Tag Archives: jill stanek

Pro-lifers don’t care about kids after they are born?

Jill Stanek, pro-lifer extraordinaire, posed this question on a defunct blog: Are pro-lifers going to adopt all the unwanted babies?  We should welcome this objection by pro-abortionists. It lets us explain the underlying fallacy of their question and how they never apply it in situations outside the womb, how pro-lifers do a lot to help before and after delivery, and how the same obligation of caring falls on them.  They may not convert, but any objective middle-grounder will see the merits.

fireman pro life

—–

baby1.jpgOne of the most common sound bites/jokes that pro-choicers make about pro-lifers is that we are infatuated with the fetus but don’t care about kids after they are born.   The message is that if we don’t adopt all unwanted children, then we have no right to complain about abortion.  It is an important sound bite to be able to address because it is very common, and even pro-lifers I know are not only intimidated by it, but they have used it themselves as a reason to remain silent about abortion.

The “Pro-lifers don’t care about kids after they are born” line is one of my favorite arguments to rebut.  I teach people how to do it in pro-life training sessions in a two-step approach.  The tone of the conversation is important.  These arguments are powerful and quite effective if they are laid out in a calm, reasoned approach.  You probably won’t convert the rabid pro-choicers, but most middle-grounders will get the point.

First, show that pointing out a moral wrong does not obligate you to take responsibility for the situation.

If your neighbor is beating his wife, you call the police.  The police don’t say, “Hey, buddy, unless you are willing to marry her yourself, then we aren’t going to stop him from beating her.”  You can use child or animal abuse as examples as well.  Most people get the point pretty quickly.

Or ask the pro-choicer what they would do if the government decided to reduce the number of homeless people by killing them.  Could he protest that without having to house and feed them all himself?

You can also use the “trot out the toddler” approach promoted by Stand to Reason and ask if it would be acceptable to object to murdering a toddler even if you aren’t willing to adopt her.  Of course, the pro-choicer will always recognize the moral good of protesting toddler killing.  Then you can point out that killing innocent human beings is immoral and that the unborn are human beings.  So pointing out this moral wrong does not obligate us to do anything further.

Second, explain that while we aren’t morally obligated to help after the babies are born to be able to speak out against abortion, Christians do many things with their time and money anyway – orphanages, Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs), food pantries, etc.

When I’m teaching CPC volunteers, I remind them of all that they and the center do: Pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, food, clothes, diapers, life skill training, parenting training, post-abortion counseling, and more – all for free!  And, of course, we share the Gospel with the clients if they are interested (Saving lives now and for eternity!).

The workers are mostly volunteers and the leaders make below-market wages because they believe in the cause.  Most centers receive no government funding, so all the money comes from donations.  There are far more Crisis Pregnancy Centers than there are abortion clinics.

When I tell people about CPCs, the typical reaction is, “I had no idea.”  Most people aren’t aware of all the good being done there.  In theory, CPCs are something pro-choicers could support as well.  After all, if women choose to keep their children, this is a great way to help them.  But Planned Parenthood et al. consider them public enemy because we take away some of their business.

You can also ask pro-choicers what Planned Parenthood and the like do for hurting women once the babies are born.  It is a really, really short list.  Do they provide free post-abortion counseling? (Of course not, because who would need that, right?)  Do they give diapers, formula, etc.?  Hey, they don’t even give free abortions (though they would love for your tax dollars to fund some).

Having said all that, I think the church can and should be doing even more in the area of adoptions and support for orphans.  Not because having pro-life views requires that, but because it is the right thing to do regardless of whether abortion is legal or illegal.

Here’s a bonus argument: A recent Stand to Reason Podcast brought up another good point that I hadn’t thought of.  Here’s an additional response to use: Unless someone concedes to being truly pro-abortion (i.e., they expect women to always have abortions or raise the children with no help from the public), then the pro-choicers are obligated to adopt the children as well.  Either that or give up espousing their pro-choice views.  After all, if you claim to be pro-choice and the women choose life, then the same caregiving obligation falls on you.

