Planned Parenthood

[Steverem]

" blood thirstiness"? Talk about incoherent, weird, and remarkable.  Not to mention unfair.
There must be a way to have this discussion on terms that are not totally and completely iand rigidly defined only by those on the so-called "pro life".
But no...

Well, if we want to start redefining the terms, how about losing the "so-called" descriptor and scare quotes when talking about those who seek to protect the lives of the unborn?  If you can see fit to do that, I promise not to refer to you as a "so-called" pastor.

[LutherMan]

States Move to Cut Funds for Planned Parenthood

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/18/us/states-move-to-cut-funds-for-planned-parenthood.html

I just called Gov. Ricketts office in Lincoln NE and urged him to follow suit...

[cssml]

All we ask of you is to consider broadening your sense of social justice to include those with no voice, the unborn.

And I'm asking you to consider broadening your sense of social justice to include the life and health of the mother.

Nice try Brian.  My view of social justice (which is not my own self determined view) most certainly does include the dignity and health of the mother, as well as the child in her womb.  Wanted or unwanted, that person is made in the image and likeness of God, as is the mother.  It also extends to the humanity and dignity of the most hardened criminal.  Death of another human being is a valid solution only when an eminent evil must be stopped by taking the life of an aggressor (stranger enters my house and is about to harm my family, ISIS member is about to behead innocents, ... the just war doctrine)

The infant in the womb poses no threat and is not an aggressor intent on doing us harm.
 

[cssml]

Or, the mental and emotional health when parents know that their baby will live only a few hours after birth. To force all mothers/parents to suffer continued emotional trauma when it could be reduced seems as cruel as letting the Japanese continue to kill hundreds of Americans by sparing the 100,000's citizens in that country.

Try conservative estimates of 1 million Americans killed and woundedin a 1945-46 invasion of Japan. But, whether hundreds or one million, I'm trying to figure out the emotional benefit of having your baby killed now rather than having your baby live, albeit a few hours after birth and how the emotional trauma of the latter is as cruel as the deaths of hundreds or more of American soldiers..   

I cannot speak for anyone who has been in that situation, because I haven't. Have you? What makes you an expert on how a woman's emotional health after being raped or watching her infant die? What right do you have to tell her what she must do?

Nobody has a right to tell anyone what to do with regard to their own emotional health.  We all have a right to have a say in what people do with the physical health of others.  So let's please stop pretending the unborn child here is some non-factor that is irrelevant to the discussion.

Until that unborn child can live separated from its mother, it is not a separate entity. As far as I know, we cannot take an unwanted blastocyst out of the mother and put it into a test tube or even another woman and have it grow into a fetus then a newborn.

Science would disagree.  It is indeed a unique entity, even though it cannot live without the cooperation of the mother.  A born child also cannot live on its own.  We are responsible to care for and nurture that life, in and out of the womb.  The ancients practiced 'exposure' as a method of aborting an unwanted life.  A mother can also drink and do drugs, harming the unique human entity within her.  A father can abuse a pregnant mother, doing harm to the unique living entity within her.

[Matt Hummel]

Charles-

I guess you have a problem with ELCA theologians like Tim Lull, of blessed memory.

When he asked in Systematics where we stood on various issues, and why, he remarked that  in aggregate, our responses were blood thirsty. Both with the issue of abortion, and with "euthanasia."

As part of my Lutheran patrimony, I claim the Heidelberg Disputation, specifically  "A theology of glory calls evil good and good evil. A theology of the cross calls the thing what it actually is."

50+ Million dead.  Pray tell me how to make that warm & cuddly so your delicate sensibilities are not hurt. And I do note your continued use of so-called "pro-life."  I am not going to run to Teacher to complain. I am just going to say  yet again, we have the rough tough Jersey Boy dishing out but not able to take it.

You want respect? You want gentility? Show some.

In the meanwhile, consider William Lloyd Garrison's words on slavery: "I am aware that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or to speak, or write, with moderation. No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; — but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest — I will not equivocate.

Or perhaps Frederick Douglas- "At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed. O! had I the ability, and could reach the nation's ear, I would, to-day, pour out a fiery stream of biting ridicule, blasting reproach, withering sarcasm, and stern rebuke. For it is not light that is needed, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake. The feeling of the nation must be quickened; the conscience of the nation must be roused; the propriety of the nation must be startled; the hypocrisy of the nation must be exposed; and its crimes against God and man must be proclaimed and denounced."

Loudmouth bores, both of them.

[David Garner]

Or, the mental and emotional health when parents know that their baby will live only a few hours after birth. To force all mothers/parents to suffer continued emotional trauma when it could be reduced seems as cruel as letting the Japanese continue to kill hundreds of Americans by sparing the 100,000's citizens in that country.

