushered conservative lawmakers and governors into office around the country. Nineteen statehouses changed from Democratic majorities to more conservative Republican majorities, and others, already Republican, saw more Republicans elected on socially conservative platforms.

â??This year, weâ??re seeing more action than what youâ??d expect for an election year,â?? said Elizabeth Nash, the Washington, D.C.-based state issues manager at Guttmacher Institute, which tracks abortion and reproductive health policy.

â??Weâ??re still seeing effects of the election of 2010, when very conservative legislatures and governors were elected, and they are continuing on a path of social issues, and that strategy includes abortion,â?? Nash said.

A simple law of physics says that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. What happened in the United States is that pro-lifers were shaken awake by the election of a man who advocated abortion with few restrictions, who walked into the Oval Office and started signing documents to increase abortion funding (reversing the Mexico City Policy, for example, in his first week in office) and who then pushed through a health care plan that would expand abortion more than any other time in US history, and includes an abortion â??premiumâ?? all Americans must pay.

And pro-lifers said â??No more!â?? And we roused a bit from our slumber and peeked out from under our rock.

A bit.

Part of me wonders what would happen if we elected a relatively pro-life president again. The fact is, while the president is vitally important because of the Supreme Court appointments he makes which last a lifetime, there is much more that needs to happen than blaming all our woes on one leader.

We have focused on â??getting that man outâ?? because of his abortion stance. But what we should be doing is focusing on getting light in. Of course we advocate voting for people who support LIFE, but we have to do more than leave our nation to a lone politician. The best thing that ever happened to the pro-life movement in recent history was the election of President Obama because it roused us a bit. We need to take this momentum and use it to thrust us forward even more, no matter who is in the White House or how pro-life our state may seem. We need to consider that our slumber is partially responsible for the death of babies and rise up.

The article this weekend is an encouraging reminder of what a unified people can do for a purpose. No election on earth should be determining our unification or lack of it. Only our heavenly election should determine anything, and in that comes a call to stop the shedding of innocent blood. So letâ??s be encouraged by this article and the many new pro-life laws, but letâ??s not be complacent no matter what happens. The nation isnâ??t governed from Washington DC, but from the throne room of Heaven (Psalm 2).

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/president-obama-the-best-thing-to-happen-to-the-pro-life-movement-in-years

846


Mum beats lung tumour after refusing to sacrifice her baby to save her own life
by Peter Saunders Wed May 23, 2012

There was an inspiring story in the Daily Mail recently about a 21 year old mother who beat cancer after refusing to sacrifice her unborn child.

Daniella Jackson was diagnosed with a tumour in her left lung shortly before discovering she was pregnant and refused doctorsâ?? advice to abort her child so they could operate on her.

After a difficult pregnancy she gave birth to healthy girl and then had an operation to remove the tumour along with half her lung. According to the Metro report, the tumour was a carcinoid, a slow-growing tumour with a good outcome relative to other lung tumours.

Carcinoid lung tumors generally have a better outlook than other forms of lung cancer. Persons with carcinoid lung tumors have an overall 5-year survival rate of 78%-95% and a 10-year survival rate of 77%-90%.

A year on, she is the proud mother of Rennae â?? her second child â?? and has been told that she is free of disease.

A devout Roman Catholic, Miss Jackson has said that aborting her child was never an option because of her strong faith: â??I was always determined to have my baby. I felt such a close bond with her, I couldnâ??t let her go.â??

Abortion to save the life of the mother makes up a miniscule fraction of the 200,000 abortions carried out in the UK each year.

In the UK it was reported in 1992 that in the first 25 years of the operation of the Abortion Act 1967 only 0.013% of all abortions were performed â??to save the life of the motherâ?? and it is even questionable whether many of these required such radical action. The 2009 Abortion Statistics for England and Wales do not record any on these grounds.

Usually when the motherâ??s life is at risk from an ongoing pregnancy, the baby is at a viable age and so can be saved simply by bringing forward the time of delivery. However on very rare occasions doctors may say it is necessary to terminate an early mid-trimester pregnancy (13-22 weeks) in an emergency in order to save the life of the mother.

But it is so rare that many obstetricians will not see a case personally in a lifetime of practice.

