I saw an amazing video. Gianna Jessen is an abortion survivor. When her mother was 7 1/2 months pregnant she went to planned parenthood and was counseled to abort her child. She tells her amazing story as well as sharing her remarkably refreshing take on life and on the value of each individual. She truly makes lemonade out of all the lemons she was given.
With this post I do not want to have this turn into a back and forth from each side trying to score points. I will be very strict about what I allow to be posted.
Please take a few minutes and listen to this incredible individual. It was inspiring!
http://www.videosurf.com/video/gianna-jessen-abortion-survivor-in-australia-part-1-50358701
http://www.videosurf.com/video/gianna-jessen-abortion-survivor-in-australia-part-2-52589186
What a moving speaker! I feel like she has more right than anyone to make authoritative comment on this particular topic than most.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Bart that she has a better position of authority to comment on this issue. I agree that it was a moving story but that is all it was. She doesn't remember the incident and almost everything she talked about was her inserting her ideas into a history she can't remember.
ReplyDeleteSo who speaks for the children who are aborted?
ReplyDeleteThe most powerful thing she said was "It's the mercy of God that sustains you, even if you hate him." And that is so true. That statement summarizes God's grace. He's the only one who will believe in you, even when you don't believe in Him. And once you get a glimpse of the truth and the power behind that grace, everything else is put in perspective.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, I think you missed her point. Her testimony isn't about the abortion event, she's really not even talking about whether abortion should be legal or not. Her message is way more fundamental - it's about good and evil. It's about choosing sides. Are you on the side of life or are you on the side of death? There's no middle ground here, everyone will have to choose. She's making a strong argument for choosing life and living it for the purpose for which you were created.
ReplyDeleteJill
I was afraid to watch this. I was afraid that I would feel sorry for her. But WOW. You can't feel sorry for her. She is more blessed than most people in the audience (or watching the video). It's not even that she makes lemonade out of lemons. She wasn't given lemons, she was given champagne and she knows it! Most of us make lemons out of our champagne.
ReplyDeleteDebbie
Thomas, this is a very powerful speech with a very significant message to the world. Thank you for posting it on your blog.
ReplyDeleteThe woman says she is trying to "infuse humanity into the debate" that is called an "issue" and that "we're becoming harder" as time goes on, particularly in regard to the issue of abortion.
So, I would ask (and I wonder how many of my fellow citizens looked at this and wondered as well) why, in a proclaimed "family friendly" town would we elect someone who puts an endorsement from NARAL on their campaign leaflets?
I think that this is the key to her speech. We are all to comfortable with the idea of abortion. Not comfortable as in supportive of it but comfortable as it is just another part of life. (yes I realize the dichotomy of that statement.)
ReplyDeleteWe are no longer shocked by the barbarity of the idea and the very act of it. The fact that we elect people who are supportive of this idea is not suprising. Councilmember Ockerlander is the council person you referenced. The reason that we, in this family friendly town, elect someone that is so supportive of this group is because we have lost a little bit of our humanity as a group of people. We have lost a little of the sanctity of life. We have become complacent in our fight for good. We are worse off because of this.
I was sent a link today that is tied in with this discussion. I hesitate to share it because the ideas expressed in it are both shocking and horrific but it does illistrate the point I made about how we have lost our humanity and we have completely lost our moral compass when we accept abortion as a part of life.
ReplyDeletePlease cautiously view this clip. It is disturbing how matter of fact the woman in the clip sounds.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/uk-pundit-to-shocked-tv-host-suffering-children-should-be-smothered/
TP - you are right - that was a very disturbing video clip.
ReplyDeleteI have to wonder where society would end up if we followed her theory to it's logical conclusion? Her criteria of disabled or totally unwanted is pretty vague, and raises some difficult questions:
1 - What level of disability or impairment would justify an abortion?
2 - What happens if a woman gives birth, and then decides 2 years later that she made a mistake and doesn't want to have a child any more? Does she have the right to kill the child at that point because she would have done it differently given the choice?
3 - Are those afflicted with Alzheimers, Dementia, or other cognitive diseases considered to be suffering? Does that then give us the right to kill them to prevent them from suffering?
4 - If I work at a job that I hate, but am unable to find a job elsewhere with equivalent benefits and salary, does that mean that someone can kill me because I am suffering by working to support my family?
I'd love to know where this idea that life should be pleasant, happy, and stress free all the time originated from.
