Commentary by James Shott
Hillary Clinton devalues citizenship
Apparently,
nearly anyone who wants to be a full-fledged citizen of the United
States ought to be able to gain citizenship, regardless of who they are
or how they got into the country, with a few notable exceptions,
according to Democrat presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton.
She
recently said, “We can’t wait any longer. We can’t wait any longer for a
path to full and equal citizenship” for those who crossed our border
illegally or deliberately over-stayed their visas.
Demonstrating
how one’s strong opinions can change due to political considerations,
Mrs. Clinton reversed her previous position, likely to appeal to
Hispanic voters. Last June, she said that children who traveled from
South America to the U.S. through Mexico should be sent back where they
came from.
CNN’s Christiane Amanpour asked her, “So should they
be sent back?”
“Well, first of all, we have to provide the best
emergency care we can provide,” Mrs. Clinton said, but “they should be
sent back as soon as it can be determined who responsible adults in
their families are.” She also said, “We need to do more to provide
border security in southern Mexico.” And perhaps on our southern border,
too?
“We have to send a clear message: Just because your child
gets across the border, that doesn’t mean the child gets to stay,” she
said. “So we don’t want to send a message that is contrary to our
laws...” By that reasoning, adults who sneak in or stay beyond the
limits of their visa ought to be sent back, as well.
But that
was last year. Now her thinking is if they sneak in, oh, well. If they
sneak their kids in, well, we can’t keep families separated, you know?
Therefore, award citizenship to them.
And no Clinton campaign
would be complete without a degree of distortion and exaggeration. “This
is where I differ with everybody on the Republican side,” she said.
“Make no mistakes — today not a single Republican candidate, announced
or potential, is clearly and consistently supporting a path to
citizenship. Not one. When they talk about legal status, that is code
for second-class status…”
What Republican candidates generally
support is granting legal status, but then legal immigrants can follow a
path to citizenship, like the system that millions utilized to become
citizens in the past.
American citizenship once was something of
extremely high value. People came here through the approved process and
they adopted American principles and values and made the country better.
Now more people than ever want to come here, but for the wrong
reasons. Our foolish policies about immigration and pandering to
illegals have turned citizenship into a path to welfare. Today there are
more than 11 million illegal aliens in the country, and more coming
every day.
The March for Life Rally in Ottawa
Organizers
of the March for Life rally in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada said the rally
drew 25,000 people and was the largest in the event’s 18-year history.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, however, pegged attendance at a much
lower 8,000, according to the Ottawa Citizen.
However
large or small the pro-life contingent was, it dwarfed the faction of
pro-abortionist demonstrators on hand for the event, which was estimated
to be between 50 and 100. One thing must be said for the abortion
lobby, however: What they lacked in numbers they more than made up for
in support of their radical position.
A
TV interviewer named Marissa Semkiw talked with an abortion supporter
named Alex, who made some startling claims about what he thinks ought to
be the universally accepted position on unwanted pregnancy. Carrying a
sign that read, “Guess What, A Woman’s Body Is Her Own F***ing
Business,” Alex proceeded to defend his statement. And he took it to a
level that no moral person should be able to support.
Advancing
the idea that the only person involved in the decision of whether and
when to end pregnancy is the pregnant woman. When asked by Ms. Semkiw if
a woman should have the right to end her pregnancy one month before the
child was born, Alex said that the woman alone should make that choice.
Asked if a woman should have the right to end her pregnancy one week
before child was born, he gave the same answer. And Alex gave the same
answer when asked if the woman ought to have the right to end her
pregnancy one day before the child would be born.
And
finally, asked if after the child was born a woman ought to have the
right to have the baby’s life ended, Alex said, “I’m not advocating for
murder of any kind — again, it’s not my choice.” But apparently it is
the woman’s choice.
Abortion
at any time is radical enough a position. Is it now the position of
abortion advocates that a child’s life can be ended even after birth?
Two
points: First, if when we die the heart stops beating, what do we call
it when the heart starts beating? Life? And second, have you noticed
that everyone who advocates for unfettered abortion has already been
born?
Cross-posted from Observations
Showing posts with label Abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Abortion. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
A Scottish “slam poet’s” sad story of her abortion while a teenager
Before getting into the content of this poem, you might like
to know just what a “slam poet” is. “A slam itself is simply a poetry
competition in which poets perform original work alone or in teams before an
audience, which serves as judge,” according to poets.org, the online site of
the Academy of American Poets. “The work is judged as much on the manner and
enthusiasm of its performance as its content or style, and many slam poems are
not intended to be read silently from the page.”
This slam poem was delivered via an online video. “I think
she was a she,” the poem begins. “No, I know she was a she, and I think she
would have looked exactly like me,” Ms. Josephine declares. With a heavy
Scottish brogue that is sometimes difficult to understand she then goes into
much detail, explaining how that as a mother she would have taken pains to protect
her baby daughter, would have talked about her grandfather when the daughter
was older, and would have taken pains to teach her all the things the poet’s
mother had taught her.
The poem is touching and almost melancholy, something that
might have been written by the mother of a child unfortunately lost before
birth. But, of course, that is not what this poem is about. Here, Ms. Josephine
condemns the cultural shame forced on her ever since making that fateful
decision.
The tone of the poem then takes a sharp turn: “But I
would’ve supported her right to choose; to choose a life for herself, a path
for herself. I would’ve died for that right like she died for mine. I’m sorry,
but you came at the wrong time."
Ms. Josephine is not sadly recounting a miscarriage; instead
she is proudly describing why she had an abortion and how it was truly the
right decision for her. “I am not ashamed. I am not ashamed. I’m so sick of
keeping these words contained. I am not ashamed," she says of her decision
to abort her child. She said that the child she created with the “boy I loved”
was just too much responsibility for her as a teenager.
Lines of rationalization follow, as she tries desperately to
justify what she did. She stubbornly claims dominion over her own body. And she
regurgitates the statistics on how many abortions occur in a year in order to
justify hers as just one more. And then this, in conclusion: “But this is my
body, and I don’t care about your ignorant views. When I become a mother, it
will be when I choose.”
Let’s review some of what she said.
Ms. Josephine states, "I would have died” for her
aborted daughter’s right to
choose, “just like she died for mine." The right to choose what? Aren’t we
told abortion is just the process of eliminating a mass of unwanted cells, like
having a tumor excised?
