Planned Parenthood Celebration Jolted by Abortion Survivor [Colorado]

CatholicEducation.org ^ | May, 2006 | Ted Harvey

[Delphinium]

So I'm not going to argue a point I wasn't making.

That's because you can't argue some point that makes no sense. It's just an excuse to kill a child.

[beezdotcom]

So as I said, it's a huge can of worms to start talking about whether or not we should even be going to the extreme measures necessary to keep a 20-week baby alive outside the womb.

I think the aforementioned survivors would vote "yes".

But of course all of that is completely off topic for this thread, and for my original post. :-)

Ah, yes, agreeing with the post about how "unChristian" it was to "sneak her in". Funny, seems like she came through the front door. And sang, to EVERYONE'S pleasure. And got applauded. The anger came LONG after she had sat down. Were the people mad that she was there - or were they mad that they learned an extra detail that they didn't care to know?

[BagCamAddict]

I don't think my definition would change. The definition would be the same, but the age at which a baby can survive outside the womb is, and probably will continue to change. The point is not whether that "fetus" could survive if it were born in the year 2435, but whether or not it could live outside the womb TODAY. So the definition will stay the same forever, but the science/skills will change.

But at that point, my definition of "human" might come into play!

I'm thinking of Sci-Fi-Future movies, where all the "humans" are born from test tubes, and there are no more interpersonal relationships, and everything is done by genetic engineering: We need more factory workers, so we "breed" "beings" who can stand the monotony of working on an assembly line all day, etc.

At this point in time, our super-human efforts to save a premature baby (20-weeks gestation), result in a relatively normal human being. But I can't forsee the future, and I don't know (a) how long it will take to develop the skill/technology to keep an 8-week-gestation "baby" alive, and (b) whether the resultant "product" of that effort will be "fairly normal" or not.

[BagCamAddict]

And a person can't debate with someone who won't debate on issues.

[BagCamAddict]

Oh I don't disagree with that. But as I said, it's a big can of worms. (Who pays for all the effort to keep that one baby alive, how many others die because resources are spent keeping that one alive that could have been spread out to others, etc., etc.) I'm not saying we shouldn't do it, I'm just saying it's a big topic.

And I don't think the people were mad at either of the two things you mentioned. I think they were mad at the false pretext under which she was introduced - Cerebral Palsy - when the true motive was the Planned Parenthood angle. If I were in that audience, I could feel both joy at having heard her sing, and joy at hearing her story of accomplishments and survival, AND anger at the person for "duping" the audience with the false introduction. I just don't see why there had to be any "duping" at all. Why the false pretext? Why not just bring the woman in and say, by the way, here's the other side of the Planned Parenthood story. So I think that's where the anger was, and that's why I agreed with the first person who posted that comment. (False pretext isn't exactly "Christian-like.")

[presently no screen name]

Ted Harvey needs support. He is running again. How many officials have a backbone to stand up for what is right; in spite of what it can do to their political career.

Let's support him!

http://www.tedharvey.com

[Delphinium]

I'll debate you about when a baby begins their life any day.

But I am sure you won't get it, because you don't want to.

Facing the truth is very hard for some especially if they have had an abortion, or participated in anothers.

[BagCamAddict]

A baby begins its life at conception.

What is there to debate?

Or are you one of those who likes to debate something that isn't even contested? Based on the oozing animosity in your post, I suspect you are.

[8mmMauser]

Pinged from Terri JUNE Dailies

8mm

[ovrtaxt]

Wow, I'm late to the party. That's AWESOME! Great post- thank you!

[Mad Dawg]

Nope. I'm not. I do however subscribe to elements of classic Thomist thinking on just war and find similar elements apply in other activities which might not rise to the level of war.

[prairiebreeze]

90 years of Planned Parenthood in the Rocky Mountains? Is this a misprint?

Great story, btw.

[Mad Dawg]

May I ask why you are so upset over this?

No offense, but that's the kind of arguing that Liberals do. Locomotive Breath has an idea, a moral principle which is, I think VERY worth examining. My personal opinion is that LB is mistaken, but I have on very rare occasion been mistaken myself so I have to be open to the laughably minuscule possibility that I am in error this time.