If I eat nothing but ice cream all day long, how would I know to appreciate the sweetness of it? If I drink nothing but lemonade all day long, how would I be able to describe it to someone who eats nothing but ice cream? How would a starving child who lives in a drought-ridden country be able to understand what it's like to walk in a grocery store filled with food?
In order for us to grow and develop we have to experience pleasure and pain, gladness and sadness, in short opposites.
Hitler started off with the same "compassion." He "terminated" severly mentally and/or physically disabled individuals who couldn't possibly have an acceptable quality of life. This policy progressed to terminating other "non-humans" as he continued to expand the definition. Once you choose death over life in any situation you have turned yourself over to evil.
ReplyDeleteJill
Bart, you've offered some really good comments.
ReplyDeleteThomas - what are you saying about Amy Ockerlander's position on abortion? What value does her position have for the City Council / local government - that's not an issue the local government has any input on.
I can't understand why someone would put that kind of endorsement up for the public - unless they see nothing wrong with it and are proud of their community activism on behalf of abortions - but I echo the sentiment of the poster above that questioned how it is a family-friendly town could elect someone with that kind of an endorsement on their resume?
In my opinion, those who support abortion do not place the same value on human life. They see life as expendable, as something than can just be cast away. This is how it affects local issues. Those who support and endorse abortion look at issues in a different manner than those who do not. This will affect how they make decisions and what they value in a community.
ReplyDeleteAnother point I would like to make is that Abortion is nothing about a woman's right to choose. It is completely about a woman getting out of the consequences of her choices. (yes I acknowledge there are rare exceptions to this.)
Pregnancy is the natural consequence of having sex. If you do not have sex you will not get pregnant. Abortion is a way for those who make poor choices to avoid the consequences of those poor choices. Not only is this a flawed approach to life but it has the appalling affect of killing a human embryo; a human life.
Those who support abortion will not place the same value on life and will not prioritize items in the same way as those who are pro life. This is how this relates to local elections.
I think Councilmember Ockerlander is a very nice person but her positions on issues and her support of certain issues, including abortion, make her a candidate that I can not support and a candidate I will do all I can to defeat.
She is voting on taxes, roads, budgets, etc. She is not voting on abortion at the city council level.
ReplyDeleteWhat lies ahead...since the council position has been a stepping stone for many on the Duvall City Council (or, at least, it has been referred to as a 'launch pad') to higher office? A seat in the State House would put her in a position to vote on abortion.
What are the other council members' positions? If they didn't list abortion in their endorsements, campaign literature, etc. then maybe they weren't as passionate about abortion? More in keeping with 'family-friendly' town idea?
I have not discussed or seen literature from other councilmembers about this issue. As you stated abortion is not a city of Duvall issue. When Councilmember Ockerlander put her support for abortion on her political flyers it became an issue about her judgment and her values.
ReplyDeleteHer values differ from mine in many ways and that is why I encouraged people not to vote for her.
With our community being so family oriented, it would seem those values would not be in keeping with the community. Maybe I'm wrong.
ReplyDeleteHas anybody else noticed the sticker on the front door of Duvall Books? Something to the effect of supporting zero population growth?
ReplyDeleteI will be the first to admit that I think that abortion and ZPG are wrong, but I also recognize that people have the right to believe whatever they wish. In my opinion, we should be careful to separate what people believe from how they act. For example, since I don't support ZPG, I might be tempted to boycott a bookstore who is openly in favor of it, and yet they provide a good service to our community.
I differ slightly from Thomas in his view of how Councilmember Ockerlander's stance on abortion affects her ability to discharge her duties to Duvall. Abortion is not a local level topic, so I see it as a non-issue when deciding whether to vote for her or not. I do agree that should she seek higher offices where those beliefs could affect the laws of the state or the country that we should re-assess her qualifications for that office compared to our goals for our state and country.
Bart is correct that abortion is not a local level issue, but i completely disagree that this does not affect Councilmember Ockerlander's ability to discharge her duties. Her strong stand on abortion makes her look at issues in a different way than many in town do. It shows that she does not have the same priorities and does not place the same amount of importance on issues that many hold dear.
ReplyDeleteYes, abortion is not a local issue. But when we elect those who support this type of agenda then we are making it a state and a national issue. we are lending credence to and support to those who nationally fight for the very destruction of human life.
