I found a wonderful website called After Abortion.org. Check it out. There are many lies being told to women, and much cover up of the real effects of abortion on women. After Abortion.org is one place where women are telling the truth about abortion. Abortion is not good for women at all. On this website, women are given a number of helpful resources if they are struggling emotionally after having had an abortion. There are articles written by women who had abortions at some time during their lives, but later had deep regret for what they had done.
The stories are sad, of course, but also hopeful. The women who share have found help and are in the process of healing from the emotional scars they suffered because of their abortions.
Of course, pro abortion groups allege that Post Abortion Stress Syndrome does not exist. I find that to be very odd. Such a cold, callous attitude reminds me of when doctors used to tell women that pain during their periods was not real. It didn't matter how many women said that they had pain - a lot of pain. Doctors denied the existence of things like cramps.
I would suggest that the women who are suffering anxiety, sadness, guilt, and shame because of their abortions need to be listened to and helped. Some health care professionals are telling them that their pain is meaningless, or that they need to just get over it. Abortion is just a normal part of life for many women, and they just have to accept it as normal.
Sure. Not all women will feel bad about their abortions. For the sake of argument, let's say that only a small minority of women suffer from stress after their abortions. Fine. What does that have to do with those who are suffering, or even suicidal because of what they did or what was done to them? Nothing at all. How can those who deny the existence of the condition called Post Abortion Stress Syndrome justify their harsh treatment of women who are suffering emotional scars from the procedure called abortion?
This condition may not be common, but it is certainly something that many women are haunted by. I suspect, just by the women I have talked to, that PASS is very common. A growing number of women are finding the courage to write about what they have gone through. The purpose of their sharing is to help other women who may be suffering the same kinds of symptoms they are. Shouldn't the abortion proponents at least acknowledge that these women are real? If Planned Parenthood and other organizations are really concerned about women's health, as they claim, then shouldn't they show some concern for the women who are suffering from PASS and other post abortion related conditions? It is easy for PP to say that PASS is a condition that was made up by the pro life community in an effort to undermine the good work that the pro abortion groups are doing. PP's views on PASS are posted at their website. They basically brush it off, since the American Psychiatric Assoc. doesn't recognize PASS as a real condition.
Of course, the APA's reaction could be because they do not have enough cases to study at this time. It may very well be something that women are just beginning to come to terms with. Society has been telling women that abortion is legal, and that they have a right to make that choice. It may take time for most women to find the courage to talk about it. Also, counselors may not be able to fully recognize the symptoms if they have been taught that women suffer no emotional damage because of their abortions. Planned Parenthood and other abortion advocates seem way too anxious to ignore the pleas for help. Or, if they recognize that women can feel bad about their abortions, they are quick to tell women that what they did was the right decision at the time. Somehow, though, the doubts and regret continue to haunt women who have bought into the pro abortion apologists' simplistic answers to their deep questions. How do abortionists want women to handle their emotional responses? Just accept that abortion is a normal part of life, it is legal, and don't let the anti choice people guilt trip you.
I don't think that kind of answer helps at all. It is like telling women to ignore their mothering instincts - which is impossible. We cannot ignore or change who we are.
Sunday, April 14, 2013
The debate about when life begins.
I found this quote at The Survival Doctor's website. I don't know much about this site, but I found the article When Does Life Beging? to be very well done.
"The defining characteristic of mammalian life, including human life, is the continuous process of development, which starts at fertilization and ends at death."
Here is a quote that I think shows one of the most glaring errors in the thinking of pro choice proponents.
The pregnant woman is not the patient, as if she were ill and in need of a cure. Abortion cures nothing, since pregnancy is not a disease.
Then, to give mothers the power of life or death over their unborn child is extremely foolish. We can look back into history to a time when fathers were given the power of life or death over their children, as well as over their wives and slaves. This was the case with the paterfamilias of ancient Rome. Even Rome eventually saw that power to be too broad to give to one person, so they put legal limitations on it. Why do we in our day find it wise to allow the mother to wield that same kind of power over her own unborn children? Some would even go so far as to say that the mother of an infant should also be able to decide whether or not her child be allowed to continue to live. I am not talking about a very sick baby who has little chance of recovering. That baby may even be on life support, with no hope of living. Yes, the mother may need to make a decision about when to turn off the life support systems. That is not the kind of situation I am talking about.