Think about it.  It may seem subtle at first, but it is a completely consistent argument.  Pro-lifers don’t think it should be an option to kill the unborn, so pro-choicers use the false logic that we can’t complain about abortion if we won’t adopt all the kids and raise them to adulthood.  But if the woman decides to choose life, then the pro-choicer would have the same moral obligation to raise the kids.

Here’s how I played this out in this comment thread:

Pro-legalized abortion commenter: Hard decisions belong between a pregnant woman and her caregivers, not “holier than thou” intruders, unless they personally are willing to raise, including medical care, education, and life care, all those fertilized eggs.

My response: Another canard.

Answer me this: Let’s say the government decides to solve the problem of homelessness by killing homeless people. Can you protest this without being willing to house them yourself?

You can also substitute other examples (Can you call the police if your neighbor is abusing his wife and children without having to marry her and adopt the kids?).

It is a simple question designed to point out the primary error of your argument: You don’t have to take ownership of a situation just because you protest a moral evil.

And even though I don’t have to raise those human beings (the ones you like to call fertilized eggs) just because I protest the evil of abortion, I actually do a lot with my own time and money via CareNet Pregnancy Center.

And by the way, unless you are truly pro-abortion, then you are obligated to help as well. After all, if you claim to be pro-choice and the women choose life, then the same care giving obligation falls on you.

So that argument self-destructs in at least three ways.

Finally, consider if the child was outside the womb. Do the women and her caregivers get to decide if the toddler lives or dies? Of course not. So the only question is whether the unborn is a human being. Since it is a scientific fact that she is, then people shouldn’t get to decide whether to kill her. And Christians especially shouldn’t support anyone’s right to kill her.

Other commenter: BTW, half of fertilized eggs don’t implant in the uterus, so is it illegal for a woman to have mensus?

My response: Are you seriously claiming that you don’t see the difference between the following?

1. Human being dies of natural causes.

2. Human being is crushed and dismembered by another human being.

I think most people can see the difference, whether 1 and 2 occur inside or outside the womb.

I’ve heard all the pro-legalized abortion sound bites many times and will be glad to debunk more for you. I hope that you are intellectually honest and reconsider your position on this crucial issue.

In summary, pointing out the moral evil of abortion does not obligate one to adopt all the babies.  But pro-lifers do help anyway.  A lot.  And they do it with their own time and money, not their neighbors’.

When pro-legalized abortion people try to put you on the defensive by asking how many kids you have adopted, use the reasons above to respond.  Also, you can ask how many they adopt from orphanages.   If they haven’t adopted any, then according to their logic, they couldn’t protest their destruction.

__________

Here’s a list you can copy and paste when someone accuses you of being inconsistent:

Do you know how much time and money I donate to help the poor or how much I pay in taxes?  [Pause]  Didn’t think so.  So why not stick to the topic, which is whether you should be able to crush and dismember children in the womb?  The “pro-lifers don’t care about those outside the womb/haven’t adopted all the children/etc.” canard is false on many levels. 
 
1. If people were slaughtering toddlers, the elderly, or anyone else the way they do unborn children, I guarantee that we would be protesting that as well.  So we are completely consistent in protecting innocent human lives regardless of location, and yes, we do care for life post-birth.  
 
2. You can speak against moral evils all day, every day, without being obligated to care for all the victims for life. If mothers were killing toddlers for the same reasons they give for abortions (money, career, love life, pressure from boyfriends/parents, etc.) would you stay quiet? Would you lodge the same criticism at those who spoke against toddler-cide without adopting all the children? Hopefully not. The question is whether the unborn are human beings. They are. At least, that’s what all the embryology textbooks say. Just because they are smaller, more dependent, and in a unique environment (formerly synonymous with a safe place) doesn’t mean their lives aren’t worthy of protection.  The right to life is a foundational human right.
 
3. The premise is false.  Countless pro-lifers help women and children before and after birth with their own time and money.  Pregnancy Resource Centers offer an array of free services. Planned Parenthood and the like make millions via abortion.
 
4. Asking the government to take money by force from others to supposedly help the poor does not qualify as charity on your part.
 
5. Do you criticize the American Cancer Society for not working on heart disease?  If not, why are you being prideful about your preferred ministry over what others feel called to?  That is if you actually do anything for others at all.  Using your logic, William Wilberforce didn’t do much because he “only” cared about abolishing the slave trade (not true, of course, as he did more than that, but it shows how ridiculous the pro-abortion argument is).
 