Local elections matter. The sooner we realize this the sooner we will have a state and a country that supports the same values that you and I do.
Bart,
ReplyDeleteDid you really just write "...we should be careful to separate what people believe from how they act..."? We can't do that because how people act is driven by what they believe unless they are hypocrites.
The part I think we are missing here is who brought these controversial issues into play? For example, if the Duvall Bookstore has a sign for ZPG on their door, they have introduced ZPG into their business. By continuing to do business with them, you are indicating you are OK with ZPG. Councilmember Okerlander introduced NARAL into her campaign literature. By voting for her, you are accepting her views on NARAL. The bookstore and Councilmember Okerlander are forcing you to take a stand on these issues whether you think are relevant to the role they play in the community or not.
As we've discussed in this blog and previous postings, the world is choosing sides right now. Please don't choose evil just because some of the people on that side seem really nice or provide an important service.
Jill
You do raise some good points, Jill. Let me try to clarify my point of view a little better:
ReplyDeleteI think that there is another side to this that bears consideration. By your logic, I should only purchase from businesses who believe exactly as I do, or vote for people who believe exactly as I do. Isn't the natural consequence of that course of action to be a closed society built on conformity?
Doing the right thing in this case, at least as I understand what the right thing is, is far more complex than just finding someone who is just like me. I found a good example of this in an old movie called 'Ivanhoe' in which a Jewish woman says she 'prays to God he rides no more' when Ivanhoe is injured defending her people. She is asked by her father 'to what God does a Jew pray for a Gentile?'. Her response is very telling, and is one that I'd like to develop in myself - "To the same God that made them both."
Should I refuse to do business with someone who is an athiest because they claim to have no faith? Should I refuse to allow my children be educated in mathematics by a Hindu? My personal opinion is that honesty and integrity outweigh personal beliefs, and if I believe that the proprietors of the Duvall Bookstore are running an honest shop, then I should feel free to support them, even though we disagree about ZPG.
An honest disagreement allows for the discussion between the various parties and leads to understanding, perhaps even a convincing of one side to change to agree with the other. Choosing to only do business with people who agree with me on some topics boils down to coercion does it not? How would I know whether the person who I deal with is telling me what I want to hear just to get my business, or is truly sympathetic to my ideals?
This is why I urge a degree of caution and to separate beliefs and actions.
I think that there is a significant difference between a proprietor of a shop and a candidate for office. Candidates run based on their ideas, on their view of the world, and their priorities.
ReplyDeleteVoting for a candidate with views that are so opposite of what I believe is essentially endorsing their positions and reinforcing their beliefs that their ideas and priorities are valid and acceptable.
There is a phrase that goes something like this:
I could not hear what you were saying because your actions were speaking to loudly.
The actions of printing fliers, mailing pieces and campaign literature are all I need to see to know whether or not I can validate the positions of a candidate. And in the election last year the choice was exceptionally clear.
Bart,
ReplyDeleteThanks for clarifying your position. Here are my thoughts. It's OK to do business with people who aren't like you. It's even OK to do business with people who stand for everything you hate - as long as they don't bring it into their business. Would you do business with an atheist if he had offensive signs posted all over his business? Would you let your children be educated in math by a hindu who introduced hindusim into each lesson? I wouldn't. Choosing to do business with people who don't offend what is fundamental to you is not coercion, it's being true to yourself. They have free choice to post their ZPG signs or state their NARAL affiliations or not. You have the free choice to support them or not.
Honesty and integrity don't outweigh personal beliefs. Hitler was very honest about his beliefs and he had the integrity to stay true to his beliefs no matter who was against him. I very much appreciate people who are honest, it lets me decide if I can elect them to office or do business with them. But I won't support them just because they are honest.
Jill
I agree with Thomas. I appreciate the honesty of candidates, but I'm not going to vote for someone just because he/she is honest. The honesty allows me to determine if the candidate can represent me or not. Someone who actively supports killing babies cannot effectively represent me in anything.
ReplyDeleteIt's insane for a candidate to put something on their flier like NARAL and then have their supporters say we have to ignore it because it's not relevant to local politics. Doesn't work that way. If they put something on their flier, I'm going to use it to determine if they can represent me.
Doug
If Councilmember Ockerlander put the NARAL affiliation in her city council campaign flier, then obviously she considered it relevant to her local campaign. A campaign flier is intended to convince us a candidate is qualified. She must think that something about her work with NARAL qualifies her to make local policy. Since she made the link herself, I have to trust what she says is relevant. My only decision is whether or not that's the kind of representation I want.
