Life Week at University of IL Springfield
Kudos to the University of Illinois' Society of Conservative Students for sponsoring Life Week, beginning today.
I'll be the guest speaker at SCS's Wednesday evening political forum at 7:00 p.m. in the Brookens Auditorium. See SCS's website for more info.
Would enjoy meeting local bloggers/commenters from this board, knowing most of you disagree with the pro-life position. That's fine. I'd welcome public discussion.
27 comments:
Jill,
Have you analyzed or criticized the actions of Fran Eaton and other in helping elect the pro-abortion Governor George Ryan?
Why didn't they (and maybe you) listen to the wisdom of Paul Caprio (and others) in dealing with the Ryan debacle.
After the Ryans (George and Jack and her opposition to Jim--the best of them all) does Fran Eaton have any credibility in politics or with conservatives?
Thank you,
Stephen
My views on abortion have changed and are changing still.
I regret voting for Ryan over Poshard because I fell for the critics who told me Poshard was too socially conservative.
I am a medical student and have recently become more committed to my Catholic faith. The science (not the religion or philosophy)regarding fetal life is amazing. Abortion on demand at any time during pregnancy for any reason is something I could never support and goes against science and human decency.
This event is open and free to the public! That is awsome!
WoW! Jill, thank you so much for posting about us and doing some advertising for our week. As anonymous said, this event is FREE and OPEN to the public!!!
Here's the events for the week:
Tuesday: Web Cam of Rush Limbaugh 11-1pm
Tuesday: Jennifer Tosh (Communication Director of the Morgan County Right to Life) and Liz Eilers (Life activist) 6pm
Wednesday: Exhibit Hall Opens at 11:00am
Wednesday: Jill Stanek 7pm
Thursday: Exhibit Hall Opens at 11:00am
Thursday: Web Cam of Rush Limbaugh 11-1pm
Thursday: IFRL Lobby Workshop 2pm
Thursday: Randall Stufflebeam 7pm
For more information, check out our website at www.scsrightwing.org or email me at jisbe2@uis.edu
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Isbell
SCS President
Anonymous 5:48 - fortunately for you, as a licensed physician, it will be your right to refuse to perform abortions, if you so desire. What a great country we live in.
I wonder though, what does your Catholic faith tell you to do if the woman is a victim of rape or incest, or discovers she has cancer but can't start life-saving chemotherapy while she's pregnant?
Has your Catholic faith led you to oppose the death penalty and unnecessary wars, and aid the poor, or are you one of those folks whose faith intersects with their politics only when its convenient for Karl Rove?
Stephen:
You really should talk to someone about your obsession with George Ryan, Fran Eaton and Paul Caprio. It's really creepy and unnatural. Get some help.
My neice just sent 3-D sonograms of my 24-week old nephew. While I admit he looks a bit prunish, he certainly looks human.
No wonder supporters of abortion do not want full visual disclosure of what will be excised from those seeking an abortion.
Oh, yes. I'm sure Jill posted this so her critics could come and criticize in person, rather than anonymously.
Can someone tell me why abortion should not be illegal after say 8 weeks of pregnancy unless there are risks to a mother's life or long-term health? It seems to me that this would be a common-sense compromise between the two fundamental, real, and important rights at debate here: the right of a person (here the mother) to be in control of one's body, and the right of the fetus to life. Both of these rights are real and important, so a compromise is necessary, so I don't see why the 8 week limit isn't appropriate.
I'm glad organizations like Society for Conservative Students exist because they attract all the wingnuts that otherwise would join the College Republicans. On most campuses, the College Democrats are by and large clean cut, savvy, and moderate because there are organizations like the Young Democratic Socialists to take all the left-wing wacks. However, there has been a dearth of such right wing groups, so the extremists on that end too often go to the College Republicans, making them look like lunatics. As a Republican, I hope that these groups take the right wing extremists away from the CRs so that the CRs can look professional and actually be respectable on college campuses.
