I would tend to disagree with the premise that Sister Joan Chittister puts forth. She appears to be making the assumption that care for children once they're born is mostly demonstrated by tax money for education, housing and food. I do agree that these things are all necessary for a quality life. But I don't believe that the only, or best way, is via taxation.

I can't speak for every pro-life person, but in my own circle of friends and acquaintances that are pro-life, it isn't that they "don't want any tax money" to go to these things. But some of the tax money used for these things is not necessary...there is wasteful government spending at times, and checks-and-balances is sometimes needed. I don't generally meet many people who state that they want NO tax money to go to education, housing and food...but rather that these agencies have better oversight and accountability.

On a broader scale, may I share just one example of how some people who are pro-birth are also pro-life? One pregnancy center that I know of does offer assistance to both mothers and fathers before and after the birth. This assistance comes in the form of diapers, formula, clothing, furniture, car seats, books, and educational parenting classes. The assistance can be not only for the baby, but for the mother and/or father as well. Extended family members also can receive assistance, if they are the ones caring for a child.

From the quote I read by Sister Joan, she does make a point to say "many," not all, and that may or may not be true. I will say that I think we can always do better with helping out those who may need it. One way is by helping the fathers step up and be accountable and responsible for his baby, and his baby's mother. I realize this is not always going to happen, but I do think it is a good goal to strive for. If he can't or won't, then we need to help the mother's themselves do what they can for their children. Another way is through the extended family. It is helpful when grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc. help where they can. And lastly, is a church family. The church can help a single mother or young couple with pastoral care, assisting when needed, and older men and women in the church shepherding the single mother or young couple.

Anyway, no magical answer but at least some thoughts from another view.

I think Brit Hume had some insightful things to say about the latest Planned Parenthood videos:

"Whatever comes of the revelations about Planned Parenthood and its participation in the traffic in fetal body parts, those revelations will have achieved one thing: they have parted the veil of antiseptic tidiness behind which the abortion industry has for so long operated. The sight of a senior Planned Parenthood official, and a doctor to boot, discussing the market for fetal body parts in between bites of salad and sips of wine was stomach-turning.

That’s because it laid bare the essentially brutal nature of abortion. Let’s be blunt: abortion involves the extraction and killing of a human life, which within a couple of weeks of pregnancy has a beating heart. Five weeks in, its hands and legs begin to grow. It is these tiny creatures, and too often ones that are far more developed, that are pulled from a mother’s womb and crushed with forceps.

Oh, but oh-so-carefully, lest body parts that can be sold are preserved. This gruesome procedure shows the extent to which we, as a people, have been anesthetized by the estimated 55 million—fifty-five million—abortions performed since the Supreme Court discovered a constitutional right to that procedure 42 years ago.

Will we as a nation not someday look upon that decision and what it has done to us, not to mention the 55 million, with horror and regret? One can only hope we will."

Fair enough. Suffice to say that I don't think we have enough complete information to make a definitive statement on this issue...yet. Perhaps it can be looked into further by some overseeing agency.




I think I understand what you are getting at here. But in this instance, there are some things that I think make this an "apples compared to oranges" thing. In an abortion, there is the issue of "needs an abortion" vs "wants an abortion." And that is a very important distinction, in my opinion. Also, a leg is not going to grow and mature into a living human being. An unborn human is. A leg shares the DNA of body it is attached to. An unborn baby has its own DNA. So yes, in your example of a doctor amputating a leg in such a way as to not damage the parts they want for research, that to me makes sense and is not immoral. But when one is talking about an unborn human baby with its own DNA, I think it is an altogether different matter.



We may agree on something yet! I do think that many of the practices of Planned Parenthood are a symptom of a larger problem in our society, but I would say that you and I have differing views on what those problems are, and how they may be addressed. "Proper sex education" is open to a lot of differing views. And I am not of the belief that more contraception available more easily to younger girls (and boys) is the best way to go. But that is probably a topic for a different time, as I don't want to de-rail the focus of the original thread.



