Would Martin Luther be Pro-Choice?

One of the arguments for pro-choice is the ability to prevent the birth of children that would be drastically malformed. While reading a certain book, I can across this recommendation from Martin Luther,

Eight years ago, there was one in Dessau whom I, Martinus Luther, saw and grappled with. He was twelve years old, had the use of his eyes and all his senses, so that one might think he was a normal child. But he did nothing but gorge himself as much as four peasants or threshers. He ate, defecated, and drooled and, if anyone tackled him, he screamed. If things didn’t go well, he wept. So I said to the Prince of Anhalt: “If I were the Prince, I should take the child to the Moldau River which flows near Dessau and drown him.” But the Prince of Anhalt and the Prince of Saxony, who happened to be present, refused to follow my advice. Thereupon I said; “Well, then the Christians shall order the Lord’s Prayer to be said in church and pray that the dear Lord take the Devil away.” This was done daily in Dessau and the changeling died in the following year.

We know better than to assume that a malformed child is inhabited by the devil — most of us do, anyway — but what do we make of the moral character of this man Luther?

The Mainstream Media didn’t report this about the President? Sickening #prolife

On October 3, researchers at the Washington University School of Medicine published a study with profound implications for policy making in the United States. According to Dr. Jeffery Peipert, the study’s lead author, abortion rates can be expected to decline significantly—perhaps up to 75 percent—when contraceptives are made available to women free of charge. Declaring himself “very surprised” at the results, Peipert requested expedient publication of the study, noting its relevance to the upcoming election.

via Barack Obama, Pro-Life Hero | Sexuality/Gender | Religion Dispatches.

First, you have to understand that abortions would not cease if Roe v. Wade were somehow overturned. It would simply allow the States to outlaw abortion on a State-by-State level. Second, Romney’s surrogates plainly said he would not overturn Roe v. Wade. And of course, you have Mitt Romney in 2002 saying he was pro-choice, more pro-choice than the pro-choicest candidate of them all.

And now… a study (science and all, and if you don’t believe science works in stuff like this, ask Nate Silver) predicts that abortion will decrease by up to 75% under what the Right has termed Obamacare (by the way, this is simply bad marketing). Granted, this includes insurance companies providing contraceptives – which until the President was behind the mandate, was okay with Protestants (btw, he got the idea from Romneycare). So, I guess the decision needs to be made.

Do you really fight to reduce abortion or do you not?

Romney to insure country remains pro-choice

In the frenetic push to win all-important Ohio, Mitt Romney’s campaign is saying a lot of things to a lot of people. And on Monday, a top Romney surrogate told a group of Jewish voters in the Buckeye State that the landmark Supreme Court decision granting women the right to an abortion is in no danger of being overturned should Romney become president.

Thanks to Talking Points Memo for that.

Why is this important? Because Romney has said otherwise. But this the him plausible deniability. The Romney camp can just say that it is a surrogate. This man will say anything to win.

Romney and Contraception

Why am I posting this? Because I find it funny that too many Christians, my sisters and brothers, have rushed to defend Romney as the standard barer of religious freedom. Yet, his words last night puts him on the side of the President in forcing employers to provide contraceptive coverage:

I’d just note that I don’t believe that bureaucrats in Washington should tell someone whether they can use contraceptives or not, and I don’t believe employers should tell someone whether they could have contraceptive care or not.  Every woman in America should have access to contraceptives.  And the President’s statement of my policy is completely and totally wrong.

This is nothing new, actually, because Romney has had several different positions on this issue,

After suggesting Wednesday that he did not support a controversial measure allowing U.S. employers to opt out of a rule requiring them to provide employees with contraceptive health coverage, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney quickly clarified his position,affirming in a radio interview that “of course I support the Blunt Amendment.” (here)

Let us also note that Romney’s health care bill in Mass. supported mandates, even on religious organizations, for providing contraceptions.

Remember, Romney was steadfastedly pro-choice,

Why in the world do Christians as Christians trust this guy to be pro-religious freedom and pro-life?
romney-on-abortion

Will that Conservative Evangelical Counter-Cult Expert Still Vote for Romney?

Author and Professor Douglas Groothius wrote,

In Romney’s favor, he has been a very decent man, who has given much of his income to charity. He is an accomplished businessman who (unlike Obama) knows how to solve problems.