But she said her daughter had “died” for her right to choose,
tacit recognition that her baby was living person; that abortion ended the life
of her child. In which case abortion is murder, the deliberate killing of the
child she and her lover created through a willful act.
"I'm sorry, but you came at the wrong time." You “came”
at the wrong time? The child decided to create itself without first checking with
mom and dad? Among the three persons in this story, the child, as the creation
of mom and dad, had no choice whatsoever in this situation.
However, the artfully designed words that are intended to
justify what she did in fact subvert that effort. She and her boyfriend
willingly indulged in a sexual act, likely unprotected. For her, abortion is
nothing more than a way to be rid of the consequences of her behavior.
Abortion is not a crime only because it has not been legally
established that life begins at conception or at some point prior to birth.
However, Ms. Josephine admits abortion ended her child’s life.
But her statement that she lacks shame at the same time reveals
the contempt she holds for the life she created, and her comfort with being
able to wash away that inconvenience at will.
Once accepted as a solution for inconvenient situations,
abortion takes on even more bizarre forms.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg sees abortion
as a means to reduce the number of poor children.
“Frankly
I had thought that at the time [Roe v Wade] was decided, there was concern
about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t
want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid
funding for abortion.” … “It makes no sense as a national policy
to promote birth only among poor people.”
That is a stunning perspective from an Associate Justice of
the United States Supreme Court, and helps explain why our country is in such
deep trouble today.
Tuesday, July 01, 2014
Planned Parenthood president thinks when life begins isn’t relevant
Commentary by James Shott
Many of us living today remember when pregnancy was regarded as the beginning of a new life, was usually a welcome and celebrated event, and religious people often viewed pregnancy as a gift from God. There were baby showers where the mother was treated to gifts for use after the birth of her child, and a positive air about the “blessed event.”
Abortion was considered taboo by society and was illegal, and because of the social and legal strictures, it was rare. As a result, abortions were usually performed in secret by the woman or by some shady character. It was dangerous to the mother because of the unsanitary “back alley” conditions of the procedure. A physician rarely performed an abortion, unless the life of the mother was at stake, or some other unusual situation required it.
Back then, people accepted responsibility for their behavior and took great care to prevent pregnancy until they were ready for parenthood. In those comparatively rare times when an unwanted pregnancy occurred, the man and the woman most often became parents, or perhaps the mother gave the baby up for adoption. Unwed mothers were a rarity.
Through the decades unintended and unwanted pregnancies have increased from rare episodes of bad luck and careless behavior to epidemic proportions, and instead of being seen as a reason to make changes to accommodate the new life that had been created, unwanted pregnancy is viewed today as an intrusion on the woman’s freedom, an inconvenience that demands relief, not so different from a headache or a cold. And to accommodate many women’s preference not to have the baby they have created, abortion has evolved from a rare thing to a routine procedure performed thousands of times each year. Now, many view a woman deciding to end the life of the child developing inside her as a right she may exercise as freely as the right to speak her mind.
Today, half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and about 40 percent are terminated by abortion. Twenty-one percent of all pregnancies, excluding miscarriages, end in abortion.
In 1981, world-renowned scientists and physicians testified before a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee that life begins at conception, which was the traditional view through the centuries. However, the question of when life begins is now being questioned by abortion advocates, and knowing the exact instant that life begins after conception and before the birth of a child is an important, if difficult to identify, piece of data to determine the point after which abortion becomes murder.
However, Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Cecile Richards thinks when life begins is not important.
Appearing on Fusion TV's America with Jorge Ramos, she was asked, “For you, when does life start? When does a human being become a human being?”
“This is a question that I think will be debated through the centuries,” she said.
“But for you, what's that point?” Ramos asked.
"It is not something that I feel like is really part of this conversation,” she said. “I think every woman needs to make her own decision,” she finally said.
"But why would it be so controversial for you to say when do you think life starts?" Ramos pressed.
"I don't know that it's controversial. I don't know that it's really relevant to the conversation," she replied.
“I'm the mother of three children,” she finally said. “For me, life began when I delivered them,” adding that her children have “probably” been the most important thing in her life since their birth.
“But that was my own personal, that's my own personal decision,” she said.
The abortion industry certainly does not want to know the absolute point at which life begins, because then it would be clear that aborting a fetus is at some point killing a child. That would not be a good thing for those who perform abortions for money, for organizations like Planned Parenthood that get federal money for advising women on unwanted pregnancies, or for those who think women should have a right to end an inconvenient pregnancy at anytime.
From this less strict attitude about when life begins all sorts of horrors might evolve. And they have.
For example, some Planned Parenthood officials have gone so far as to advocate infanticide, giving women the right to end their child’s life after it has been born.
And only a little further down that slippery slope are the preposterous acts of Kermit Gosnell, the disgraced and imprisoned former physician who was in the habit of ending the lives of babies who were inconsiderate enough to survive his efforts to abort them by clipping their spinal cords after they were born alive. He is in prison for life after being convicted of murdering three babies.
An interesting sidebar to this story is that the baby-killer managed to spare himself a death sentence when he waived his right to appeal in return for a life sentence, an option millions of aborted babies never had.
It must be pointed out that all of those who support the unfettered right for women to abort their babies have already been born.
Cross-posted from Observations
Many of us living today remember when pregnancy was regarded as the beginning of a new life, was usually a welcome and celebrated event, and religious people often viewed pregnancy as a gift from God. There were baby showers where the mother was treated to gifts for use after the birth of her child, and a positive air about the “blessed event.”
Abortion was considered taboo by society and was illegal, and because of the social and legal strictures, it was rare. As a result, abortions were usually performed in secret by the woman or by some shady character. It was dangerous to the mother because of the unsanitary “back alley” conditions of the procedure. A physician rarely performed an abortion, unless the life of the mother was at stake, or some other unusual situation required it.
Back then, people accepted responsibility for their behavior and took great care to prevent pregnancy until they were ready for parenthood. In those comparatively rare times when an unwanted pregnancy occurred, the man and the woman most often became parents, or perhaps the mother gave the baby up for adoption. Unwed mothers were a rarity.
