Showing posts with label fetus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fetus. Show all posts

Thursday, July 23, 2015

The Abortion Debate More Heated More Divisive Than Ever

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about abortion. This follows this post about evolution. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.
Please follow me here for continued posts.


The Abortion Debate More Heated More Divisive Than Ever

  by Cecil Maranville Estimated reading time: 9 minutes

Login or Create an Account

With a UCG.org account you will be able to save items to read and study later!
Sign In | Sign Up
×
One of the hottest issues before the U.S. Congress is the so-called partial birth abortion bill, previously vetoed by the President. Congress voted to override the veto and sent the measure to the Senate where the final outcome is uncertain. What is certain is that the overall issue of abortion with its numerous debating points is going to be one of the hottest ones before the American electorate in the imminent and subsequent elections.
Dominating the headlines and capturing the imaginations of thousands is the ongoing FBI manhunt in North Carolina for fugitive Eric Rudolph. Rudolph-a virtual folk hero to some and the embodiment of evil to others-is accused of bombing an Alabama abortion clinic in January of this year, killing a policeman and injuring a nurse.
Reaction to the Rudolph case demonstrates how sharply split the country-including its churches-is on the subject of abortion. “The search for an abortion clinic bombing suspect…has created a moral dilemma for local clergy who feel a mixture of support and disdain for fugitive Eric Rudolph. At least one religious leader said he would understand if someone helped the 31-year-old survivalist elude authorities” (© 1998 The Associated Press ).
In July, other extremists dumped butyric acid at three clinics in Houston where abortions are performed. This “terrorism in the name of morality” mimics similar attacks on abortion clinics in Florida and Louisiana earlier this year.
An egregious act committed at a Phoenix abortion clinic in late July fueled the already complex controversy as Dr. John Biskind attempted to abort a fetus that was 37 weeks along-nearly full term. The baby was delivered alive, but with skull fractures and lacerations.

A New Component-Untouched by Federal or State Laws

Pro-life and pro-choice arguments have gone beyond the political arena into that of private health care. Numerous mergers and affiliations between Catholic and non-Catholic hospitals have taken place in the United States in recent years, resulting in the Catholic health care system being responsible for 16 percent of all hospital admissions annually ( RCRC Publications,© 1996 the Coalition, “Merge With Care”).
Private health care facilities are untouched by federal or state laws on public policy about abortion. Free to set their own policies regarding reproductive health care, the Catholic facilities uphold Catholic principles for their hospitals and beyond. “Directives for Catholic healthcare personnel are frequently imposed even beyond hospital walls, at clinics, auxiliary facilities, and even private practice offices” (ibid.).
What lies ahead? “In the next two or three years, thousands of hospitals-run by communities as well as various religious organizations-will affiliate with Catholic facilities and consolidate services in an effort to provide more cost-effective health care.” So this new component in the abortion debate will only grow.
This trend has alarmed pro-choice lobbyists and community activist groups such as “The Coalition” quoted above in an attempt to counteract it.

Chinese Émigré's Testimony Fuels Flames

Thirty-seven-year-old Xiaoduan Gao fled China in fear of undergoing forced sterilization for secretly adopting an abandoned young boy-an act that violates China's one-child rule. Her interview on ABC World News Tonight with Brian Ross added passion to the ongoing debate.
Mrs. Goa, herself the former director of a so-called planned birth center in China, shocked ABC's viewers by confirming interviewer Ross' statement that she, “has now come forward to say…that women who defy the country's one child per family policy routinely face sterilizations and forced abortions-including women as much as nine months pregnant” (© 1998 ABC NEWS and Starwave Corporation).
Horrifying as it is to contemplate, Mrs. Gao said, “The child can still be alive when he comes out of his mother's womb and as soon as the child cries, the doctor will give it another injection and the child will die” (ibid.).
Mrs. Gao's gripping testimony brings pathos to perhaps otherwise dry statistics released this summer from Atlanta's Center for Disease Control. Legal-induced abortions in the United States for 1995 totaled 1,210,883 (© 1998 American Medical Association).
Work with those numbers and add some humanity to them! They represent 1,210,883 mothers and 1,210,883 fathers. Some will immediately argue that many fathers are neither in the picture nor part of the decision making to abort. That's worth further comment later in this article. But arguably, at least one other concerned person-mother, father or friend of the pregnant woman-is affected by the decision to abort those 1,210,883 pregnancies. That's a minimum of 2,421,766 lives that are touched in a powerful way by physiological and spiritual forces.
Inevitably brought into the debate are the unnamed and unseen, those 1,210,883 that are never born. This is a controversy not easily put to rest.

Everyone Has “Rights” But Who Has Responsibility?

