Tell the White House to ban abortions after 20 weeks.
Go here to sign the petition.
Tell the White House to ban abortions after 20 weeks.
Go here to sign the petition.
There was no way to just deliver this baby and have it die like she wanted. It had to be actively killed. Because, you see, a baby at 28 weeks has every chance of living a long and full life if it is born.
This is how we get the grisly procedures that involve jamming a needle through the mother’s abdomen and into the baby’s heart to administer poison to stop the baby heart from beating. It’s how abortionists came up with such fine things as saline abortions which supposedly burn and poison the baby the death before birth, and d&c abortions which dismember the baby as part of the abortion process and then remove it from the mother, piece by piece. It’s also how the “safe” procedure of partially delivering the baby and then puncturing its skull to drain out its brain before it is fully born came to be.
Note that all of these procedures — each and every one of them — is much harder on the mother than simply delivering the baby alive would be.
The trouble is, once the baby is born, killing it falls within the legal definition of murder. Before it’s born, it is not considered a human being, so killing it is, well, a “right” of both the mother. That is the horror of legal fictions concerning who is — and is not — a human being.
So, this lady decided to kill her baby in its 28th week. Because somebody saw a deformed hand in an ultrasound.
The article I will cite below discusses this murder of an innocent child, giving cultural reasons for why it had to die. Because, you see, even though Mom and Dad live in Australia now, they are from China and they’ve seen Chinese discrimination against the disabled. So, they reasoned, it was best for their baby to die.
This is the logic of abortion in a nutshell. People discriminate against the disabled, so the solution is to kill the disabled. Societies sin against women by, among other things, tolerating violence against women including rape, allowing job discrimination against people with families and children, as well as pregnant women, and many other ways. So, the solution is — you got it — kill the baby.
The logic of abortion is much the same as the logic of euthanasia, as the logic of embryonic stem cell research, as the logic of genocide as the logic of discrimination itself. “These people” (whoever they are) get in the way of “us” (whoever “us” is) so it’s ok to kill them. In fact, it’s a positive good to kill them. In fact, it’s a “right” to kill them.
It benefits all society to cleanse it of them and be done with them. They are a “burden.” They are not human. They are in the way. They bring it on themselves. They are vermin. They are in need of our death-dealing “mercy.”
When an abuse as egregious as killing a baby in its 28th week of life because it has a deformed hand occurs, the “ethicists” jump in to remind us that this is a “complex, difficult and sensitive issue.”
What’s complex about discrimination against the disabled? What’s difficult about firing — or not hiring — a woman because she is pregnant? What’s so sensitive about the fact that women can not walk down the streets of the world and feel safe from sexual assault?
What, pray tell, is the major malfunction in us — not the baby, but us — that our first and only response to our sins of discrimination and violence is to solve the whole thing by killing the innocent?
Did anybody ever think of attacking the discrimination, the prejudice, the violence instead of the baby? I know that working to end discrimination and violence seems like a tougher boogie. It’s not neat and quick like killing.
After all, the murder of an unborn child is done in a clinical situation behind closed doors. The baby body is disposed of, the parents go on, feeling “relieved,” and the medical personnel pick up their paychecks. Job done. Problem over.
Except it’s not. Because the discrimination and violence that set up this nightmare in the first place still remain. We haven’t stopped these horrors. We’ve accommodated them with an even greater horror.
Abortion does not end the evils it claims to address. It cooperates with them and enables them. It increases discrimination and violence to the utter depths of legalized murder. And it degrades whole societies to the level of murderers in the process.
This article is a read-it-and-weep testimony to the brain fog of those who inhabit the world of abortion apologetics. They can’t justify this murder of an innocent child and they will not admit that it is, in fact, murder.
So they trot out the pathos of the parents who killed their baby and the excuse words, “complex, sensitive, difficult.” Then, they ladle on a spoonful of Catholic-bashing like gravy covering over rotten meat.
Perhaps what they’re really saying is that it’s complex, sensitive and difficult to come up with an argument that justifies killing a child because it has a deformed hand.
Photo Credit: href=”https://www.flickr.com/photos/rtdphotography/2972690293/”>RTDotography</a> via <a href=”http://photopin.com”>photopin</aref=”http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/”>cc</a
Albuquerque became the first city to put a ban on late-term abortions on the ballot Monday. The Albuquerque city council voted to place a referendum outlawing abortion after 20 weeks within the city limits on the ballot.
The ballot initiative is a result of the lobbying of the pro life group Operation Rescue. It will be voted on November 17.
(Reuters) – A bill banning abortions in Albuquerque after 20 weeks of pregnancy will be put to voters in New Mexico’s most populous city in November and could become the first municipal abortion ban in the nation.
The city council voted 5-4 late on Monday to put on the ballot the “Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Ordinance,” which contains few of the standard abortion exceptions seen in many states.