Try conservative estimates of 1 million Americans killed and woundedin a 1945-46 invasion of Japan. But, whether hundreds or one million, I'm trying to figure out the emotional benefit of having your baby killed now rather than having your baby live, albeit a few hours after birth and how the emotional trauma of the latter is as cruel as the deaths of hundreds or more of American soldiers..   

I cannot speak for anyone who has been in that situation, because I haven't. Have you? What makes you an expert on how a woman's emotional health after being raped or watching her infant die? What right do you have to tell her what she must do?

Nobody has a right to tell anyone what to do with regard to their own emotional health.  We all have a right to have a say in what people do with the physical health of others.  So let's please stop pretending the unborn child here is some non-factor that is irrelevant to the discussion.

Until that unborn child can live separated from its mother, it is not a separate entity. As far as I know, we cannot take an unwanted blastocyst out of the mother and put it into a test tube or even another woman and have it grow into a fetus then a newborn.

So on the table, before the cord is cut, we can do whatever we want?

What about conjoined twins?  Can we kill one of those two?  If so, which one?

Your argument makes no sense at all.  It's arbitrary.  It serves only to allow you to justify killing the unborn.  It makes distinctions without any differences.

[Steven Tibbetts]

All we ask of you is to consider broadening your sense of social justice to include those with no voice, the unborn.

And I'm asking you to consider broadening your sense of social justice to include the life and health of the mother.

Really? you honestly people who believe differently than you don't give a rip about mothers? Really?

Truly, remarkably, incoherently, weird.

Remember, Lou, that when it comes to Planned Parenthood and the abortion license, the established narrative is Truth.  Under no circumstances should what is actually happening with women unprepared for their pregnancies in crisis pregnancy centers or through the efforts of anti-abortion, pro-life organizations be acknowledged.  The Truth is in the narrative. 

To believe what actually happens (in crisis pregnancy centers, or in the tables of ELCA power) -- no matter how often or by whom the accounts are told by participants and first-hand witnesses -- is to be deluded.  Stay with the narrative.  Do not look at the man behind the curtain.

Pax et bonum, Steven+

[Brian Stoffregen]

Or, the mental and emotional health when parents know that their baby will live only a few hours after birth. To force all mothers/parents to suffer continued emotional trauma when it could be reduced seems as cruel as letting the Japanese continue to kill hundreds of Americans by sparing the 100,000's citizens in that country.

Try conservative estimates of 1 million Americans killed and woundedin a 1945-46 invasion of Japan. But, whether hundreds or one million, I'm trying to figure out the emotional benefit of having your baby killed now rather than having your baby live, albeit a few hours after birth and how the emotional trauma of the latter is as cruel as the deaths of hundreds or more of American soldiers..   

I cannot speak for anyone who has been in that situation, because I haven't. Have you? What makes you an expert on how a woman's emotional health after being raped or watching her infant die? What right do you have to tell her what she must do?

Nobody has a right to tell anyone what to do with regard to their own emotional health.  We all have a right to have a say in what people do with the physical health of others.  So let's please stop pretending the unborn child here is some non-factor that is irrelevant to the discussion.

Until that unborn child can live separated from its mother, it is not a separate entity. As far as I know, we cannot take an unwanted blastocyst out of the mother and put it into a test tube or even another woman and have it grow into a fetus then a newborn.

Science would disagree.  It is indeed a unique entity, even though it cannot live without the cooperation of the mother.  A born child also cannot live on its own.  We are responsible to care for and nurture that life, in and out of the womb.  The ancients practiced 'exposure' as a method of aborting an unwanted life.  A mother can also drink and do drugs, harming the unique human entity within her.  A father can abuse a pregnant mother, doing harm to the unique living entity within her.

A born child can be cared for by others. Not so with an non-viable fetus. It may be a unique entity with its own DNA, but it is not a separate entity. What the mother does with her body affects the child within her. It's also true that the child within causes physical and emotional changes to the mother: respiratory system, gastrointestinal system, endocrine system, urinary system, skin, muscles, bones, etc. Her heart rate will increase. Her blood pressure decreases. They kidneys work overtime. There can be a risk of diabetes. Some women are told that a pregnancy is dangerous to their health because their bodies aren't up to the extra stresses a pregnancy puts on them.

It is not just a separate person, it is one that has a profound affect on the mother's body, including her mental and emotional states. In some cases, the fetus does bring harm to the mother.

[Matt Hummel]

Your argument makes no sense at all.  It's arbitrary. It serves only to allow you to justify killing the unborn.  It makes distinctions without any differences.