Even Alan Guttmacher, former President of the pro-abortion US Planned Parenthood Federation said as long ago as 1967:

â??Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save lifeâ??.

In fact, women with cancer will often forgo chemotherapy, and in this case surgery, for the sake of the baby.

Daniella did not know whether she would survive from her illness, but such was her love for her baby that she was willing to take the risk and if necessary lay down her life for her. Now she has the joy of caring for and treasuring her daughter and seeing her grow up. One day maybe, at the other end of life, it will be Rennae caring for Daniella.

I wish Daniella and Rennae all the best in their life together and pray that the strong faith in God and self-giving love that has led both to Rennaeâ??s birth and Daniellaâ??s survival will continue to grow.

Reading their story has encouraged me and I hope that by sharing it this testimony will be equally an encouragement to others to rejoice at how precious human life is and to thank God for his faithfulness and self-giving love in sending Jesus to lay down his life for us because he couldnâ??t let us go.

Jesus said, â??Greater love has no one than this: to lay down oneâ??s life for oneâ??s friendsâ??. And he demonstrated that love by going to the cross to pay the price for our sins, so that he could share not just this life, but all eternity with us. He loved us that much.

You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)

from Peter Saunderâ??s blog.

847

“The gestational age of the child or time of the abortion is rather irrelevant, they have done something heinous. However I will never be their Judge.”

This deserves one of those Pushharder gold bars me thinks

848


Abortion debate jeopardizes 900-year-old Liechtenstein dynasty
by Peter Baklinski Wed May 23, 2012

LIECHTENSTEIN, May 23, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Hereditary Prince Alois of Liechtenstein has threatened to step down from his royal duties if a citizen-led initiative to limit his vetoing power proves successful. The citizens’ initiative gained momentum last year when the 43 year-old prince threatened to veto the results of a referendum should the majority opt to legalize abortion in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy and in cases of fetal deformity.

Speaking to parliament in March, the prince, a devout Catholic and father of four, made it clear that for the Royal Family to continue its vision for the country, it must retain the royal power to veto legislation contrary to that vision.

“The royal family is not willing to undertake its political responsibilities unless the prince -has the necessary tools at his disposal,” said Prince Alois as reported by Agence France-Presse. “But if the people are no longer open to that, then the royal family will not want to undertake its political responsibilities and … will completely withdraw from political life.”

Liechtenstein, with a population of 36,000 and a land area of 160 square kilometers, has a constitution that empowers the hereditary prince with the royal right of veto. The royal family and their princes have ruled the tiny country as an autonomous monarchy since the Holy Roman Empire was dissolved in 1806.

Abortion in Liechtenstein is illegal under current law. According to the Penal Code of 1987, whoever performs an abortion can be punished with up to one year in prison. If an abortion is performed for profit, the sentence is elevated to three years in prison. Abortions are permitted, however, when deemed necessary to prevent serious danger to the life of the pregnant woman or serious harm to her health, when the pregnant woman is under the age of fourteen and has not at any time been married to the man who impregnated her, or when performed to save the pregnant woman from immediate danger to her life that cannot otherwise be prevented.

Spokeswoman for Prince Alois, Silvia Hassler-De Vos told the Associated Press last year that the prince’s vow to veto the September 2011 abortion bill should its support reach a majority in the referendum was his way of sending a “clear signal that abortion isn’t an acceptable solution for an unwanted pregnancy.”

The abortion bill, which had previously been voted down by the nation’s parliament in a 25-7 vote earlier last year, failed in the referendum, with 52% of the vote affirming article 27 of the nation’s constitution which states that “everyone has the right to life.”

“I am proud of our Prince of course!” said Dr. Josef Seifert, Professor of Philosophy at the International Academy for Philosophy in Liechtenstein to LifeSiteNews when asked to comment on the prince’s refusal to compromise with abortion.

The prince’s pro-life position runs contrary to a socially liberal trend in Liechtenstein that recently led to the creation of same-sex civil unions, a measure that was approved by referendum despite the fact that as much as 80% of the country identifies itself as Catholic.

In the aftermath of the abortion referendum’s failure, political activists formed a citizens’ committee to revoke the prince’s right of veto. Under the Liechtenstein constitution, the committee had to gather 1,500 signatures by the middle of May to call a referendum.

