What's wrong with these pictures?
On the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, a local newspaper refused to run any of the three following ads, for which Will County Right to Life would have paid good money. The newspaper's ad department stated they were too "graphic." Since when are ultrasound photos "graphic"? Parents proudly display them on their refrigerators, for goodness sakes.
What's wrong with these pictures? Why is the mainstream media censoring the truth about preborn babies?
(The aforementioned caption reads, "In fact, an unborn baby's heart begins to beat at 18 days. At 40 days she has measurable brain waves. An unborn baby shouldn't be thrown away like a piece of tissue.")
(The aforementioned caption reads, "There is so much talk about rights and choices these days. Let's not forget that without LIFE, all other rights are meaningless. CHOOSE LIFE.")
23 comments:
Nothing wrong with them. Perhaps they were just afraid of the letters they'd get. You should probably respond with your own litany of letters.
If you're looking for a graphic image, check out this frightening sight:
http://www.cafepress.com/mypresident2008/801827
As a Christian, I am deeply offended that a newspaper ad would attempt to define life OUTSIDE THE BIBLICAL context. "Then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being." (Gen 2.7)
It is insulting to Bible-believing Christians all over this country to define Life as independent of Ruah. But I suppose you knew that. The newspaper's decision is clearly an Act of God.
Uh, I think you're not really supposed to take the Old Testament literally. That's sort of what the past 150+ years of science have demonstrated.
Yeah, I'd go with the New Testament on this one. Jesus was clearly alive and with soul when he was in Mary's womb.
I'd say the Breath of Life argument might best fit in with life starting at implantation as this is when the zygote first gets external nourishment, but I'd say the arguments underpinning life beginning at conception are stronger.
We aren't supposed to believe the Word of God isn't the Word of God anymore?
And, anon 9:33, I certainly don't see how your example (I believe you meant John the Baptist's leap for joy in Luke 1.41) contradicts the definition that God has provided us, that God makes life human, not man. Either we are made in God's likeness, as it says in Scripture, or we aren't -- as Jill argues. She's wrong -- the Bible tells me so.
I'll admit that looking at these pictures does make one think twice about abortion choice. However, the same reaction is not elicted when looking at a bunch of cells in stem cell debate. Intriguing.
Yes, Jill, I am most definitely saying that God creates human life, not man. Humans are differentiated from the animals by the presence of God (through Ruah), something that makes us unique in creation. Apparently it never occurred to you that every human has the presence of God in them.
Now do you understand why your argument is anti-Christian? You are basing your argument on the (misguided) belief that humans create humans, independent of God. Christianity defines human life as exhibiting the presence of God (through Ruah). While I am completely of the belief that the New Testament supercedes the Old, the New Testament did not negate the fact that God, not man, creates human life.
Unless you believe that only Adam and Eve had the presence of God in them, which your comments may indicate. I don't agree with that. God makes us human, and you are attacking this fundamental principle of Christianity.
There's this bridge, see...
I think the Christian Voice is pulling your leg.
And a newspaper is a business which has the right to refuse ads they deem controversial. Read a little outside of World Net Daily - it happens to lefty groups all the time.
The first amendment guarnatees you the right to say what you want. It doesn't guarantee you column inches or paid ads.
Anyhow, does the pro-birth movement really need more righteous indignation? I thought you guys had a lock on that.
Allow me to add that these ads are fundamentally dishonest. A heartbeat may well be present at 18 days - but having seen the ultrasound of a child we wanted, love dearly and have the means to raise, at eight weeks, I can tell you there were no fingers, toes, eyes, etc. as shown in the photos, which mean to imply to the simple (a target audience of any emotionally-charged political movement) that at 18 days, those traits are present, when in fact, it isn't even considered a fetus until eight weeks.
Frankly, if you don't acknowledge that the Book of Genesis is a bunch of stories from which we are only to garner figurative truths and meanings, you're head ain't on quite right.
Numerous tv stations refused to run the United Church of Christ's ad promoting their inclusiveness...
Lamar Advertising company refused to allow a billboard condemning Rep. Jean Schmidt for smearing Rep. John Murtha...
Several Fox affiliates refused to air an ad calling Bush to the mat for the uranium yellow cake lie in the State of the Union...
CNN refused to air an ad by the Log Cabin Republicans calling on their party for inclusiveness...
The Minneapolis Star-Tribune refused to run a print ad graphically tolling up the human price of the Iraq war...
Yours is not a unique story. Live by the free market, die by the free market.
In fact, I am not condoning abortion. I don't condone abortion. Nor do I condone Jill's (the ends justifies the means) tactics. And I won't stand idly by while presumably "good-intentioned" people undermine the tenets of Christianity for their own selfish purposes! Jill's argument is anti-Christian, based upon the anti-Biblical belief that men and women make life human, not God. The Bible tells us otherwise. She is basically advising us that God is wrong, and that she knows better!
Presumably, Jill understands this, which may explain why she assumes that a principled argument must support that which she opposes!
As for our evolutionist friend, please explain how whether or not the Bible is literally true alters the Christian belief that God defines us as human, different from the animals. Because that "truth and meaning" is the same to me, regardless.
Abraham Lincoln said...
"Jill being called anti-christian, I've seen it all now."
11:06 AM
Of course she is anti-Christian. She spews hatred. That is her entire way of being.
So let me get this straight...doctors using ultrasound can determine sex at around 16 weeks, but you, Jill Stanek, can determine it at 8 weeks.
IT'S ANOTHER FESTIVUS MIRACLE!
Abraham Lincoln: I am not calling Jill anti-Christian, but her argument that men and women define human life as human, not God. I don't know Jill, and I don't pretend to know her heart. In fact, I believe that only God knows her heart, that only God can judge her. I won't pretend to know better than God.
Hmmmm....pre-born babies? Guess I'll have to start ordering my pre-born chickens over-easy.
Let me ponder that while I rest in the shade of the giant acorn in my front yard, enjoying a tasty pre-shat brunch.
Seriously though, Jill raises an excellent point. Life is a continuous thread, without beginning or end. "Birth" and "the third trimester" and "viability outside the womb" are arbitrary points in time to define life, but then again, so is fertilization. Therefore, I propose any man who "spills his seed" should be arrested and charged with a billion counts of murder. Any woman who ovulates and fails to ensure that seed is fertilized should be charged with reckless homicide. Of course, since ovulation starts around 13 and sex outside marriage is a sin, we need to start arranging marriages for our daughters at age 10.
Jill, thanks for showing us the True Path.
YDD
Thanks YDD, glad to see you using legally blonde logic in your points of view, too funny!!!!!
I think conception, implantation, and birth wouldn't be considered abitrary points to define the beginning of life. They each have their relative merits. I tend to think implantation makes the most sense, but others will disagree.
"ultrasound, chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis.... "
Ultrasound, as we've established, can determine sex at around 16 weeks. You wrote that at 8 weeks "Can determine sex visually."
Villus sampling and amniocentesis are not "visual" methods of determining anything.
I note that Ms. Stanek still claims that this sort of editing only applies to anti-abortion people and has not acknowledged that it happens to other groups.
Boy, people just don't want to believe its a baby. What justification. It's baby. Deal with it.
Hey Jill,
Noone cares!
Post a Comment