Through the decades unintended and unwanted pregnancies have increased from rare episodes of bad luck and careless behavior to epidemic proportions, and instead of being seen as a reason to make changes to accommodate the new life that had been created, unwanted pregnancy is viewed today as an intrusion on the woman’s freedom, an inconvenience that demands relief, not so different from a headache or a cold. And to accommodate many women’s preference not to have the baby they have created, abortion has evolved from a rare thing to a routine procedure performed thousands of times each year. Now, many view a woman deciding to end the life of the child developing inside her as a right she may exercise as freely as the right to speak her mind.
Today, half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and about 40 percent are terminated by abortion. Twenty-one percent of all pregnancies, excluding miscarriages, end in abortion.
In 1981, world-renowned scientists and physicians testified before a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee that life begins at conception, which was the traditional view through the centuries. However, the question of when life begins is now being questioned by abortion advocates, and knowing the exact instant that life begins after conception and before the birth of a child is an important, if difficult to identify, piece of data to determine the point after which abortion becomes murder.
However, Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Cecile Richards thinks when life begins is not important.
Appearing on Fusion TV's America with Jorge Ramos, she was asked, “For you, when does life start? When does a human being become a human being?”
“This is a question that I think will be debated through the centuries,” she said.
“But for you, what's that point?” Ramos asked.
"It is not something that I feel like is really part of this conversation,” she said. “I think every woman needs to make her own decision,” she finally said.
"But why would it be so controversial for you to say when do you think life starts?" Ramos pressed.
"I don't know that it's controversial. I don't know that it's really relevant to the conversation," she replied.
“I'm the mother of three children,” she finally said. “For me, life began when I delivered them,” adding that her children have “probably” been the most important thing in her life since their birth.
“But that was my own personal, that's my own personal decision,” she said.
The abortion industry certainly does not want to know the absolute point at which life begins, because then it would be clear that aborting a fetus is at some point killing a child. That would not be a good thing for those who perform abortions for money, for organizations like Planned Parenthood that get federal money for advising women on unwanted pregnancies, or for those who think women should have a right to end an inconvenient pregnancy at anytime.
From this less strict attitude about when life begins all sorts of horrors might evolve. And they have.
For example, some Planned Parenthood officials have gone so far as to advocate infanticide, giving women the right to end their child’s life after it has been born.
And only a little further down that slippery slope are the preposterous acts of Kermit Gosnell, the disgraced and imprisoned former physician who was in the habit of ending the lives of babies who were inconsiderate enough to survive his efforts to abort them by clipping their spinal cords after they were born alive. He is in prison for life after being convicted of murdering three babies.
An interesting sidebar to this story is that the baby-killer managed to spare himself a death sentence when he waived his right to appeal in return for a life sentence, an option millions of aborted babies never had.
It must be pointed out that all of those who support the unfettered right for women to abort their babies have already been born.
Cross-posted from Observations
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
Forty years after Roe v. Wade, abortion is still a national disgrace
Commentary by James Shott
An abortion-related event occurred last week, and if you were paying close attention to the news, you might have been aware of that. Hundreds of thousands of abortion opponents gathered in Washington, DC for the “March for Life,” protesting the grisly process that has terminated about 55 million future Americans in the womb since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.
It wasn’t easy to find news accounts of this event. The Media Research Center reports, “the broadcast networks combined devoted a total of just 46 seconds to the March. ABC offered 24 seconds and NBC gave it 22 seconds, correctly noting the ‘huge turnout’ despite brutal weather conditions. CBS didn’t bother to cover it at all.”
This coverage totaled about 18 percent of the coverage the birth of a panda cub at National Zoo received a few days earlier. In the eyes of our dedicated network news people, one new panda is six times more important than 55 million aborted potential children, and the hundreds of thousands of Americans who braved the cold to make their position known.
This helps confirm the long-held idea that we do not have a news media that furnishes the public with what it needs, but instead provides what it wants the public to know.
A fact sheet published by the Guttmacher Institute tells us that at least half of American women will experience an unintended pregnancy by age 45. Given that the cause of pregnancy is not a medical mystery, that is a shocking statistic.
Web4Health explains that sex without contraceptives carries an 85 percent likelihood of pregnancy, and if the most effective contraceptive methods are used properly, the chance of pregnancy drops to eight percent or less, but abstaining from sexual intercourse has a zero percent pregnancy rate, except for in vitro fertilization.
According to Guttmacher, fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76 percent of pill users and 49 percent of condom users report having used their method inconsistently. Forty-six percent of women who had abortions used no contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant.
Other factors contribute to unwanted pregnancy. Some men and women are uneducated about how to have responsible sex, and contraceptives can be expensive for some.
Abortion was, in fact, the solution for more than a million women who got pregnant unintentionally last year. But as long as abortions are an easy corrective for bad luck, carelessness or bad judgment, it seems unlikely that more responsible use of contraceptives will occur.
The problem with abortion is that at some point in the pregnancy the fetus will have developed enough to be justifiably considered a human being. That point may or may not be the same point as when the fetus can survive outside the womb, but whenever that point occurs and afterward, abortion is murder. The debate goes on over just when the fetus reaches that point.
It is commonly accepted that at 20 weeks the fetus can feel pain during an abortion, and at least one researcher believes that as early as eight weeks after conception the neural structures needed to detect certain stimuli are in place. As science progresses more and more becomes known about fetal development, pushing backward toward conception the point at which the fetus is a person.
Be that as it may, it is absolutely scandalous that in America in the 21st century so many women get pregnant who don’t want to, and that so many of them choose to abort the developing life inside them.
It ought to be a point of humiliation that the great majority of unwanted pregnancies result from carelessness or negligence in the use of contraceptives, or not using contraceptives at all.
A major provider of abortions is Planned Parenthood for America, and it receives more than $500 million each year in taxpayer funds to deliver “vital reproductive health care, sex education, and information to millions of women, men, and young people worldwide,” according to its Website, “the key program [of which] provides essential health care to women, the Title X Family Planning Program.”
Planned Parenthood provided 360,000 abortions in 2013. Providing abortions to women who are pregnant and don’t want to be is not planning for parenthood.
There are couples all across this nation who cannot conceive a child and would gladly adopt an unwanted child given up for adoption. Perhaps Planned Parenthood could shift its focus from abortion to adoption, and nurture women through their unwanted pregnancy to an end that both honors life and helps those who want children, but can’t have their own.
How many great writers, scientists, artists, inventers, athletes, etc., have been summarily snuffed out before they got started?
