Don’t Forget…
— Posted by John (April 21, 2006 at 5:02 pm)
…about Pro-Life T-Shirt Day on Tuesday, April 25. You can participate by doing one simple thing:
Wear a pro-life T-shirt.
Wear it to school. Wear it to work. Wear it wherever.
And remember — public high school students in particular — you have a legal right to wear a pro-life T-shirt on April 25, or any other day, for that matter. American Life League, which sponsors Pro-Life T-shirt Day, has a page on dealing with harassment, and advises students to download and carry a letter [PDF] from the Thomas More Law Center with you just in case anyone tries to step on your First Amendment rights.
This entry is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Lauren says:
Tuesday… I’ll mark my calendar to wear my stand up for choice shirt
.. Holla at the 1st Amendment indeed!! if only you guys would listen to that establishment clause a little more all would be peachy keen..
in other news, I took a pro-life position in my latest blog entry on campusprogress.org regarding China. I’d love to have you guys participate.
Comment posted April 22nd, 2006 at 12:23 am
John says:
Lauren, I visited your blog. As a general rule, I don’t comment on blogs that require commenters to register. (Nothing personal, I just don’t like jumping through hoops.)
Regarding the post on your blog that you mentioned – I agree with a number of the things you said regarding the US government’s repeated kowtowing to China, the latest episode being the red carpet treatment — literally — extended to President Hu last week.
I also agree that it was pathetic for Bush to apologize for the Wenyi Wang incident.
There are many, many pro-lifers who are also extremely leary about the US’s cozy relationship with China; our voices, however, are often ignored — both by those on the right and the left.
Perhaps the most outspoken pro-lifer regarding the looming Chinese threat has been Steven Mosher, president of the the Population Research Institute, who lived in China for several years.
Six years ago, he wrote a book titled Hegemon: China’s Plan to Dominate Asia and the World. More recently, he’s testified before Congress about China’s infamous human rights abuses.
Comment posted April 24th, 2006 at 5:07 pm
Lauren says:
Thanks for visiting John. That sort of abortion is wrong, completely totally unabashedly wrong. For President Bush to meet with him shows ridiculous hypocrisy.
Comment posted April 25th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
John says:
“That sort of abortion is wrong, completely totally unabashedly wrong.”
Lauren,
In your comment on another post recently, you said that you hoped we could achieve some level of consensus. On the issue of coerced abortion, at least, it’s good to know that we can agree to agree.
Comment posted April 27th, 2006 at 11:04 am
Lauren says:
Aha, but where will you guys meet me?
Comment posted April 27th, 2006 at 11:54 am
Lauren says:
btw I think 3rd trimester abortion si wrong if it isnt for the health and life of the mother or if the baby is already dead..
also, 2nd trimester abortion should have some real restrictions on it as well..
I’m not some whacked out wingnut just so you know… I think if you read a lto of my posts on my blog you’d see that…
Comment posted April 27th, 2006 at 11:55 am
John says:
“btw I think 3rd trimester abortion si wrong if it isnt for the health and life of the mother or if the baby is already dead..
also, 2nd trimester abortion should have some real restrictions on it as well..”
Lauren,
On these issues, you’re a lot closer to us than you are to the major “pro-choice” groups, who oppose any and all attempts to impose abortion restrictions.
Some clarifications:
It’s not possible to perform an abortion on a baby who is already dead.
The “life/health of the mother” exception is a smokescreen. The term “health” is so broadly defined as to include mental and emotional health, meaning that a pregnant mother could claim that having to bring her child to term would cause her emotional distress, and she would be allowed to have an abortion under the “health of the mother” exception.
For more on this, see this statement signed by nearly five hundred physicians.
You think that 2nd trimester abortions should have some restrictions placed on them. I’m curious to know why.
You apparently accept the premise that abortion is morally and socially acceptable. Why, then, do you believe abortion should be restricted at all?
What makes a fetus 12 weeks post-conception
so different from a fetus 11 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours, and 59 minutes post-conception?
Comment posted April 27th, 2006 at 4:51 pm
John says:
“I’m not some whacked out wingnut just so you know…”
Lauren,
I make every attempt to avoid descending to the level of name-calling. I can’t say that I never slip, but I’m of the opinion that name-calling is beneath the level of rational discourse, and thus counter-productive — and often uncharitable as well.
Thus, I would never call you (nor think of you as) a “whacked out wingnut”.
