Right to Life remembering lives lost to abortion

There are 680 comments on the Greensburg Daily News story from Jan 11, 2013, titled Right to Life remembering lives lost to abortion. In it, Greensburg Daily News reports that:

Greensburg - Nearly 40 years ago, on Jan. 22, 1973, the United States Supreme Court proclaimed a mother could legally seek an abortion in the landmark Roe vs.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Greensburg Daily News.

Dan

Omaha, NE

#305 Jan 25, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmm....no specifics. Hard to discuss that way, don't you think? Are we talking about a business that happened to be run by a Lutheran, a non-profit organization run by the Lutheran Church, just the church itself?
A business is not a church.
Still, you're deflecting.
Your argument that the validity of the RCC's teaching on contraceptives would be determined in court was completely wrong.
Here's a link to a report on the case I mentioned.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-01-11...

Lutheran school teacher brought suit against her employer. SCOTUS ruled 9-0 that federal discrimination laws do not protect church employees who perform religious duties. The school maintained that her job as teacher was a ministerial activity.

"The justices ruled unanimously that the First Amendment’s guarantee of the free exercise of religion means that even neutral laws intent on banning workplace discrimination may not be applied to a religious institution choosing “those who will guide it on its way.”".

Catholic schools/hospitals are NFP's. I didn't say SCOTUS would rule on the inherent validity of RCC teaching (they can't and wouldn't)-it will rule on whether they can conduct these activities, as active ministry, in accord with their teaching without interference from the Federal government.

Dan

Omaha, NE

#306 Jan 25, 2013
Nopo wrote:
New Mexico Bill Would Criminalize Abortions After Rape As 'Tampering With Evidence'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/new-...
[An excerpt]
A Republican lawmaker in New Mexico introduced a bill on Wednesday that would legally require victims of rape to carry their pregnancies to term in order to use the fetus as evidence for a sexual assault trial.
House Bill 206, introduced by state Rep. Cathrynn Brown (R), would charge a rape victim who ended her pregnancy with a third-degree felony for "tampering with evidence."
"Tampering with evidence shall include procuring or facilitating an abortion, or compelling or coercing another to obtain an abortion, of a fetus that is the result of criminal sexual penetration or incest with the intent to destroy evidence of the crime," the bill says.
Third-degree felonies in New Mexico carry a sentence of up to three years in prison.
Pat Davis of ProgressNow New Mexico, a progressive nonprofit opposing the bill, called it "blatantly unconstitutional" on Thursday.
"The bill turns victims of rape and incest into felons and forces them to become incubators of evidence for the state," he said. "According to Republican philosophy, victims who are 'legitimately raped' will now have to carry the fetus to term in order to prove their case."
[End of excerpt]
I wasn't aware you needed to produce offspring of a rape to prosecute a rape case.

What an odd thing to propose.

M Jean Johannigman

Batesville, IN

#307 Jan 25, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
That's outrageous.
I disagree....THIS is OUTRAGEOUS!

I will caution you that this link is graphic and not for the faint of heart. it shows abortion as it is in truth. An intrinsic evil.

http://www.godvoter.org/abortion-is-murder.ht ...

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#308 Jan 25, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's a link to a report on the case I mentioned.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-01-11...
Lutheran school teacher brought suit against her employer. SCOTUS ruled 9-0 that federal discrimination laws do not protect church employees who perform religious duties. The school maintained that her job as teacher was a ministerial activity.
"The justices ruled unanimously that the First Amendment’s guarantee of the free exercise of religion means that even neutral laws intent on banning workplace discrimination may not be applied to a religious institution choosing “those who will guide it on its way.”".
Catholic schools/hospitals are NFP's. I didn't say SCOTUS would rule on the inherent validity of RCC teaching (they can't and wouldn't)-it will rule on whether they can conduct these activities, as active ministry, in accord with their teaching without interference from the Federal government.
A hospital is not comparable to a religious school. The ruling would not apply.

And you DID imply that they would rule on that, when you told me that I couldn't make the determination of whether or not their belief about contraceptives being abortifacients was without merit. You said the court would determine that.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#309 Jan 25, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
I wasn't aware you needed to produce offspring of a rape to prosecute a rape case.
What an odd thing to propose.
And some Republicans wonder why they can't get more of the female vote...

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#310 Jan 25, 2013
M Jean Johannigman wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree....THIS is OUTRAGEOUS!
I will caution you that this link is graphic and not for the faint of heart. it shows abortion as it is in truth. An intrinsic evil.
http://www.godvoter.org/abortion-is-murder.ht ...
It says File Not Found.

If it's a video of an abortion procedure, I've seen them. It's a medical procedure.

You people cannot say that pro-choicers dehumanize and objectify the fetus on one hand, and then support this kind of legislation on the other. A child is not a "piece of evidence".

