First-Ever ‘Combination Birth Center’ Offers Birthing Services and Abortions in the Same Building

Unreal.

BUFFALO – A New York pregnancy center has become the first facility in the U.S. to offer both birthing services and abortions in the same building.

The Birthing Center of Buffalo is a new health facility that opened its doors last month. According to reports, the center is the first of its kind, offering both birthing services and abortion procedures.

Shouldn’t it be instead called ‘The Birthing / Murdering Center’? Because that’s what they’re doing.

“We are so proud to offer a full spectrum of reproductive services,” the birthing center staff shared in a November Facebook post. “Not to toot our own horn, but within the next few weeks we will become the first combination birth center and abortion clinic in the country!”

Since when was offing your unborn offspring part of ‘reproductive services’? Never, of course. Liars.

The Birthing Center of Buffalo is operated by Buffalo Womenservices—a pro-abortion agency which regularly condemns pro-life measures and organized a “40 days of prayer to keep abortion safe and legal” campaign last year. The facility now offers first and second trimester abortions up to 22 weeks gestation.

’40 days of prayer’ FOR abortion; one shudders at the appalling thought.

Buffalo Womenservices’ web site warns clients of pro-life protesters who might attempt to change women’s minds about abortion.

“Unfortunately, there may be some protesters in front of our facility, but they are not allowed past the front of the building or on clinic property,” the Web site states. “Please avoid communicating with the protesters.”

Yes, the pro-choicers don’t want you to choose life unless you choose to give birth at their facility.

Dr. Katherine Morrison, the obstetrician-gynecologist who heads Buffalo Womenservices, believes abortion procedures should be offered hand-in-hand with traditional birthing services.

“I see a connection between respecting a woman’s right to decide to end a pregnancy and her right to determine how she has her baby,” Morrison told local reporters.

“Both of these experiences—abortion and birth—can exist in a woman’s reproductive life,” she added. “Many mothers have had abortions or will have one.”

Abortion is unreproductive death, in fact it’s murder; it isn’t part of ‘reproductive life’.

Naturally, Amanda Marcotte thinks this is great:

Having a single place to go for all your pregnancy needs instead of sorting patients out depending on their preconceptions about outcome is just plain common sense. Being able to go to the same doctor to give birth and have an abortion at different times in your life is likely comforting for patients. And if you’re not sure what you want to do about a pregnancy when you first discover it, it’s going to feel easier to go to a clinic for counseling that understands all the options and can provide them in-house as well.

[...]

As Emily Bazelon reported in the New York Times in 2010, there’s been a move in the medical profession to rectify this problem by reintegrating abortion into mainstream medical care. “The bold idea at the heart of this effort is to integrate abortion so that it’s a seamless part of health care for women — embraced rather than shunned,” she writes.

And the Feministingen think likewise:

This is super cool because the birth community is really pretty separate from the abortion access advocacy community. Though there is definitely some notable overlap–Feministing alumna, reproductive justice advocate, and awesome person Pérez of Radical Doula being one great example–generally these two issues don’t mix. This is, quite frankly, absurd: one in three women will have had an abortion in their lifetime, and most either are mothers already or go on to become mothers. That these reproductive health services exist so separately from each other is definitely about one of them being very stigmatized while the other is seen as very normal–though both birth and abortion are part of many, many women’s lives.

The reason birth is seen as very normal is because it is; the reason abortion has a stigma is because it is murder. The reason that the two have been separate is likely because of the Hippocratic Oath, which, in its original form, opposed doctors performing abortions, and no doubt the reason, when abortions because legally available, they ended up being done at clinics rather than in ob/gyn wards of hospitals might perhaps be due to some lingering stigma. (That’s my guess, anyway.)

Clearly, though, the feminists would like it to be otherwise, so they cheer this clinic’s arrival, as helping lead the way towards greater societal acceptance of abortion; they’re hoping it will be seen as being as normal as any other medical procedure, when it is anything but. Alas, that might well happen.

Steven Ertelt of LifeNews recognizes the ‘terrible irony’ of this facility:

Babies will be welcomed into life in one room and, down the hall, their lives will be snuffed out in abortions.

Indeed.

Ertelt further notes the health risks for future pregnancies after having an abortion:

In the past few years, an ever-increasing number of studies have demonstrated that elective abortions in the first and second trimester are associated with an increased risk of subsequent spontaneous pre-term birth. A 2012 study published in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, which looked at 26 years of birth data, showed that a single induced abortion increased a woman’s risk of having a premature baby by 37%.

Local Buffalo-area pro-life activist Stasia Zoladz Vogel, president of the Buffalo Regional Right to Life Committee, is as appalled as Ertelt at this facilty:

It’s absolutely ludicrous that those who specialize in taking life claim they are qualified to help women give birth. For anyone to entrust the birth of their child to a business that specializes in ending the life of infants in the womb is foolhardy at best and dangerous at worst.

I agree. At the very least, since having an abortion can compromise a woman’s reproductive health afterwards, there is an apparent, if not real, conflict of interest for a clinic to promote both services; it’s as absurd as a clinic treating emphysema and performing tracheotomies running a corner store out of their facility selling cigarettes.

That and the moral dimension – this is not like tattoo and removal places: this is life and death, here. Literally.

 

Would you propose with a man-made diamond?

Why not? They’re getting better…

To a chemist, it is a three-dimensional cubic lattice of carbon atoms. To most of us, it is the ultimate status symbol. But everyone needs to realise that perfect diamonds can now be mass-produced in the lab.

[...]

Man-made gemstones are already available, and Chaim sees them appealing to a younger generation of buyers influenced by the perception that mining harms the earth and fuels conflicts.

