Skip to comments.Terri Schiavo Revisited: Brother Bobby Schindler Speaks
Posted on 11/14/2010 10:59:10 AM PST by wagglebee
click here to read article
Thank God for Terri!
I was just as naive. What shocked me more than anything else wasn’t any one person, like Jeb Bush. It was that about 8% of our population wanted her tortured to death. I still have a hard time accepting that.
I also cannot understand it - and the lack of overall outrage. I know a person strongly against abortion yet was okay with Terri’s fate.
Thread by bruinbirdman.
Vulnerable elderly and disabled people will feel pressured to end their lives if the law on assisted dying is relaxed.
The Demos commission promises to examine all sides of the argument, but critics allege that its claims to be independent are undermined because it has received funding and support from campaigners to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill patients.
Richard Hawkes, chief executive of the disability charity Scope, said there was a desperate need for an open debate on the issue of assisted suicide.
But he continued: We are deeply concerned that this pseudo Commission will not reflect the concerns and fears of many disabled people.
When it is funded by supporters of legalising assisted suicide and without a formal remit from Government, we would question how independent this Commission really can be.
Many of the disabled people we talk to are extremely frightened by any weakening of the law on assisted suicide. We must be vigilant in ensuring that we never get to a position where disabled people feel abandoned and under pressure to end their lives.
Dr Peter Saunders, campaign director of the Care Not Killing Alliance of 40 organisations opposed to assisted dying, said the commission appeared to be a stitch up.
The commission has received practical support from Dignity in Dying, and funding from the author, Terry Pratchett, a supporter of euthanasia, who has Alzheimers disease.
Demos insisted that the commission would remain entirely independent of Mr Pratchett and Dignity in Dying and would make recommendations
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Thread by markomalley.
November 29, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Every once in a while, one stumbles upon a terrifying level of honesty among abortion supporters. Normally, the truth is something that refreshes us when we come upon it - not so in this realm.
Such is the nomenclature of what appears to be a moderately successful group dedicated solely to providing low-income women with abortion money, called the Lilith Fund.
The Texas-based group explains its name on its website as follows: Lilith was the first woman created by God, as Adams wife and equal. Because Lilith refused to be subservient or submissive, she was sent away from Eden.
This is a somewhat accurate presentation of Liliths bio; however, its certainly not the whole story. Heres how the Hebrew legend, as first described in the Alphabet of Ben Sira of the 8th-10th century, ends: after Lilith flew away (and was not sent) from Eden, God punished her by dictating that one hundred of her own demon children would be killed each day. She responds by asserting her perpetual desire to sicken and kill newborn infants.
The abortion industrys poster girl if ever there was one.
In fact, the primordial population control expert bears a significance far beyond Hebrew culture. The recognition of Lilith, Lilit, or Lilitu as a demoness of night or wind traces an etymological path through the earliest civilizations, believed first to appear as early as 4000 BC in Sumer. Lilith may even be mentioned in the Bible, Isaiah 34:14: after God has reduced Edom to an uninhabitable waste, the lilith find[s] for herself a place to rest there. In Assyrian, Babylonian, and Greek mythology, Lilith emerged as a strong symbol of perverse barrenness, a desert-dwelling monster with breasts devoid of milk, that terrified nearby mothers by strangling and devouring their children.
Unsurprisingly, as Adams supposed original wife, Lilith is touted in Wiccan and occult circles to this day as the first Eve or first mother over and above Eve herself and the New Eve, Mary, whose selfless openness to life represents Liliths pure inverse.
In her Greco-Roman incarnation, Lilith (Lamia in Latin) was an even more fascinating - and insightful - symbol of the total corruption of female fertility. There we learn the child-eating Lamia actually suffers unbearable grief from the sight of her own dead babies, a grief made eternal because Zeus had forced her eyes to remain open permanently. In a gesture of pity, Zeus allowed Lamia occasionally to find relief by pulling her eyeballs out of their sockets. (Well, that was nice.)
The bizarre myth, an uncanny portrait of post-abortive grief, echoes in testimonies from the women of Silent No More Awareness depicting decades of being torn with obsessive anguish over their lost little ones.
One might wonder what would possess the Lilith Fund to follow through with such a cheery mascot. On its Facebook page earlier this year, the group eerily invited fans to express their devotion to abortion by posting the phrase I am meeting Lilith as their status, if you have had an abortion or know someone whos had an abortion.
The Fund notes that old Lil is today the feminist icon of the free-spirited strong woman - and in fact, the revoltingly barren, sex-crazed, child-killing monster has found favor in modern feminist theology as a symbol of rebellion against patriarchal repression. Other pro-abortion feminist organizations have snapped up the name as well. (One of several such blogs, The Lilith Plan, helps women self-abort and even provides gruesome instructions for an illegal do-it-yourself D&C abortion.)
It seems some abortioneers are at least honest enough to openly associate with the child-killing demon who is even more well-fed in our modern world than she was 6000 years ago. Even if relatively few, its a good reminder that some know exactly what it means to be pro-choice.
Thread by Free ThinkerNY.
Some 911 calls in Manhattan will now bring out two ambulances, one hurrying to the scene and one lagging slightly behind.
The first one will try to save the patients life. The second one will try to save the patients kidneys, in case the first ambulance fails.
After months of grappling with the ethical and legal implications, New York City medical officials are beginning to test a system that they hope will one day greatly increase the number of organs collected for transplant.
For five months starting Wednesday, the city will deploy a specially trained team that will monitor 911 calls for people who may be in danger of dying, like those having a heart attack. If efforts to resuscitate the patient fail, the team will quickly move in and try to save the kidneys; normally, patients who die outside hospitals cannot be donors because if too much time passes after the heart stops beating, the organs are unusable.
City officials said the project would be the first of its kind in the United States, though similar operations have been carried out in Europe. They said that they believed they had solved any ethical problems by adopting what they called very conservative standards for who would qualify as a donor.
To overcome fears that patients would be allowed to die for the sake of their organs, officials said that doctors and paramedics trying to resuscitate a patient would not be told whether the preservation unit was waiting in the wings until a supervisor had given the order to stop rescue efforts. The organ team, which will travel in a bright red and white ambulance marked Organ Preservation Unit, is supposed to remain out of sight.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Thread by me.
December 3, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In 1957, an aging Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood and the international birth control movement, agreed to an interview with CBS News Mike Wallace. In stark contrast with the sympathetic reception Sanger could expect to receive today in a network television interview, Wallace hammered Sanger with difficult questions and caught her in contradictions, while Sanger squirmed, fidgeted, and denied statements she had made only a week earlier in pre-interview discussions with CBS staff.
This fascinating and sometimes chilling interview with Sanger can be found at the website of the Harry Ransom Center, which is located at the University of Texas, and which has published all of the installments of the Mike Wallace Interview from 1957 and 1958. In the interview, Sanger expounds upon her views on a variety of topics, including birth control, eugenics, population growth, homosexuality, marriage, and religion.
Among the more revealing moments is Sangers explanation of the greatest sin of having children who violate her eugenic standards, and have no chance ... to be a human being practically.
Asked if she believes in sin, Sanger tells Wallace: I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world, that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically, delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things, just marked when theyre born. That to me is the greatest sin that a people can commit.
However, pressed by Wallace about her beliefs about sin, Sanger at first refuses to answer, and then balks at recognizing infidelity as such. I dont know about infidelity, it has so many personalities to it, and what a persons own belief is, I couldnt generalize, she says, after Wallace insists that she respond to the question.
Sanger balks even more when Wallace begins to cite statements she has made publicly, even to his own staff, claiming that she has been misquoted. At first Sanger rejects the claim made in the womans magazine Redbook, in reference to contraception, that immunity from parenthood encourages promiscuity particularly when unmarried persons can so easily avail themselves of the [birth control] devices. But Wallace then reads Sangers own words from a Philadelphia Daily News article from 1942, encouraging the use of birth control to avoid illegitimacy.
You were not advocating Christian morality but rather ways for single women to avoid bearing illegitimate children, Wallace tells her. I doubt it, Sanger responds curtly. I dont believe I ever made such a remark. Sanger also denies telling a CBS staff member that it should be made illegal for any religious group to prohibit dissemination of birth control, even among its own members. I dont think I said it quite that way, she protests.
Given Margaret Sangers role in founding Planned Parenthood, one might expect the interview to mention abortion, but the topic is only addressed in passing. When the interview was conducted in 1957, abortion was illegal throughout the United States, and Sanger always claimed to oppose the practice, as did Planned Parenthood at that time. However Planned Parenthood would go on after Sangers death in 1966 to become the biggest abortion provider in the world, focusing mainly on the impoverished groups whom she had once referred to as human waste.
Asked about her belief in God, in a sense of a divine being that rewards or punishes after death, Sanger responds, I have a different attitude about the divine. I feel that we have divinity within us. And the more we express the good part of our lives, the more the divine within us expresses itself. She claimed to be Episcopalian.
See the whole interview here.
Both threads by me.
Belgiums euthanasia law permits people to be killed by doctors because they are disabled. In such a discriminatory setting, is it any wonder that a Belgian court has now approved the odious notion of a wrongful life. From the story (may have to hit translation button):
The Court of Appeal in Brussels responds positively to this extremely sensitive issue. After noting that certainly, the misdiagnosis did not cause the childs disability, which existed before the error and which could not be remedied, the Court considers that, however, the injury must be compensated is not the disability itself, but the fact of being born with such disabilities. Thus, the child, the voice of his parents, may claim compensation for physicians who, through their fault, some were injured and legitimate interest to be a therapeutic abortion, as granted that his mother would have been appeal if it had been duly informed of the condition during pregnancy. In the opinion of the Court, by entering in the Penal Code article 350, paragraph 2, 4, authorizing therapeutic abortion, the legislature must have intended to help avoid giving birth to children with abnormalities serious, having regard not only to the interests of the mother but also to that of the unborn child itself.
This is the first time in Belgium that an appellate court receives such a wrongful life action (wrongful life). Previously, a trial court of first instance of Brussels, released April 21, 2004, had adopted a similar solution, about a child with Down syndrome.
This is life unworthy of life thinking, useless eater invidious discrimination against people with disabilities of the most pronounced kind. It breeds a deadly contempt for our brothers and sisters with disabilities. And the scary part: The Belgians see themselves as the epitome of modern tolerance because they couch their bigotry in oozing words of compa-aaaaa-ssssssion! Vile and disgusting.
Culture of death, Wesley? What culture of death?
This is the Dutch in a nutshell: If it is transparent, then it is okay. That opens the door to a lot of wickedness. Take infanticide. Dutch doctors kill babies born with terminal and disabling conditions. But rather than being ashamed, some are apparently proud because it is done according to procedure. From a Radio Netherlands Worldwide report:
Instead of emulation, Dutch euthanasia policies have over the past ten years mainly met with criticism: After euthanasia and infanticide, the next step in the Netherlands will most likely be a suicide pill for people who are tired of life, even though it will probably take a few years before its legal. (Correspondent Greg Burke, Fox News)
Uh, the tired of life proposal was first made by the then Minister of Health the day after euthanasia was formally legalized, and is now to be debated in the Parliament after to a petition signed by more than 100,000 Dutch citizens demanded it:
The Nazi laws and Hitlers ideas have made a comeback in Dutch euthanasia laws and the debate about how sick children are killed. (Italian minister Carlo Giovanardi) The criticisms regarding the killing of children refer to a medical protocol drawn up by neonatologists for the termination of life for newborn babies who are suffering unbearable pain without a prospect of improvement. Professor Van Leeuwen says: You could ask yourself if it was even necessary.
I see: Killing babies is okay because , We have a protocol. How very postmodern Dutch.
And here is a really telling point: As I write this, the Dutch are prosecuting a right wing politician for making nasty comments about the Koran. If convicted, he will face jail for a felony. But doctors openly commit infanticidewhich remains murder under Dutch lawand they are applauded. Free speech, no! Killing, yes!
They promote a dangerous agenda.
Thread by me.
ROCKFORD, Illinois, December 6, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A man accompanying a woman into the notorious Rockford abortion mill on December 3 threatened to shoot pro-life sidewalk counselors, according to witnesses.
Rockford pro-life veteran Kevin Rilott told LifeSiteNews that the incident happened on Friday, when a group of five abortion supporters from the Chicago area showed up at the Northern Illinois Womens Center. They stood at the driveway to the abortion facility shouting at mothers not to talk with pro-life sidewalk counselors.
Pro-lifers had parked a free mobile ultrasound motor home near the facility. Rilott said it appeared that the abortion supporters had come to Rockford with the sole purpose of trying to block mothers from using the free ultrasounds. In an attempt to confuse and turn away mothers, the abortion mill security guard had even placed a sign near the ultrasound motor home that said, Free Abortions In Motor-home.
At one point during the morning the pro-life counselors were confronted by a man who was bringing a young lady into the clinic for an abortion. Rilott said that the man appeared to be emboldened by the shouting of the pro-abortion protesters.
According to multiple witnesses, the man reached into his pocket and pretended that he had a gun. He then pulled his hand out of his pocket in the shape of a handgun and looked directly at the pro-lifers and said, What would you do if I pulled out my .45 and put a bullet in your head?
The pro-lifers called the police and filed a police report. A representative from the police department told LifeSiteNews that it would take up to five days to obtain a copy of the report, but said that no arrest was made at the time.
Donna Modica, among many of the pro-lifers who witnessed the incident, said, Its clear these abortion supporters think that because they can kill a baby in the womb, they can do whatever they want to anyone. The violence of abortion breeds more violence.
A witness at the Rockford abortuary said that later on the morning of December 3, the owner of the facility, Wayne Webster, came out and taunted one of the pro-lifers saying, Maybe he should have shot you.
There have been a number of serious cases of pro-abortion violence in recent months. Last week LifeSiteNews reported on the attack on the home of pro-life leaders Joseph and Ann Scheidler, who live close to Rockford.
The Scheidlers front windows were smashed in with bricks of asphalt. One of the bricks contained a note that said, We are crazy feminist bi***es who will destroy your sexist ideas.
Thread by Lorianne.
Seeing as I just discussed murder, it seems fitting to next discuss abortion, as abortion is murder. When you get an abortion, you are killing a living organism, something that had the potential to become a fully-developed human being. I understand the perspective of the pro-life movement.
However, we kill living things all the time. We chop down trees to build our homes, we kill rodents and insects when they intrude said homes, we kill fish and other animals for sport and for nutrition purposes, and neither microorganism nor mouse is safe in Smith Hall; they are constantly killed for educational and research purposes.
We murder organisms we deem inferior to us without hesitance every day, and I personally believe fetuses fit into this category.
We do not have emotion for the reproductive gametes before they combine. When a man masturbates, I would be surprised to learn that he mourns the death of his sperm, as they die shortly after ejaculation. However, once a sperm cell combines with an egg and has the potential to become a human, people become very emotional, despite the fact that it is not a person during the first trimester, the time in which abortions are permitted.
During the first trimester, a fetus has no idea what is happening, as its brain is not developed enough for such advanced forms of awareness, thought and emotion. In the first trimester, a growing fetus cannot possibly understand what life is. It does not understand that it is being deprived of anything when an abortion is taking place. If my parents aborted my birth, I would not have been upset, as I could not have experienced any emotions during those early weeks of life.
Although it could be argued that I would be missing out on future experiences, I would not have been aware of this deprivation and would therefore not have experienced this deprivation.
Aside: If, for example, a wife cheats on her husband, but the husband never becomes aware of the affair, I would argue that this duplicity is not bad for the husband. If the wife is still loving and the husband is still happy, and if no one that knows about this affair negatively alters their behavior toward this man, he is unaffected. Yes, those aware of this affair would say that their relationship is not as strong because of this lie, but the man is still happily oblivious to it all. According to this train of thought, a fetus early in development, oblivious to everything, surely cannot emotionally suffer from an abortion.
And even if I was aware of what was happening, I do not think I would want to exist if my life was a mistake. I would not want to be a burden on a young woman still in high school. I would not want to limit the freedom of a young couple, one that may not want a child yet and may be financially unstable. And I would certainly not want to be the resulting reward of rape.
We wear condoms and take birth control in the attempt to prevent childbirth. Just because these precautionary measures fail does not mean women should be forced to suffer through carrying a child for nine months and undergo a painful and potentially fatal delivery.
Some that cannot raise a child on their own put their children up for adoption, but why force another to potentially grow up in an orphanage? We are overpopulated enough as it is.
To create life is a major responsibility; people should not have children unless they believe they can care for their children and make them happy. Life is hard even when one has loving parents with the best intentions. Life is filled with unfulfilled desires, never-ending stress (especially so close to finals) and disappointments. I do not know if I want to be responsible for putting another human being through the hardships that accompany existence.
Thread by Ol' Sparky.
Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels upset pro-life advocates earlier this year when he called for a truce on social issues including abortion. Now, he may have gotten himself in more hot water.
He told 6News in Indianapolis that conservatives in the state legislature can move forward with pro-life legislation so long as it doesnt distract from the economic and education-related legislation he prefers to push.
As long as it doesnt get in the way of the really crucial (objectives) keeping Indiana in the black, improving our economy and bringing big reform to things like education. As long as it doesnt get in the way of that, theres plenty of time and capacity, Daniels said.
Daniels also told 6News that his call for a truce was not aimed at the Indiana state legislature, but Congress.
I was answering questions about the nations situation, which I think is very grave in terms of our economic and financial future. I said the priorities ought to be there, Daniels added.
The comments follow a letter distributed by Sen. Greg Walker and Rep. Wes Culver to fellow Republican state legislators urging them to support a package of five bills that would include one banning abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy because unborn children can feel intense pain.
We believe that with 150 legislators, we can give adequate attention to the many important issues our constituents feel are important, the letter, which doesnt mention Daniels, says.
Walker told a reported for the television station that theres no reason social and fiscal issues cant be pursued at the same time.
I can focus on all those things and still change the oil in my car, too, Walker said. I mean, theres other things to be taken care of.
Whether the comments from Daniels will help pro-life advocates and social conservatives understand his call for a truce is something only time will tell. But the comments appear to continue to relegate social issues like abortion to the back burner making the potential presidential candidate appear to believe pro-life concerns are like the little children who get relegated to the kids table at Christmas dinner while the adults talk about more important issues while they dine together.
In his comments about a truce, Indiana Governor Daniels replied, I dont know, when asked if he would issue the executive order every pro-life president has done by instituting the Mexico City Policy.
He eventually walked back those comments and told reporter Michael Gerson he would sign the Mexico City Policy but he is sticking to his controversial comments calling for a truce on abortion.
I would reinstate the Mexico City policy, Daniels said, adding that promoting abortion with money meant for family planning is one of a thousand things we shouldnt be spending money on.
The Daniels truce drew condemnation from potential presidential opponents Tim Pawlenty, Mike Pence and Mike Huckabee.
Representatives of several pro-life groups immediately responded to Daniels truce comments earlier this year.
Tony Perkins, the head of the Family Research Council said Daniels comments raise serious questions about his level of commitment to fundamental issues like life leading many of us to wonder if he has the ability to lead a unified conservative movement.
Calling the remarks a surprising departure from his pro-family record, Perkins said it was astonishing to see that not only is he noncommittal about his role as a pro-life leader, but the Governor wouldnt even agree to a modest step like banning taxpayer-funded promotion of abortion overseas-which President Bush did on his first day in office with 65% of the countrys support.
These arent fringe issues that stretch moderate America. Theyre mainstream ideals that an overwhelming majority of the nation espouses, he said.
Also, several pro-life groups, including LifeNews.com, released a joint statement condemning the truce.
Let’s get rid of Mitch when his election primary comes up.
Thanks for the ping!
what an incredible piece of history... how awesome, wagglebee! thanks for the link, and for the ping. best to you — I do hope you have a good Christmas and a wonderful new year. love and hugs...
belated birthday bump. I’m remembering several years ago when we sent the birthday cards. it was good to work with you all here, still hard to bear the outcome, though I do try to remember the ultimate victory. best to all.
Thread by Sun.
We previously reported that on August 13th the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a new prescription abortion drug called "ella" allowing Watson Pharmaceuticals to market this drug in the U.S. as an "emergency contraceptive" (EC). While proponents of ella claim that it is more effective than the so-called "morning-after-pill," Plan B, ella can also function as an abortion drug more like RU-486. On December 1st, Watson Pharmaceuticals began to aggressively promote ella over the internet and in pharmacies.
Because ella is similar in its chemical make-up to the abortion drug RU-486, it therefore can destroy an implanted embryo, in addition to other modes of action such as preventing fertilization or preventing implantation. Until now the FDA has drawn the line between EC and abortion based on whether a drug prevents an established pregnancy or ends an established pregnancy. Therefore, approving ella as an EC even under their own definition of an abortifacient is doubly misleading.
Because of the FDA's approval of ella as an EC, pharmacists may believe they must cover ella as a prescription drug. However, many pharmacists do not know about the dangers of this drug or that it functions like an abortion. Many major pharmacy chains may not know ella can cause an abortion, and need to be aware of these concerns before they begin stocking this abortion drug. For this, we need your help.
Please send an email to the pharmacy you most frequent, asking that they not stock ella, the abortion drug.
(Excerpt) Read more at frc.org ...
Thread by Free ThinkerNY.
Like so many other couples these days, the Toronto-area business executive and her husband put off having children for years as they built successful careers. Both parents were in their 40s and their first son just over a year old when this spring the woman became pregnant a second time. Seven weeks in, an ultrasound revealed the Burlington, Ont., resident was carrying twins. It came as a complete shock, said the mother, who asked not to be named. Were both career people. If we were going to have three children two years apart, someone else was going to be raising our kids. ... All of a sudden our lives as we know them and as we like to lead them, are not going to happen.
She soon discovered another option: Doctors could reduce the pregnancy from twins to a singleton through a little-known procedure that eliminates selected fetuses and has become increasingly common in the past two decades amid a boom in the number of multiple pregnancies.
Selective reductions are typically carried out for women pregnant with triplets or greater, where the risk of harm or death climbs sharply with each additional fetus. The Ontario couple is part of what some experts say is a growing demand for reducing twins to one, fuelled more by socio-economic imperatives than medical need, and raising vexing new ethical questions.
Experts question whether parents should choose to terminate a fetus just because of the impact the child would have on their lives, and note that even more medically necessary reductions can trigger lifelong angst and even threaten marriages.
The mother said the Toronto doctor who eventually did her reduction performs several a month.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalpost.com ...
Thread by me.
Hundreds of thousands of NHS patients are being denied routine procedures as dozens of trusts cut back on surgery, scans and other treatments in order to save money, a Daily Telegraph investigation has found.
Trusts around the country are refusing to pay for operations ranging from hip replacements, to cataract removal and wisdom tooth extraction.
The health service is also tightening restrictions that prevent patients undergoing procedures for lifestyle reasons.
Smokers and obese patients are being denied operations until they change their habits and trusts are delaying surgery and non-emergency treatments, the Telegraph has found in the most comprehensive snapshot of NHS cuts yet.
The cuts - which include the cancelling of MRI scans and x-rays - are taking place in defiance of the Coalition.
Ministers are determined that front line services should be protected and the savings needed can be found from management costs and efficiencies.
But there is growing evidence that NHS managers are sacrificing patient care instead.
Doctors and nurses said the 'grim' results undermine the 'myth' that front line services are being protected and warned they were just the 'tip of the iceberg'.
The situation is predicted to get worse as the NHS struggles to save £20bn over the next four years.
Although ministers have pledged to protect the health service budget and provide a real terms increase, it will not be sufficient to keep pace with growing demand and increasing costs.
In addition from April next year the amount of money hospitals receive for each type of treatment will be cut by 1.5 per cent raising fears that managers will refuse to provide treatments that they make a loss on.
As part of the investigation, The Telegraph had responses from almost one in three primary care trusts.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
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.