A young pregnant wife was hospitalized for a simple attack of appendicitis and had ice applied tfso her stomach. Afterward, doctors suggested that she abort the child, because the baby would be born with disabilities. The young wife decided not to abort, and the child was born. That woman was the mother of Andrea Bocelli.
Cross-posted from Observations
An abortion-related event occurred last week, and if you were paying close attention to the news, you might have been aware of that. Hundreds of thousands of abortion opponents gathered in Washington, DC for the “March for Life,” protesting the grisly process that has terminated about 55 million future Americans in the womb since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.
It wasn’t easy to find news accounts of this event. The Media Research Center reports, “the broadcast networks combined devoted a total of just 46 seconds to the March. ABC offered 24 seconds and NBC gave it 22 seconds, correctly noting the ‘huge turnout’ despite brutal weather conditions. CBS didn’t bother to cover it at all.”
This coverage totaled about 18 percent of the coverage the birth of a panda cub at National Zoo received a few days earlier. In the eyes of our dedicated network news people, one new panda is six times more important than 55 million aborted potential children, and the hundreds of thousands of Americans who braved the cold to make their position known.
This helps confirm the long-held idea that we do not have a news media that furnishes the public with what it needs, but instead provides what it wants the public to know.
A fact sheet published by the Guttmacher Institute tells us that at least half of American women will experience an unintended pregnancy by age 45. Given that the cause of pregnancy is not a medical mystery, that is a shocking statistic.
Web4Health explains that sex without contraceptives carries an 85 percent likelihood of pregnancy, and if the most effective contraceptive methods are used properly, the chance of pregnancy drops to eight percent or less, but abstaining from sexual intercourse has a zero percent pregnancy rate, except for in vitro fertilization.
According to Guttmacher, fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76 percent of pill users and 49 percent of condom users report having used their method inconsistently. Forty-six percent of women who had abortions used no contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant.
Other factors contribute to unwanted pregnancy. Some men and women are uneducated about how to have responsible sex, and contraceptives can be expensive for some.
Abortion was, in fact, the solution for more than a million women who got pregnant unintentionally last year. But as long as abortions are an easy corrective for bad luck, carelessness or bad judgment, it seems unlikely that more responsible use of contraceptives will occur.
The problem with abortion is that at some point in the pregnancy the fetus will have developed enough to be justifiably considered a human being. That point may or may not be the same point as when the fetus can survive outside the womb, but whenever that point occurs and afterward, abortion is murder. The debate goes on over just when the fetus reaches that point.
It is commonly accepted that at 20 weeks the fetus can feel pain during an abortion, and at least one researcher believes that as early as eight weeks after conception the neural structures needed to detect certain stimuli are in place. As science progresses more and more becomes known about fetal development, pushing backward toward conception the point at which the fetus is a person.
Be that as it may, it is absolutely scandalous that in America in the 21st century so many women get pregnant who don’t want to, and that so many of them choose to abort the developing life inside them.
It ought to be a point of humiliation that the great majority of unwanted pregnancies result from carelessness or negligence in the use of contraceptives, or not using contraceptives at all.
A major provider of abortions is Planned Parenthood for America, and it receives more than $500 million each year in taxpayer funds to deliver “vital reproductive health care, sex education, and information to millions of women, men, and young people worldwide,” according to its Website, “the key program [of which] provides essential health care to women, the Title X Family Planning Program.”
Planned Parenthood provided 360,000 abortions in 2013. Providing abortions to women who are pregnant and don’t want to be is not planning for parenthood.
There are couples all across this nation who cannot conceive a child and would gladly adopt an unwanted child given up for adoption. Perhaps Planned Parenthood could shift its focus from abortion to adoption, and nurture women through their unwanted pregnancy to an end that both honors life and helps those who want children, but can’t have their own.
How many great writers, scientists, artists, inventers, athletes, etc., have been summarily snuffed out before they got started?
A young pregnant wife was hospitalized for a simple attack of appendicitis and had ice applied tfso her stomach. Afterward, doctors suggested that she abort the child, because the baby would be born with disabilities. The young wife decided not to abort, and the child was born. That woman was the mother of Andrea Bocelli.
Cross-posted from Observations
Tuesday, April 02, 2013
Continuing our head-long slide down the slippery slope of abortion
When
people challenge and attempt to liberalize valued traditions, there is usually
great concern that doing so is the first step down the "slippery slope,"
which ultimately leads to bad results. The “slippery slope” is considered a
logical fallacy, but in the case of abortion, evidence supports that it is an
apt argument.
We started
down this slope when abortion was legalized 40 years ago. If it was not the
original intention, abortion certainly has become a thinly disguised mechanism
for after-the-fact birth control. Pregnancy is not a mystery; we know what causes
it. There are numerous ways to prevent pregnancy whenever people decide to
forego the one certain way to prevent pregnancy: abstinence.
Birth
control devices, while not perfect, are very dependable when used properly.
However, somewhere along the way it was recognized that there were a lot of
people facing the eventual birth of an unwanted child, and some thought that
society was obligated to find a way to relieve these folks of having to bear
responsibility for their actions. Abortion became the solution for unwanted
pregnancy, under the curious label, "a woman's right to choose."
Each
now-pregnant woman and her male partner had the right to choose to abstain from
sexual intercourse and chose not to. They had the right to choose to use birth
control, and either chose not to, or chose not to use it consistently or
correctly, or it just didn't work one time. In the great majority of cases,
birth control measures do work when used properly, and that means that in the
majority of cases the right to use birth control actually was not chosen.
The
"right to choose" is little more than a mechanism for prospective
parents to avoid creating a child at an inconvenient time: In 2004 fully 74
percent of women getting an abortion said a child would "dramatically
change their life."
Since Roe
v Wade imposed legalized abortion on the nation in 1973, 55 million abortions
have been performed, and approximately 1.2 million future Americans were
aborted in each of the last several years. Nearly half of all pregnancies in
the U.S. are unintended, and nearly half of those are aborted.
Planned
Parenthood is the nation's most prolific provider of abortions, performing
about 1-in-4 total U.S. abortions each year, chalking up 334,000 in 2011. It
received $542 million from taxpayers that year, about 40 percent of its total
revenues.
And since
1973 we have witnessed the slide down that slippery slope. It has been
considered acceptable by a significant number of Americans to end a pregnancy
anywhere from the morning after to the day when the baby should be born healthy
and ready for life.