What are they going to do with the child, keep it in the evidence locker until the trial? And what about afterward? So much for the anti-choice claim of caring about children.

And do you have any clue just WHY incest is illegal? It's got to do with genetics, and deliberately bearing a child pretty much guaranteed to have mutated DNA. One is not allowed to do that because it's been determined that it harms the collective gene pool of humanity.
M Jean Johannigman

Batesville, IN

#311 Jan 25, 2013
I disagree....THIS is OUTRAGEOUS!

I will caution you that this link is graphic and not for the faint of heart. it shows abortion as it is in truth. An intrinsic evil.

http://www.godvoter.org/abortion-is-murder.ht...
Dan

Omaha, NE

#312 Jan 25, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
A hospital is not comparable to a religious school. The ruling would not apply.
And you DID imply that they would rule on that, when you told me that I couldn't make the determination of whether or not their belief about contraceptives being abortifacients was without merit. You said the court would determine that.
Why isn't it comparable?

Both 501c, both businesses-they both charge for the services and both claim said services as part of their ministry.

If I implied that somehow the SCOTUS would involve themselves in a theological argument, it was unintentional. They will involve themselves in whethere the RCC objection to the mandate has merit on legal grounds, of course.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#313 Jan 25, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
And some Republicans wonder why they can't get more of the female vote...
Pretty stupid proposal.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#314 Jan 25, 2013
M Jean Johannigman wrote:
I disagree....THIS is OUTRAGEOUS!
I will caution you that this link is graphic and not for the faint of heart. it shows abortion as it is in truth. An intrinsic evil.
http://www.godvoter.org/abortion-is-murder.ht...
Photoshop is a remarkable thing.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#315 Jan 25, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Why isn't it comparable?
Both 501c, both businesses-they both charge for the services and both claim said services as part of their ministry.
If I implied that somehow the SCOTUS would involve themselves in a theological argument, it was unintentional. They will involve themselves in whethere the RCC objection to the mandate has merit on legal grounds, of course.
A religious school's purpose is teaching religion. A hospital is there to provide medical services.

The one has every right to expect their teachers to teach the established curriculum. A hospital does not have the right to withhold legal medical services on religious grounds. And no employer has the right to impose religion on their employees by way of that employees compensation packet.

Their objection to BC pills is that they cause abortions. This is untrue. It's a question of science, not theology.
M Jean Johannigman

Batesville, IN

#316 Jan 25, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Photoshop is a remarkable thing.
since you are skeptical, how about talking to some of the nurses who could not take it anymore and have changed their occupation accordingly?

Former Abortion Nurse Joan Appleton

"How did I get started in the abortion business? I was very active in the National Organization for Women (NOW). As a registered nurse, I thought that I had a wonderful opportunity as a nurse and as a firm believer in choice to be able to actually practice my political beliefs. I looked at it as a gift, so I went about working hard at the clinic for four years and remained active within NOW."
Troubling Ultrasound Abortion

"Another thing that bothered me as I went about my work at the clinic was the fact that I had seen an ultrasound abortion. We did first trimester abortions. This was a late first trimester, probably second trimester. I handled the ultrasound while the doctor performed the procedure and I directed him while I was watching the screen.

I saw the baby pull away. I saw the baby open his mouth. I had seen Silent Scream a number of times, but it didn't effect me. To me it was just more pro-life propaganda. But I couldn't deny what I saw on the screen. After that procedure I was shaking, literally, but managed to pull it together and continue on with the day"

http://www.prolifeaction.org/providers/applet...

The Voice of John: A Nurse Speaks Out on a Baby Born Alive After an Abortion

http://liveactionnews.org/the-voice-of-john-a...

Nurses Against Abortion Suing N.J. Hospital Requiring They Assist In The Procedures

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/11/07/nurses...