He seemingly skipped over his rather bumpy ride on many issues. This one stood out, even about Groothius’ allowance of Romney’s support of abortion and his gloss over his take on Mormonism. That statement right there… “decent man”… “accomplished businessman…” “knows how to solve problems…” Now, why one has to be a business man to solve problems, I don’t know… as businessmen are the ones who got us into many of the issues at hand… Remember, as much as the American Revolution was against the Crown, it was also against the Crown’s corporations.

But, back to the accomplished businessman bit. We all know that Romney worked at Bain Capital, a private equity firm that buys businesses, shifts overhead and profits, fires workers, reduces costs and drives them into the ground to make a profit – heck to the yes there is a frackin’ problem with that. Bain is even a pioneer in outsourcing. One of the companies that Bain invested in is called Stericycle. Beyond all the human health hazards that Stericycle shoved their workers in to, there is that one other issues, that one other bloody issue – they made money from aborted fetuses (Is Stericyle the corporation’s Planned Parenthood?)

Despite the firm’s regulatory run-ins, the deal worked out well for Bain. In 2001, the Bain-Madison Dearborn partnership that had invested in the company sold 40 percent of its holdings in Stericycle for about $88 million—marking a hefty profit on its original investment of $75 million. The Bain-related group sold the rest of its holdings by 2004. By that point it had earned $49.5 million . It was not until six years later that anti-abortion activists would target Stericycle for collecting medical waste at abortion clinics. This campaign  has compared Stericycle to German firms that provided assistance to the Nazis during the Holocaust. A Stericycle official told Huffington Post that its abortion clinics business constitutes a “small” portion of its total operations. (from Mother Jones who focuses more on the fact that this proves that Romney has lied about his Bain record rather than the business of Stericyle)

Is this the person that Groothius is praying to be the next President of the United States? This person here? The one who has lied from day one about any of this records? This person that made millions off aborted fetuses? That is the person whom you are praying for to become the next President of the United States? That car elevator in his new house? Paid for by aborted fetuses. That suit he wears while he is speaking about his pro-life stance? Paid for by aborted fetuses. God help us all regardless of who wins in November. I for one will not be using my prayer allowance to pray for this one or that one for President.

May God forgive us for such principled stands.

The ”after-birth abortion”

This is bizarre.

KILLING newborns is morally the same as abortion and should be permissible if  the mother wishes it, Australian philosophers have argued in an article that has  unleashed a firestorm of  criticism and forced the British Medical  Journal to defend its publication.

Alberto Giubilini, from Monash University, and Francesca Minerva, from the  University of Melbourne, say a foetus and a newborn are equivalent in their lack  of a sense of their own life and aspiration. They contend this justifies what  they call ”after-birth abortion” as long as  it is painless, because the baby  is not harmed by missing out on a life it cannot conceptualise.

About  a third of infants with Down syndrome are not diagnosed prenatally,  Drs Giubilini and Minerva say, and mothers of children with serious  abnormalities should have the chance to end the child’s life after, as well as  before, birth.

Steve Clarke, the chief executive  of the advocacy group Down Syndrome NSW,  said the paper was ”very theoretical”. ”I don’t think it does have any relevance or insight for the real world. It  is so beyond our social mores and values that it is beyond the pale and I  wouldn’t want to dignify it with any further comment,” he said.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life/philosophers-claim-over-moral-right-to-kill-newborns-sparks-outrage-20120301-1u61l.html#ixzz1nv3zVJmh

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Baking cakes to support abortion clinics

In opposition to pro-life protesters who are conducting a 40 Days for Life vigil outside the Preterm Abortion Clinic  in inner-city Sydney, website Mamamia, which is owned by journalist Mia Freedman, is arranging to deliver home baked cakes to the clinic to support the women who work there and the women using the clinic’s services.

Preterm Foundation, Sydney

This is a not a post about the right to life – or even the right to  choose. It’s about finding a unique way to show love and support for women who are already going through a difficult time.

Just like the women in the UK, Mamamia’s Publisher Mia Freedman, Managing Editor Lana Hirschowitz and I are going to bake cakes (Chocolate? Vanilla? We’re open to suggestions) and take them down to the clinic in Sydney where the vigils are taking place.

Do you want to get involved? You can. You don’t have to be a master baker. (I’m definitely not.) Packet cakes are fine. Ditto packets of lollies, biscuits, boxes of chocolates or bunches of bananas. Or flowers.