6. Unless they want forced abortions, pro-choicers have the same obligations to help that they put on pro-lifers.
 
7. The claim that we don’t care about children outside the womb is demonstrably false.  But even if their claim was true, it seems like the greater sin would be to approve of a child being literally crushed and dismembered rather than just not personally feeding someone else’s living child.
 
8. Imagine saying something similar to justify keeping slavery legal: “You think slavery is wrong but won’t help them get jobs, etc.”
 
9. Your basic reasoning is this: “It is OK to kill the child but not to risk her being impoverished.”
 
10. If you actually help them outside the womb with your money, we could swap labels and dismiss you: “You only help them outside but let them be killed inside.” Still illogical, but that’s what you get.
Here’s a handy jpeg you can use as well:
Pro lifers don't care about those outside the womb

More about Komen

Pro-aborts hack Komen website over cutting Planned Parenthood — can’t you just feel the love and caring from the Planned Parenthood crowd?

—-

See Komen cleansing and more inside chatter for this and more:

Huffington Post gleefully reported today that three Komen officials have now resigned and one more is threatening to, as the “backlash gains steam” over its decision to sever financial ties with Planned Parenthood.

The fools don’t realize what is happening. Every Komen exec who quits over the Planned Parenthood flak is good news for our side, one less pro-abort with clout in the United States’ most influential breast cancer foundation. Komen is undergoing a cleansing of its liberal bastion.

Perhaps now Komen will acknowledge the link between abortion and breast cancer, which, thanks to the Planned Parenthood flak, is getting renewed attention.

And be sure to send them an encouraging email.  Consider asking them to acknowledge the abortion / breast cancer link.  Remember, Planned Parenthood probably causes more breast cancer than it ever diagnosed.

The emails are 2-to-1 pro-life so far, and my guess is that many of the ones from the pro-aborts / anti-breast cancer cure people are less than winsome.

—–

The wolves in sheep’s clothing have been predictable.  See People Of Faith Should Stop Giving To Susan G. Komen for the Cure where false teacher and anti-breast cancer research Chuck Currie plays politics with health care while complaining about people playing politics with health care.  Hypocrisy: He’s doin’ it right!

Good thing for Komen that donations are up 100% since their announcement.  Maybe Chuck was a big giver but if he is like other Liberals he is mostly talk and expresses his “generosity” by coveting the wealth of others by asking Caesar to take more of it to give in his name.  We know that conservatives give more money and even blood than Liberals.

Just for defunding less than 1% of Planned Parenthood’s extravagant budget Chuck & Co. are willing to see Komen suffer.  It is hard to imagine people being more pro-abortion and anti-women than that.  Then again, “Reverend” Chuck thinks we don’t have enough abortions in this country and things won’t get better until taxpayers pay for more of them.

The only good news is that the wolves have taken off the sheep’s clothing.  It must have been getting too warm.

Also see Komen donations up 100% in the past two days;Update: Komen to continue funding some Planned Parenthood chapters?  The first part is a positive, at least as an in-your-face to the pro-aborts.  The 2nd is a concern.  I wouldn’t donate to them until they demonstrate they will never work with PP again.

Good for the Susan G. Komen organization

I was glad to see that the Susan G. Komen for the Cure organization is de-funding Planned Parenthood.  Some have speculated that it could be temporary, but Jill Stanek gives some good reasons that it may be permanent (such as how PP burned bridges in leaking the story and demonizing Komen).  You can see how much PP really cares about women.  More about their “scorched earth” campaign against Komen here.

I realize there are still some concerns about Komen ignoring the breast cancer / abortion link and other things, but I still encourage people to email them at news@Komen.org to applaud their decision and ask them to stick to it.

Predictably, the pro-abortion forces are in a full-scale tizzy.  As Stanek notes, this may be to frighten other organizations out of ending their support of PP.  The Komen funding was a rounding error for PP and their extravagant budgets, but PP wouldn’t want others to follow suit.  And of course the symbolism is embarrassing for them when an iconic pro-women’s group de-funds them.