Women's rights enter the controversy. Is abortion a choice that only the pregnant woman can and should make? A modern dictionary defines abort as “to bring forth a fetus from the uterus before the fetus is viable; miscarry” ( Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary , © 1996 by Random House Value Publishing, Inc.). So the disputants of one side point out that a uterus is the unique property and concern of the pregnant woman and therefore the decision to abort is solely hers to make.
Without argument, there are truly tragic and extreme cases, but abortion is not the only alternative. A bumper sticker on the issue reads “If it's not a choice, it's called a child. ” How tragic that there are many couples-unable to have children-anxious to adopt at the same time as others are aborting their children. Free counseling programs exist in most communities to provide encouragement and information to the pregnant woman who wants to take responsibility for her child, not take its life.
Debaters argue with equal passion for the rights of the unborn. Do “fetuses” have rights that are being overlooked? (Why is it, do you suppose, that the progenitor of the unborn is called “the father” and the one whose body carries the unborn is called “the mother” but there seems to be so much debate over whether the unborn is actually a child? Hmm.)
Then there's the argument over father's rights? Do they have any say in the decision to abort? What about societal or community rights? Should the community at large determine whether or not abortions can be performed? And the arguing goes on and on.

Reframe the Discussion

It is a mistake to debate the issue of abortion in isolation. The broader question is, “How did our society become saddled with this controversy?” A sweeping prophecy in 2 Timothy 3:1-7 2 Timothy 3:1-7 1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, truce breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, high minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
American King James Version×
speaks to those wider concerns. They include rejection of moral values, rejection of the traditional family, a lack of good judgment, an addiction to pleasure seeking, selfishness and a failure to take personal responsibility.
The abortion issue has much to do with one taking responsibility for his/her actions. Argument about abortion is often buttressed with and bogs down in examples of extreme or rare scenarios. Let's take the debate back to before pregnancy occurs. Many decisions are made-some deliberately, some under pressure, and some by making no calculated choice to do anything other than let nature take its course. The decision to spend time with one of the opposite sex, often including the decision to drink alcoholic beverages and to use other drugs, the decision to touch and to allow touching in intimate ways, the decision to be “sexually active” are among them.
Consider further the decision to be “sexually active.” Unmarried people make a decision to act contrary to the laws of God by deciding to engage in sex outside of marriage. And then seek to free themselves from the unwanted consequences-the men by shuffling away, the women by bringing “forth the fetus from the uterus before the fetus is viable.”
When human desires are given free reign, there are undesirable consequences. Jesus put it this way: “What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. For from within…proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications…. All these evil things come from within and defile a man” (Mark 7:20-23 Mark 7:20-23 20 And he said, That which comes out of the man, that defiles the man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: 23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.
American King James Version×
). Human nature, left unchecked, will spawn the precise societal crises that exist at the heart of the abortion issue.
Note how many of “the works of the flesh”—human nature—are often part of the circumstances that lead to an unwanted pregnancy. “Now the works of the flesh are evident…adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness…drunkenness… and the like” (Galatians 5:19 Galatians 5:19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
American King James Version×
—21).

Existing Laws Already Cover the Abortion Issues

Where are the answers to the screaming questions surrounding abortion? Is violence in the name of morality the answer? In their passion against abortion some religious people have participated in terrorizing abortion clinics and medical personnel involved in performing abortions. To murder for the sake of stopping murder is inexcusable. “For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. For He who said, 'Do not commit adultery,' also said, 'Do not murder.' Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law” (James 2:10-11 James 2:10-11 10 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. 11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if you commit no adultery, yet if you kill, you are become a transgressor of the law.
American King James Version×
).
Is lobbying for more or better-defined legislation the answer? Two clear laws that govern the abortion issue are already on “the Books”—you shall not murder and you shall not commit adultery! An incalculable positive change would sweep through society if people stopped choosing violence to force and enforce their opinions, if they started living sexually responsible lives. There must be a fundamental commitment to morality, to the Ten Commandments.
Moral living is, “summed up in this saying…'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law” (Romans 13:9-10 Romans 13:9-10 9 For this, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, You shall not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 10 Love works no ill to his neighbor: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
American King James Version×
).
Perhaps if all concerned-the “sexually active” men and women, the pregnant women considering abortion and the society at large-answered one simple question, the answers to the tougher ones would fall in place. The simple one is “Who is my neighbor?” WNP

Monday, July 20, 2015

Obama Spokesman on Planned Parenthood Selling Aborted Baby Parts: They Say They’re “Ethical”

An interesting story from www.lifenews.com about Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts. This follows this post about Kelsey Grammar and Ben Carson. For two very interesting books click HERE.
Please follow me here.