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#317 Jan 25, 2013
M Jean Johannigman wrote:
<quoted text>
since you are skeptical, how about talking to some of the nurses who could not take it anymore and have changed their occupation accordingly?
Former Abortion Nurse Joan Appleton
"How did I get started in the abortion business? I was very active in the National Organization for Women (NOW). As a registered nurse, I thought that I had a wonderful opportunity as a nurse and as a firm believer in choice to be able to actually practice my political beliefs. I looked at it as a gift, so I went about working hard at the clinic for four years and remained active within NOW."
Troubling Ultrasound Abortion
"Another thing that bothered me as I went about my work at the clinic was the fact that I had seen an ultrasound abortion. We did first trimester abortions. This was a late first trimester, probably second trimester. I handled the ultrasound while the doctor performed the procedure and I directed him while I was watching the screen.
I saw the baby pull away. I saw the baby open his mouth. I had seen Silent Scream a number of times, but it didn't effect me. To me it was just more pro-life propaganda. But I couldn't deny what I saw on the screen. After that procedure I was shaking, literally, but managed to pull it together and continue on with the day"
http://www.prolifeaction.org/providers/applet...
The Voice of John: A Nurse Speaks Out on a Baby Born Alive After an Abortion
http://liveactionnews.org/the-voice-of-john-a...
Nurses Against Abortion Suing N.J. Hospital Requiring They Assist In The Procedures
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/11/07/nurses...
I hope they're at least getting paid for their propaganda.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#318 Jan 25, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
A religious school's purpose is teaching religion. A hospital is there to provide medical services.
The one has every right to expect their teachers to teach the established curriculum. A hospital does not have the right to withhold legal medical services on religious grounds. And no employer has the right to impose religion on their employees by way of that employees compensation packet.
Their objection to BC pills is that they cause abortions. This is untrue. It's a question of science, not theology.
Well, no-Catholic schools are fully accredited and teach the full curriculum according to state and national standards.

Catholic hospitals do indeed provide healthcare-they do so as an extension of Christ's ministry to heal the sick. It's in the mission statement. Example: my local Catholic hospital's mission statement leads off with :

"Our Mission -
Faithful to the healing ministry of Jesus Christ, our mission is to provide high quality care for the body, mind and spirit of every person."

As such, the government cannot define for said religious employer what their ministry is and is not. The HHS mandate seeks to do this and it's a First Amendment violation.

The RCC's teachings oppose artificial contraception. It doesn't have to get to whether pill X is an abortifacient or it isn't.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#319 Jan 25, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, no-Catholic schools are fully accredited and teach the full curriculum according to state and national standards.
Catholic hospitals do indeed provide healthcare-they do so as an extension of Christ's ministry to heal the sick. It's in the mission statement. Example: my local Catholic hospital's mission statement leads off with :
"Our Mission -
Faithful to the healing ministry of Jesus Christ, our mission is to provide high quality care for the body, mind and spirit of every person."
As such, the government cannot define for said religious employer what their ministry is and is not. The HHS mandate seeks to do this and it's a First Amendment violation.
The RCC's teachings oppose artificial contraception. It doesn't have to get to whether pill X is an abortifacient or it isn't.
That's what they're basing their objection on. You wanting to ignore that fact won't change it.

The gov't CAN regulate hospitals.

Your spin, and that of the RCC, is just a distraction.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#320 Jan 25, 2013
Dan wrote:
As such, the government cannot define for said religious employer what their ministry is and is not. The HHS mandate seeks to do this and it's a First Amendment violation.
By this reasoning, EVERY business could claim religious status.

"I sell hamburgers...for God."

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#321 Jan 25, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
By this reasoning, EVERY business could claim religious status.
"I sell hamburgers...for God."
Exactly.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#322 Jan 25, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what they're basing their objection on. You wanting to ignore that fact won't change it.
The gov't CAN regulate hospitals.
Your spin, and that of the RCC, is just a distraction.
Yeah-I'm spinning the RCC's position on contraception.

Who said anything about the govt regulating hospitals? Not me.

Below is the RCC teaching on artifical contraception.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive...

Last line is the operative.

I thought you'd be a little better informed on this considering the kind of definitive statements you like to make on the subject.

----------
2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:159
Dan

Omaha, NE

#323 Jan 25, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
By this reasoning, EVERY business could claim religious status.
"I sell hamburgers...for God."
Well, no.

You'd have to prove that the work is indeed religious ministry and back it up with something more than your say-so.
Anonymous

Orleans, IN

#324 Jan 25, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
"Legal abortion is reported as the fifth leading cause of maternal death in the United States, though in fact it is recognized that most abortion-related deaths are not officially reported as such."
In the absence of official reports of abortion leading to maternal death, how did it achieve a #5 ranking and by whom?
So true Dan. Girls don't realize the extent of what they have done until it is too late. Then the guilt, sadness and depression sets in. Most of these girls commit suicide on the anniversary of the abortion or what would have been the due date of the aborted baby.
I am so proud to have given birth in 1973 at the age of 16. Even if I was young, I never had to face these demons and guilt of knowing I KILLED my own child. And the love I have for him is amazing.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Abortion Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Tennessee Republican who pressured mistress to ... 3 hr Mr Bush 11
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 6 hr I Am No One_ 309,866
News Atheists' problem with the Bible (Sep '09) 6 hr thetruth 7,459
Steven "Conan" Trustrum is a known racist liar ... 7 hr Tisdale Smythe 1
News Anti-Catholic Salon Cheers Church's Decline as ... Sun nOgOd 3
News New abortion controversy hits Congress Sat goonsquad 75
News Why Josh Duggar's Past Will Hurt Social Conserv... Fri serfs up 4
More from around the web