The head of Planned Parenthood and various politicians lied and said that PP did mammograms, when the truth is that they do a minor amount of breast exams that anyone could do themselves at home.

This is a great example of the system working.  People like Lila Rose have exposed the evils of PP (beyond the destruction of innocent human life) and that is causing a lot of problems for them.  See this Planned Parenthood overview for how, in addition to being the top destroyer of human life in the country, they systematically hide statutory rape and sex trafficking (when not teaching your kids to ignore the perspectives on human sexuality that you and your religion hold).

Planned Parenthood is not good for women.  Their reaction to this situation is more proof of that.  Regardless of their real motives, I’m glad Komen stopped funding them.

Roundup

The “theocracy” charge leveled at Republicans is just silly.

My observation is that the GOP field is more concerned with the social conservative determination to use government to deny equality to gays and lesbians and pregnancy choice rights to women.

However, neither of those issues threatens the economy or the republic.

I think the Left is correct in asserting that the social conservative agenda is identical to a promise to impose theocracy.

Cynthia YockeyA Conservative Lesbian, September 3  (Hat tip for the quote: Jill Stanek)

Did you ever notice how China, the former Soviet Union and other communist countries with explicitly atheistic views all recognize(d) the timeless truth that marriage, by definition, is a union of one man and one woman?  Implying that those who oppose government recognition of same-sex unions are trying to establish theocracies is ridiculous –unless you are claiming that atheistic, Christian-hating communists qualify as religious-right Christian extremists.

And are the anti-theocracy folks speaking out against Islam and Sharia law?  The evidence is there in Europe and even in some areas in the U.S.

Also, we don’t oppose “pregnancy choice.”  People have the right to birth control.  What we oppose is crushing and dismembering innocent human beings after pregnancy occurs.  Big difference.

20 Scripture-twisting techniques — A great list of what not to do when reading the Bible.

Rick Perry is right.  As I’ve noted many times, Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.  Here are 5 definitions of Ponzi schemes that accurately describe it.  A sample:

Finally, I think this one from the American Bar Association is my favorite:

A Ponzi scheme is a type of securities fraud where the promoter makes some sort of false or misleading statement about an investment (often including a guaranteed high rate of return) and pays off older investors with newer investor’s monies. Eventually, when the promoter can’t find any new investors, the scheme collapses.

Here’s a keeper for the next time Obama & Co. want to preach about civility.  The hypocrisy is astounding.  You’d think after their vicious, carefully choreographed blaming of Sarah Palin after the Arizona shootings that they’d at least pretend to follow their own advice for a while.

While Obama pretends that he’s interested in “respectful” political discourse we’ve seen a parade of Democrats indulging every manner of disrespectful political speech against Tea Partiers and Republicans. Just in the last few weeks we’ve the following:

  • Vice President Biden saying that Republicans and Tea Partiers are “barbarians.”
  • Teamsters President Hoffa Says Republicans are “sons a bitches” that should be “taken out.”
  • Democrat Andre Carson Says Tea Partiers and Republicans want to start “lynching African Americans.”
  • Democrat Maxine Waters says Tea Partiers can “go straight to hell.”
  • Vice President Biden calls conservatives “terrorists.”

Stan on biblical slavery — an important read:

It is important to note, as I have multiple times, that biblical slavery is not the same thing as modern slavery. Consider this. Modern slavery has basically been 1) involuntary 2) for the economic advantage of the elite, 3) typically included mistreatment, 4) where slaves lived separately from their owners, 5) were considered property (and could be disposed of as with any property), 6) could not own property, and 7) were slaves forever.

Old Testament slavery was different. It was 1) normally voluntary 2) for the purpose of solving a debt problem 3) with strict rules against mistreatment. Typically, 4) slaves lived in the homes of their masters, 5) were not property, 6) could own property and, in fact were given property when released, and 7) were only in the position temporarily. Old Testament slavery wasn’t very much at all like the modern version.

Good question by Hillbuzz:

POLL: What term is more effective in describing the gay members of the Left’s goon squad: Gaystapo or GayGB?  Those are both so good.  It is a coin flip for me.  I think the tags apply to anyone on the Left who advances the radical LGBTQ agenda.