Obama Spokesman on Planned Parenthood Selling Aborted Baby Parts: They Say They’re “Ethical”

National Steven Ertelt                             



President Barack Obama’s top spokesman today defended the Planned Parenthood abortion business after a shocking new expose’ video caught Planned Parenthood’s top doctor describing how the abortion business sells the body parts of aborted babies.
As LifeNews reported, new undercover footage shows Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s Senior Director of Medical Services, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, describing how Planned Parenthood sells the body parts of aborted unborn children and admitting she uses partial-birth abortions to supply intact body parts.
Now, Obama spokesman Josh Ernest is defending the abortion giant, despite not having seen the video. Although he said he has not viewed the video, Earnest says Planned Parenthood follows “the highest ethical guidelines” on medical research. Earnest referred questions about Planned Parenthood to Planned Parenthood.
“I haven’t spoken to the president” about the video, Earnest said.
“I did read news reports,” Earnest said. “Planned Parenthood said they follow the highest ethical guidelines.
SIGN THE PETITION! Congress Must Investigate Planned Parenthood for Selling Aborted Baby Parts
Leading pro-life activists on Twitter were incensed by the reaction:




The answer from Obama’s spokesman is not surprising give a new report that Planned Parenthood’s Nucatola serves on the board of a pro-abortion sex ed group founded by a former Obama administration official and whose board includes current Obama administration staff.
Obama has spoken before Planned Parenthood’s national conference, the abortion giant endorsed and worked closely with Obama and his administration, and its CEO Cecile Richards has hobnobbed with Obama at White House functions.
In the video, Nucatola is at a business lunch with actors posing as buyers from a human biologics company. As head of PPFA’s Medical Services department, Nucatola has overseen medical practice at all Planned Parenthood locations since 2009. She also trains new Planned Parenthood abortion doctors and performs abortions herself at Planned Parenthood Los Angeles up to 24 weeks.
Nucatola admits that Planned Parenthood charges per-specimen for baby body parts, uses pseudo-partial-birth abortion procedures in order to get salable parts, and is aware of their own liability for doing so and takes steps to cover it up.
SIGN THE PETITION! Congress Must De-Fund Planned Parenthood Immediately
In the video, Nucatola admits that Planned Parenthood charges per-specimen for baby body parts, uses illegal partial-birth abortion procedures in order to get salable parts, and is aware of their own liability for doing so and takes steps to cover it up.
The footage shockingly depicts the top medical official at the Planned Parenthood corporation munching on her salad while she discusses the sale of body parts of unborn children victimized by abortions. She brazenly describes how the heads of unborn babies killed in abortions command top dollar.
The buyers ask Nucatola, “How much of a difference can that actually make, if you know kind of what’s expected, or what we need?”
“It makes a huge difference,” Nucatola replies. “I’d say a lot of people want liver. And for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so they’ll know where they’re putting their forceps. The kind of rate-limiting step of the procedure is calvarium. Calvarium—the head—is basically the biggest part.”
Nucatola explains, “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”
“And with the calvarium, in general, some people will actually try to change the presentation so that it’s not vertex,” she continues. “So if you do it starting from the breech presentation, there’s dilation that happens as the case goes on, and often, the last step, you can evacuate an intact calvarium at the end.”
In a video response to the heavy criticism, Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards apologizes for the tone the Nucatola took but not for selling the body parts of aborted babies. Another shocking video exposing Planned Parenthood selling aborted babies is expected next week.
Over the last few days, nearly every Republican candidate for president as well as countless lawmakers have expressed their outrage regarding the video and called on Congress to defund Planned Parenthood. A total of five states are slated to begin investigations of the Planned Parenthood abortion business.
The video, which has been seen by more than two million people, reveals how the abortion giant sometimes alters their procedures to ensure high-quality “specimen” for organ harvesting.
SIGN THE PETITION! Congress Must De-Fund Planned Parenthood Immediately
Dr. Nucatola said, “You’re just kind of cognizant of where you put your graspers, you try to intentionally go above and below the thorax, so that, you know, we’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m going to basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”
The abortionist also explains that Planned Parenthood charges per-specimen for baby body parts and is aware of their own liability for doing so. When asked about a price, she said, “I would say it’s probably anywhere from $30 to $100, depending on the facility and what’s involved.” Unbelievably, she admits that some body parts, such as livers and heads, are much more popular and go for a higher price than other specimen.
David Daleiden, the founder of the group Center for Medical Progress told CBS News, “Planned Parenthood is still receiving $50, $75, sometimes $100 per specimen per fetal part. So all of that is just straight up profit that goes to their bottom line.”
joshearnest
LifeNews Note: File photo of Josh Earnest.




