Posted on 06/20/2011 3:56:11 PM PDT by wagglebee
FALKLAND, British Columbia, June 2, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - “Did you know that from the moment of conception, every distinctive characteristic of this new human being is programmed into this single initial cell?” asks Calise Jontz.
Young, bright-eyed and articulate, 10-year-old Calise lives with her parents and seven siblings on a cattle ranch in rural British Columbia. An avid Justin Bieber fan, she also loves horses, reading, singing and dancing. Most recently, she has become a pro-life advocate.
“Today I will be speaking to you about abortion,” continues the confident, self-assured Grade 5 student from rural Falkland, B.C. “Is this a controversial issue? Yes, but like all controversial issues it requires urgent attention and education.”
The statements come from a speech that the young girl delivered as part of a school speech contest. When Calise first delivered it at her local school, it “didn’t seem to be bothered by this topic,” says Calise’s mom, Yolanda Jontz, “although the Principal did request to hear her speech initially, I guess to make sure it was appropriate for elementary school aged children.”
But all that changed when Calise went to the regional speech competition at a nearby host school, where Jontz says her daughter encountered what she called “intimidated censorship.”
According to Jontz, her daughter’s speech deliberately did not include any graphic details about abortion, such as descriptions of partial birth abortions, instead sticking to the facts and results of abortion in a manner appropriate for a young audience.
Nevertheless, upon arriving at the host school for the speech competition, Yolanda and her daughter found the gymnasium nearly empty, where Yolanda says usually the entire school, as well as competitors and parents, would attend. A handful of competitors, parents, and the judges were present for Calise’s speech, but only after her speech, as well as few others, did both younger and older students come.
Yolanda says that Calise’s speech was singled out and boycotted by other schools, with students and their parents being forewarned about its content.
LifeSiteNews contacted the principal at the school that hosted the competition. Principal Denise Brown was reluctant to discuss the issue, saying no letter about the speech had been sent to parents at her school; she directed all other questions to Wendy Woodhurst, School District Director of Instruction.
In response to inquiries about what actions the school took in reference to Calise’s speech, Woodhurst refused to comment unless a face-to-face interview could be conducted, which was impossible for the reporter.
Yolanda told LSN, however, that at least one parent that she knows of received a warning letter about the abortion speech, while no mention was made of other controversial and even gory topics.
“We weren’t informed that one speech was going to be about dolphin slaughter, or that another was about how great Lady Gaga is. This seemed unfair,” she said. “Maybe people can be offered the chance to hear it for themselves and decide if it is offensive or not.”
However, Yolanda says that one adult male approached her following her daughter’s presentation and, with tears in his eyes, commended Calise for her speech and her bravery.
Another student’s father, formerly a trustee with the school board, also praised Calise and expressed concern about the negative attention surrounding her speech, said Yolanda. While he said he might not agree with everything Calise presented, he would never have censored her topic. The speech, he added, had sparked good discussion with his own daughters.
“Intimidated censorship,” said Jontz. “That’s kind of what I viewed it as. It must have upset somebody, because it wouldn’t have gone this far.”
In the speech Calise asked: “Is the fetus human? And does it deserve protection?” concluding, “The answer to both is yes.”
“A fetus is a rapidly developing human being, not just a clump of cells, and is worth protecting. Many stages of human development have been scientifically documented, just view an ultrasound – I have,” says Calise, who explains that she saw ultrasounds and felt the movement of her younger brothers while they were still within their mom.
“So what is abortion, you ask?” concludes Calise. “Abortion isn’t just ending a pregnancy or eliminating a piece of tissue. No, abortion is killing an unborn child and hurting a mother.”
Exactly!
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
As usual, the left is fascist in their constant, consistent, continuous and continual attempts to suppress any and all speech thoughts or morality that are in opposition to their agenda (they have no principles).
Rush said it best: abortion is the sacrament of the left.
Good for Calise! We need the younger generation to be strong and to be willing to carry the torch for life issues.
Wow! Is Romney smarter than a 5th grader?
PRAISE GOD FOR CALISE!
I always ask abortion advocates: “Were you just tissue? And if you were aborted it would be ok?”
They usually look befuddled.
“Rush said it best: abortion is the sacrament of the left.”
Encourage Leftist worship of abortion because far more of the Left are aborted.