It’s the thought that counts – the smallest act of kindness can make a difference.

http://www.mamamia.com.au/health-wellbeing/they-want-to-ban-abortion-we-want-to-bake-cake/comment-page-2/#comment-672969

They make it sound like they’re baking cakes for a school fête.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Just how old is the Evangelical view on abortion and contraception?

The Catholics had it first. Evangelicals railed against the Catholics. Politics. 1988. Stuff like that and bam…

By the mid-1980s, the evangelical right was so successful with this strategy that the popular evangelical community would no longer tolerate any alternative position. Hence, the outrage over a book titled Brave New People published by InterVarsity Press in 1984. In addition to discussing a number of new biotechnologies, including genetic engineering and in vitro fertilization, the author, an evangelical professor living in New Zealand, also devoted a chapter to abortion. His position was similar to that of most evangelicals 15 years prior. Although he did not believe the fetus was a full-fledged person from conception, he did believe that because it was a potential person, it should be treated with respect. Abortion was only permissible to protect the health and well-being of the mother, to preclude a severely deformed child, and in a few other hard cases, such as rape and incest.

slacktivist » The ‘biblical view’ that’s younger than the Happy Meal.

You really, rally must read the entire article.

For more from Dudley, read here and then a response here.

The United Methodist Church on Abortion

The beginning of life and the ending of life are the God-given boundaries of human existence. While individuals have always had some degree of control over when they would die, they now have the awesome power to determine when and even whether new individuals will be born.

Our belief in the sanctity of unborn human life makes us reluctant to approve abortion. But we are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother, for whom devastating damage may result from an unacceptable pregnancy. In continuity with past Christian teaching, we recognize tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion, and in such cases we support the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures. We cannot affirm abortion as an acceptable means of birth control, and we unconditionally reject it as a means of gender selection.

We oppose the use of late-term abortion known as dilation and extraction (partial-birth abortion) and call for the end of this practice except when the physical life of the mother is in danger and no other medical procedure is available, or in the case of severe fetal anomalies incompatible with life. We call all Christians to a searching and prayerful inquiry into the sorts of conditions that may warrant abortion. We commit our Church to continue to provide nurturing ministries to those who terminate a pregnancy, to those in the midst of a crisis pregnancy, and to those who give birth. We particularly encourage the Church, the government, and social service agencies to support and facilitate the option of adoption. (See ¶ 161.K.)

Governmental laws and regulations do not provide all the guidance required by the informed Christian conscience. Therefore, a decision concerning abortion should be made only after thoughtful and prayerful consideration by the parties involved, with medical, pastoral, and other appropriate counsel.

From The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church - 2004. Copyright 2004 by The United Methodist Publishing House. Used by permission.

You can read more here.

 

The White House responds to the Sebelius Rule Uproar

Some of the clarifications being offered:

  • Churches are exempt from the new rules: Churches and other houses of worship will be exempt from the requirement to offer insurance that covers contraception.
  • No individual health care provider will be forced to prescribe contraception: The President and this Administration have previously and continue to express strong support for existing conscience protections.  For example, no Catholic doctor is forced to write a prescription for contraception.
  •  No individual will be forced to buy or use contraception: This rule only applies to what insurance companies cover.  Under this policy, women who want contraception will have access to it through their insurance without paying a co-pay or deductible.   But no one will be forced to buy or use contraception.
  • Drugs that cause abortion are not covered by this policy:  Drugs like RU486 are not covered by this policy, and nothing about this policy changes the President’s firm commitment to maintaining strict limitations on Federal funding for abortions. No Federal tax dollars are used for elective abortions.
  • Over half of Americans already live in the 28 States that require insurance companies cover contraception: Several of these States like North Carolina, New York, and California have identical religious employer exemptions.  Some States like Colorado, Georgia and Wisconsin have no exemption at all.
  • Contraception is used by most women: According to a study by the Guttmacher Institute, most women, including 98 percent of Catholic women, have used contraception.
  • Contraception coverage reduces costs: While the monthly cost of contraception for women ranges from $30 to $50, insurers and experts agree that savings more than offset the cost.  The National Business Group on Health estimated that it would cost employers 15 to 17 percent more not to provide contraceptive coverage than to provide such coverage, after accounting for both the direct medical costs of potentially unintended and unhealthy pregnancy and indirect costs such as employee absence and reduced productivity.