I can appreciate your thinking there. Again, probably a topic for another time so as not to go down too many rabbit trails. In short, the death penalty in this country is used as justice for the taking of a life (murder), is it not? That is not equivalent to the taking of the life of an unborn human child. So actually, I think it is because one IS "pro"-life, that the life of the murdered victim is valued, and the perpetrator has forfeited his (or her) right to live due to justice being served for the taking of another's life. But I do understand where you are coming from, and I think it is a good discussion to have.

I've taken great interest reading through this thread. My heart is heavy not just from the topic at hand, but also from how we can be so harsh in our discussions with those with whom we may disagree.

I think that you ask a very pertinent question. But it may not be the only question. However I do think it is valid. Once a termination of life has occurred, then what? And that is a question that can have many different answers.

I am very much pro-life. So I disclose upfront that I am coming from that mindset. In this particular case (and it is hard to know all the details from the video conversation) it does seem that the women are giving their consent (which does seem to be legal). So from a purely legal standpoint, there is that.

A couple of red flags, though...why did the Planned Parenthood representative state on the video that "At the national office, we have a Litigation and Law Department which just really doesn’t want us to be the middle people for this issue right now. But I will tell you that behind closed doors these conversations are happening with the affiliates." That doesn't sound completely ethical.

And this...she also states that "I think for affiliates, at the end of the day, they’re a non-profit, they just don’t want to—they want to break even. And if they can do a little better than break even, and do so in a way that seems reasonable, they’re happy to do that." Isn't doing better than breaking even...making a profit?

And also...she claims that "I’d say a lot of people want liver. And for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so they’ll know where they’re putting their forceps. The kind of rate-limiting step of the procedure is calvarium. Calvarium—the head—is basically the biggest part. We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact." That to me just doesn't seem to be treating a deceased human child with dignity. I mean, doing "this" (crushing human body parts selectively so as to do better than breaking even monetarily by "donating" to medical research) is just very unsettling to me.

With that said, however, I do feel that there IS another question that is worth asking. Just because something is legal in this country, does that make it the right thing to do? In my thinking, laws ought to be based on morals, and not the other way around.

The tissue and organs are desirable, because they are human tissue and organs. And the "things" that are being aborted are humans. While it may be legally right in this country to harvest human tissue and organs from babies who have had their lives voluntarily ended, I don't think the the action of doing such a thing is morally right.

It is my understanding that Roe v. Wade was passed in 1973. At the time, there was great discussion among the Justices of an unborn baby's viability. There was no definitive consensus on when life becomes "meaningful," and the issue of "viability" was arbitrary. My understanding is that in the Roe v. Wade decision, viability was placed at "28 weeks but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."

I do believe that as scientific medicine advances, the point of viability will be getting younger and younger. Just because some Justices on the court have arbitrarily decided when life is viable, is meaningful, or begins...that doesn't make it so, and it doesn't make it morally right. I see 3D ultrasound pictures and videos now all the time from new moms who are expecting. Those are scientific advances that just weren't around in 1973.

Honestly, I think that Planned Parenthood is more of a symptom of a much larger issue. And that issue is a change of heart and the valuing of human life at all stages. These are difficult discussions. I know there are some very hard and painful circumstances sometimes, and I try to respond with love and care.

There is some information here from Oregon.gov...

http://www.oregon.gov/oha/herc/CommitteeMeetingMaterials/HERC%20Materials%2011-13-2014.pdf

...I saw some info on the topic on pages 10, 11, 15, 36, 44. The age criteria issue is discussed on these pages. There might be more, I stopped reading (the document is 300+ pages).

​I don't generally wade into The Attic section discussions, but this particular topic is near and dear to my heart.

​I am a Christian. And I'm not perfect. Far from it. And I don't expect my fellow Christians to be perfect either. Life is hard. It just is. And try as I might, I make mistakes often. Very often. Daily. Even though I know better.

When my kids were little, I would teach them about honesty, and jealousy, being anxious about nothing, using kind words and not having any malice in your heart. But that doesn't mean that I myself didn't struggle with those things myself. It's a struggle every day. I think of daily prayer and daily asking for forgiveness and guidance. And God's mercies are "new every morning."

So all this to say that I think that someone can advocate for something or encourage some kind of behavior, while it still may be something they struggle with.

I don't know Bristol Palin's heart to know what she struggles with. That is between her and God. But she has stated that she believes that abstinence until marriage is God's design, and is the best one to strive for. I think she can advocate for that, even though she may struggle with it herself.