Chicagolo,
"I hope that these groups take the right wing extremists away from the CRs so that the CRs can look professional and actually be respectable on college campuses."
so being seen by liberals as respectable is more important then standing on principle?
Why are Illinois Republicans so determined to look respectable to the Left, I assure you the concern is not returned in kind.
Not wanting to look nuts isn't equivalent to wanting to be respected by those on the left. I want to be respected by those with a brain, right, left, or center. College Dems by and large are respectable because there are far-left groups to pull the crazies away from the CDs. It's about time that colleges have groups on the right to do the same.
Wanting to be more like Milton Friedman and less like Rush Limbaugh does not constitute wanting to be more respected by the left.
Jill, how come you have not answered any questions regarding Fran Eaton and George Ryan?
Anon 11:01 pm had some good comments.
What are the possible compromises on each side with regard to abortion?
Antis: Obviously, in the case of health of the mother and possibly in the case of rape and incest.
Pros: Perhaps time defined, maybe later term abortions, etc.
Mostly this issue just becomes polarized with those speaking out asking for either total ban or free and unrestricted. There has to be some middle ground, some wiggle room, some point the majority can reach.
Of course, maybe not.
Well my primary question on abortion that ask the pro-abortion side is "How are their survivors?"
This question is a huge blow to the pro-abortion arguement.
If something can survive an attempt to kill it, then by logic and science it must be alive in the first place. There is nothing in science that is not alive that can then survive an attempt to be destroyed and then be alive. Yet, babies survive abortions.
Then the pro-abortion side says well that is only late term abortions, not true. Many children have survived abortions in the first trimester, however, due to complications and underdevelopment they die in a short period of time.
The key here is they did live for a short period of time. To be alive for even a few seconds proves they were alive in the first place.
I think this is a good place to start the discussion.
Conservative Proletariat-
I don't understand the relevance of your starting point. I was unaware that many pro-abortion people were arguing that a fetus was not alive. The point does remain, however, that the earlier the fetus is aborted the less viable it is likely to be sans the mother.
I would agree that at a certain point the fetus is viable and able to be transferred to another host or to live independently. I would see no problem with banning the foeticide and would instead support mandatory transfer to a willing host.
To be factual, the cells in my hypothetically severed arm are 'alive' and therefore my severed arm could be considered 'alive' but it obviously cannot live independent of my body. It could however be transferred to another host which is the point at which I would like to see abortion arrive. That point being foeti are no longer 'killed' but instead removed and transferred to storage or willing hosts.
Gish,
The primary agrument of many abortion supporters is that the fetus is not alive or is nothing but a cluster of cells. I have argued with many people on the pro-abortion side with this view.
First I establish life with the survival arguement, second I point out the conception is the start of a human being. No other cell structure becomes human life. So cells in one arm my be "alive" but they cannot become a person. Fetus (babies) are "alive" and become "persons" seperating them from all other living cells in the human body.
Believe it or not I have argued with many people who say over and over again that the fetus is not alive and refer to it as something like a tumor to be removed.
So I start by establishing life. That is why I began with the survival arguement.
CP-
I see your point now.
I disagree with its relevance in my thinking but if you actually have debate with those who do not acknowledge the cluster of cells is alive then I understand why it might be important to your line of thought.
I am sure many will disagree but I do not find that a cluster of cells with potential has any 'right to life'. I imagine that my shade of gray shifts from solid white to solid black as the fetus develops and comes close to viable living external from the womb. I have no compunction about the prevention of implantation of a zygote to having serious qualms about aborting foeti near the end of gestation. Therefore the question of whether the fetus is living tissue is moot.
Cells at conception are alive in the sense that the sperm and the egg were alive so thus so is their fusion. However, one cannot say the zygote is a human person until implantation, as without implantation, this zygote will never develop further. Before implantation, the zygote is no different than any other cluster of cells as it cannot develop into a human without being implanted into the mother's womb.
That is one of the many philosophical and biological arguments that show that personhood should really be established at implantation rather than conception. I really don't see how any one who has actually considered this can say in good faith that the zygote after conception but before implantation is a full person.
