Wintery Knight

…integrating Christian faith and knowledge in the public square

Which side of the abortion debate is uncomfortable with evidence?

Here’s a short, sweet post by Eric Metaxas sent to me by Mary.

Excerpt:

It’s hard not to blame the influence of technology for the seemingly inexorable spread of the culture of death. Accurate and safe prenatal testing has led to the destruction of an estimated 90 percent of unborn children diagnosed with Down syndrome. Sonograms reveal that the sex of yet-to-be-born children has led to a “small-h” holocaust against girls in places such as China and India, where boys are often preferred.

But technology can also be a huge advantage in the fight to recognize and protect the sanctity of human life—every human life. For example, pro-lifers have worked diligently to place sonogram machines into pregnancy care clinics, and the presence of these high-tech wonders—which clearly show the humanity of the fetus—has no doubt contributed mightily to a substantial drop in the abortion rate, as well as a marked increase in the percentage of Americans who consider themselves to be pro-life.

It seems that our technological prowess doesn’t so much corrupt our hearts as reveal what’s in them.

You can see this principle in action in a recent article in Slate magazine. The writer, Allison Benedikt, recounts “the latest in baby-making fads,” such as midwives and birth photographers. But what really gets her attention: “Pregnant woman are Photoshopping sonograms onto their naked stomach glamour-shots.”

[...]For Benedikt, such uses of technology are troubling—even “bad for women.” She writes, “… the more we treat fetuses like people—including them in our family photo shoots, tagging them on our Facebook walls, giving them their own Twitter accounts—the harder it will be to deny that they are people when the next, say, personhood amendment comes up, with legislators and activists arguing that ‘the unborn child’ inside a pregnant woman’s womb should have the same rights as the living among us.”

In other words, don’t believe what your lying eyes tell you about fetuses, because if we start viewing them as people, those mean ol’ anti-choicers might start demanding that we treat them that way.

This approach to the unborn—“nothing to see here, folks, just move along”—says so much about the pro-choice worldview. But it gets worse.  Writing about the recent congressional debate over sex-selection abortion, instead of bemoaning the elimination of millions of future women, Benedikt urges pro-choicers to embrace sex-selection abortion.

She writes: “No matter how many ultrasound pics get posted to Facebook, these are fetuses with female genitals or male genitals—not little girls and little boys. If pro-choicers object to aborting because of the sex of the fetus, aren’t we then saying that abortion is ‘murdering’ girls?  . . . That is not the case to make if your goal is to protect abortion rights. Gulp for a second if you must, then get over it.” Wow!

What does this tell us about the pro-abortion crowd? Is the pro-abortion view reasonable? Does it fit with what we know about the unborn from science? Which side cares about the truth in this debate?

Filed under: Commentary, , , , , , , , , ,

Court of Appeals upholds Texas sonogram law

From Life News.

Excerpt:

A federal appeals court has upheld a pro-life law in Texas allowing women a chance to see an ultrasound of their unborn child prior to an abortion.

During the recent 82nd Texas Legislative Session, the Sonogram Bill (House Bill 15) was passed and signed into law by Governor Rick Perry.  This historic law protects a pregnant woman’s right to view her unborn child and hear the heartbeat of that child before making a decision about an abortion. On August 30, federal district court Judge Sam Sparks enjoined crucial parts of this law – further jeopardizing the health of women undergoing abortions—just two days before the law was to go into effect.

The injunction was sought by the New York based Center for Reproductive Rights, an abortion advocacy group that files lawsuit against pro-life legislation.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who is pro-life, quickly filed an appeal on the same day that the lower court released the injunction with the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

Last Tuesday, a federal three-judge panel heard arguments to determine whether to lift the injunction. The panel was critical of the grounds for the injunction and Jonathan Mitchell, Solicitor General, argued for the law before the panel.  Mitchell explained that the level of scrutiny and the arguments used to rule the law as unconstitutional — and thus block the law from going into effect — were misapplied and needed to be overturned.

Chief Judge Edith Jones, of the three-judge panel, asked pro-abortion attorneys how medical sonogram imaging, and a factual description of that image could be viewed as radical or against the health of women.

Today, the court ruled the state can enforce the law and said Judge Sparks was wrong to rule that abortion practitioners would likely win their case in court.

[...]The legislation allows women to see the ultrasound 24 hours before the abortion and abortion centers typically do ultrasounds to estimate the age of the baby before the abortion but they don’t normally allow women a chance to see or explain to them in detail the development of their unborn child. When used in pregnancy centers offering abortion alternatives, approximately 80 percent of women change their mind about having an abortion.

