Skip to comments.Planned Parenthood Celebration Jolted by Abortion Survivor [Colorado]
Posted on 06/28/2006 11:25:07 AM PDT by Salvation
click here to read article
Incredible! Talk about a "stick it to ya!" moment! LOL Couldn't think of a more fitting way to address such a sick "celebration". I'm sure more than a few souls were touched that day!
Does anyone know if that resolution passed after all that happened? I saw the story a while back and couldn't find that info. Not that big an issue, but I'm just really curious!
I definitely don't think, nor did I say, that she should have been prevented from opening the session because she was an abortion survivor. That's why I said he should have just stated up front that she was an abortion survivor.
I don't know the political players involved, so I don't know if whe WOULD have been prevented from opening the session if that "inconvenient truth" had been known, but in today's world of thick animosity, she probably would have (depending on whether or not the person Harvey asked was pro-Life of pro-Choice!).
And no, Jesus didn't tell everyone he was the Son of God, but I think we can still agree that it's not Christian-like. There's a difference between a trait being "Christian-like" and an act being an exception to that rule. I simply said this wasn't "Christian-like." I didn't say it's never been done before, and I didn't say there aren't times when it's appropriate to do. But I'm sure neither you nor I think it's ok for Christians to go around living their lives and getting through life under false pretexts, backdoor slams, and blindsiding people.
And remember, just because Planned Parenthood isn't strong on "full disclosure", doesn't mean we can't hold ourselves to a higher standard. We don't have to swim in the gutter with people... that doesn't exactly make us any better than them.
I simply want everyone to act like grown-ups, be able to discuss things rationally, and treat each other with respect, regardless of whether they disagree about things. THAT, to me, is Christian-like, and I wish more so-called Christians would behave that way. (But now I am way off topic, so I apologize!)
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.
It appears to me he deliberately misled them. I trust you're familiar with the courtroom oath; it's not enough to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. It appears he purposely avoided telling the whole truth, with the intent of misleading his audience.
For anyone else reading this, I replied to this post privately.
Planned Parenthood is an oxymoron. They should call it Planned Death For Potential Parents' Offspring.
A very beautiful story. Thanks for sharing.
I don't believe it makes sense and/or I fail to see the logic.
Regarding the first point, this is what I believe I hear you saying
According to your personal definition, the entity cannot survive outside the womb at <= 2 months gestation and is therefore not a baby.
Okay, I dont agree, but I understand that.
According to your personal definition, the entity can survive outside the womb at => 5 months gestation and is therefore a baby.
I have a problem with that because NO fetus, not even one, can survive outside the womb at => 5 months gestation without care. Left alone they will die in short order zero survival rate.
According to your personal definition, the entity between 2 months and 5 months gestation may or may not survive outside the womb whether or not it is a real baby or a non-baby fetus is dependent on the care that the entity receives. So, under one set of conditions (superior care) a 5-month-gestation entity is a baby and under another set of conditions (inferior care) a 5-month-gestation entity is a non-baby fetus.
Again, as with the 5 months or longer gestation, I have a huge problem with this. It makes no sense to define life based on whether of not the fetus is cared for. Obviously, no care equals no survival.
Now to the second point you try to separate if and for how long from your could survive equation. You really lose me here, big-time. I fail to see that logic at all. Look at it this way
You would surely agree that a one-week-old baby, post birth, would not survive without care, correct? Im going to assume that as a given. The same would apply to a one-day-old, post birth, baby. And it would apply to an 8-month gestation entity and it would a apply to a 5-month gestation entity and it would apply to a 3-month gestation entity and so on and so on until you get back to conception. You have a zero survival rate for all fetuses/babies/entities without care.
So, to answer WHETHER or not a baby COULD live outside the womb I can only say that without care the entity CANNOT survive and never will. Therefore, you logically must do one of three things. One, you can move the definition of when a fetus becomes a baby forward to where the entity can survive entirely on its own in order to take the external care factor out of the equation. Two, you can call the fetus a baby from conception regardless of the level of care thereby also taking the external care factor out of the equation. Or Three, you can define the level of external care that makes the difference between fetus and baby.
I believe your argument relies on the third option i.e. dependent upon the level of care available specifically between 2 and 5 months of gestation. That puts you back to a situational definition of a baby dependent upon current and changing medical technology and whether or not that level of care is available to that fetus. I think that is a horrific definition of life.
One more question (which may lead to an additional follow-up): If a fetus (pick any "fetus" period you like by your own definition) could survive outside the womb with readily available care and that care is denied resulting in its death, has a murder been committed?
Did he mean that it's rude to point out what they stand for?
It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish Mother Teresa
If a woman you didn't know asked to be let into your church pulpit to "witness" and you, acting in good faith, let her and then she turned out to be a radical feminist from PP would you feel like you've been lied to?
I think you've got that right. There was no deception. If the fact of her abortion survival had not been mentioned the oppostion would have had no objection. The mere mention of who she is as an abortion survivor set them aflame.
No motions, no arguments, no legislation, just the mere mention of her abortion survival at the hands of PP.
If honoring planned parenthood is a good idea, then why would the mere mention of how this woman survived be a problem?
The only reason it's a "problem" is because PP and it's supporters cannot honorably stand in the light of this one simple truth. They can only be honored in the dark.
I say hurrah for these brave folks.
Sorry, I know the question wasn't for me, but my answer is no. That wouldn't be a lie at all.
Of course, my church would never give anyone the pulpit without knowing what will be taught or "witnessed."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.