The second is that, if you follow the links, Ms Jessen explicitly connects her stance on abortion to Christianity. This is not a justified belief. Her misreading of the book suggests she may also be misreading other facts.
For example she implies that the process which she described was legal. Again it is shown above this is not the case. Late-term abortions are legal if a birth would endanger the life of the mother. If you follow the links and watch the video this does not seem to be the situation Ms Jessen describes. Now I could shout she is LYING, but she may be mistaken. She hasn’t met her birth mother, she may not know the full details of her birth. Thus she may be wrong without impugning her sincerity
Of course insincerity can happen. If someone is corrected a couple of times and refuses to engage in any meaningful debate then it could be time to decide they are insincere and merely an ideologue.
]]>I assume you’re mistaken when you say there is no counter research rather than actively lying.
]]>“1973 – The U.S. Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, declared all the individual state bans on abortion during the first trimester to be unconstitutional, allowed states to regulate but not proscribe abortion during the second trimester, and allowed states to proscribe abortion during the third trimester unless abortion is in the best interest of the woman’s physical or mental health. The Court legalized abortion in all trimesters when a woman’s doctor believes the abortion is necessary for her physical or mental health.”
]]>The entire internet is a counter research link. It would be ludicrous to post every single link that disagrees and, would largely run counter to the purpose of having a blog. Crucially, the links that lee posted are not “research” links – they are an effort to show the validity of limited sources of information.
I would hate to take away the chance for people to research something themselves, however if you go to wikipedia and search on “Roe v Wade” you can see that the US banned late term abortions prior to 1977.
]]>Thanks.
]]>Sorry about the NRLC. I realize it’s biased, but the .gov source was ugly and harder to read. But here it is:
Gianne Jessen testified in front of US congress and British house of commons. She has a birth certificate signed by the abortionist (from the LA abortion clinic where she was born). She has medical records which say her mother was given a saline injection. When this happens the baby dies and then the mother delivers a dead baby. She was born at 6 am. The abortionist wasn’t supposed to be the office until 9.
Anyways, I think it’s fine if you all say her story isn’t effective, or it’s propaganda, or whatever. I don’t think her point was that failed abortions happen all the time–
I just think someone would have discredited her by now if it wasn’t.
]]>http:// frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/ cgi-bin /getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_reports&docid= f:hr186.107
I’m impressed you did a whole post on my comment. Thanks. Gianna Jessen has testified at US congressional hearings, as well as in british parliamentary hearings. I think someone would have discredited her story by now. She’s well-known to people who know abortion on both sides of the aisle.
http:// news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/ health/4500022.stm
Her point is to stop all abortions. Whether you agree with her or not, it doesn’t help the credibility of anyone at this blog to dismiss her story as a lie. Say its propaganda designed to pull at heart strings in order to convince people that children are children even inside the womb. Say its in effective story for people to use in support of stricter abortion laws…but when you say its a “lie,” it seems like you have your head in the sand.
Stories like the girl in the video might be rare, but her cause isn’t to address only those cases. Her own story is just corollary to her mission. I think she’s interesting. Yeah, I believe her. She has medical records to prove her story. You haven’t been able to discredit anything just by saying she’s lying.
]]>Please, however, do you have any sources that are not biased? The National Right to Life website is pretty much leaning in a certain direction. While this does not automatically mean everything it has is biased, it taints it. It means that the information is stacked in a certain direction. Internet research needs to aware of these issues and be able to avoid them.
]]>