There are so many incremental laws and initiatives that a pro-lifer like Rick Perry can implement. What I find disturbing is when people accept a candidate like Mitt Romney, who has a pro-abortion record, as being equal to candidates who have a pro-life record.

Filed under: News, , , , , , , ,

Texas Senate approves pre-abortion ultrasound law

Melissa posted this Reuters article on Facebook. Read the part in bold.

Excerpt:

The Texas Senate on Thursday approved a measure that would require women seeking an abortion to first get an ultrasound.

Women could choose not to view the sonogram image or listen to the heartbeat, but they would be required to listen to an explanation of the images, except in cases of rape or incest or if there are fetal abnormalities.

Republican Gov. Rick Perry, who had put the legislation on a fast track by declaring it an emergency priority, commended the bill’s advancement.

“Considering the magnitude of the decision to have an abortion, it is crucial that Texans understand what is truly at stake,” Perry said in a statement.

The measure now goes to the Texas House, where it has broad support. The legislation passed out of the Senate in 2007 and 2009 but died in the House. This year, the House has a larger Republican majority.

“This is God’s time to pass this bill,” said the measure’s author, Sen. Dan Patrick, a Houston Republican.

Opponents say that the measure interferes with the doctor-patient relationship and would be traumatic for women in an already difficult situation.

“It’s the most serious decision they’ll ever make in their lives and now you’re trying to put government in the middle of that decision,” said Democratic Sen. John Whitmire of Houston.

[...]Texas is one of several states with strong Republican legislative majorities proposing additional restrictions on abortion.

Eighteen states regulate abortion providers’ provision of ultrasound, according to the Guttmacher Institute. The requirements in those states vary widely; some of them require women to get an ultrasound before an abortion, while others require only that she be offered the chance to see the image if an ultrasound is performed.

Republicans introduced the law, and voted for the law. Democrats opposed the law. Republicans are pro-life. Democrats are pro-abortion.

Neil Simpson has more good news here.

Filed under: News, , , , , , , , , , ,

Republican Governor Rick Perry demands sonograms before abortions

Unborn baby scheming about moving to Texas

Unborn baby scheming about moving to Texas

From Life Site News.

Excerpt:

Texas governor Rick Perry is throwing his weight behind legislation to require doctors to show women a sonogram of their unborn child before having an abortion, declaring the issue a legislative “emergency.”

As an emergency item on the legislative agenda, the state congress will have the option of voting on the measure within the first 30 days of the current legislative session.

In addition to the sonogram, the bill would also require doctors to give mothers a detailed description of their child and his state of development, including the presence of limbs and internal organs. Mothers will also listen to their children’s heartbeat, and must be given information about abortion alternatives no less than 24 hours before the abortion occurs.

Perry’s decision to fast track the legislation was announced at a speech before the Texas Rally for Life, held on Saturday in Austin, the state capital.

“Nearly 40 years have passed since the tragedy of Roe vs. Wade was decided by the United States Supreme Court, and since then, fifty million, fifty million children have lost their chances,” Perry told the crowd.

“That is a catastrophic number.  That’s twice the population of this entire state. It’s pretty hard to imagine people of good conscience sitting idly by through this, and in Texas we haven’t. We have actively worked against that Roe vs. Wade decision.  We have taken great strides in protecting the unborn.”

After listing previous legislative measures, such as parental notification and parental consent laws, Perry added, “today I am pleased to announce that I am designating the sonogram bill an emergency item for the 87th legislative session.”

“A woman seeking an abortion must be given a sonogram, ensuring that she understands the full impact of her decision, a decision that can scar her physically and otherwise for the rest of her life. When you consider the magnitude of that decision, ensuring that someone understands what is truly at stake, seems to be a small step, in my opinion.”

The Republican party is the party of social conservatism. We believe in marriage and family.

Everyone who is a social conservative who votes for left-wing parties because of fiscal or foreign policy concerns really should ask themselves whether they have taken the time to understand the conservative view of fiscal and social issues. The conservative view is correct across the board – it’s one seamless garment. If you learn more about the facts on economics and foreign policy, you will be a conservative.

Related posts

Filed under: News, , , , , , , , , , ,

Wintery Tweets

Click to see recent visitors

  Visitors Online Now

Page views since 1/30/09

  • 3,944,627 hits

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,729 other followers

Archives

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,729 other followers

%d bloggers like this: