Steven Waldman

Steven Waldman


Why Pro-Lifers Oppose “Family Planning” To Reduce Abortion: Pro-Life Leader Jill Stanek Explains

posted by swaldman

jill stanek.jpgI’m often asked by pro-choice friends why pro-lifers oppose sex education, family planning, and contraception. Don’t those approaches reduce unintended pregnancy and therefore the numbers of abortions? It’s a question at the heart of efforts to achieve “common ground” on abortion.
I know pro-life activists hate that some money goes to Planned Parenthood, which also performs abortions, and that they don’t actually think family planning works. But what if it could be proven that it did reduce unintended pregnancies? Would they still have philosophical objections? And even if there are problems with promoting contraception, aren’t they lesser sins than abortion in their view? (I’m especially fascinated by her answer on that: “the idea of authorizing “lesser sins” to decrease “greater sins” is not Scriptural.”)
So I emailed Jill Stanek, an important pro-life leader (she’s the Chicago nurse who almost single handedly made Barack Obama’s opposition to Illinois’ “born alive” legislation a big issue in the 2008 campaign). A “non-denominational Christian,” she speaks around the nation and blogs at JillStanek.com .
My goal here was not to assess or challenge every thing Jill said but to tease out one question: why — really — do pro-life leaders resist birth control as a way of reducing the number of abortions?
Her response is the most clear, and revealing, I’ve seen:
From: Steve Waldman
To: Jill Stanek
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 4:10 PM
Subject: question

Jill, I’m curious about something…. IF family planning could be disentangled from Planned Parenthood funding, would you support it? (By the way, by family planning I mean education and health care that includes abstinence education and birth control education)
Best,
steve
From: Jill Stanek
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 5:21 PM
To: Steve Waldman
Subject: RE: question

Hi Steve,
No, I would only support abstinence training with perhaps an explanation of the harm of contraceptives – the failure rate, that the pill is composed of artificial female steroids, etc.(Hormonal contraceptives are bad for women. They’re simply artificial female steroids. If we understand the harm of male steroids, why not the harm of female steroids?)
Step back, Steve. We don’t have training on how to drink alcohol, which we oppose, but here’s how to drink if you must. We don’t have training on how to take drugs, which we oppose, but here’s how to shoot up if you must.
Steve, comprehensive sex ed has ruled the roost for over 40 years and is an astounding miserable failure. It has only increased the volume of kids having sex, getting abortions, and catching STDs (which are now out of control).
Thoughts?
J
From: Steve Waldman
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:56 PM
To: Jill Stanek
Subject: RE: question

I’m trying to disentangle the practical argument from the philosophical one. You (and many prolifers) believe that family planning does not reduce unintended pregnancies; in fact, it increases them.
But, theoretically, IF family planning DID reduce unintended pregnancy would you – in theory – support it?
From: Jill Stanek
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 7:55 AM
To: Steve Waldman
Subject: RE: question

Steve,
The thing for the other side to acknowledge is that all statistics show comprehensive sex ed and “family planning” (widespread contraceptive distribution) have only served to increase illicit sexual activity and its consequences. The other side needs to prove how it hasn’t.
That said, most pro-lifers would never support comprehensive sex ed and widespread contraceptive distribution on a philosophical level for at least four reasons.
1. The logic behind them is hypocritical. Assuming you’re married, would your wife send you out of town on a business trip after slipping a condom in your suitcase and saying, “Honey, I want you to be faithful, but here’s protection just in case you slip up”? No. Why do we expect any less from our kids than we do ourselves? Why do we send them a lowered-bar message?
2. One potential action of hormonal contraceptives is to abort a 5-9 day old preborn baby. And that’s all IUDs do – abort.
3. Contraceptives are the root of abortion. “Contraceptive” means anti-conception. Contraceptives establish a mindset of hostility toward the blessing of children.
4. Sex outside of marriage is a sin. Steve, you’re a believer. You know the rules God set up are for our own good. We breach them, we suffer consequences. We compromise, we suffer consequences. We need to teach that sex outside of marriage is categorically harmful. We may not be able to say this is Biblical teaching. But we can bank on the fact this teaching is solid, and we have 40+ years of statistics in this case to prove it. We do not say, don’t murder but here’s how in case you can’t resist. We do not say, don’t steal but here’s how in case you can’t resist. We do not say, don’t commit adultery but here’s how in case you can’t resist. We have to resist the culture and think the same way about premarital sex.
Hope this helps, Steve.
God bless,
JIll
From: Steve Waldman
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 9:45 AM
To: Jill Stanek
Subject: RE: question

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I might disagree on some of the particulars and agree on others but I had a broader question. Let’s assume that everything you said in #1-4 is true – and is a sin.
We have the sin of hypocrisy, the sin of devaluing the blessing of children, the sin of sanctioning premarital sex.
But aren’t each of them lesser sins than abortion? IF it could be proved that allowing these lesser sins would decrease the number of abortions – the greater sin – why wouldn’t you go for that?
Best,
Steve
From: Jill Stanek
To: Steve Waldman
Sent: Thu Jul 02 02:14:21 2009
Subject: RE: question

Steve, for one thing, the idea of authorizing “lesser sins” to decrease “greater sins” is not Scriptural. In fact, Scripture teaches the opposite phenomenon occurs: Little sins lead to bigger sins. They don’t sate. You should know satan works in quite the opposite direction, enticing us in small, seemingly innocuous ways.
That premise aside, it is no “lesser sin” to commit extramarital sex — both before marriage and during marriage.
And my point #2 is in your words the “greater sin” of abortion, anyway. Read the Pill’s literature. It is thought to work one of 4 ways: stopping ovulation, making the egg impermeable to sperm, slowing sperm by increasing mucous viscosity, or making the endometrial wall impermeable to an embryo attempting to implant – abortion. The entire job of the IUD is to make the endometrial wall impermeable to an embryo attempting to implant – abortion.
God speed,
J



Advertisement
Comments read comments(35)
post a comment
hootie1fan

posted July 2, 2009 at 12:19 pm


What’s the explanation as to why abstinance only edcuation doesn’t work by any scientific standard?



report abuse
 

Michael

posted July 2, 2009 at 12:24 pm


This does reinforce many civil libertarian’s worst fear: the pro-life movement would be willing to go after contraceptives if they won the abortion battle. There really is no limit to the desire of those at the extreme–and Stanek is at the extremes of the pro-life movement–to limit reproductive options. If they undue Roe, are they prepared to go after Griswold, which set the stage for Roe?
It reinforces the problems in the abortion compromise. Lack of trust and deeply ideological entrenchment on the extremes.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 2, 2009 at 12:36 pm


Does Jill Stanek oppose condoms or sterilization for married people? I am unclear if she opposes all birth control at all times, or is she opposes all types of birth control for single people and also opposes certain types of birth control in all cases.



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted July 2, 2009 at 12:57 pm


I am trying hard not to yell at how ridiculious her objections are to women taking care of themselves as they see fit. Women have the RIGHT to not be pregnant, and to use means to prevent that. They have the right to prevent themselves from getting STD’s. They also have a right to not carry a pregnancy to term. None of this is her business or the RR’s business. And what is even more ridiculious , IMO is her objection to sex education…which, BTW, doesn’t even cause folks to sleep together “out of wedlock”. Sure, contraceptions sometimes fail, but when they don’t, one less chance a woman will go for an abortion. AND and IUD is like an abortion??? OMG, I must have had several then, because it helped me have only the 2 children I planned. Again, MY BODY.
Her religion’s view doesn’t belong to everyone, and to try and push that on those with differing opinions is…well, “unChristian”. Her view of what is “sinful” means nothing to many folks. She and those who agree are certainly within their rights to do with their bodies as they see fit…but keep their rules off others who have the right to do as they see fit..within the laws of this country. No one is forcing them to do what they disagree with. Basicly, the RR needs to “get a life” of their own and stay out of others.



report abuse
 

Husband

posted July 2, 2009 at 1:03 pm


hootie1fan,
“What’s the explanation as to why abstinance only edcuation doesn’t work by any scientific standard?”
That’s an easy one to answer – because people won’t abstain. The ‘scientific standard’ you seek is wrapped up in human behaviours. People actually like sex. Well, most people. I’m not too sure that anyone who doesn’t support family planning, diminishing that noble goal – that every child should be a wanted child – to a “sin” (lesser or otherwise), ever get much pleasure out of the act. And they think other people shouldn’t either.
“This does reinforce many civil libertarian’s worst fear: the pro-life movement would be willing to go after contraceptives if they won the abortion battle.”
Sadly, Michael, you’re typing in the wrong tense. They already are. Google (or search the Crunchy Con blog right here on B’net) to find out more about pharmacists who won’t stock condoms, birth control pills, etc. They want only to impose their (ahem) ‘moral’ ‘values’ on others. Yes, even those not of their (or any) particular faith.
IMO, they should follow Anne Landers’ sage advice to MYOB. (MTOB???)



report abuse
 

Husband

posted July 2, 2009 at 1:07 pm


That Stanek conflates extramarital sex with family planning, unsafe sex and “satan working” speaks volumes.
I’d like to hear from people who are not people of faith and are “pro-life”, what do you think and feel when you keep hearing all this “sin talk”? Are there any non-religious reasons to forbidding the use of contraceptives???



report abuse
 

hootie1fan

posted July 2, 2009 at 1:11 pm


I personally have fairly conservative values myself, but here’s my point, it’s not the government’s responsibility to legislate my morality on other people. Bans all abortions or anything anyone even remotely associates with aboriotn the USA, ban all artificial birth control in the USA, make pre-marital sex a crime, ban all divorce……
We live in the USA. The government rule of all should be based on the Constitution for the greater good. Just because your greater good doesn’t involve behaviors your God tells you are bad doesn’t mean other have to agree.



report abuse
 

Charles Cosimano

posted July 2, 2009 at 1:22 pm


In 1993, the Christian television station in Chicago had an interesting panel show that ran weekly and one of their discussions was on why pro-life had turned into such an utter failure. One of the points that was raised was that the moment pro-life leaders attacked contraception they lost their audience and were regarded as nutcakes.
Here we have the proof of that. This is a loon and she should be treated as what she is. Dialogue with such people is a waste of time. The wisest course is to bat them aside and banish them with laughter, which they so richly deserve.



report abuse
 

Tim

posted July 2, 2009 at 1:50 pm


I don’t know where to begin. I echo almost all the objections to Stanek. What particularly angers me are her blanket and misinformed assertions about comprehensive sexuality education. So CSE has “ruled the roost” for 40 years? If only! The federal government has funded abstinence-only for more than a decade. Before that, there was either no sex ed, or bad sex ed, in most states. CSE has caused illicit activity to go up? Show me those statistics. Every report I have read (see Guttmacher Institute and SIECUS for the best information) indicate just the opposite — teen pregnancies and STDs go up when kids don’t have the information they need. Take Stanek’s antiquated, draconian moralizing out of the equation. Don’t talk sin or even right and wrong. Think only about what is better for our kids — providing accurate information about sexuality, or keeping them in the dark — and you tell me which is the correct, moral option.



report abuse
 

Bob

posted July 2, 2009 at 1:59 pm


CCC 1652 “By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory.”162
Children are the supreme gift of marriage and contribute greatly to the good of the parents themselves. God himself said: “It is not good that man should be alone,” and “from the beginning [he] made them male and female”; wishing to associate them in a special way in his own creative work, God blessed man and woman with the words: “Be fruitful and multiply.” Hence, true married love and the whole structure of family life which results from it, without diminishment of the other ends of marriage, are directed to disposing the spouses to cooperate valiantly with the love of the Creator and Savior, who through them will increase and enrich his family from day to day.163
1653 The fruitfulness of conjugal love extends to the fruits of the moral, spiritual, and supernatural life that parents hand on to their children by education. Parents are the principal and first educators of their children.164 In this sense the fundamental task of marriage and family is to be at the service of life.”



report abuse
 

Emily Jane

posted July 2, 2009 at 2:05 pm


But what about married people trying to limit the number of children they have, to keep it to a number they can reasonably support?
The problem with comparing sex to illegal drugs is that we as a species do not need to “shoot up” in order to stay alive. As a group, all creatures have to reproduce at some point – but none have to do heroin in order to stick around. Indeed, drugs seem to have the opposite effect.
I compare sex to food, instead. You see, we all need to eat in order to live. Food is a good thing, a blessing from God that helps to sustain us on earth. But when we start to live to eat, then it’s a problem. We need to be taught how to eat healthily – to do so in moderation, and to only take in the things that are good for us. Stay off the Twinkies and limit your portion size!
Just so, sex is a blessing from God, but too much of it, or the wrong kind of it, is enormously damaging. Children (and adults, too) need to be taught how to use sex appropriately, as a means to bond two married people together in eternity and in a Godly life together.



report abuse
 

Peter

posted July 2, 2009 at 2:08 pm


Jill is right.



report abuse
 

Religious Institute

posted July 2, 2009 at 2:35 pm


Jill Stanek writes: “All statistics show comprehensive sex ed and ‘family planning’ (widespread contraceptive distribution) have only served to increase illicit sexual activity and its consequences. The other side needs to prove how it hasn’t.”
I am happy to oblige. I could point Ms. Stanek, and your readers, to a number of studies, but for starters a fact sheet from the Guttmacher Institute has plenty to refute her accusations.
For one thing, teenage pregnancy rates have been on the decline for the last decade, not because of abstinence-only education, but in spite of it. The major reason for the decline is teenagers’ knowing enough to use contraception. Sadly, one in five adolescents receive sexuality education that stresses abstinence only and does not provide information on contraception. Imagine how much lower rates of unwanted pregnancy and STDs would be if adolescents were better informed.
Second, abstinence-only programs, which Ms. Stanek favors, are ineffective in persuading teenagers to delay sexual activity. In fact, teens who receive abstinence-only education are every bit as likely as their peers to be sexually active, and more likely not to use protection when they do.
Third, as Guttmacher points out, “comprehensive sex education programs that provide information about both abstinence and contraception can help delay the onset of sexual activity among teens, reduce their number of sexual partners and increase contraceptive use when they become sexually active.”
The citations for all of these facts are included on the Guttmacher fact sheet. If Ms. Stanek can point to any peer-reviewed studies to support her charges against comprehensive sexuality education, let her produce them. The ball is in her court.
Timothy Palmer
Religious Institute



report abuse
 

Religious Institute

posted July 2, 2009 at 2:36 pm


The URL to the Guttmacher fact sheet did not come through on my post. Here it is again.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 2, 2009 at 6:51 pm


Jill writes: “Sex outside of marriage is a sin. Steve, you’re a believer. You know the rules God set up are for our own good. We breach them, we suffer consequences. We compromise, we suffer consequences.”
Doesn’t this tap right in to the idea of bearing an unwanted, unplanned child as “punishment” — consequences “suffered?”
Also, why is this entire discussion about extra-marital or pre-marital sex? What about married couples who believe they are suffiently blessed with as many children as they can handle with their emotional, spiritual, and tangible resources? What about people who, unlike Jill and Steven, are not “believers” but are still citizens. How much freedom can, should people have about their family size and can elected officials limit it — or not — according to their own beliefs?



report abuse
 

Cathy Grossman

posted July 2, 2009 at 6:53 pm


Above questions under “Your Name” are mine. I didnt’ navigate this system properly. Cathy



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted July 2, 2009 at 9:04 pm


And just what is your point, Bob? That we should follow whatever doctrine you were quoting. Sorry, not happening.



report abuse
 

Cynthia

posted July 3, 2009 at 1:57 am


Tim,
Do you know of any recent studies? The one you posted is comparing statistics between 1995 and 2002 which isn’t very pertinent.
Also, this report states teens aged 15-17 who reported ever having sex decreased 10% between 1995 and 2002. It also states that the pregnancy rate among U.S. women aged 15–19 has declined steadily—from 117 pregnancies per 1,000 women in 1990 to 75 per 1,000 women in 2002. Then halfway down the page I read this:
“• By 2002, one-third of teens had not received any formal instruction about contraception.[9]
• More than one in five adolescents (21% of females and 24% of males) received abstinence education without receiving instruction about birth control in 2002, compared with 8–9% in 1995.”
So it must be a miracle. It couldn’t possibly be the abstinance teaching. Right?



report abuse
 

Julie

posted July 3, 2009 at 3:31 am


Steven said, “So I emailed Jill Stanek, an important pro-life leader (she’s the Chicago nurse who almost single handedly made Barack Obama’s opposition to Illinois’ “born alive” legislation a big issue in the 2008 campaign).”
Jill Stanek was very effective at slandering Obama with her false statements. Even though her statements have been proven wrong by many reliable sources, Steven continues to give voice to the falsities. Factcheck.org and politifact.org had several detail analysis of the issue that did not support Stanek’s slandering statements(a sin according to the Bible).
Clarifying the record on the born-alive bill September 5, 2008
http://tinyurl.com/5cgcb6
The above link is an article from the Chicago Tribune by Rick Winkel, the Illinois Republican who introduced the born alive bill in the state Senate. He said, “none of those who voted against SB-1082 favored infanticide,” despite his disagreement with them. “Rather their zeal for pro-choice dogma was clearly the overriding force behind their negative votes rather than concern that my bill would protect babies who are born alive.”
The state of Illinois investigated Jill Stanek’s claims that she had witnessed infants left to die in dirty utility rooms. They investigated her claim because it would have been a felony under exisiting Illinois law. The investigation could not find any support for Jill Stanek’s claims.
A day or two after Dr. George Tiller was murdered, Stanek put pictures of the Nebraska abortion clinic for the doctor that performed late term abortions on her website. In my opinion, she was waving a red flag for another crazy murderer.



report abuse
 

hootie1fan

posted July 3, 2009 at 9:17 am


The comprehensive, nine-year study by Mathematica Policy Research (2007)
“There’s not a lot of good news here for people who pin their hopes on abstinence-only education,” said Sarah Brown, executive director of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, a privately funded organization that monitors sex education programs. “This is the first study with a solid, experimental design, the first with adequate numbers and long-term follow-up, the first to measure behavior and not just intent. On every measure, the effectiveness of the programs was flat.”



report abuse
 

hootie1fan

posted July 3, 2009 at 9:18 am


The Oxford University team reviewed 13 US trials involving over 15,000 people aged 10 to 21.
They found abstinence programmes had no negative or positive impact on the rates of sex infections or unprotected sex, the British Medical Journal said.
Researchers found none of the abstinence-only programmes had an impact on the age at which individuals lost their virginity, whether they had unprotected sex, the number of sexual partners, the rates of sexually transmitted diseases or the number of pregnancies.
One trial did show a short-term benefit with participants reporting that they were less likely to have had sex in the month following one abstinence-only programme.
But the researchers said this finding was offset by six other trials that showed the programmes had no effect on the participants’ recent sex lives.



report abuse
 

Arium

posted July 4, 2009 at 8:56 am


The title of this post illuminates the trouble with Waldman’s methodology: Extremists like Jill Stanek are completely out of touch with the pro-life community, therefore asking someone like Stanek to speak for the community makes no sense.
According to an article in the November 2006 issue of the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 82% of US adults support sex ed in schools that includes instruction on birth control. According to Gallup, 51% of Americans identify as pro-life. Even if 100% of those who don’t identify as pro-life support comprehensive sex ed, that would still leave a minimum of 64% of pro-lifers supporting comprehensive sex ed.
Are there no true representatives of the pro-life community to whom you could pose this question?



report abuse
 

Dunga

posted July 4, 2009 at 11:06 am


Two thoughts: 1) Ms. Stanek’s answers demonstrate that first and foremost, she is addicted to her own dogma, and assumes that since she is, so must all of us. 2). She must have been asleep/on another planet the last eight years, during which abstinence-only was the only form of sex-ed allowed in school, and the teen pregnancy rate shot up.
Then again, the factually challenged religious moonbats of the Right never pay any attention to this, do they? Enforcement of their 10th century dogma is all that matters.



report abuse
 

Tom

posted July 4, 2009 at 11:56 am


100%-51%=49%
82%-49%=a minimum of 33% of ‘pro-lifers’ supporting ‘comprehensive’ sex ed, assuming the poles are reliable and responders had a fairly common definition of ‘pro-life’.



report abuse
 

Arium

posted July 4, 2009 at 1:20 pm


Tom: Statistics FAIL
Data: 51% of population self-identify as pro-life; 49% of population non-pro-life
Data: 82% of population are pro-comprehensive sex ed; 18% of population anti-comp
Assumption: 100% of non-pro-life are pro-comp
Calculation: 49% x 100% = 49% of population are both non-pro-life and pro-comp
Calculation: 82% – 49% = 33% of population are both pro-life and pro-comp
Calculation: 33% / 51% = 64.7% of pro-life population are also pro-comp
Of course the term “pro-life” is so ambiguous as to be meaningless. “pro-life” and “pro-choice” are not necessarily mutually exclusive, depending on the ideology of the person defining the terms.



report abuse
 

Michael

posted July 4, 2009 at 8:43 pm


On the one hand, Pro-Life Catholics say, “Yes, when it comes to voting, there are many issues: health care, war, poverty, immigration, the environment, etc., but the abortion issue trumps them ALL, so you must vote Pro-Life!” Then, when it comes to preventing unwanted pregnancies and therefore the desire for an abortion, Pro-Life Catholics say, “NO birth-control pills, NO condoms, NO vasectomy, NO IUDs! They are EQUALLY as wrong as abortion!” What happened to the “hierarchy of issues”???



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 4, 2009 at 8:43 pm


On the one hand, Pro-Life Catholics say, “Yes, when it comes to voting, there are many issues: health care, war, poverty, immigration, the environment, etc., but the abortion issue trumps them ALL, so you must vote Pro-Life!” Then, when it comes to preventing unwanted pregnancies and therefore the desire for an abortion, Pro-Life Catholics say, “NO birth-control pills, NO condoms, NO vasectomy, NO IUDs! They are EQUALLY as wrong as abortion!” What happened to the “hierarchy of issues”???



report abuse
 

Andrea

posted July 5, 2009 at 9:13 pm


I’m pro-life and I disagree with her on most points, as I suspect the majority of other people in the country who’d identify themselves as pro-life do. Human beings have sex outside marriage, regardless of whether they should do so, and teaching them how to use condoms effectively and giving them affordable birth control prescriptions would be one way to cut down on the number of unwanted pregnancies. Abstinence education is a dismal failure. I believe in teaching kids that abstinence is probably the best thing they can do and the goal should be holding off on sex until marriage or at least until they’re adults in a committed relationship, but the stats say that about 75 percent of them are sexually active by age 17. With abstinence education, all they are is ignorant and having sex anyway. It doesn’t stop them from having sex. I favor strictly limiting abortion because it is the taking of a life, but it annoys me that she’s against methods that would prevent those lives from being created in the first place.



report abuse
 

freelunch

posted July 6, 2009 at 9:25 am


I have no idea whether Stanek is a pro-life leader or not, but her answers here and her attacks on Obama show us that she is not an honest leader. She plays fast and loose with the facts and appears to insist that we must use her personal religious doctrines as the foundation of laws. She has almost taken “Every sperm is sacred” as a hymn of her dogma. Every time I think I can work with those who call themselves pro-life, I run across someone like this who refuses to listen to anyone.
Steve – spend some money fixing these defective comment boxes.



report abuse
 

OperationCounterstrike

posted July 7, 2009 at 12:39 pm


Will there be PAYBACK for the murder of Dr. Tiller?
Will there be COUNTERTERROR against right-to-lifers?
Who will the VICTIMS be?
WHERE do they live?
AICH TEE TEE PEA://operationcounterstrike.blogspot.com



report abuse
 

Diane

posted July 20, 2009 at 12:57 pm


Quite a good spin in using the term “pro-lifers” because so many are pro-death penalty and will blow up clincis and kill doctors who perform abortions – they are really just anti-choice. I’m a pro-life person but believe what a woman does to her body is her choice!!!



report abuse
 

Cate

posted July 26, 2009 at 3:29 pm


I guess I am pro-choice. I believe that the woman has the choice whether to have sex or not. and that is where her choice should end. they shouldn’t have the choice to murder someone [because that is what you are doing when you have an abortion] Women say it’s their moral right to have an abortion well I have an example then.
Ex. An airplane goes down in an abandoned field. 50% live and 50% die. the media gets a hold of it and asks why is God such a merciless God? Why should he be able to decide who lives and who dies?
Why is it that when an accident happens and people die we blame God but a woman feels it is her so called ‘”moral” right to kill the innocent and then the doctor who performed the abortion gets a hand shake and a thank you. Isn’t that a little hypocritical?



report abuse
 

Amanda

posted July 27, 2009 at 2:25 pm


Steve, your intellectual curiosity and insight continue to impress me. I believe that there certainly are degrees of sin–that stealing a pack of gum is less of a sin than child abuse, that telling a white lie is less of a sin than adultery. Some members of the radical right believe this too–that murdering an abortion doctor is less of a sin than abortion, for example, or that killing homosexuals is less of a sin than being gay. There are examples in the Bible of lesser sins being sanctioned to prevent greater ones. I fail to understand Stanek’s unwillingness to budge, even if what she’s opposing would support something she dearly longs for.
And to Cate: Uh, no. Just no. You are not “pro-choice” if you only support ONE choice. Pro-choice means that the government should not be ruling a woman’s body and uterus and sexual practices with an iron fist. Furthermore, I reject your example as a false comparison. First of all, since when has the mainstream media ever blamed God for a disaster? The knee-jerk reactions would be stuff like, “did the pilot screw up?” “Was the plane too old?” “Should the government be regulating airline safety measures better?” Secondly, the vast majority of abortions happen when the “baby” is no more than a cluster of cells or a tiny embryo. It is not sentient. It cannot think or feel pain. Until the 10th week of pregnancy (close to the end of the first trimester), it isn’t even classified as a fetus. Just because it has the POTENTIAL to develop into a person does not mean it should be treated like a person. It is an insult to those who have lost their loved ones in tragedies to equate the death of a fully formed, sentient person with relationships and memories to the termination of an unthinking, unfeeling potential person.



report abuse
 

All Our Lives

posted January 10, 2011 at 9:03 pm


Jill Stanek does not speak for everyone who identifies as prolife. For example, a poll by the National Association of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Professionals found that about 85% of Americans who identify as prolife on abortion support contraception.
Our organization exists to promote voluntary contraception, comprehensive sex ed, prevention and healing of violence against women, and all other life affirming measures that will empower women to prevent unintended pregnancies and abortion.
And in case anyone is wondering, we utterly oppose violence against abortion providers. We belong to a coalition of prolife groups called Consistent Life, which among other forms of violence opposes the death penalty and war.



report abuse
 

Pingback: Michigan House Passes Sweeping Abortion Bill - Page 10

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More Blogs To Enjoy!
Thank you for visiting this page. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Top Religious News Most Recent Inspiration Post Happy Reading!

posted 6:00:22pm Apr. 20, 2012 | read full post »

Good Bye
Today is my last day at Beliefnet (which I co-founded in 1999). The swirling emotions: sadness, relief, love, humility, pride, anxiety. But mostly deep, deep gratitude. How many people get to come up with an idea and have rich people invest money to make it a reality? How many people get to create

posted 8:37:24am Nov. 20, 2009 | read full post »

"Steven Waldman Named To Lead Commission Effort on Future of Media In a Changing Technological Landscape" (FCC Press Release)
STEVEN WALDMAN NAMED TO LEAD COMMISSION EFFORT ON FUTURE OF MEDIA IN A CHANGING TECHNOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE FCC chairman Julius Genachowski announced today the appointment of Steven Waldman, a highly respected internet entrepreneur and journalist, to lead an agency-wide initiative to assess the state o

posted 11:46:42am Oct. 29, 2009 | read full post »

My Big News
Dear Readers, This is the most difficult (and surreal) post I've had to write. I'm leaving Beliefnet, the company I co-founded in 1999. In mid November, I'll be stepping down as President and Editor in Chief to lead a project on the future of the media for the Federal Communications Commission, the

posted 1:10:11pm Oct. 28, 2009 | read full post »

"Beliefnet Co-Founder and Editor-in-Chief Steps Down to Lead FCC Future of the Media Initiative" (Beliefnet Press Release)
October 28, 2009 BELIEFNET CO-FOUNDER AND EDITOR-IN-CHIEF STEPS DOWN TO LEAD FCC FUTURE OF THE MEDIA INITIATIVE New York, NY - October 28, 2009 - Beliefnet, the leading online community for inspiration and faith, announced today that Steven Waldman, co-founder, president and editor-in-chief, will re

posted 1:05:43pm Oct. 28, 2009 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.