Sigvard Wohlwend, a spokesperson for the citizens’ committee, told LifeSiteNews that 1732 signatures were submitted to Parliament on May 10. Wohlwend said that Parliament will debate the initiative today and suspects that a popular vote on a newly proposed bill to limit the prince’s power will happen in the near future.

“As we understand, the government will set the date for July 1, 2012,” he said.

Wohlwend clarified that the citizens’ initiative “does not strive to abolish the princely right to veto bills. But it wants to restrain it, so in future the Prince shall not have the power to veto bills passed by the Liechtenstein electorate.”

“He will keep his veto right against bills passed by the parliament. So the princely veto right will remain as it has been in 98%+ of the cases,” he said.

While the catalyst for the citizens’ initiative was the prince’s announcement to veto abortion legislation, Wohlwend emphasized that “this initiative to restrain the princely veto right is not a question of pro or contra abortion: It is only a matter of how much power the Prince of Liechtenstein shall have in future.”

Despite the optimism of the citizens’ group, even if the proposed referendum this summer proves successful, the prince of Liechtenstein nonetheless retains the power to veto it. Analysts suspect however that it is more likely that the prince would resign his duties and retire from politics, according to Agence France-Presse.

Prince Alois refrained from granting an interview with LifeSiteNews, saying through his spokesperson that the “interview topic concerns mainly issues of domestic policy” that he did not wish to divulge to “foreign media.”

Francis Phillips of the U.K.'s Catholic Herald commented that Prince Alois is a role model for political leaders since he does not let politics trump his own faith convictions.

â??Prince Alois, as a practising Catholic - and unlike some American high-profile, supposedly Catholic politicians who I have blogged about recently - does not believe he can separate his faith from his public duties over a matter of such fundamental importance,â?? wrote Phillips.

“I think he is right. He is exercising his right of veto, not because of a personal whim but to uphold natural justice against the threat of an unjust law.”

“As the custodian of justice towards unborn future citizens of Liechtenstein, he is acting more responsibly than the activists,” she said.

849

Kneedragger gets my salute for his passion for life. You touch my heart sir,

850

Thanks Trib thumb up The use of argumentum ad hominem is the best from people like mak who say they refuse to even discuss the topic with me because I quote on the top. The best part, he can’t even prove that by quoting on top and after multiple posters join the thread, you would still be able to discern who said what. In all honesty, I believe it was you who was the first one who was using the quote method and I rode your coat tail and joined the fad, if you could call it that ; ) Yet I give you credit!

The best part - I have yet, IRL or here to have a single person prove to me that the unborn in fact are not alive and in a different environment. Then most people try to tell me their rights supersede over the life they knowingly created!

Trib, I am sorry. I am starting to use this post as a jumping board for my points. My apologies, I have this WHOLE flipping thread! :o ]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Kneedragger gets my salute for his passion for life. You touch my heart sir,[/quote]

851


This man needs a shot in the nuts before his testicles are removed without the use of an analgesic. Now that is just my opinion.

House Republican proposes measure to protect Planned Parenthood funding
by Christine Dhanagom Thu May 24, 2012

WASHINGTON, D.C., May 24, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) - House Republican Bob Dold is attempting to legislatively enshrine Planned Parenthood’s federal funding with an amendment introduced this month that would prohibit the government from denying Title X funds to an organization on the basis that it provides abortions.

The Illinois congressman was flanked by representatives from Planned Parenthood and the Republican Majority for Choice at a recent press conference announcing the introduction of HR 5650, the “Protecting Women’s Access to Health Care Act.” *bill is at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.5650: *

The proposed bill claims that it merely “clarifies and reaffirms existing federal law,” which, it purports, already prohibits “discrimination” against abortion-providing organization in the distribution of Title X funds.

Dold said his bill is “critical,” because it “ensures nondiscrimination within the federal Title X family planning program.”

“We should not discriminate against hospitals and organizations that provide access to basic, preventative, and in some cases life-saving services for so many underprivileged women through Title X,” he said.

Paul Linton, Special Counsel with the Illinois-based Thomas More Society and a resident of Congressman Dold’s district, pointed out that the law would “seem unnecessary” if its claim to be merely re-affirming existing law is to be believed.