It's like this, I think: Lies, misdirection, suggesting the false, are bad. Even when they are done in a good cause, at least some of their bad sequelae persist. E.g.: If today I lie to you in a morally licit way (if any) and in a good cause, tomorrow you may doubt my word and my cause when I need you to believe me.

To contend fairly, the reason or goal of the fight must be fair, and the manner of fighting must also be fair. So LB thinks that Mr. Harvey fought unfairly.

I think homicide is just as evil as lying, and I can imagine cases where homicide is licit -- for example: I have very good reason to believe that that spare tire you're toting is actually a suicide bomb -- VERY GOOD reason.

Similarly, I don't think I know enough about the parliamentary procedures and expectations of the assembly where Mr. Harvey did this. But it is at least possible that he encouraged folks to give him permission to have the young lady sing for reasons which were not his true reasons. I think it's legitimate to question this.

And I'm NOT upset, dammit!

heh heh heh

[Locomotive Breath]

I hold the Constitution only slightly less holy than the Bible. I render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and give thanks daily that I live in a time and place where I have the opportunity and means to help control what Caesar (figuratively speaking) does.

We differ on means rather than ends. I don't think Harvey's actions advance the end. He may have changed some minds in his favor, I doubt it, but he almost certainly alienated others. It may have made him feel better in the short term but it did nothing to help actually achieve the end and it may have even hurt.

In the political arena, people of faith insist on making faith-based arguments that will only sway those who share that faith and alienate those who do not. This will not be enough. There are plenty of arguments against abortion that do not end with "God says so". These are the arguments that must be made if there is to be created a sufficient majority to overturn the current situation.

As far as the Bible being banned in this country, etc., people of faith often complain bitterly about the interpretation of the establishment clause of the Constitution while forgetting the rights it confers. It don't think even the most radical of atheists in this country has ever proposed that you and I be denied possession of a Bible or the chance to attend our chosen place of worship. And were they to do so, 99.999% of the country, including most of the atheists, would disagree with them and prevent it happening.

[Locomotive Breath]

I would rather not win the battle and lose the war. And I'm not upset, but I think Harvey's is a bad tactic.

[newgeezer]

However, I find the manner in which this young lady was sneaked into the Colorado House on false pretenses to be dishonest and unChristian. This is exactly the kind of stunt that gives Christians a bad name.

As I was reading it I, too, cringed when he repeatedly represented her as being a cerebral palsy advocate. That struck me as deceptive and misleading; he was withholding, even distorting, the truth. He did not invite her to appear because of her CP advocacy. But, that's the impression he gave the majority leader and the house.

[Locomotive Breath]

I don't agree that Christians are the ONLY group. But if you're going to hold yourself up as a standard of moral authority then you had better live it word and deed. A different (higher) standard is exactly right.

[beezdotcom]

Why not just bring the woman in and say, by the way, here's the other side of the Planned Parenthood story. So I think that's where the anger was, and that's why I agreed with the first person who posted that comment. (False pretext isn't exactly "Christian-like.")

I'm not sure "false pretext" is quite the right word, here. Everything Harvey said about her was true. Her story was deemed worthy enough to let her open the session. Everyone was upset only because Harvey went on to reveal another "inconvenient truth" about this woman, by discussing her prologue. Should she have been prevented from opening the session because she was an abortion survivor? If that was known, WOULD she have been?

Before you say that "not revealing everything up front isn't exactly Christian-like" - remember, even Jesus was known to hold back certain truths from many people, until just the right moment. (It's not like he started off by telling everyone "I'm the Son of God".)

I'm amused that everyone seems hung up on the lack of "full disclosure" in this case. That's a trait that hasn't always been Planned Parenthood's strong suit. It's hard for me to be upset that someone found a clever way to rain on their parade.

[beezdotcom]

As I was reading it I, too, cringed when he repeatedly represented her as being a cerebral palsy advocate.

Was she, or wasn't she?

[JAKraig]

A beautiful story, we should hear similar stories more often. How God continues to protect this country after what we have done as a nation is beyond me. I realize that he is a loving God and what His Son was willing to suffer on our account saves us, BUT after killing millions of unborn children how can he continue to hear our prayers?

How can we sit idly by and watch it happen? Please make your opinions known on this issue to those that need to hear it!