This week’s “Why isn’t this a hot news item with the mainstream  media?” entry: New study finds that choice to abort nearly doubles the risk of mental illness — Hey, what happened to the “safe” mantra?

Unions kill jobs.  Lots of them.

Good reasons to use the ESV translation.  I really like it.

These clinics should merge with Planned Parenthood

See Three Louisiana abortion clinics cited for failure to report child rape – Jill Stanek.  They had a host of irregularities, and I’m glad that the Louisiana authorities found them.

. . . So this abortion mill has NEVER reported ANY suspected child rapes to Louisiana authorities.

That is sickening.  What kind of monsters hide suspected child rapes?

Other findings at Causeway:

  • One of the “Physician[s],” a term I always use loosely when speaking of abortionists, “had restrictions on his medical license that did not allow him to perform deliveries.” So this guy has committed such gross malpractice in the past that Louisiana authorities have banned him from delivering patients.
  • Patient confidentiality was lax: Aborting mothers had to sign in with first and last names that others could see.
  • Ack: The vaginal ultrasound probe was not cleaned properly between uses.

Uh, what happened to that sound bite about abortions being “safe?” The link has even more example of what these clinics did wrong.

Why are abortion mills persistently and perpetually found to neglect their patients, subjecting them to significant health and safety risks?

Because Democrats will do anything to avoid restricting abortions.

They would fit in well with the Planned Parenthood model, because PP hides rape on a regular basis.  They’ve been caught so many times over a period of years on audio and video.

Defund Planned Parenthood now.

Where they really need warning labels . . .

. . . is at abortion clinics.  After all, the new cigarette labels say, “Warning: Smoking during pregnancy can harm your baby.”

But you know what else can harm your baby?  Paying someone to kill her in the womb.   How about a sign at abortion clinics saying, “Killing your baby can harm your baby?

WARNING: Smoking during pregnancy can harm your baby. Image: Illustration of premature baby crying in incubator.
Cessation Resource: 1-800-QUIT-NOW
Copyright: U.S. HHS

From Jill Stanek:

President Obama is committed to protecting our nation’s children and theAmerican people from the dangers of tobacco use. These labels are frank, honest and powerful depictions of the health risks of smoking and they will help encourage smokers to quit, and prevent children from smoking,” said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “President Obama wants to make tobacco-related death and disease part of the nation’s past, and not our future.”

First, it must be noted that Obama and Sebelius are liars, feigning concern for “our nation’s children” while doing all they can to enable the abortion industry to continue murdering them, also taking their political contributions all along the way.

Cigarettes claim the lives of 443,000 each year? Abortion claims the lives of nearly 3 times that, 1.2 million each year.

Showing the graphic reality of the harm of cigarette smoking will curb it? Why not do the same for abortion, if the administration really wants it to be “rare”?

To that end, AbolishAbortion.com has launched a petition drive, telling the FDA to force abortion mills to post graphic warning signs “showing women what an abortion really does.”

I have signed on as a cosponsor of this drive. Hope you’ll sign the petition.

This is especially timely, considering how the new pro-abortion tactic is to require Pregnancy Resource Centers to post signs saying what they don’t do — i.e., abortions.  Wouldn’t it be more relevant and informative to require abortion clinics to show pictures of what they really do?

Always remember

It is a scientific fact that the unborn are unique, living human beings from conception.  Abortion kills those human beings and is therefore immoral except to save the life of the mother.

Abortion is a sin but forgiveness and healing can be found in Jesus.

Pro-lifers should be thrilled that Bachmann is running for President

In theory, real feminists should be thrilled that Michele Bachmann is running for President.   She has been successful in business and in politics and by all accounts is a terrific mother and extremely generous person. But the pro-choicers and the faux-lifers will hate her for this.  How dare she mention the Declaration of Independence?!   How dare she mention negative rights (i.e., the right to be protected from being destroyed just because you are unwanted)?!

Via Pro-Life Rep. Michele Bachmann Joins GOP Presidential Field | LifeNews.com:

During the debate, Bachmann defended her pro-life views and talked about the foster children she’s adopted.