Monday, May 4, 2015

Sofia Vergara’s Ex-Fiancé: Our Frozen Embryos “Have a Right to Live,” Opposes “Killing Them”

An interesting story from www.lifenews.com about Sofia Vegara. This follows this post about censorship of pro-life literature.For two very interesting books click HERE.
Please follow me here.



Sofia Vergara’s Ex-Fiancé: Our Frozen Embryos “Have a Right to Live,” Opposes “Killing Them”

Home Posts Steven Ertelt      Washington, DC



Sofia Vergara’s former fiance’ Nick Loeb is continuing his battle to protect his children — even though they are in the embryonic stage of life.
 
As LifeNews previously reported, Loeb has filed a lawsuit against Modern Family actress, Sofia Vergara, in an attempt to stop her from destroying a pair of frozen embryos they created while they were engaged. Now, he’s speaking out more forcefully and taking a decidedly pro-life tact in how he describes his embryonic children, saying they have a “right to live” and that he opposes “killing them.”
In May 2014, the couple broke off their engagement after four years of dating. A source close to Loeb explained that he didn’t want to see the embryos destroyed because he’s always believed that life begins at conception. The couple created the embryos through in vitro fertilization.
The lawsuit was filed under a pseudonym and states, “John Doe seeks to ensure that the Female Embryos are not destroyed, but Jane Doe [Vergara] refuses to agree to their preservation under all circumstances.” The lawsuit also alleges that Vergara was both physically and emotionally abusive toward Loeb.
However, other sources say that Loeb is just trying to stay apart of Vergara‘s life. One source told Radar Online, “If these embryos were implanted into a surrogate, Nick would almost certainly go after Sofia for child support. As the highest paid actress on television, the financial incentive needs to also be considered.”
On Thursday, he penned an op-ed in The New York Times titled “Our Frozen Embryos Have a Right to Live,” and argued that keeping the embryos “frozen forever is tantamount to killing them.”
“Shouldn’t a man who is willing to take on all parental responsibilities be similarly entitled to bring his embryos to term even if the woman objects?”
“When we create embryos for the purpose of life, should we not define them as life, rather than as property? Does one person’s desire to avoid biological parenthood (free of any legal obligations) outweigh another’s religious beliefs in the sanctity of life and desire to be a parent?”
Here’s the latest from the op-ed in the New York Times from Loeb:
LAST August, I filed a complaint in Santa Monica, Calif., using pseudonyms, to protect two frozen embryos I created with my former fiancée. I wanted to keep this private, but recently the story broke to the world. It has gotten attention not only because of the people involved — my ex is Sofía Vergara, who stars in the ABC series “Modern Family” — but also because embryonic custody disputes raise important questions about life, religion and parenthood.
When we create embryos for the purpose of life, should we not define them as life, rather than as property? Does one person’s desire to avoid biological parenthood (free of any legal obligations) outweigh another’s religious beliefs in the sanctity of life and desire to be a parent? A woman is entitled to bring a pregnancy to term even if the man objects. Shouldn’t a man who is willing to take on all parental responsibilities be similarly entitled to bring his embryos to term even if the woman objects? These are issues that, unlike abortion, have nothing to do with the rights over one’s own body, and everything to do with a parent’s right to protect the life of his or her unborn child.
In 2013, Sofía and I agreed to try to use in vitro fertilization and a surrogate to have children. We signed a form stating that any embryos created through the process could be brought to term only with both parties’ consent. The form did not specify — as California law requires — what would happen if we separated. I am asking to have it voided.
Like this pro-life news article? Please support LifeNews during our current fundraising campaign with a donation!
My lawyers have identified 10 other cases in the United States in which a parent tried to have a fertilized, frozen embryo taken to term against the wishes of an opposing parent. In eight of those cases, the parent seeking custody lost. In the other two cases, one in Pennsylvania and one in Illinois, a woman was awarded custody of fertilized embryos over the man’s objections. In both cases, the woman had undergone chemotherapy treatment and the embryos were her last chance to have a biological child; judges ruled that the woman’s interest in becoming a parent outweighed the man’s interest in not becoming a parent. In the Illinois case (now on appeal), the judge found that the form the couple signed was not the binding contract, and instead enforced a verbal promise the man made to help the woman have children.
Many have asked me: Why not just move on and have a family of your own? I have every intention of doing so. But that doesn’t mean I should let the two lives I have already created be destroyed or sit in a freezer until the end of time.
For as long as I can remember, I have dreamed of being a parent. I was only a year old when my parents divorced. My father gained custody, and my mother virtually disappeared from my life. I did not see her again until I was 9, and she died when I was 20. This made me yearn for the type of family based on the images one might see in a Norman Rockwell painting.
When I was in my 20s, I had a girlfriend who had an abortion, and the decision was entirely out of my hands. Ever since, I have dreamed about a boy at the age he would be now.
sofiavergara2