I am talking about a mother deciding the her child that has been born healthy may be too much of a burden for her to care for. At this point in time, that scenario is not an option. I certainly hope that the few who are suggesting such a thing never get their way.
It seems like a huge step backwards for civilization to be giving that kind of power to human beings, whether that human being is unborn or newborn.
The one whose life is in danger is the unborn child in the womb of the mother who is considering ending the life of that child. Yes, there are rare cases when the life of the mother really is at stake. Of course that scenario is not the norm for women seeking abortions. Generally, both mother and baby are healthy, with no problems seen that would justify ending the pregnancy.
Pro choice advocates always bring up the situation of rape or incest. Of course it is not the same at all as the situation where abortion is merely used as a means of birth control.
I think that the following conclusion is scientifically irrefutable.
"“Pro-choice docs would say that it is not their business to determine for a patient when life begins,” says Diana Philip, interim executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers and its sister organization, the Abortion Conversation Project. “Ultimately each patient determines the value and definition of life and that definition lies within her own mind and heart.”
Then, to give mothers the power of life or death over their unborn child is extremely foolish. We can look back into history to a time when fathers were given the power of life or death over their children, as well as over their wives and slaves. This was the case with the paterfamilias of ancient Rome. Even Rome eventually saw that power to be too broad to give to one person, so they put legal limitations on it. Why do we in our day find it wise to allow the mother to wield that same kind of power over her own unborn children? Some would even go so far as to say that the mother of an infant should also be able to decide whether or not her child be allowed to continue to live. I am not talking about a very sick baby who has little chance of recovering. That baby may even be on life support, with no hope of living. Yes, the mother may need to make a decision about when to turn off the life support systems. That is not the kind of situation I am talking about.
I am talking about a mother deciding the her child that has been born healthy may be too much of a burden for her to care for. At this point in time, that scenario is not an option. I certainly hope that the few who are suggesting such a thing never get their way.
It seems like a huge step backwards for civilization to be giving that kind of power to human beings, whether that human being is unborn or newborn.
The one whose life is in danger is the unborn child in the womb of the mother who is considering ending the life of that child. Yes, there are rare cases when the life of the mother really is at stake. Of course that scenario is not the norm for women seeking abortions. Generally, both mother and baby are healthy, with no problems seen that would justify ending the pregnancy.
Pro choice advocates always bring up the situation of rape or incest. Of course it is not the same at all as the situation where abortion is merely used as a means of birth control.
Also, all Christian communities teach that there is grace in Christ available to any woman suffering from the trauma of Post Abortion Syndrome. Any woman who has, in a moment of desperation sought out an abortion needs to know that there is complete and total forgiveness in Christ. She does not have to bear the guilt and shame of that decision her whole life.
When does life begin?
I agree with the premise that life begins at conception. There are a number of reasons as to why I agree. Here are some.
1. The patient in question is not the mother of the unborn child, but rather the child him or herself. It is the viability of that life that is being questioned - not at this time the viability of healthy adult women of child-bearing age.
2. It is dangerous to ask a mother about when the child she carries or carried became a human being. She is not qualified to know the answer to that question. What if she decides that her child is not fully human until he or she turns 21 years of age? Can she terminate the life of any child she deems to be sub human or not human yet? A mother's answer may vary from one day to the next, depending on her emotional state if she is the one who is to look at her heart and decide whether or not her child is a viable human being.
3. The only safe definition for the beginning of life is that from the moment of conception, the human zygote is a human being. Why safe? First, it is the only theologically safe definition. if God has anything to say about it - and I believe He does - then we had better be careful not to offend Him. Until and unless He says otherwise, it is best to assume that the moment of conception is the moment when human life begins. All of us who are alive at this time can say that our lives began in our mothers' wombs. When did we begin to be formed if not at the moment of conception?
Second, it is the only safe definition for mothers to go by. What a terrible burden it is on women to be forced by society to decided when their child's life begins. I am sure that I am not the only one who has listened to women tell of the terrible burden of guilt and shame they have borne because someone convinced them that the baby they were carrying was not really human; or someone coerced them into having an abortion. Post Abortion Stress Syndrome is very real, in spite of what many pro choice women say to the contrary. .