However, Linton told LifeSiteNews.com, the law actually appears to be going one step further than current federal law by preventing any future president from adopting regulations such as those that existed under the first Bush administration to ensure that Title X funds do not “directly or indirectly underwrite abortion services.”

“The regulations made requirements about having separate physical facilities, separate bookkeeping and other requirements, to separate the abortion related functions of a grantee and the grantee’s Title X project,” Linton commented. “[The law] arguably would prevent any subsequent administration from adopting those same regulations that the Supreme Court upheld.”

The Title X Family Planning Program, established in 1970 to provide grants for “family planning” programs, funnels about a quarter of its annual funds to Planned Parenthood, often through programs administered by state and local governments.

While Planned Parenthood says that none of the money goes towards abortion services, pro-life advocates point out that government funding frees up other financial resources, indirectly bolstering the organization’s booming abortion business.

Despite the bill’s claim that current law prohibits “discriminating” against abortion providers, Kansas and North Carolina have passed laws prohibiting the allocation of Title X funds to Planned Parenthood. Other states have cut off Planned Parenthood funds that were being drawn from other government programs. Many of those laws have been challenged in court.

The legislation would also present an obstacle to any attempt on the federal level to cut off Planned Parenthood’s Title X funding, such as Rep. Mike Pence’s amendment, which passed the House last February but was killed in the Senate. Dold was one of only seven House Republicans to vote against it.

While Dold’s bill has outraged pro-life Republicans, it has done nothing to endear him to abortion supporters, some of whom dismiss his bill as political posturing.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky, a Democrat, told The Hill newspaper that the proposal was an opportunistic attempt on Dold’s part to “parade as a moderate.”

“I think it’s really important to understand that Bob Dold understands that if he is reelected, there is absolutely no chance - none, zero - that this legislation would go anywhere,” she said.

Dold’s current legislation is unlikely to pass in the Republican-controlled House. KD79 has very much hope this is true!

852

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Thanks Trib thumb up The use of argumentum ad hominem is the best from people like mak who say they refuse to even discuss the topic with me because I quote on the top. The best part, he can’t even prove that by quoting on top and after multiple posters join the thread, you would still be able to discern who said what. In all honesty, I believe it was you who was the first one who was using the quote method and I rode your coat tail and joined the fad, if you could call it that ; ) Yet I give you credit!

The best part - I have yet, IRL or here to have a single person prove to me that the unborn in fact are not alive and in a different environment. Then most people try to tell me their rights supersede over the life they knowingly created!

Trib, I am sorry. I am starting to use this post as a jumping board for my points. My apologies, I have this WHOLE flipping thread! :o ]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Kneedragger gets my salute for his passion for life. You touch my heart sir,[/quote]
[/quote]This is your thread and even it were mine you have nothing to apologize for. This world loves death my friend. It pursues and celebrates it. It devises evermore enthusiastic techniques for denigrating God’s beautiful gifts by promoting perversion and promiscuity and then exterminates the life those gifts were designed to produce. It is exactly what the Word of God describes as slavery to sin and death. In the name of liberty of all things this sickness is proclaimed. How the enemy of our souls does laugh.

853

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Kneedragger gets my salute for his passion for life. You touch my heart sir,[/quote]

Big AMEN!

854

I was apologizing that rather than having a conversation, I was talking about ending abortion. The points in the rest of my post will be limited because of my knowledge and understanding of the English language, but especially because of my head injury. Your comment of “This world loves death my friend” is accurate beyond what most can say, but I should add something. The world very well loves death yet they cannot even understand death and that scares most people. In fact I only know a few people who accept the role death plays in the human cycle while in this world.

My intent here and as I protest in front of PP [Planned Parenthood] and everywhere I go is to stop the ignorance of abortion, in other words crush the head of the serpent. I believe my wife sometimes wishes I would stop for a short while, but the only time will happen is after the repeal of Roe v Wade. Honestly she supports me in everything I do, she is incredible :o ] Repealing R v W is something Dr. Ron Paul has said he would do and NO one else has been adamant in that stance. People will claim that Romney would do the same thing, yet that is never been a claim that Romney has actually said himself. That is one large reason of why I support Paul. His libertarian views are synonymous with mine. That is NOT something that cannot be said with Romney. Romney is for the idea of fighting the rest of the world and funding the war machine of this country. Posters like Zeb, whom I have no problem with, they believe something so adamantly they will not even believe they could be wrong. The same blind trust in Romney is scarily similar to people who support abortion. Now, that is just my interpretation of those who believe such as they do. If I can be shown to be wrong, through simple means, then I will admit to being wrong and my stance will change.