I don't see it as gross hypocrisy, nor do I see her passing judgment on anyone, nor telling anyone else what to do. I also don't view her as preaching abstinence but rather sharing what she believes to be God's best design, even if she herself isn't perfect.

I guess that is the broader thing I'm thinking about. When someone shares that they are a Christian, and tries to follow God's Word and His ways, I think they are sharing that they are NOT perfect, and that is why they need forgiveness, daily. Jesus died for people like Bristol Palin, and me, and anyone else who admits that they are a sinner, and repents.

Repent as I understand means to "turn from" sin. But it isn't a one-time thing. I need to turn from sin daily. Some sins I don't struggle with, others I struggle with briefly, and some I struggle with daily. Even hourly. What is important is that the sin isn't embraced. Or excused. Or shoved under a rock. It needs to be exposed. It needs to be owned up to. And it needs to be turned away from again. Again and again and again if need be. And we need God's help to do it.

That doesn't make someone any less of a Christian, or any less effective as a Christian witness in my eyes. On the contrary, I myself would be very wary of any Christian who gave the impression or advocated that they were "perfect" and always morally right. It's a tough world out there.

Really? Now that is intriguing... I would never have thought of that.

Thank you

:)

Thank you. That house is our neighbors across the creek. I hope you get to see the Northern Lights sometime!

Thank you! That is some excellent advice, and I'm making notes for the next time. I appreciate your help.

Like you, I was confused why my images were totally black with those settings, but maybe I messed something up. Very possible.

The Northern Lights that I've seen most here are moving. And rapidly. Which is why I was worried I was going to miss it. So your explanation there really helps, and makes sense.

Great advice about the foreground, too. Those were just taken off my front deck. I just discovered the Hay Flats area and was thinking it might be a cool place during the Aurora Borealis...a big open area with the mountain range surrounding. I would love to get out say in Hatcher Pass or somewhere like that, but usually the displays are in the wee hours of the morning when no one wants to go on a photo adventure with me! I'll have to bribe one of the kids to go give it a try with their crazy mom.

Thanks again for your great advice.

A couple of weeks ago the Northern Lights were magnificent right out my living room window. I had bookmarked some internet sites that gave recommended settings, so I set my camera, grabbed my tripod and headed out.

These were the recommended settings:

ISO 400
F/4.0, 30-40 seconds or F/2.8, 15-20 seconds

So that is what I did, and I took a few shots as the lights were moving across the sky. I looked down to check, and... nothing. So I changed it a bit, and again, nothing. I mean like it was completely black.

At this point, the lights were fading in and out, and I was afraid I was going to miss them altogether, so I threw it into auto (I know, :/ ) so at least I could try to get something.

I looked at the info. from the camera afterwards, to see what it selected on auto, as a way to maybe learn something. I put the info with the photos below. The first 3 the camera selected similar settings, but the last one was different. I'm not sure why. I have a lot to learn!

So I need to keep practicing. :)

ISO 3200, f/3.5, 2.5 seconds

(Download)

ISO 3200, f/3.5, 2.5 seconds

(Download)

ISO 3200, f/3.5, 2 seconds

(Download)

ISO 400, f/3.5, 15 seconds

(Download)

Those are very beautiful.

Thanks...I'm going to save this info. :)

The Northern Lights have been exceptionally beautiful and active lately here in Alaska. That is a gorgeous video you posted. Thank you!

I tried my hand at capturing them. I went online and wrote down the suggested settings for my camera. I was so excited when a week ago they were very pretty right from my front deck. And, it wasn't very cold out. Out I went with my tripod and my camera. I set my camera according to online advice. And I snapped several photos as the lights were dancing across the sky. I took a peek to make sure that the settings were working and...

nothing. My pictures were completely black. :( So I adjusted a few things and ... again, nothing. I must be doing something wrong.

In the meantime, the lights were coming and going (they fade in and out rather quickly). I was afraid I was going to miss it, so I threw my camera onto "auto," (I know, a big no-no) and while they aren't the best photos, at least I was able to capture a bit of them.

I will keep practicing. :)

Just a few more of the dogs...

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)