David-

And there you have it, in a nutshell.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Or, the mental and emotional health when parents know that their baby will live only a few hours after birth. To force all mothers/parents to suffer continued emotional trauma when it could be reduced seems as cruel as letting the Japanese continue to kill hundreds of Americans by sparing the 100,000's citizens in that country.

Try conservative estimates of 1 million Americans killed and woundedin a 1945-46 invasion of Japan. But, whether hundreds or one million, I'm trying to figure out the emotional benefit of having your baby killed now rather than having your baby live, albeit a few hours after birth and how the emotional trauma of the latter is as cruel as the deaths of hundreds or more of American soldiers..   

I cannot speak for anyone who has been in that situation, because I haven't. Have you? What makes you an expert on how a woman's emotional health after being raped or watching her infant die? What right do you have to tell her what she must do?

Nobody has a right to tell anyone what to do with regard to their own emotional health.  We all have a right to have a say in what people do with the physical health of others.  So let's please stop pretending the unborn child here is some non-factor that is irrelevant to the discussion.

Until that unborn child can live separated from its mother, it is not a separate entity. As far as I know, we cannot take an unwanted blastocyst out of the mother and put it into a test tube or even another woman and have it grow into a fetus then a newborn.

So on the table, before the cord is cut, we can do whatever we want?

What about conjoined twins?  Can we kill one of those two?  If so, which one?

Your argument makes no sense at all.  It's arbitrary.  It serves only to allow you to justify killing the unborn.  It makes distinctions without any differences.

Yup, and I bet that you also justify the killing of the unborn, such as to save the life of the mother. So we aren't all that different. It's a bit more tricky when there are six or eight fetuses and the odds are that none will survive to full term; and aborting some will give the others a greater opportunity to live. Is it justifiable to save lives by taking lives?

[Donald_Kirchner]

First, it's not.

Until that unborn child can live separated from its mother, it is not a separate entity. .

Now it is.

It is not just a separate person, it is one that has a profound affect on the mother's body, including her mental and emotional states.

 

[David Garner]

A born child can be cared for by others. Not so with an non-viable fetus. It may be a unique entity with its own DNA, but it is not a separate entity. What the mother does with her body affects the child within her. It's also true that the child within causes physical and emotional changes to the mother: respiratory system, gastrointestinal system, endocrine system, urinary system, skin, muscles, bones, etc. Her heart rate will increase. Her blood pressure decreases. They kidneys work overtime. There can be a risk of diabetes. Some women are told that a pregnancy is dangerous to their health because their bodies aren't up to the extra stresses a pregnancy puts on them.

It is not just a separate person, it is one that has a profound affect on the mother's body, including her mental and emotional states. In some cases, the fetus does bring harm to the mother.

Yup, and I bet that you also justify the killing of the unborn, such as to save the life of the mother. So we aren't all that different. It's a bit more tricky when there are six or eight fetuses and the odds are that none will survive to full term; and aborting some will give the others a greater opportunity to live. Is it justifiable to save lives by taking lives?

Sophistry.  Let's talk about the cases where there is no threat whatsoever to the mother.

Pro abortionists love to talk about the exceptions.  Let's talk about the rule.  You claim it's not a separate entity.  Biologically, you are wrong about that, but you choose to go that route to dehumanize the unborn, just as slavers pretended African Americans were not "people" to justify enslaving them.  Let's talk about that, because it will demonstrate really quickly that you and I are nothing at all alike.  Because in the case where the mother's life is threatened, I will be the first to say we are choosing which human life to end and which to allow a chance to live.  I won't try to pretend we're talking about some sort of tumor or bad tooth by claiming it isn't a "separate entity" (whatever that means, since biologically it objectively is a separate entity).

[cssml]

     :
A born child can be cared for by others. Not so with an non-viable fetus.
     :

Tell that to the doctors who perform surgeries in the womb and go to great lengths to care for and help the *wanted* unborn.  Again, your arguments are silly and incoherent.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/02/09/surgery.spina.bifada/index.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_surgery

[Team Hesse]

Sometimes a person just has to know when it is time to find another professional....


My grandmother was once told by her Doctor that she had a tumor that needed to be removed. She wondered about that, saw another doctor, and a few months later my father was born. When someone is telling you it is just tissue to be excised, it is time to find other voices to listen to.


Lou

[Brian Stoffregen]

First, it's not.

Until that unborn child can live separated from its mother, it is not a separate entity. .

Now it is.

It is not just a separate person, it is one that has a profound affect on the mother's body, including her mental and emotional states.

 

Yup, two separate beings that must be physically attached to each other. We can say that the heart and lungs and stomach and liver are separate entities, but they are all connected to each other. They can't function alone. They need each other.