I whole heartily believe repealing R v W and stopping abortion will happen through discussion and be living a Christian life, in other words by living through example. I have been in the shoes of why some people justify the murder of the unborn. I honestly understand their ignorance of their position. However you can never convince me - those the people who knowingly created that life, or even rape victims - they have more intelligence and KNOW their choice supersedes the choice of the unborn. How again does perpetuating violence disrupt the original act of violence? Never have I even heard stories of a counterpoint to that evidene. Many people give a certain date as to when abortion should no longer be an option. There are two problems with these people - One) they will never do anything to actually stop the abortions they don’t support because that would actually involve effort. Second) even they cannot clearly define the events that christen the supposed right to choose.

My position of life can be summed up in five simple words, [I like simple be the way, just like I support Ron Paul because his position can be supported simply, with plain English] life has to be respected FROM CREATION UNTIL NATURAL DEATH.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote: This is your thread and even it were mine you have nothing to apologize for. This world loves death my friend. It pursues and celebrates it. It devises evermore enthusiastic techniques for denigrating God’s beautiful gifts by promoting perversion and promiscuity and then exterminates the life those gifts were designed to produce. It is exactly what the Word of God describes as slavery to sin and death. In the name of liberty of all things this sickness is proclaimed. How the enemy of our souls does laugh.
[/quote]

855

Thanks Cortes ; )

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Big AMEN![/quote]

856


I am unclear as to why the Catholic Church does not take more of a stand, especially against abortion. Now that is just the view of this gimp.

Pro-life activists prohibited from collecting signatures outside FÃ?tima shrine
by Peter Baklinski Thu May 24, 2012

FATIMA, Portugal, May 24, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Portugal Pro-lifers say they were bewildered on May 12 as they were expelled from the exterior area of the famous Marian shrine in Fatima by shrine personnel and were prohibited from collecting signatures to promote a national pro-life referendum.

“We were not collecting signatures in the church buildings or in the open areas around,” said LuÃ?as Botelho of Portugal pro Vida to LifeSiteNews. “Under Portuguese law, everybody can collect signatures for petitions in any place, public or private property, as long as it is ‘public circulation area.’”

“We were positioned just outside the main access gates to the shrine. Two of our teams were expelled from the area outside the shrine.”

Botelho, the leader of Portugal pro Vida, the country’s only pro-life party, described the situation as “a scandal” and “absurd.” He has resigned from his elected positions on May 13 in outrage over the incident.

“This small episode at the Marian shrine shows the mood of the times in Portugal, with a significant part of the Catholic hierarchy largely failing to support Christian groups carrying out pro-life activities,” said Portugal pro Vida in a statement emailed to LifeSiteNews.

LifeSiteNews contacted the shine Rector, Fr. Carlos Cabecinhas, and local Bishop Antanio Marto for comment but received no response.

Pro-Referendo Vida has been campaigning to collect the necessarily 75,000 signatures if Portugal is to convene a referendum on the humanity of the unborn child. So far they have collected nearly half of what they need.

The referendum would ask the country’s citizens, 85% who identify themselves as Catholic, if they “agree that Portuguese law guarantees the inviolability of human life, from the moment of conception until natural death.”

Abortion on-demand in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy was legalized in the largely Catholic country in April 2007 following a referendum where 59.2% of the voter turnout approved the 'decriminalization of the voluntary interruption of pregnancy." According to the Portuguese Constitution, however, the results were not legally binding since only 43.6% of the registered voters turned out to vote. At that time, Prime Minister Josa Sarates of the governing Socialist Party nevertheless decided to expand abortion in his country.

Pro-life activists from Pro-Referendo Vida who were collecting signatures that day at FÃ?tima told LifeSiteNews how they experienced what they called a “dramatic showing of pro-abortion support or indifference to the pro-life cause” among the pilgrims visiting the world famous shrine where Mary the Mother of God was reported to have appeared to three peasant children in 1917.