And they are now so similar to natural diamonds that millions of dollars’ worth have been fraudulently passed off as the real thing – a scandal that Chaim first exposed in 2012.

The man-made stones even contained tiny flaws in the crystalline structure that mimicked those found in natural gems.

It is still possible with sophisticated equipment to tell the difference – and de Beers has been rolling out such equipment precisely to eliminate the fraud risk.

But Chaim thinks synthetics could already be commonplace among the smallest stones in composite jewellery, where it is not worth the cost of checking.

Will customers actually care? De Beers certainly hopes so.

“I’m in the business of selling extraordinarily rare, very precious, very valuable natural wonders,” says De Beers’ marketing head, Stephen Lussier. “And that is what consumers buy.”

His argument makes natural stones analogous to fine art – people are buying the exclusive back-story, not just the beautiful object.

But, as Chaim points out, chemically there is no difference between the two products. “Compare it to two lovely girls – one was born the natural way, one by artificial insemination – but they are equally lovely.”

And while original works of art may be highly sought-after as status symbols, there is also a mass market for identical poster reprints.

So here’s the real question: How much more do you think someone should pay to propose with a stone that’s a billion years old, as opposed to one made last week in a factory?

Diamond engagement rings are a scam.

Bring on the ‘carbon copies’!

 

Mark Driscoll Buys His Way onto the New York Times Bestseller List

Not surprised.

We know what he’s about.

 

Teenage girl asks 24-year-old NFL player to her high school prom, he agrees

Her reason is interesting:

A high school student in southern Ontario has a Super Bowl champion as her prom date.

Seattle Seahawks tight end Luke Willson stopped by his old high school, St. Thomas of Villanova, near Windsor, Ont., Thursday.

That’s where he hosted a lengthy question-and-answer period with a gym full of students.

Stephanie Dufour had the courage to ask Willson this question:

“I want to have a hotter prom date than all my friends, so I was wondering if you would go to prom with me,” Dufour said.

The gym erupted, and Willson answered.

“Usually we get weekends off, so if I can swing it, I’ll come back, and I’ll go to prom with you,” he said to even more applause.

 

Passenger complains about female pilot; she posts his complaint and bitches about it on Facebook

She’s an airline pilot, a captain, but mere words got under her skin.

She posted that, and replied:

“I respectfully disagree with your opinion that the ‘cockpit,’ (we now call it the flight desk as no cocks are required), is no place for a lady. In fact, there are no places that are not for ladies anymore.”

Classy, eh? The term ‘cockpit‘ has nothing to do with penises.

Oh, and there still are places not for ladies, or even women for that matter: the pulpit in a decent church; wherever special forces are deployed; and still many other places, not least of which being the men’s room.

 

Should one disregard physical attractiveness, in pursuing a potential spouse? Of course not.

It is encouraging to find elements of Christian ‘Red Pill’ thinking from outside of the Christian manosphere, within the wider Christian community; recently I found such a blog post written a little over a year ago, here, by Stephen Altrogge, a Reformed writer, musician / songwriter and former pastor, in which he combats erroneous thinking encouraging relative disregard for physical attraction in relationship decision-making processes.

Some excerpts:

Recently Mike McKinley and Tim Challies both wrote articles which argued that young people, particularly men, should choose to be attracted primarily to a potential spouse’s spiritual beauty rather than physical beauty. I really respect both of these guys, love their gospel work, and usually agree with them, but as a pastor, both of these articles made me nervous. They made me nervous for two reasons.

First, the articles don’t fully appreciate the place of physical attraction in scripture. Yes, scripture is clear that in a marriage relationship, character is more important than physical attraction. But physical attraction matters.

[...]

The Song of Solomon devotes chapter upon chapter to describing the physical attraction between a man and woman.

[...]

Solomon clearly delights in the physical beauty of his bride. He doesn’t go on and on about her quiet spirit and devotion to God, as important as those things are. He is enraptured by her beauty. He is magnetically drawn to her appearance, and can’t stop thinking about her. Throughout scripture there is an underlying assumption that a man will be physically and spiritually attracted to a woman.

If a young man came to me, and said he was thinking about a particular girl, I would ask him two questions:

1. Is she godly? If yes, proceed to question number two.
2. Do you think she is attractive?

If he answered “no” to number two, I would counsel him to pause, and pray, and wait before pursuing the relationship. I wouldn’t want to press him into a relationship based solely on spiritual attraction, and then later have him feeling trapped in the relationship. Scripture is clear that spiritual character is most important when considering a potential spouse, but physical attraction also plays a significant part.

This leads me to a second, pastoral concern, regarding these articles. As a pastor, I’ve seen difficult marriages in which one spouse felt pressured into marriage, even though they weren’t particularly attracted to their spouse.

[...]

A husband and wife should be spiritually compatible AND physically attracted to each other. This doesn’t mean that the man or woman is a supermodel. Beauty is fleeting, and charm is deceitful, which is why we don’t make those things the primary factors in a relationship. But God created us as both spiritual and physical beings. We are not sexless, spiritual beings. God made us to have flesh and blood. He created us to be attracted to the opposite sex.

 

Putin calls Obama’s bluff, exposes him as the impotent imperator

Heh-heh.

Following President Obama’s statement yesterday afternoon, which warned Russia that “there will be costs for any intervention in Ukraine,” Russian President Vladimir Putin responded with a shrug as he asked the upper house of the Russian parliament to authorize the deployment of troops in Ukraine. The request was passed unanimously.

Amusing. Putin may be an autocrat, and one who unites left and neo-cons against him (which is great, actually), but hey, when you compare him to Obama… There’s no comparison. And he’s a social conservative.

Go Putin! Just because.