Thursday, October 14, 2010

Quick News Roundup: 10/14/10

Domestic News: After a 9-hour hearing on Wednesday in New Jersey, Steven Brigham, the late-term abortionist under fire for his actions across the PA-NJ-MD borders, had his medical license suspended. They said he skirted state laws by beginning an abortion procedure in New Jersey and taking her across state lines to complete the procedure in Maryland. The Associated Content had an editorial recently that discussed years later how different states adapted their local laws following Roe v. Wade. It's an interesting read that shows why much of the front line of the abortion battle is taking place on the state level. In California, an abortionist, Dr. Feliciano Rios, continues to take patients despite legal troubles - including awaiting a hearing on whether or not his medical license should be suspended. In 2010, he was indicted on five charges of Medi-Cal fraud and grand theft by a Grand Jury. He's also been charged with perjury for his statements before the Grand Jury.

Scientific News: A study in Iran confirms the link to an increased risk in breast cancer for women after they have an abortion. How much is the increased risk? Based on the Iranian study, a 195% increase in the risk of breast cancer. Studied performed in the US, Turkey, Canada, and Sri Lanka in the past 18 months have all confirmed similar trends, but with different specific increase in the risk.

Discussion Topic: As a poster on this website, you obviously feel very strongly about abortion. What other political issues do you feel strongly about? Me - I mostly concerned about the fiscal wellbeing of our country and my state. How about you?

7 comments: said...

I care deeply about the First Amendment, as our readers have probably noticed.

Nulono said...

I also feel very strongly about censorship, even by corporations. I'm very concerned with economic equity and non-consensual body modification.

Michelle Perjak said...

Ok, this is going to be controversial, and thus far no one I've talked to has been able to do anything but call me names like bigot and homophobe, but what the heck, I'll give it a shot...
There are many issues I am worried about right now, but the one closest to the pro-life issue is same-sex marriage.
Now hold on, hear me out.
I was a big supporter of LGBT rights until a couple of years ago. I feel the same compassion for their struggles for acceptance now as I did when I supported them politically. I really really really don't care what people do in their bedrooms as long as they aren't hurting anyone and children aren't involved.
Now, here is my point. The LGBT community and their activist judge friends continue to claim that there is no rational difference between two moms, two dads, or a mom&dad when we talk about a family.
Well, the only way that argument can work (that I can see) is to say that there is no natural relationship between a mother/father and her/his child.
Think about it. If there is no difference between two dads and a mom&dad, that implies there is nothing a child gets from his relationship with his mother that he does not get from his father. And a similar argument goes for two moms.
Guess who else agrees with the idea that there is no natural relationship between a mother and her child - the pro-abort feminists.
Now, if women's rights and LBGT rights are seen as dependent on the law not recognizing a fundamental/natural relationship between a mother and her child, how can we effectively argue that a mother has a responsibility, under the law, to protect her unborn child from physical harm?
I'm really curious as to what other people think about this point-of-view, but I have to admit, I'm not hopeful anyone will address my actual point. Hear what I'm saying, though - if we want same-sex marriage and other LGBT rights, can we please find another argument or rationale for them so that we don't undercut our pro-life efforts?

Matthew Newman said...

nick - I disagree that women's rights / LGBT rights have anything to do with "law not recognizing a fundamental/natural relationship between a mother and her child."

LGBT rights generally focus more on the law as equal for same-sex couples and that of heterosexual couples more than on parental issues. I also don't see the implication that same-sex couples adopting a child or having a child via surrogate or artificial insemination implies anything about specific parent-child relationships. That's the same as saying that a person can't feel the same way about an adopted child than they do for a child that they give birth to; as a brother of 5 adopted siblings and 2 biological siblings, I know that to be untrue.

I fail to see how anything to do with same-sex marriage detracts or frankly has anything to do with abortion arguments. said...

I do think there's a natural relationship between biological parents and their children. But the law accepts deviations from that norm when it's in the child's best interest. The obvious example is adoption, which certainly doesn't undercut pro-life efforts.

Welcome aboard, Nick!

Michelle Perjak said...

Ah! I just typed up a response, and when it asked me to sign in I lost it :(
Anyway, I don't necessarily agree with your points, Matthew and secularprolife, but I appreciate your not throwing the proverbial rotten tomatoes at me for bringing up this issue.
Since I am so not typing up my response again, at least not tonight, I will just say this: I am not saying the average same-sex marriage supporter walking the street does not recognize a natural relationship (which I define as a defined set of rights and responsbilities recognized under law) between parents and their biological children. I AM saying that the recognition of that relationship is directly related to our pro-life efforts, and that we should keep an eye on how the official legal opinions are being argued and accepted in the courts with respect to marriage. There are usually many ways to reach the same conclusion - this website is a great example of that - but certain ways of reaching the conclusion that same-sex marriage is equivalent to heterosexual marriage are bad for pro-lifers, and some may not be. I fear that the current legal arguments ARE bad. Also, by making same-sex marriage equivalent to heterosexual marriage, same-sex marriage does not become just another accepted deviation - it becomes folded into the norm.

Michelle Perjak said...

Oh, and when I say relationship, I mean with respect to the law, not in terms of affection or personal value of that child as seen by the parent. Of course, adoption is very important to the pro-life movement, and adoptive parents can love their adopted child just as much as their biological parents. I have no doubt that same-sex couples could harbor just as much love for an adopted child as heterosexual couples in the same situation.