Good news: Another Planned Parenthood manager quits and becomes pro-life

The next best thing to seeing someone convert to authentic Christianity: The new Abby Johnson?: Another Planned Parenthood manager quits and converts to pro-life (emphasis added).

In a press release from 40 Days for Life-Dallas, Ramona Trevino explains that although the particular Planned Parenthood where she worked did not perform surgical abortions, she was struggling “with [her] conscience . . . on contraception, abortion and [her] role in it all.”

Just like Abby Johnson, Trevino credits a 40 Days for Life campaign outside her Planned Parenthood facility with helping her movement towards a pro-life way of thinking.

After the 40 Days campaign came to Sherman, she says she went from believing she was providing a service to women in need, to realizing that Planned Parenthood “treated women like cattle and how they only cared about making money” – a realization she says was “long overdue.”

 

23 thoughts on “Good news: Another Planned Parenthood manager quits and becomes pro-life

  1. I’m glad that she made this decision. Having the choice to decide is very important. I would never force her to remain there.

    I hope she respects my gracious decision to let her pick her own future. I hope she in turn respects others to make their own choices in life without having to force her new found beliefs on others.

    • Here is the difference: her choice doesn’t involve crushing and dismembering an innocent yet unwanted human being. The choice you speak of does. You deny the choice of the unborn. You cloak your sick worldview of selfishness and death in positive language, but that won’t fly here.

      • Neil, I see a clear difference between growing tissue and a real person. Human tissue growing and multiplying in a petri dish isn’t a human. The person ‘Henrietta Lacks’ died decades ago, but her cells live on. I can see the difference between replicating and dividing cells, and a person who has memories, loves and goals. Why are you fixated on the tissue? Do you think that Henrietta Lacks is still a living person today because her cells wont die?

        Google her name, if you want to learn an amazing story.

      • Neil, I see a clear difference between growing tissue and a real person.

        And I see a real difference between babies and old people. So what? They are just human beings at different stages of development, both worthy of protection.

        Human tissue growing and multiplying in a petri dish isn’t a human. The person ‘Henrietta Lacks’ died decades ago, but her cells live on. I can see the difference between replicating and dividing cells, and a person who has memories, loves and goals. Why are you fixated on the tissue?

        The tissue in question is a unique human being at a particular stage of development. You are trying to rationalize the death of this human being just because her mom doesn’t currently want her to live. You are making all sorts of bad scientific and philosophical arguments to justify the deaths of unwanted people.

      • Where are the bad scientific and philosophical arguments? I consider a ‘person’ to be a being capable of holding a narrative in their minds based on memories of historical events. A fetus is incapable of that, so I don’t consider it a person. I know you don’t agree with me, but you have to admit that my argument is logically consistent in the framework that I operate within.

      • Where are the bad scientific and philosophical arguments? I consider a ‘person’ to be a being capable of holding a narrative in their minds based on memories of historical events. A fetus is incapable of that, so I don’t consider it a person.

        The bad science is ignoring that a unique human being is created at conception. You repeated more bad philosophy. Using your definition of “personhood” anyone sleeping or in a coma would be fair game for destruction. Of course now you’ll come back and tweak your definition, but my point is already proved. You are just making up your own version of who is “really” a person. How convenient. And considering that everyone will have a slightly different definition then all sorts of bad things can happen (slavery, holocaust, genocide, abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, etc.).

        I know you don’t agree with me, but you have to admit that my argument is logically consistent in the framework that I operate within.

        Yes, consistent with a “I’ll make up definitions that suit me” framework.

      • So, a one minute old baby who cannot possibly “hold a narrative in their mind, based on memories of historical events” is not a person. You’ve obviously never been a father or grandfather. Maybe you want to rethink your criteria for personhood?

      • But Jim, just because Revylution was fatally wrong once doesn’t mean he’ll be wrong again about the “real” definition of “personhood.” We can totally trust him to make up an arbitrary philosophical decision about when life really begins. So what if a few million people were destroyed because he was guilty of sloppy thinking on the first try?

      • Yes I’m a father. Watching children grow, it’s quite obvious that they begin with a blank slate. Heck, they don’t even understand object permanence until 8 to 12 months after being born.

        No, i’m not going to change my definition of ‘person hood’. Sleeping people obviously have memories. They dream, and they often remember them on waking. People in coma’s also are clearly able to recover from the coma and retain memories prior to the coma. Both are bad examples, would you care to try again?

