Tag Archives: abortion

1 Comment

Fla. doctor loses license after botched abortion

The board on Friday found Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique in violation of Florida statutes by committing medical malpractice, delegating responsibility to unlicensed personnel, and failing to keep an accurate medical record.

It's not like the problem was that

(...) a live baby was delivered, but ended up dead in a cardboard box.

Oh no...the whole "live baby in a baggie" thing was not the problem.

I guess Florida doesn't have a version of the "Born Alive" bill...

I thought I had written on the terms "pro-life" and "anti-abortion" before, but there were a few posts that got "lost" when I changed web hosts.  I'll end up writing again, because I do not self-identify as "pro-life", but prefer the term "anti-abortion".

I read an article at "GetReligion.org" about a couple of news stories:

This one is from "Newsbusters":

Christianity Today Favors 'Anti-abortion' Over 'Pro-life' Label?

Evangelical magazine Christianity Today is using the term "anti-abortion," rather than "pro-life," to refer to a CatholicVote.com ad which NBC has refused to air during the Super Bowl. (h/t @pdavidy8)

The term "anti-abortion" isn't used by reporter Sarah Pulliam in the body of her article posted at CTliveblog, but it is used in her January 30 article's headline -- Anti-Abortion Super Bowl Ad Rejected by NBC -- on the magazine's Twitter page (see screencap at right).

By using "anti-abortion" in its headline, Christianity Today appears to be following the lead of the Associated Press. The AP calls for the term "anti-abortion instead of pro-life and abortion rights instead of pro-abortion or pro-choice" in its Stylebook. AP goes further and frowns on the term "abortionist," saying it "connotes a person who performs clandestine abortions," so a reporter should "use a term such as abortion doctor or abortion practitioner," it counsels.

The gist of the story seems to be saying that "Christianity Today" magazine prefers one label over the other.  The reality is that the ad being spoke of is not "pro-life" in general, but is specific to the abortion issue.  Thus, if CT generally uses "pro-life", but for this specific, anti-abortion ad, uses "anti-abortion", it doesn't mean that they prefer the label in general, only that it is more accurate for that particular ad.

Here is the CT story in question.

I think that this is a "not a story", but rather a commentary  on how groups "self-describe".

I self-describe as "anti-abortion".  I also make a distinction between those more general "pro-choice" folks and those who have never seen an abortion that they did not support (pro-abortion).

For example:  Roe v. Wade is "pro-choice".  FOCA is pro-abortion.

My (sometimes) weekly collection of interesting links, along with a few sprinkled thoughts...


Lesbian students sue a Christian school for expelling them for breaking the rules.

We know that persecution is on the way...the more we cling to orthodoxy, to historical values and truths...the closer it gets.



Think that the use of WTF? is offensive?  So is the murder of unborn children.


"Stimulas Proposal Facts"

Remember...change is good...


(From the Heritage Foundation:  If Government Spending solved recessions, we would never have recessions.)


nuff said.


President Obama's pick for Treasury Secretary?  Owes the IRS.



No...it's not what it looks like...


How long did it take?

It's not as if it surprises me.


A quote by an early women's movement leader:

“We have made a fetish of the Bible long enough. The time has come to read it as we do all other books, accepting the good and rejecting the evil it teaches.” --Elisabeth Cady Stanton


more later (on lunes)

Two pursuits, yet very similar.

Jerry Bridges wrote two books, "The Pursuit of Holiness" and "The Practice of Godliness".

Holiness and Godliness are two callings of a Christian; similar, but Bridges makes a distinction.  In the book on holiness, he talks about putting off the old man, Godliness is about putting on the new man.

Neither one of these works unless you include a generous sprinking of the Gospel.  Unless we have a full understanding that we are called to be perfect, but the only perfection we can rely on is the perfection of Christ, we will run into deep anger and dispair at the failure of our efforts.  If we don't understand that we cannot to it on our own, we run into deep pride.

And still, we are called to holiness, Godliness; we are called to be perfect, for the Lord our God is perfect.

What does it mean to be "holy"?  We turn away from that which is sin.  We love what is good and we hate what is evil.

What makes God angry also makes us angry.

In the call to holiness and Godliness, we strive (with the Spirit's sanctification) to become more like Christ.

What made Christ angry?  Those religious people who took what was evil and called it "good".

Immediately, Gene Robinson comes to mind.  Those religous people who look at abortion and call it a good, human right.

Those who look at women and call them inferior, denying them an education and a voice.  Men who abuse their wives and call it "leadership".

You see, there are extremes on either side.  To examine the extreme on one side without examining the log on your own side...

I know the campaign protestations.

I know that Barack Obama says that he has always supported health care for infants.

This is "inaccurate".

2001:  SB 1095

(...) Amends the Statute on Statutes. Defines "born-alive infant" to

   include  every  infant  member of the species homo sapiens who is born
   alive at any stage of development.  Defines "born alive" to  mean  the
   complete  expulsion or extraction from the mother of an infant, at any
   stage of development, who after that expulsion or extraction  breathes
   or  has  a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite
   movement of voluntary muscles, regardless  of  whether  the  umbilical
   cord  has  been  cut  and  regardless  of  whether  the  expulsion  or
   extraction  occurs  as  a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean
   section, or induced abortion....

Obama voted "no" on even letting the bill pass out of committee, so that it could be voted on by the Senate

Obama's comments are on pages 84 on.

2002 - Next verse, same as the first...SB 1662.

and 2003...SB 1082...

And Obama said...

"They have not been telling the truth," Mr. Obama said. "And I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying."

He added that it was "ridiculous" to suggest he had ever supported withholding lifesaving treatment for an infant. "It defies common sense and it defies imagination, and for people to keep on pushing this is offensive," he said in the CBN interview.

Here's the problem...the Illinois Senate keeps minutes.

Obama lies, calls his opposition liars and his followers say..."ok".

Organization of the Week:

Stop Prisoner Rape

Our Mission

A national 501(c)(3) human rights organization, SPR works to put an end to sexual violence against men, women

(HT: Joe Carter - The Evangelical Outpost)



On "Obama's Abortion Extremism"

But Obama's record on abortion is extreme. He opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion -- a practice a fellow Democrat, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once called "too close to infanticide." Obama strongly criticized the Supreme Court decision upholding the partial-birth ban. In the Illinois state Senate, he opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of infants mistakenly left alive by abortion. And now Obama has oddly claimed that he would not want his daughters to be "punished with a baby" because of a crisis pregnancy -- hardly a welcoming attitude toward new life.  (...)

I guess, as Barbara Boxer said...

When [she] was pressed to affirm that she opposed the medical killing of children after birth, she refused to commit, saying that children deserve legal protection only "when you bring your baby home." It was unclear whether this included the car trip.

(emphasis mine)

The Tech.



THIS is playing with LEGOS