Health Reform, Preventive Services, and Religious Institutions | The White House.

Thoughts on being objectively pro-life, Susan G. Komen and the President’s actions

First, I am pro-life. Second, I do not believe that laws will ever give anyone the satisfactory answer to this. As a good Democrat, I believe that education and economics will lead to decreased abortions. Further, evidence bares that out. Also, the term ‘abortion’ has been so politicized, it is difficult to actually speak about anything that looks like the cessation of the life of the fetus. The idea that the removing of a mound of flesh which is only human at the DNA level is still considered a late-term abortion is nothing but a political move. Being pro-life doesn’t end at birth, however. I don’t believe in the death penalty; I support governmental programs which enable a quality of life. I also support the life of the mother.

I do not support the President’s actions in mandating that religious institutions go against their beliefs and offer birth control. I understand that President’s reasoning, however:

obama-500
I think about honor killings, female genital mutilation, Sabbath rest, kosher foods, and polygamy, somethings which are inherent in several world religions. For many, there are not political protections and for others, we find out right legal prevention. We have asked them to go against their religious  beliefs to live in a pluralistic society. However, many of those things are allowed within the confines of the religious institution. Sabbath Rest, kosher food, even snake handling, and other religious beliefs are freely exercised by religious institutions with little or no hindrance from the Government. If this was a life saving measure, then yes, I would agree that the Government, as it defends its citizens, must step in. As a matter of fact, as I read the words of Catholic Church, birth control of some form is allowed in some cases, including the health of the person. Another factor I’ve considered in this, in my response to this, is that for the most part, we live in a country where employment is not controlled. In other words, I could find a job and not be pushed into one by an outside force. For instance, I don’t agree with strip clubs. I’m not going to work there. Second, I’ve considered the idea that on the whole, clinics offer birth control for women at free or reduced rates. To push this on religious institutions which are serving the common good is to begin to push the religious institutions to consider whether or not to be effective in society, they must cease to be who they are.

Be sure to check out this post on fact checking some of this. I may need to reconsider some statements.

komen pictures

Yesterday, the story broke that the Susan G. Komen Foundation, a cancer research and awareness organization, would cease from supporting Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is, of course, the evil abortion provider which has become the favorite whipping post of the Conservative Right. Now, with a new Vice-President, Komen will no longer donate to Planned Parenthood monies which went to support poor women in fighting breast  and other cancers by early detection. The issue with Planned Parenthood is that for many, they see it as an abortion providing service; in fact, this couldn’t be further from the truth. Abortions, and I have to use that term because I don’t know what they really are, amount to only 3% of the total procedures done by Planned Parenthood. I caution you to consider that not every abortion involves the cessation of life. Komen bowed to political pressure which will have the unintended consequences of hurting more women than helping.

This is from the Planned Parenthood website:

Planned Parenthood health centers focus on prevention: 76 percent of our clients receive services to prevent unintended pregnancy.

Planned Parenthood services help prevent more than 584,000 unintended pregnancies each year.

Planned Parenthood provides nearly 770,000 Pap tests and nearly750,000 breast exams each year, critical services in detecting cancer.

Planned Parenthood provides more than four million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.

Three percent of all Planned Parenthood health services are abortion services.

Planned Parenthood affiliates provide educational programs to more than1.1 million young people and adults each year.

Whether or not you support abortion for any reason, and by abortion, I mean the unnatural cessation of life, the fact that Planned Parenthood, in 97% of their health services, offers family planning, free cancer screenings for women, and treatments for STD’s should be enough to consider that the notion that all they do, or even the majority that they do, is provide abortion is a false one used to engender support for Conservative Right causes.

I detest abortion, and the more so when I look at my three children, the more so when I consider the great minds who would have been lost had they been aborted, the more so when I consider the great minds, hearts, and spirits which have been lost because of elective abortion. The cure, though, is a long process of many treatments. We must first treat the fact the idea that a law will someone prevent abortions and not force women to mutilate themselves. Second, a treatment must be made to de-politicize the debate. Third, we must treat the notion that being pro-life excludes abortion for all reasons and ends at birth. Fourth, we must not let people suffer because of the fear of being branded poorly. Five, the Church must step up to the plate in being a community which heals.

Now, I know this may anger some of you, but I ask you to consider, slowly, what I’m saying here.

Enhanced by Zemanta