Last, it is the only safe legal definition to go by. Otherwise we end up making purely subjective, unscientific pronouncements about the beginning of life. It is certainly not scientific to say that only a woman can know. It is very bad public policy to leave the decision of life or death in the hands of one person, no matter if that person is the mother of the unborn child. So far we are talking only about unborn. In the future, the discussion about when life begins may move into post birth territory.
1. The patient in question is not the mother of the unborn child, but rather the child him or herself. It is the viability of that life that is being questioned - not at this time the viability of healthy adult women of child-bearing age.
2. It is dangerous to ask a mother about when the child she carries or carried became a human being. She is not qualified to know the answer to that question. What if she decides that her child is not fully human until he or she turns 21 years of age? Can she terminate the life of any child she deems to be sub human or not human yet? A mother's answer may vary from one day to the next, depending on her emotional state if she is the one who is to look at her heart and decide whether or not her child is a viable human being.
3. The only safe definition for the beginning of life is that from the moment of conception, the human zygote is a human being. Why safe? First, it is the only theologically safe definition. if God has anything to say about it - and I believe He does - then we had better be careful not to offend Him. Until and unless He says otherwise, it is best to assume that the moment of conception is the moment when human life begins. All of us who are alive at this time can say that our lives began in our mothers' wombs. When did we begin to be formed if not at the moment of conception?
Second, it is the only safe definition for mothers to go by. What a terrible burden it is on women to be forced by society to decided when their child's life begins. I am sure that I am not the only one who has listened to women tell of the terrible burden of guilt and shame they have borne because someone convinced them that the baby they were carrying was not really human; or someone coerced them into having an abortion. Post Abortion Stress Syndrome is very real, in spite of what many pro choice women say to the contrary. .
Last, it is the only safe legal definition to go by. Otherwise we end up making purely subjective, unscientific pronouncements about the beginning of life. It is certainly not scientific to say that only a woman can know. It is very bad public policy to leave the decision of life or death in the hands of one person, no matter if that person is the mother of the unborn child. So far we are talking only about unborn. In the future, the discussion about when life begins may move into post birth territory.
We shall see how the murder case in Philadelphia plays out. Will the abortion doctor be acquitted, since there was no intention of letting the babies who survived his botched abortions live in the first place?
What about Sen. Boxer's strange statements about when a baby is to receive full constitutional rights? Here is part of what she said.:
"In the 1999 colloquy, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) said: Suppose during this procedure the baby slips entirely from the mother’s birth canal. “You agree, once a child is born, is separated from the mother, that that child is protected by the Constitution and cannot be killed? Do you agree with that?” Boxer: “I think when you bring your baby home, when your baby is born … the baby belongs to your family and has all the rights.” Santorum persisted: “Obviously, you don’t mean they have to take the baby out of the hospital for it to be protected by the Constitution. Once the baby is separated from the mother, you would agree—completely separated from the mother—you would agree that the baby is entitled to constitutional protection?” She would not say “yes.” Instead, she said, understandably: “I don’t want to engage in this.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/07/31/barbara-boxer-in-context.html
What about Sen. Boxer's strange statements about when a baby is to receive full constitutional rights? Here is part of what she said.:
"In the 1999 colloquy, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) said: Suppose during this procedure the baby slips entirely from the mother’s birth canal. “You agree, once a child is born, is separated from the mother, that that child is protected by the Constitution and cannot be killed? Do you agree with that?” Boxer: “I think when you bring your baby home, when your baby is born … the baby belongs to your family and has all the rights.” Santorum persisted: “Obviously, you don’t mean they have to take the baby out of the hospital for it to be protected by the Constitution. Once the baby is separated from the mother, you would agree—completely separated from the mother—you would agree that the baby is entitled to constitutional protection?” She would not say “yes.” Instead, she said, understandably: “I don’t want to engage in this.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/07/31/barbara-boxer-in-context.html
Monday, April 1, 2013
Easter Sunday - Resurrection Sunday
Resurrection Sunday:
Luke 24
The Resurrection
Why do you seek the living among the dead?
6 He is not here, but has risen. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee,
7 that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise.”
Luke 24
The Resurrection
Why do you seek the living among the dead?
6 He is not here, but has risen. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee,
7 that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)