During one of the apparitions, one of the seers heard Mary say that “In Portugal, the dogma of the faith will always be preserved.”

The pro-life activists said they heard statements from visitors at the shrine such as “Abortion is each one’s business,” “I’m pro-choice and proud,” and “Do you hear our Bishops condemning abortion? Why should we?”

When Pro-Referendo Vida emailed Fr. Carlos Cabecinhas, the rector of the Marian shrine, to let him know of their intention to gather signatures, he reportedly replied that signature gatherers are “prohibited” at the shrine not only in the “pray areas, but also all the areas under our property, including entrances, car parking areas-”

“Given the general susceptibility for pollution problems - also taking into account the wealth of applications that would arise in the future [should we grant you permission], - we ask for your best comprehension of our position.”

The pro-life activists told LifeSiteNews they thought they were following Fr. Cabecinhas’s directives by staying outside the shrine. Despite the opposition that countered their efforts, the group of 15 volunteers managed to gather 500 signatures in five hours beneath the blazing Portuguese sun.

One signature gatherer, Isabel Alexandre, told LifeSiteNews that there could have been no “greater joy that we could have given to Our Lady than working to prevent the death of many innocent people who are killed by abortion.”

“There could not have been a better day or a better place to raise awareness of the error committed by Portugal when it allowed abortion to be legalized,” she said.

Gualberto Garcia Jones, director of legislative analysis for Personhood USA, told LifeSiteNews that the Magisterium of the Church is “unequivocal” when it comes to granting personhood to babies in the womb. He referred to a passage from the Catechism of the Catholic Church that states, “From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.”

Garcia Jones emphasized that pro-life activists must be “solid on the principle and be bold in our pursuit of it.”

“When the guards at Fatima expel these pro-life missionaries from the shrine, then it is time to hit the entrance, if they are expelled from the entrance then it is time to go to the narrow streets leading to the entrance.”

Garcia Jones said that Catholic laypersons often find it “very difficult” to take a leadership role, but “what is absolutely clear to me is that we cannot wait for leaders to do the right thing, as long as, according to the teachings of the Church, we know what the right thing is.”

“John Paul II was the inspiration for our whole generation of pro-lifers, but leaders like him are rare and most members of the hierarchy don’t want to rock the boat, so our only choices are to leave in disappointment and frustration, or take up our cross and stand up for the Truth, maybe get persecuted, and then open the door for the grace of God to lead a revival through our suffering.”

“We stay faithful and we stay active, we pray for the Church and eventually Catholic leaders will join in the fight.”

In the meantime, as Botelho lamented, “as long as the Portuguese Catholic Church does not stand united in principle and in street-action in favor of the pro-life position, then Catholics in the country will remain confused and divided on the issue, and all our pro-life efforts will be like a voice lost in the wilderness calling out in vain for help.”

Contact information:

Bishop Antanio Augusto dos Santos Marto in the diocese of Leiria-Fatima
E-mail: gabineteBispo@leiria-fatima.pt

Fr. Carlos Cabecinhas, Rector of the Fatima shrine
E-mail: reitoria@fatima.pt

857

Teens having as many as 7 abortions: UK stats
by The Editors Mon May 28, 2012

LONDON, UK, May 28, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - National Health Service (NHS) data for abortions carried out in 2010, the most recent year for which figures are available, have revealed that of the 38,269 teenagers who aborted their children, three had seven previous abortions and two had had six.

According to the statistics, another fourteen teenage girls had their fifth abortion in 2010, 57 teens aborted for the fourth time, 485 for a third time, and more than 5,300 were committed on teenagers who had already had at least one abortion.

In all, repeat abortions accounted for about a third of 189,574 abortions carried out in 2010 for women of all ages.

??There is something seriously wrong with a country where teenagers are having even one abortion, let alone repeat abortions to this extent,? Rebecca Mallinson of the UK?s Pro Life Alliance , told the Telegraph .

?We are failing these young people in an appalling way, and storing up serious sexual health problems for the future, whether the direct issue of sexually transmitted diseases, but also the effects that multiple abortions can have on future fertility.?