ReplyDeleteDebbie
Coercion because I don't want to shop at a bookstore that has a ZPG sticker on the door? I don't buy wine at the local liquor store because I'm against hard liquor. Am I trying to coerce the liquor store into not selling liquor?
ReplyDeleteTim
Tim,
ReplyDeleteYes. But that type of coercion is called a free market.
If the bookstore decides to alienate customers because they put their political views on the front door, then they can expect to receive less business. This will either drive them out of the market place or they will remove the offending material and reach out to the customers and draw them back in.
What I keep reminding those in this discussion is that politics is different. It is not about figuring out how a candidates beliefs affect the way they will govern, it is a realization that they have already acted on their principles by stating their beliefs on their literature.
I want the public to vote a candidate or not vote for a candidate because of what they have done. If a candidate for Duvall City Council or for Fire District 45 or any other local office feels the need to place a group such as NARAL on their literature then the citizens should absolutely use that information to judge the candidates values and suitability for office.
I like Bart's rational intellect. Ultimately, a elected should be representing the majority, regardless of their beliefs.
ReplyDeleteDebbie
An elected doesn't represent the majority, regardless of their beliefs - otherwise we'd see the Obama -Reid - Pelosi team reverse health care, unwind anti-business regulation and extend the Bush tax cuts. Electeds should be governing based on what they promised in their campaigns and if the will of the majority changes we see the electeds change. If electeds are just supposed to follow the will of the majority, our electeds would continuously poll and change positions based on the poll and we'd never have to have campaigns
ReplyDeleteDebbie
Debbie - thanks for your post!
ReplyDeleteThat is the reason why I favor honesty and integrity over anything else. Let me use this scenario to try and explain (both candidates are completely fictional by the way):
Candidate A has a reputation for being honest in their business dealings, and acting with integrity. They are also known to occasionally bring up their athiestic pro-choice personal beliefs in public meetings.
Candidate B shares a common belief system with the majority of the constituents, but has been known to sometimes misrepresent personal expenditures on business trips as work related expenses. This person is vocally pro-life and has a large following in the local community.
When I read the summary of these two candidates, I see that my values are more closely aligned with Candidate B, but I have strong reservations about their ethics because of the misrepresentation of expenditures. I disagree with Candidate A's beliefs, but I respect the honesty and integrity very highly. When it comes down to it, I would vote for Candidate A simply because I believe that this candidate will make every effort to fairly represent their constituents, regardless of the difference of beliefs.
Seems like a naive view of the world, Bart. I usually like your posts but this line of reasoning doesn't work for me. While integrity and honesty are absolutely important and should be the test of all that a politician does for his/her constituents, you absolutely have to put the candidate's beliefs, positions, etc. ahead of everything when you're voting. The comparison above isn't apples to apples. If an elected official does something they're not supposed to do, then they should be held accountable for it. "Candidate B" (above) would face consequences for his/her actions. But either the candidate represents your beliefs and positions or they don't. Its great if they're transparent enough to put NARAL on their literature - then you decide whether or not NARAL works for you. If they do, vote for them. If they don't, don't vote for them.
ReplyDeleteIt is when you vote for the NARAL candidate just because they're "honest" or you think they're being honest, when you have failed yourself... you let your beliefs and positions be compromised. You weren't honest with yourself.
Bart,
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion neither candidate you profiled is a good choice. But if I have to choose, I pick the one cheating on their travel expenses over the one killing babies.
I do agree that neither candidate is ideal. That was intentional since that is often the case in an election. If we had the option to vote 'none of the above' in elections then we might actually get a better selection of candidates, but we might also become hopelessly deadlocked.
ReplyDeleteYou're right, Bart. So which one is the better candidate? The one who hides cheating on travel expenses or the one who openly encourages people to kill babies?
ReplyDeleteIn my mind the honest one is better because I will always know where they stand and can work to make my desires known. I would expect that an honest person who seeks to represent their constituents will put their personal beliefs aside and represent the will of the people. This is something that our current politicians have forgotten and which they need to be reminded on.
ReplyDeleteI hate to have to leave the conversation on this note, but due to a family emergency I'll be offline for about a week.
Bart,
ReplyDeleteDespite our differences on this post. I pray that everything is OK with your family.
Jill