We have
been treated to horrors such as partial birth abortion where the baby is
allowed to be born, but not completely, with part of the child still in the
birth canal so that a butcher with MD or DO after their name can kill the child
before it is "born." This nefarious procedure takes hair-splitting to
a new level.
A year ago
a giant slide down the slippery slope occurred when two Australian ethicists –
Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne, and Francesca Minerva at
the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of
Melbourne – provided an answer to the question, "When does a fetus become
a person?" Their answer: it doesn’t matter. They argued in the online
edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics that if abortion of a fetus is
allowable, so, too, should be the “termination” of a newborn.
This cold-blooded
idea has now infected the United States. That same concept appeared in
testimony at a Florida legislative committee that was considering a bill to
require abortionists to provide medical care to an infant who survives an
abortion and is moving on the table and struggling for life. A Florida Alliance
of Planned Parenthood Affiliates lobbyist endorsed the right to
"post-birth abortion." The lobbyist, Alisa LaPolt Snow, stunned
legislators when she said that her organization believes the decision to kill
an infant who survives a failed abortion "should be left up to the woman,
her family, and the physician."
This is
nothing more than pre-meditated murder, and is not so different from first
responders executing a seriously injured accident victim. And just how far does
this "right" to post-birth abortion extend? The first birthday? The
difficult years of adolescence? Or perhaps it will extend many years after the
botched abortion when under as-yet-unknown elements of the Affordable Care Act
bureaucrats may be in the position to determine that it will cost too much to
keep an elderly patient alive.
Fortunately,
the tide appears to be turning against the grizzly practice of abortion. Last June
a Gallop poll showed that 50 percent identified themselves as
"pro-life" compared to 41 percent who said they were
"pro-choice." And, 51 percent said abortion is morally wrong, compared
to 38 percent who said it is morally acceptable. And some state legislatures have
passed tighter restrictions on the procedure.
This
attitude favoring preserving life and restoring personal responsibility is one
small ray of light in America's otherwise darkening culture.
Saturday, March 30, 2013
We Believe It Is Okay To Murder The Child If The Parent Doesn't Want It!
By Findalis
Monkey in the Middle
Is basically the statement given by Planned Parenthood's lobbyist Alisa LaPolt Snow when asked if a child is born alive during a botched abortion what should be done with it. This goes along with the teachings of Planned Parenthood and the writings of Alberto Giubilini of Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourn. Professors (and I use the word loosely) Giubilni and Minerva believe that a parent has the right to murder her child until the child reaches the age of 2. They claim the child is NOT a human and there is no soul. Now it seems that Planned Parenthood is spouting this idea.
I fear this is the next "right" that the Sandra Flukes and Planned Parenthood cronies will impose upon us. And I can just hear Satan laughing his head off.
Monkey in the Middle
Is basically the statement given by Planned Parenthood's lobbyist Alisa LaPolt Snow when asked if a child is born alive during a botched abortion what should be done with it. This goes along with the teachings of Planned Parenthood and the writings of Alberto Giubilini of Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourn. Professors (and I use the word loosely) Giubilni and Minerva believe that a parent has the right to murder her child until the child reaches the age of 2. They claim the child is NOT a human and there is no soul. Now it seems that Planned Parenthood is spouting this idea.
A representative from Planned Parenthood is raising some eyebrows for her response to questioning on Florida legislation that would require baby's born alive during a botched abortion to receive medical care.Has anyone else noticed that this debate is going from aborting children before birth to now murdering children after they are born? And at what age do we consider the child "Human"?At what age does their murder become a crime? 2? 12? 21? 50? A week ago a pair of teens shot a 13 month old little boy in the head, killing him. Today they are charged with murder. If Alisa LaPolt Snow and Planned Parenthood have their way, they would be given medals and a monetary reward.
Alisa LaPolt Snow, a lobbyist with the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, testified this week at a committee hearing on the bill, sparking expressions of disbelief when she underscored that such matters be left to the woman, her family and her physician.
"Planned Parenthood condemns any physician who does not follow the law or endangers a woman's or a child's health, but we don't believe that politicians should be the ones who decide what constitutes the best, medically appropriate treatment in any given situation," she said in a prepared statement.
One of the lawmakers asked her what Planned Parenthood's position would be if a baby is born as a result of a botched abortion.
"We believe that any decision that's made should be left up to the woman, her family and the physician," she said.
When another lawmaker asks her specifically what Planned Parenthood does when such a scenario happens at its clinics, she said simply, "I do not have that information."
Another lawmaker made the point that the baby born alive would become a patient as well, not just the mother.
"That's a very good question," Snow said. "I really don't know how to answer that."
She had said earlier that Planned Parenthood's primary objection to the legislation is that it doesn't include a "neutrality clause" that would make clear it does not change the legal status of a baby before being born alive.
Source
I fear this is the next "right" that the Sandra Flukes and Planned Parenthood cronies will impose upon us. And I can just hear Satan laughing his head off.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Happy 40th Anniversary, Baby (Roe v. Wade video)
The man in the following video celebrates the sexiness of 40 years murdering our children...54,000,000 of them.
It's as if he's saying "let's have guilt-free sex where if I get you pregnant, we can just kill the child and move on with our sensual lives..."
Absolutely vile and detestable.
From YouTube:
Cross-posted from Against All Enemies
It's as if he's saying "let's have guilt-free sex where if I get you pregnant, we can just kill the child and move on with our sensual lives..."
Absolutely vile and detestable.
From YouTube:
"...the Center for Reproductive Rights asked Mehcad Brooks of the USA Network's "Necessary Roughness" and HBO's "True Blood" to prepare a special video message just for you. To learn more and to sign the Bill of Reproductive Rights visit DrawTheLine.org."Link to video
Cross-posted from Against All Enemies
Connect to AAE
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies (Click "Like")
Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies ("Follow")
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/AAEnemies ("Subscribe")
Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies (Click "Like")
Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies ("Follow")
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/AAEnemies ("Subscribe")
Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Abortion: America's Holocaust
Happy 40th Anniversary to Roe v. Wade
In those 40 years, there have been 54,000,000 Americans aborted, or an average of around 1,350,000 Americans per year. (For comparison, approximately 6,000,000 Jews were killed during the Nazi Holocaust in Europe.)