In that sense, abortion can be accurately be described as social evolution cleaning the gene pool.
I would suggest that people refrain from using the word “fetus,” which is Leftist newspeak designed to distract people from the truth. Call it a baby, or a preborn child.
What you said is repellent.
With all due respect, do realize that abortion is something the mother, not the fetus chooses. We agree that Liberal mothers choose abortion more than traditional American mothers. Therefore, it follows that by allowing the mother to decide what to do with her own body (what Liberal women demand) we reduce the future population of Liberals.
Given that the fetus can’t choose, I will settle for anything that reduces the population of Liberals.
PS Even if abortion is severely restricted, Liberal women will still be able to arrange abortions. Do remind yourself that a simple combination of readily available pharmaceuticals will induce abortion.
PPS Never attempt to save a fool or a Liberal determined to hurt themself. Neither will listen.
True (duh). But you wrote as if Liberals' fetuses were liberals; I was pointing out the inconsistency of that by showing that it makes as much (or more) sense to say ALL unborn babies are Prolife.
"We agree that Liberal mothers choose abortion more than traditional American mothers. Therefore, it follows that by allowing the mother to decide what to do with her own body (what Liberal women demand) we reduce the future population of Liberals."
First, you'd be surprised at how many otherwise conservative women get abortions, although secret ones. These are women who oppose all abortion except for (1) rape, (2) life of the mother, and (3) "my own personal situation."
Second, nothing guarantees that a child of a Liberal will become a Liberal. Further, nothing guarantees that a person who's a Liberal today will remain a lifelong Liberal. I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that if you polled FReepers over the age of 55, fully half of them were Liberals at some point in their lifespan. They outgrew it. They got over it.
"Given that the fetus can’t choose, I will settle for anything that reduces the population of Liberals."
That's morally reprehensible right there. "Anything" that reduces the population of liberals would include murder: and supporting murder when it advances one's preferences --- because supposedly what happens to the individual (the baby, in this case) is less important than what happens to the collective ("society" in this case)--- is a distinctly corrupt Left-wing position.
"PS Even if abortion is severely restricted, Liberal women will still be able to arrange abortions. Do remind yourself that a simple combination of readily available pharmaceuticals will induce abortion."
It has long been thus. As long as pennyroyal, black cohosh and quinine exist, some women will poison themselves to be rid of a child. SO?
"PPS Never attempt to save a fool or a Liberal determined to hurt themself. Neither will listen."
Over the past 40 years, he Prolife movement has saved tens of thousands of babies from abortion by intervening right at the Abortuary door, appealing to the pregnant moms to change their minds. If you you see the advantage of abandoning women and their children to the abortion choice, what can we conclude but that you are actully (ahem :::cough:::) "Pro-Choice"?
What happened during the last 40 Days for Life campaign:
That's Conservative. That's human decency. That's Pro-Life.
“what can we conclude but that you are actully (ahem :::cough:::) “Pro-Choice”?”
You could so conclude. But in so doing, you would err.
One probable difference in our perspectives is that I see Liberalism (collectivism) as both treason and an active enemy in a war for the soul, and control, of America.
Thus I see nothing wrong with that which reduces the enemy, especially when they insist on what biologists call ‘directly reducing their own population’.
I am somewhat dismayed with your assumption that I would accept murder. The commandment was “Don’t murder”. It was not the commonly believed “Thou shalt not kill”. Liberals can kill themselves to their little, shriveled, hearts content.
As Scrooge would have said, “Bah, Humbuggery!” And it is.
Another Elizabethan curse was “A pox upon thee!” And that has also come to pass.
Good for her.
You started out by saying, "Encourage Leftist worship of abortion because far more of the Left are aborted."
That's an explicitly pro-abortion statement.
If it is, as you say, "essential to examine principles," you got your principles seriouly wrong at that point. One must never encourage abortion.
You went on to say, "by allowing the mother to decide what to do with her own body (what Liberal women demand) we reduce the future population of Liberals...I will settle for anything that reduces the population of Liberals."
Once again, you are preferring abortion over the continued existence of the children of liberals, which is morally repugnant.