Comment posted April 27th, 2006 at 4:52 pm
Resident curmudgeon says:
“On these issues, you’re a lot closer to us than you are to the major “pro-choice” groups, who oppose any and all attempts to impose abortion restrictions. ”
Yes there are some that do…. Altho I would argue that most of these are for legal reason. Chipping away at choice law can have a damning effect. Instead of having moderates like myself in power, there are wingnuts. Your crowd says abortion never.. The other side says abortion always. In the middle you have scared women afraid that their common sense rights will be taken away. The right for a woman to have control over her body is a sacred one. Most cherish it and hope that they will never have to exercise their right to choose.
The “life/health of the mother” exception is a smokescreen. The term “health” is so broadly defined as to include mental and emotional health, meaning that a pregnant mother could claim that having to bring her child to term would cause her emotional distress, and she would be allowed to have an abortion under the “health of the mother” exception.
It’s not a smokescreen, it’s reality. Sometimes pregnancy threatens the life of a mother. I’m sure a woman who is pregnant makes all attempt to save the baby’s life, but if impossible, I think the pregnant woman takes precedent to an “ectopic pregnancy”. Let me ask you if your wife were to be in this situation what would you do? I think it’s shameful for your group to marginalize women who have this happen to them.
“You think that 2nd trimester abortions should have some restrictions placed on them. I’m curious to know why. ”
Viability issues.. I know this is a slippery slope to you guys, so I tread lightly. Feeling of pain, development etc. are all issues I take into consideration.
“You apparently accept the premise that abortion is morally and socially acceptable. Why, then, do you believe abortion should be restricted at all?”
I never said that. I have said however that abortion is a tragedy for all parties involved. No one wants to go through it and no one wants to feel the stabs from people like yourself all their life… Guilt and shame are powerful things that people deal with everyday. I think your group effectively does both things to these women.
What makes a fetus 12 weeks post-conception
so different from a fetus 11 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours, and 59 minutes post-conception?
Viability.
Peace
Comment posted May 1st, 2006 at 2:52 pm
John says:
“…I think the pregnant woman takes precedent to an ‘ectopic pregnancy’.”
From Catholics United for the Faith:
Note how the principle of double effect allows for removing the embryo from the mother’s fallopian tube, even though this will certainly result in the embryo’s death.
Note further how vastly different this is from direct abortion.
“What makes a fetus 12 weeks post-conception
so different from a fetus 11 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours, and 59 minutes post-conception?
Viability.”
Lauren, I’m nearly speechless. Your answer here is very revealing for at least two reasons.
Comment posted May 2nd, 2006 at 2:06 pm
lauren says:
and what reasons are those?:)
Comment posted May 2nd, 2006 at 10:36 pm
John says:
“and what reasons are those?:)”
Lauren,
Your last comment implied that you believe a fetus 12 weeks post conception is viable — and also that you believe there’s a rather remarkable development that occurs precisely between the 59th and 60th minutes of the 23rd hour of the 6th day of the 11th week of a fetus’ life — despite the fact that even the most steadfast pro-lifer would acknowledge that given the current state of technology, the point of viability would be no lower than 20 weeks.
Viability is simply a measure of the sophistication of neonatal life support systems.
By its very nature, viability is variable. 50 years ago viability was at 30 weeks. 25 years ago it had dropped to 25 weeks. Now we have babies born as early as 21 weeks (and perhaps even 20, if I recall correctly).
Therefore, the very idea of using viability as a yardstick to determine what babies should be allowed to be aborted and which ones shouldn’t defies logic.
Comment posted May 3rd, 2006 at 1:52 pm
Lauren says:
“Therefore, the very idea of using viability as a yardstick to determine what babies should be allowed to be aborted and which ones shouldn’t defies logic. ”
I disagree. As I said, it’s a slippery slope, and that’s why I choose to tread lightly. Those marks are set up as convenience for law. I heard someone argue the other day that if pro-lifers were really pro-life they’d prefer if the fetus were to be aborted no matter what they would prefer it to happen in the 3rd trimester. This is because they would prefer to prolong thelife of the fetus. Much as they prolonged the suffering of Terri Schiavo whose brain was shrunk to half its size.
Look I dont agree with this assessment. I’m not saying that it’s an easy thing to decide, but if I want to be pragmatic about it, I can be.
Comment posted May 4th, 2006 at 8:14 am