Gish,
Pre-mature babies are surviving at early and early rates. We now have children who can live being born as early as 22weeks. As our medical profession improves at saving pre-mature babies at early periods we must recognize that in time even babies just after conception can be saved.
The very fact that just conceived fetus (babies) have the potential of survival is an important point. It would be impossible to save them if they are not persons. The potential proves that they are human life. Nothing else, no cell, no object, no chemical composition can become human. Therefore even a just conceived fetus (baby) must be a person in the earliest form. Therefore, that person must be protected from the death.
Jill 4:48,
Pretty solid non-sequitir there. Best luck though at UIS.
CP-
I hope there will come a day when an unwanted fetus can be transferred to a wanting family.
I agree with your last post up until the end. I do not see the fundamental right to life of these 'persons' in their earliest form.
That aside, I ask whether there is any give from your perspective as to timeframe of when abortion might be acceptable. I do not think there would be from your previous posts but I wondered.
I know from my perspective limiting foeticide once the fetus is able to live on the outside even at an age considered premature is acceptable.
Gish,
Although I only believe abortion is acceptable in cases where the life of the mother and child is in clear danger (only because if someone is going to die the mother is the only one who can make the call) the pro-life movement as a whole has offered compromises.
98% of all abortions (95% according to planned parenthood) are done for birth control reasons. so 2-5% of abortions are for medical emergencies, rape, or incests. Although I don't agree with it in cases of rape and incests (We give the rapists 7 years and kill the baby that doesn't make much sense to me)I would be more then willing to take that compromise to save the 95-98% of all the babies being aborted. Then I would hope future generations would go further.
Also, I would take a viability compromise for the time being as well. Then the pro-life movement could focus our time and money on science and medicine to improve the time in which babies could live outside the mothers womb. Although I am not thrilled with this compromise I would of course take it right now to save all the aborted babies after around 20 weeks. Hopefully, in time, we could save babies fromt the time of conception using improvements in medicine.
But here is the thing Gish, We have offered these compromises many times. The Pro-Abortion movement refuses to even consider them. The go on fits about Womens rights and refuse to even listen to our logic. I often point out that I want to save the 50% (apprx.)of aborted babies that would be women if they weren't killed.
I think the solution is simple. Overturn Roe so we can get the issues back to the States. Let each States citizens vote on the subject and included voting choices with both sides and a host of compromises. Take the two with the most votes, vote again and take the one that wins.
People, not judges, need to make this decision.
What this anti choice movement needs is a place or system to help the poor women have children. Everyday there are women "forced" due to economic reasons. If they want to be truely family friendly give women the money to support their children instead of cutting social programs.
Anonymous,
There are great orgnizations that are private that will help women who are poor. Crisis Pregnancy Centers, Catholic Charities and countless religious charities.
If we didn't have to spend so much money on trying to stop abortion we could focus that money toward poor women and help them raise their children instead of killing them.
CP-
I cannot speak for the pro side since I am not really in any movement. I would agree that the pro side would likely not want to move on compromise due to 'slippery slope' syndrome. I also think it likely that the pro side would have the same view of the antis with intractability with regard to compromise.
I don't find my thoughts swayed but it is nice to see opposing sides start to agree on some things.
I do disagree with letting the 'people' decide things locally. If we had that back in the 60's then there would likely still be institutionalized oppression based on race among other things.
Gish,
I think that Roe v Wade was wrong because it went too far away from what the constitution says. The civil rights decisions were right because Jim Crow laws were clearly unconstitutional. I think that it is reasonable and correct to say that the constitution would protect the right to abortion in cases of rape or where there are risks to a mother's life or health, as outlawing abortion in these cases would be taking away a woman's life or liberty without due process. However, in all other cases, to argue that the constitution has something to say about abortion seems like way too big a stretch. I think state control of all other abortion cases should be in place not because of some idea that local control is always better, but because this is what the constitution would seem to demand.
Post a Comment