        As for ‘making up a definition’ I didn’t. Self awareness is a well documented psychological event that is clearly understood by neuroscience.

      • I didn’t read about Henrietta, and I don’t need to. It is a scientific fact that a new human being is created at conception — http://tinyurl.com/yfje8lq . If you have some weird exception that you think overturns that then you are mistaken.

        P.S. I don’t take homework assignments from relativists. I humor them for a time to show how bankrupt their worldview is, but I don’t waste much time with such obviously passive-aggressive behavior.

      • “it’s quite obvious that they begin with a blank slate.” Right there you just denied your original statement, that of holding a narrative. You can’t even keep your own statements in a coherent line. You should probably find a new line of work-unless you already are a politician. You deny and lie in the same breath you try to convince everyone you’re right.

      • “No, i’m not going to change my definition of ‘person hood’. Sleeping people obviously have memories. They dream, and they often remember them on waking. People in coma’s also are clearly able to recover from the coma and retain memories prior to the coma. Both are bad examples, would you care to try again?”

        LOL. You say you won’t change your definition, then you change your definition (go re-read your original definition). Yes, you are a relativist!

        “As for ‘making up a definition’ I didn’t. Self awareness is a well documented psychological event that is clearly understood by neuroscience.”

        No, now you are equivocating. You made up a definition of “personhood,” then shifted to a definition of self-awareness. Others, like “ethicist” Peter Singer, think that “personhood” doesn’t kick in until several months after birth. He’s OK with killin infants if it increases everyone’s net happiness (not sure how he measures that).

  2. A very brave woman. You know she will be attacked, vilified, and possibly even accused of criminal behavior for having the guts to admit to being able to think for herself. I’m sure she knows that, too. As I said, she is a very brave woman. God bless her.

  3. Revyloution’s thought processes that he employs here in defining what constitutes personhood are dangerous. If we applied his criteria consistently, then the seriously mentally handicapped would no longer possess personhood. Furthermore, someone with retrograde amnesia also qualifies as someone who is unable to:

    “[hold] a narrative in their minds based on memories of historical events.”

    In any case, this is not the worst part of his facile argument. The fatal flaw to Revyloution’s feeble attempts at defining personhood is the fact that he basically presupposed the right and ability to make up that definition by pulling it out of his rear end. He has no objective authority to appeal to. We could just as arbitrarily designate him a non-person using the very same process he uses to deny those with severe mental handicaps and injuries personhood.

    Fortunately for him, despite the fact that he clearly has no idea what constitutes a person (i.e. being made imago Dei) I will still defend his personhood even should he, in his old age, become a mental vegetable or suffer retrograde amnesia from an errant foul ball.

    Your welcome.

  4. It is also important to note how Revylution assumes that infant mortality is bad and that we should agree with him. But his worldview can’t support that conclusion.

  5. I didn’t read your link, and I don’t need to. I don’t take homework assignments from creationists. I humor them for a time to show how bankrupt their worldview is, but I don’t waste much time with such obviously passive-aggressive behavior.

    I like challenging my world view, but you obviously don’t want to challenge yours. I mistakenly thought this blog was about having a conversation about the issues you post about. Now I realize that it’s just a virtual echo chamber that you use to try and reinforce your bankrupt ideals.

    Sorry you wasted my time.

    • I like challenging my world view, but you obviously don’t want to challenge yours.

      LOL. I challenge my worldview every day by reading the hopelessly biased left-wing media, seeing what the Darwinists are up to, etc. I’ve read countless arguments against Christianity, pro-life, traditional marriage, etc. and enjoy grinding them into a fine powder.

      I mistakenly thought this blog was about having a conversation about the issues you post about. Now I realize that it’s just a virtual echo chamber that you use to try and reinforce your bankrupt ideals.

      It seems to me that you’ve been able to express yourself here. Not sure why you are changing the subject now that we’ve pointed out the flaws in your moral relativism. Even if this was an echo chamber, by your own worldview you have no reason to think that is universally bad or that we’d care. Even if I was just trying to reinforce my ideals, by your own worldview you have no reason to think that is universally bad or that we’d care. And so on.

    • I didn’t read your link, and I don’t need to. I don’t take homework assignments from creationists. (…)

      I like challenging my world view, but you obviously don’t want to challenge yours.

      No one believes me when I say it: the working definition of a liberal is having no sense of irony.

So, what do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s