Another way of looking at it is that there are about 26 babies aborted every 10 minutes in America. This is about the same amount of time it took Adam Lanza to kill 26 people at the Sandy Hook Elementary School. So every 10 minutes there is another Sandy Hook in America due to abortion...every 10 minutes for the last 40 years.
 |
| "Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?" - President Obama |
Cross-posted from Against All Enemies
Connect to AAE
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies (Click "Like")
Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies ("Follow")
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/AAEnemies ("Subscribe")
Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies (Click "Like")
Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies ("Follow")
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/AAEnemies ("Subscribe")
Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Ethicists Argue for Acceptance of After Birth Abortions
By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle
Hat tip to Iggymom
When is a child a person? At conception? Viability? Birth? In the last case it is none of the above. According to Alberto Giubilini of Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne if you don't want the child and give birth, you have the right to kill it.
The American Declaration of Independence states this:
How a society treats the least and most helpless of its citizens shows how civilized, how mature it is. This goes against all the rules of society. But I fear it will be forced on us by those on the left. First the "mother" choosing to kill her child, then the government forcing women to kill their children. Especially those children who do not measure up to the government's idea of perfection.
Hat tip to Iggymom
When is a child a person? At conception? Viability? Birth? In the last case it is none of the above. According to Alberto Giubilini of Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne if you don't want the child and give birth, you have the right to kill it.
Two ethicists working with Australian universities argue in the latest online edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so to should be the termination of a newborn.I suppose this is the next step by the left to "empower" a woman. Why should anyone be "burdened" or "saddled" with a child. The child has no value. It cannot ask work, dress itself, feed itself. It is nothing to these so-called ethicists. Ethics? These two don't know the meaning of the word. They feel as long as the "mother" doesn't want the child, she should have the right to kill it.
Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne write that in “circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”
Alberto Giubilini
The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion“ as opposed to ”infanticide.” Why? Because it “[emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.” The authors also do not agree with the term euthanasia for this practice as the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated. In other words, it may be in the parents’ best interest to terminate the life, not the newborns.
The circumstances, the authors state, where after-birth abortion should be considered acceptable include instances where the newborn would be putting the well-being of the family at risk, even if it had the potential for an “acceptable” life. The authors cite Downs Syndrome as an example, stating that while the quality of life of individuals with Downs is often reported as happy, “such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”
Francesca Minerva
This means a newborn whose family (or society) that could be socially, economically or psychologically burdened or damaged by the newborn should have the ability to seek out an after-birth abortion. They state that after-birth abortions are not preferable over early-term abortions of fetuses but should circumstances change with the family or the fetus in the womb, then they advocate that this option should be made available.
The authors go on to state that the moral status of a newborn is equivalent to a fetus in that it cannot be considered a person in the “morally relevant sense.” On this point, the authors write:
Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.Giubilini and Minerva believe that being able to understand the value of a different situation, which often depends on mental development, determines personhood. For example, being able to tell the difference between an undesirable situation and a desirable one. They note that fetuses and newborns are “potential persons.” The authors do acknowledge that a mother, who they cite as an example of a true person, can attribute “subjective” moral rights to the fetus or newborn, but they state this is only a projected moral status.
Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.
The authors counter the argument that these “potential persons” have the right to reach that potential by stating it is “over-ridden by the interests of actual people (parents, family, society) to pursue their own well-being because, as we have just argued, merely potential people cannot be harmed by not being brought into existence.”
And what about adoption? Giubilini and Minerva write that, as for the mother putting the child up for adoption, her emotional state should be considered as a trumping right. For instance, if she were to “suffer psychological distress” from giving up her child to someone else — they state that natural mothers can dream their child will return to them — then after-birth abortion should be considered an allowable alternative.
The authors do not tackle the issue of what age an infant would be considered a person.
Read the full story here
The American Declaration of Independence states this:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…Have we forgotten those words? Have we forgotten the simplest commandment of G-d:
Deuteronomy Chapter 5Why should a child, born into the world, be MURDERED for the reason that it is inconvenient for the woman. She should have thought of the consequences of her actions 9 months earlier when she decided to engage in sexual activity.
16. Thou shalt not murder.
How a society treats the least and most helpless of its citizens shows how civilized, how mature it is. This goes against all the rules of society. But I fear it will be forced on us by those on the left. First the "mother" choosing to kill her child, then the government forcing women to kill their children. Especially those children who do not measure up to the government's idea of perfection.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Americans getting the “Bum’s Rush” On ObamaCare
Americans getting the “Bum’s Rush” On ObamaCare
A Commentary from J. D. Longstreet
A Commentary from J. D. Longstreet
**************************************
So Many Questions. So FEW Answers!
The Urban Dictionary defines “Bum’s Rush” as: “To be jostled or hustled to move you, or get rid of you, or get you to do something that someone wants you to do - that you don't necessarily want to do.”
Now that we have everyone up to date on that portion of the lexicon most nearly associated with what the Congress is doing to Americans these days, let us now speak of ObamaCare the socialized medicine legislation the democrat/socialists are ramming through Congress and down the throats of the American people.
First I want to urge you to write, e-mail, fax, phone, or even send a telegram to your congressperson and senators demanding that they fight ObamaCare and vote no on any portion of the legislation that may come before them. Believe me, the dems are going to throw this legislation at the congresspersons and senators as fast as they can, in the dead of night if they can. In other words - they intend to do whatever it takes to get this ObamaCare legislation passed through the Congress, if it is humanly possible, by the end of July.
We warned you this was coming. Well, it is here. ObamaCare and Cap and Trade - both are coming up at Americans fast and furious - along with the full Senate’s consideration of the President’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor. ALL of this is coming at the American electorate like the Bum’s Rush we spoke of above. Rest assured… more is on the way.
For now, though, lets focus on this “Healthcare Overhaul,” as the President likes to call what you and I refer to as… ObamaCare.
Have you considered just how complicated a bill like the ObamaCare proposal would, of necessity, have to be? I mean, just think about it. Think of all the things a bill similar to ObamaCare would have to be. The intricacies of such an all-encompassing bill are staggering. It boggles the mind. Yet, the democrats want the Congress to vote on it, without ever having read it. Now, you and I both know that reading something, anything, and considering that same thing are two entirely different things. Why, reading one of your old healthcare insurance policies is so complicated you need an attorney by your side to interpret much, if not most, of it and the layman, unskilled in the law, is lost within a few paragraphs. And THAT, dear reader, is only a single Insurance policy for a single person, or, at most, a single family. There is just SO much to be considered!