Do you not think it is worth the time and effort for groups like "40 Days for Life" to try to persuade pregnant moms NOT to kill their babies? I mean, even if the pregnant moms are liberals? I wonder what you thisk of the Word of God which states,
"Rescue those who are being taken away to death;
hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter." Provrebs 24:11
Nothing there about "settling for" the death of liberals' babies. Nothing there about there being "nothing wrong with that which reduces the enemy," nothing about it's OK with us if they kill their children. And that is not just "killing" --- that is murder.
Approving of, or even tolerting murder is wrong. We renot to encourage it. We are to try to stop it. Read verses 11 and 12 of Psalm 24 together:
"Deliver those who are being taken away to death,
And those who are staggering to slaughter, Oh hold them back.
If you say, “See, we did not know this,”
Does He not consider it who weighs the hearts?
And does He not know it who keeps your soul?
And will He not render to man according to his work?"
Thanks for your thought, and I shall attempt to give them the attention they deserve. Firstly, you wrote:
” You started out by saying, “Encourage Leftist worship of abortion because far more of the Left are aborted.”
That’s an explicitly pro-abortion statement.
True, but in its essence, it is a call to encourage the reduction of the population of Liberals (A.K.A commie, collectivist, socialist, ad nauseam) but by their own acts.
The issue of abortion is secondary to the reduction of Liberals.
Your next thought line I must also somewhat disagree with:
“If it is, as you say, “essential to examine principles,” you got your principles seriouly wrong at that point. One must never encourage abortion.”
I am not quite the absolutist you appear to be. I agree with the famous line “never” and “forever” are found in the vocabulary of fools, knaves, lawyers and politicians.
In the instant case, I would allow the mother of a seriously defective child to have that fetus aborted if she did not wish to inflict a life of such suffering on the child she has to carry, deliver, and be responsible for.
I would assume you would disagree. But, I am not a moral absolutist. Just as there may come a time to kill, there may also come a time when abortion is the lesser of two evils.
I would prefer to keep government out of such matters, as the 800 pound gorilla of government is known for behavior that would be rejected by even the simians I have slandered by comparing them to AgencyPersons.
I prefer to allow the mother her freedom of choice which I hold is guaranteed to her by the Constitution. As my theologically oriented friends would say, “Free Will must have freedom to choose. And who is Man, let alone mere me, to remove that mother’s Free Will.
Worst yet, who am I to ask that an absolute be imposed by that aforementioned overgrown Simian, when there is legitimate case can be made that the Mother may know best - and that an ethical, moral, and Constitutional issue of freedom of choice as to what to to with her body is unavoidable.
Another issue which I think may interest you is that under law from Rome to recently, the child was considered the property of the parents. The state only recently got the idea (from the ilk of Hitler, Stalin, Mao) that the state owned the child.
Yes, I am aware of the Spartans, but that view was rejected in most all of later Judeo-Christian/European history, until communism became acceptable. Unarguably, the family was the basis of the family since the time of Moses. Families raised children, not goobers in gooberment agencies.
Next, you raised an issue which, as someone with a Jewish last name, I would generally agree, but not in this specific case. I refer, of course to your quote:
“Rescue those who are being taken away to death;
hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter.” Provrebs 24:11”
In closing, my disagreement with you is probably only on the fact that to me, Liberals are walking, talking treason, that the children of the treasonous often follow their parents, and that I hold, with historian Paul Johnson, “That if the American experiment in self government fails, that which will come after will be unspeakably worse.”
“Unspeakable” defiles the White Hut as I speak. I fear conservative Americans have far larger issues before us than what is the appropriate level of government restriction of abortion.
Unless we deal with the issue of American or Communist, and in a timely manner, we may well wake up with the jack booted foot of Obamunism on our necks in the middle of the night. We are seriously threatened with being reduced to mere slaves of whatever tyranny “comes after” the Constitution.
Thanks again for your thoughtful comments.
She should be invited all over the world to give that speech!
Maybe at the 2012 GOP Convention!
Also, Lila Rose may very well be recognized one day as the young woman most responsible for destroying Big Murder.
"I prefer to allow the mother her freedom of choice which I hold is guaranteed to her by the Constitution....a legitimate case can be made that the Mother may know best - and that an ethical, moral, and Constitutional issue of freedom of choice as to what to to with her body is unavoidable."
You apparently oppose the Natural Rights referenced in the second sentence of the Declaration of Independence, which constitues the the philosophical and moral basis for the foundation of our nation.
We so rarely encounter explicit "pro-choice" people here at Free Republic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.