“I am 100 percent pro-life. I’ve given birth to five babies, and I’ve taken 23 foster children into my home. I believe in the dignity of life from conception until natural death. I believe in the sanctity of human life,” Bachmann said.

“And I think the most eloquent words ever written were those in our Declaration of Independence that said it’s a creator who endowed us with inalienable rights given to us from God, not from government. And the beauty of that is that government cannot take those rights away. Only God can give, and only God can take,” she continued. “And the first of those rights is life. And I stand for that right. I stand for the right to life. The very few cases that deal with those exceptions are the very tiniest of fraction of cases, and yet they get all the attention. Where all of the firepower is and where the real battle is, is on the general — genuine issue of taking an innocent human life. I stand for life from conception until natural death.”

I love it when candidates speak clearly, especially on such an important topic.  She didn’t try to water things down.

And while the “pro-lifers don’t care about kids after they are born” canard is easy to refute, her track record of caring for so many foster children serves as a “prebuttal” to the pro-legalized abortionists.

I’m glad she is running, and I would love to see her win or at least get the VP nod.

Hat tip: Jill Stanek

All that matters to radical feminists is that you are pro-unrestricted abortion

Despite the facts that Anthony Weiner is a major liar, texted R- and X-rated comments and pictures of himself to many women even though he is married and his wife is expecting, exercises spectacularly bad judgment (did it occur to him that any political enemy could fake an identity to bribe or embarrass him?), “feminists” still support him completely because he has a 100% rating from NARAL (the pro-abortion group).

Here’s one of many examples from Liberal feminists blow off Weiner sex scandal – Jill Stanek.

In situations like these, I think feminists are in a bit of a hard place. As women, we’re sort of grossed out and annoyed by the fact that he would send anyone a (hopefully solicited) picture of his junk, but ultimately, I think we realize that it’s just another part of the role that patriarchy has created for men….

There is the bigger issue at hand, here…. Anthony Weiner is a progressive beacon in a House of Representatives full of a bunch of Tea Party wackos – we need him there.

Weiner has a 100% pro-choice rating from NARAL, a history of voting for women’s issues, LGBT issues, and just progressive politics in general. Again, progressives and women need Rep. Weiner in the House.

Just like with Bill Clinton, Weiner can violate every standard that real feminists would consider foundational and still have the support of the radical feminists — as long as you are pro-legalized abortion with zero restrictions (including partial-birth abortion and parental notification).

I hope that most women will rise up and tell these “feminists” (who support legal gender-selection abortions, nearly all of which kill females for the sole reason of being female) that the pro-aborts don’t speak for them.

Planned Parenthood doesn’t just target blacks

They go after Latinos as well.  See Latino abortion genocide awareness billboards kick off event hosted by Eduardo Verástegui to build pro-life women’s medical center in L.A. The rate of abortions in the black community is 3x that of whites, and in the Hispanic community it is 2x that of whites.  If you know anything about Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood’s founder, you know that is no accident.  (Also see Group of 99% whites raises money to destroy group of 76% blacks. Anyone else find that creepy?)

The billboard reads, “El lugar mas peligroso para un Latino es el vientre de su madre,” i.e., “The most dangerous place for a Latino is in the womb.”

According to The Daily Caller on June 7:

A Latino advocacy group is charging that abortion providers are targeting their communities, making their frustration known with a jumbo billboard campaign in Los Angeles, California.

“It’s clear that Latinos are being targeted by organizations that promote abortion like Planned Parenthood,” said Alfonso Aguilar, executive director of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles, the group behind the billboard. “Many of their clinics are in Latino neighborhoods and communities.”

I saw the movie Bella and it was very well done.  Kudos to Eduardo Verástegui for raising funds for a large pregnancy center.  He is using his celebrity to save many lives.

Which is more racist?

A. Aborting blacks at a rate three times that of whites

B. Pointing out that the abortion rate for blacks is three times that of whites

See Mom sues pro-life group for using daughter’s photo in “racist, defamatory” NYC billboard – Jill Stanek

A pro-life group that erected a billboard to spotlight the documented genocide being committed against preborn black children is being sued as “racist.”

I’d say “A.” The racism lies with those Margaret Sanger-inspired Planned Parenthood types who target black communities.