I happen to be one of the millions of Americans cursed with a chronic disease, which rendered me “uninsurable.” Believe me, when I tell you, I know the value of having insurance. I also happen to be a former insurance salesman back in my misspent youth. So, my concern over the intricacies of ObamaCare is very real. For instance: I wonder if Obama Care cover diseases like Crohn’s Disease? Oh sure heart disease, diabetes, and such will be covered, but how about the little known, less “sexy” diseases such as the one I mentioned a sentence or two before this one. Will they be covered? And, who will make the decision(s) about what is covered and what is not?
If your Chronic Disease is not covered by ObamaCare… What Then? That is just ONE of the questions nobody has answered, at least to my knowledge, YET, about the President’s new Healthcare Overhaul proposal… and there are so many more! What size bureaucracy are we talking about here - huge, maybe? How about humongous!?
What about medical research and medical innovations? Up to now, the government has participated in medical research and development with taxpayer money as grants, etc, to development labs all over the country. But, one must ask, what happens when the government is insuring everyone and their primary concern has turned to holding the costs of that treatment down? All that R&D money will have dried up as it is sucked from the treasury by the costs of treatment.
Of course, the really BIG fight is just now beginning to elbow its way to the forefront. That’s the fight over whether, or not, ObamaCare will cover the costs of abortion. This fight is bound to get down and dirty, and do so quickly, once the bell rings and the bout begins. Of course, they could always decide NOT TO DECIDE, at least for now, and revisit the issue at a more favorable time in the future, for one side or the other.
By now, you should be getting a glimpse of just how incredibly intricate devising a socialized medicine scheme is for America - a country which has not, until now, actually considered socialism as a form of government for ourselves. It is here that we must bring ourselves to understand that we will be replacing our “republican”(The US is a Representative Republic.) form of government with a “socialist” form of government.
In the meantime, Americans are being herded toward acceptance of this HUGE piece of a Socialistic boondoggle at near record-breaking speed. But, thank goodness for small favors. The Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced Thursday (07-23-09) that there will be no vote on “ObamaCare”, in the US Senate, until AFTER the August recess.
The more Americans learn of ObamaCare the more they become convinced thy do not want it! That explains the “Bum’s Rush” we mentioned at the beginning of this commentary. The democrat/socialists (in charge of the US government these days) KNOW if they have a chance of winning this fight, they MUST get ObamaCare passed through the Congress and signed by the President BEFORE American citizens wake-up to what they (The Congress and the President) are about and what is in the bill and what is NOT in the bill – and - just what it means for our form of government.
I cannot stress this enough: It is extremely important that Americans become involved in this fight! If you who wish to maintain the democratic Representative Republic the US has enjoyed since it’s founding, and you want to guard against a socialist take-over of our government – then you MUST become involved.
The country asked very little of its citizens. Mostly, it asks that you obey the laws and defend it. We have arrived at one of those occasions when you, as an American citizen, are accorded the privilege, yes, I DID say privilege, of standing up to be counted among the hosts of those Americans who value their country which was placed in their care by a group of men and women, the likes of which the world has never seen the match.
We have reached a point in this struggle, which suggests the need for supernatural interference. I am suggesting, here, that prayer be employed as a weapon in this conflict. As I said above, it is impossible to stress enough how much power this bill will place in the hands of our government. This is power that could be used against all Americans, even those Americans yet unborn, on the whim of a Congress or a President at sometime in the future. Already you are beginning to realize the financial strain it will place on the country and on its citizens.
ObamaCare must go down to defeat. In my humble opinion, that defeat can be made a reality ONLY by Americans working together to, once again, defend this great land from a threat that is decidedly domestic.
In the words of that American hero, Todd Beamer: “Let’s roll!”
J. D. Longstreet
*************************
So Many Questions. So FEW Answers!
The Urban Dictionary defines “Bum’s Rush” as: “To be jostled or hustled to move you, or get rid of you, or get you to do something that someone wants you to do - that you don't necessarily want to do.”
Now that we have everyone up to date on that portion of the lexicon most nearly associated with what the Congress is doing to Americans these days, let us now speak of ObamaCare the socialized medicine legislation the democrat/socialists are ramming through Congress and down the throats of the American people.
First I want to urge you to write, e-mail, fax, phone, or even send a telegram to your congressperson and senators demanding that they fight ObamaCare and vote no on any portion of the legislation that may come before them. Believe me, the dems are going to throw this legislation at the congresspersons and senators as fast as they can, in the dead of night if they can. In other words - they intend to do whatever it takes to get this ObamaCare legislation passed through the Congress, if it is humanly possible, by the end of July.
We warned you this was coming. Well, it is here. ObamaCare and Cap and Trade - both are coming up at Americans fast and furious - along with the full Senate’s consideration of the President’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor. ALL of this is coming at the American electorate like the Bum’s Rush we spoke of above. Rest assured… more is on the way.
For now, though, lets focus on this “Healthcare Overhaul,” as the President likes to call what you and I refer to as… ObamaCare.
Have you considered just how complicated a bill like the ObamaCare proposal would, of necessity, have to be? I mean, just think about it. Think of all the things a bill similar to ObamaCare would have to be. The intricacies of such an all-encompassing bill are staggering. It boggles the mind. Yet, the democrats want the Congress to vote on it, without ever having read it. Now, you and I both know that reading something, anything, and considering that same thing are two entirely different things. Why, reading one of your old healthcare insurance policies is so complicated you need an attorney by your side to interpret much, if not most, of it and the layman, unskilled in the law, is lost within a few paragraphs. And THAT, dear reader, is only a single Insurance policy for a single person, or, at most, a single family. There is just SO much to be considered!
I happen to be one of the millions of Americans cursed with a chronic disease, which rendered me “uninsurable.” Believe me, when I tell you, I know the value of having insurance. I also happen to be a former insurance salesman back in my misspent youth. So, my concern over the intricacies of ObamaCare is very real. For instance: I wonder if Obama Care cover diseases like Crohn’s Disease? Oh sure heart disease, diabetes, and such will be covered, but how about the little known, less “sexy” diseases such as the one I mentioned a sentence or two before this one. Will they be covered? And, who will make the decision(s) about what is covered and what is not?
If your Chronic Disease is not covered by ObamaCare… What Then? That is just ONE of the questions nobody has answered, at least to my knowledge, YET, about the President’s new Healthcare Overhaul proposal… and there are so many more! What size bureaucracy are we talking about here - huge, maybe? How about humongous!?