?Abortion is a serious procedure, one which all sides of the abortion debate agree should not be undertaken lightly. Yet here we have young women, still not fully mature physiologically and emotionally, undergoing abortions numerous times,? a spokeswoman for the UK?s LIFE charity, a pro-life organization that provides support for mothers, children and young families, told the Telegraph.

LIFE issued a statement warning that the high numbers of repeat abortions are symbolic of a wider problem - that abortion is being used as a publicly funded form of birth control in a society that no longer views the killing of the unborn ?as a last resort in uniquely difficult situations.?

Josephine Quintavalle, founder of Comment on Reproductive Ethics (CORE), a public interest group focusing on ethical dilemmas surrounding human reproduction, said the number of repeat abortions ?is simply extraordinary.?

?Abortion is an unpleasant and harrowing experience for women and to hear it is happening repeatedly makes your hair stand on end.?

The Daily Mail reported that the NHS spends £1million a week on repeat abortions, with some women returning for as many as nine abortions in their lifetime.

?The figures will fuel the debate on whether abortions, which cost the NHS up to £1,000 each, are being sanctioned as more of a lifestyle choice than a medical requirement,? the Mail suggested.

858


^ picture is Fr. Shenan Boquet

Dishonesty of pro-choice movement more obvious to young people than to old media
by Fr. Shenan Boquet Mon May 28, 2012

A newly released Gallup poll shows that only 41% of Americans now identify themselves as â??pro-choice,â?? a record low. A look back at the history of these polls shows at least two things: they are notoriously fickle, often seeming to show a reaction against the party in power; but there is also a general trend in the pro-life direction, which Gallup acknowledges. So, while we in no way base our pro-life convictions on polls, it is encouraging to see this general trend.

And this trend is supported by other objective evidence of a changing of Americaâ??s heart on the issue of abortion. Nancy Keenan, the president of NARAL, is stepping down in the face of the fact that pro-lifers are young, energetic and armed with the truth about the horrors of abortion, while she and her sterile colleagues are, not surprisingly, not appealing to young people with their ever-more-obvious deceptions and thinly veiled contempt for children. That just isnâ??t a winning message long-term.

The radical selfishness and dishonesty of the â??pro-choiceâ?? movement is more obvious to young people than it is to the aging generation of media executives, editors and reporters, who have for decades equated womenâ??s rights with a barbaric practice that leaves women harmed emotionally, and often physically.

More and more doctors are refusing to take part in the destructive and soul-sucking work of abortion, which is forcing the still very powerful, well-funded and politically connected pro-abortion elite to look for ways to keep abortion accessible.

Likewise, the legal battle for the right to life is trending in the pro-life direction, and the â??pro-choiceâ?? abortion lobby is struggling to keep up. More and more abortion clinics are closing as they are held accountable to the same health standards as real healthcare providers, and the cover of darkness that had obscured their disdain for the women they serve is becoming clear.

Abortion never was pro-woman, and more young women realize that now. I expect that the Gallup polls will continue to wax and wane as far as public perceptions, but there is no reversing the pro-life trend, and the pro-life movement that is increasingly led by young women in collaboration with those who always knew the harm caused by abortion.

This trend will not reverse.

Father Shenan J. Boquet is the president of Human Life International (HLI). This article appeared on CNSNews.com

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/dishonesty-of-pro-choice-movement-more-obvious-to-young-people-than-to-old

859

The kids sign should also read:

" Once my parents die, and I am unable to care for myself I will be placed into a group home staffed by people making minimum wage. the same bible spouting jackwagons that promote the sanctity of life are also working diligently to decrease funding for social services and in home care for the developmentally disabled in an effort to have lower taxes."

but since he didn’t write the first part he probably wouldn’t write the 2nd either.

860

Um, no children were harmed by Roe v. Wade.

Fetuses aren’t children.

Lifers are always resorting to appeals to emotion. Characterization of the abortion process as murder, fetuses as children, pretending every abortion is a partial-birth late abortion, it’s fucking stupid.

The pigs that we raise in squalor and kill for food have a SIGNIFICANTLY wider range of emotions, consciousness, and intelligence than any fetus. But no, gotta protect the unborn cell clusters.

The rhetoric is ridiculous.