What about medical research and medical innovations? Up to now, the government has participated in medical research and development with taxpayer money as grants, etc, to development labs all over the country. But, one must ask, what happens when the government is insuring everyone and their primary concern has turned to holding the costs of that treatment down? All that R&D money will have dried up as it is sucked from the treasury by the costs of treatment.
Of course, the really BIG fight is just now beginning to elbow its way to the forefront. That’s the fight over whether, or not, ObamaCare will cover the costs of abortion. This fight is bound to get down and dirty, and do so quickly, once the bell rings and the bout begins. Of course, they could always decide NOT TO DECIDE, at least for now, and revisit the issue at a more favorable time in the future, for one side or the other.
By now, you should be getting a glimpse of just how incredibly intricate devising a socialized medicine scheme is for America - a country which has not, until now, actually considered socialism as a form of government for ourselves. It is here that we must bring ourselves to understand that we will be replacing our “republican”(The US is a Representative Republic.) form of government with a “socialist” form of government.
In the meantime, Americans are being herded toward acceptance of this HUGE piece of a Socialistic boondoggle at near record-breaking speed. But, thank goodness for small favors. The Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced Thursday (07-23-09) that there will be no vote on “ObamaCare”, in the US Senate, until AFTER the August recess.
The more Americans learn of ObamaCare the more they become convinced thy do not want it! That explains the “Bum’s Rush” we mentioned at the beginning of this commentary. The democrat/socialists (in charge of the US government these days) KNOW if they have a chance of winning this fight, they MUST get ObamaCare passed through the Congress and signed by the President BEFORE American citizens wake-up to what they (The Congress and the President) are about and what is in the bill and what is NOT in the bill – and - just what it means for our form of government.
I cannot stress this enough: It is extremely important that Americans become involved in this fight! If you who wish to maintain the democratic Representative Republic the US has enjoyed since it’s founding, and you want to guard against a socialist take-over of our government – then you MUST become involved.
The country asked very little of its citizens. Mostly, it asks that you obey the laws and defend it. We have arrived at one of those occasions when you, as an American citizen, are accorded the privilege, yes, I DID say privilege, of standing up to be counted among the hosts of those Americans who value their country which was placed in their care by a group of men and women, the likes of which the world has never seen the match.
We have reached a point in this struggle, which suggests the need for supernatural interference. I am suggesting, here, that prayer be employed as a weapon in this conflict. As I said above, it is impossible to stress enough how much power this bill will place in the hands of our government. This is power that could be used against all Americans, even those Americans yet unborn, on the whim of a Congress or a President at sometime in the future. Already you are beginning to realize the financial strain it will place on the country and on its citizens.
ObamaCare must go down to defeat. In my humble opinion, that defeat can be made a reality ONLY by Americans working together to, once again, defend this great land from a threat that is decidedly domestic.
In the words of that American hero, Todd Beamer: “Let’s roll!”
J. D. Longstreet
*************************
Friday, June 26, 2009
Catholic Colleges Supporting Abortion Advocates and Gay Marriage
The Cardinal Newman Society has posted an article naming 10 Catholic Colleges and universities that are promoting student internships with organizations that support abortion and/or Gay marriage.
Here's an excerpt from the article, "Ten Catholic Colleges Support Internships with Advocates of Abortion, Gay Marriage"
A national Catholic higher education organization has identified 10 Catholic colleges and universities that are promoting student internships with organizations whose missions or activities are directly opposed to the moral teachings of the Catholic Church, including on fundamental issues such as abortion and marriage.
“This discovery validates the concerns of so many thousands of faithful Catholic parents and students, that public scandals at Catholic colleges are just the tip of the iceberg,” said Patrick J. Reilly, President of The Cardinal Newman Society. “Under what definition of ‘Catholic education’ do students receive academic credit to work for leading pro-abortion organizations?”
Last week, CNS wrote to the presidents of these colleges and universities to inform them of the problems with their internship programs. None have yet indicated that they will take steps to remedy the problems.
The internship programs—along with concerns about theological dissent, weakening academic standards and declining campus culture at many Catholic colleges and universities—help explain why most students and recent graduates of Catholic institutions believe that abortion and gay marriage should be legal, despite the Church’s clear teachings to the contrary. That was one of the disturbing findings of a November 2008 study published by the CNS Center for the Study of Catholic Higher Education and titled “Behaviors and Beliefs of Current and Recent Students at U.S. Catholic Colleges.”
Go to the article here for a listing of the institutions involved.
Message from Focus on the Family Action, Inc.
Congress is considering two bills – the Hate Crimes Act and ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act) – that would severely threaten our religious beliefs and our ability to share those beliefs. I invite you to join me in signing a Focus Action petition opposing these bills and asking Congress to stop them now.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Women reduce carbon footprint by having abortions.
From Debbie at Right Truth
You read that title correctly, women are having abortions to save the planet. I couldn't make this up in my wildest imagination. Women are not just having abortions, but having themselves sterilized permanently. I think these women are CRAZY. What kind of world would this be without HUMANS??? Didn't God make the world FOR his ultimate creation -- mankind? I doubt these women (and men) even have any faith in something higher than themselves.
Had Toni Vernelli gone ahead with her pregnancy ten years ago, she would know at first hand what it is like to cradle her own baby, to have a pair of innocent eyes gazing up at her with unconditional love, to feel a little hand slipping into hers - and a voice calling her Mummy.But the very thought makes her shudder with horror.
Because when Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet.
Desperate measures: Toni Vernelli was steralised at age 27 to reduce her carbon footprintIncredibly, so determined was she that the terrible "mistake" of pregnancy should never happen again, that she begged the doctor who performed the abortion to sterilise her at the same time.
He refused, but Toni - who works for an environmental charity - "relentlessly hunted down a doctor who would perform the irreversible surgery.
Finally, eight years ago, Toni got her way.
At the age of 27 this young woman at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to "protect the planet".
Incredibly, instead of mourning the loss of a family that never was, her boyfriend (now husband) presented her with a congratulations card.
While some might think it strange to celebrate the reversal of nature and denial of motherhood, Toni relishes her decision with an almost religious zeal.
"Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," says Toni, 35.
"Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population." (continue reading at The Daily Mail)
According to polls, the public believes global warming is a hoax.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