In the latest salvo in the national debate over abortion, the city council was forced to act after abortion foes gathered enough signatures on a petition to require the council to either approve the law outright or put it to voters.
Local polling has shown the measure has enough support to pass. Activists on both sides say it would be the first municipal ban on abortion, and possibly a template for similar actions in other cities around the United States.
“It is a new strategy. There is more than one way to close an abortion clinic,” said Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue, a leading U.S. anti-abortion group that helped get the measure on the November 19 ballot in Albuquerque.
“If you can’t get anything done in a state legislature … you look at what is going on in a city. They say all politics is local. This is a great example of that.” (Read more here.)
Texans have a new abortion law.
Americans have a new political reality.
The Texas legislature passed the much-ballyhooed abortion law which would require abortion doctors to have hospital privileges and abortion clinics to provide the same health and safety standards as other outpatient surgical clinics. They crossed the finish line on this bill late last night amid what can only be described as a mob assault on the Texas state capitol.
The reason I chose the words “mob assault” is that the focus of at least a good number of the citizens who came to the Texas capitol was to use mob action to shut down the legislative process. Consider, for instance, this statement issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety:
I am all in favor of citizens visiting their state capitols. I think the people of this nation should pay a lot more attention to what their lawmakers are up to than they do now. I believe that every person in this country has a right to talk to their elected officials and to petition them concerning the issues and legislation they are voting on.
We are, every single elected one of us, representatives of the people who put us here. We can’t know what the people who elected us want from us unless they tell us. Polls and things of that ilk are not a substitute for direct personal input with the people themselves.
On the other hand, when a group of people try to use mob action to shut down the legislative process, they are attacking democracy. The people who were so bent on disrupting the Texas legislature would not have needed to be there at all if they had been able to take their cause to the court of public opinion and win elections. By trying to disrupt the legislative session with mob action, they were, in effect, attempting to overturn the elections which put the legislators in that chamber to cast those votes.
If you don’t like what your legislator does with the power you gave them when you elected them, then run against them for election. If you don’t want to run, then go out and volunteer to help someone else run. Put up yard signs. Make phone calls. Hand out literature. Donate money.
That is the way to change the face of government in this country. It is a power we all have, and which we are giving away to special interests and money men when we don’t use it.
There is a new kid on the political block, and it’s a yammering, spoiled, mean-spirited little brat who wants what it wants when it wants it and doesn’t care what damage it does to this country to get it. The bad behavior of some of the protestors in Texas is paralleled by the sudden rash of elected officials, Attorneys General, in particular, who run for office, get elected, and then find that their superior morality requires them to refuse to do the job they were elected to.
We’re going to have to start arresting these people who come to state capitols and try to use mob action to shut down the legislative process. I don’t want to do that. I want people to feel free to go to their capitols and to talk to their legislators about whatever is on their minds. But we cannot allow mobs of people who cannot win an election try to overturn elections by shutting down the Democratic process by means of creating such havoc that they stop debate.
At the same time, we need to consider impeaching or at least defeating at the polls duly elected chief law enforcement officers who refuse to speak for the people in court. When an Attorney General of a state will not represent the people who elected him or her in court, they are derelict in their duty. They are using a sort of don’t-show-up-in-court-and-deliberately-lose-the-case veto power over the legislative and referendum process. They are making themselves the judge of what it is not their job to be the judge — the will and the power of the people of their state to make their own laws.
Both of these extreme behaviors — the mob actions in Texas and other states, and the newfound desire to veto legislation by not showing up in court on the part of Attorneys General — are attempts to subvert the will of the people, and to nullify the actions of a representative government.
I view both these behaviors as the natural outcome of the moral depravity of the positions some citizens are taking. It corrupts and hardens a person to support killing unborn babies. It scrambles the normal thinking processes to convince yourself of something as stupid as the idea that two men or two women are the same as a man and a woman. This is untrue on its face.
Genuinely pro choice (as opposed to pro abortion) people have legitimate points. Much of what concerns them about the misogynistic treatment of women is well-founded. By the same token, homosexuals have legitimate claims to civil rights and protection under the law. However, the pretense that an unborn baby is not a human being, or that a homosexual union is the same as the marriage between a man and a woman, flies in the face of reality.
Laws enacted according to these fantasies are always going to cause great harm, because they are not based on the reality of the human condition. People who advocate for these positions, will, over time, harm themselves and their thinking abilities.
It saddens me, but it doesn’t surprise me, to see the destructiveness to our political fabric ratcheting up with each twist of the political dial. It is the inevitable consequence of the fantastical thinking many people use in forming their worldview.
Rumors have it that the United States House of Representatives will vote on a bill that will extend the District of Columbia ban on abortions after 20 weeks to the rest of the country.
The bill passed out of House committee this week, and, according to some sources, is being marked up for a vote that may take place next week. I doubt that this bill will pass in the Senate, and it certainly will be vetoed by the President if it does. There is no chance the bill’s authors can convince both houses to override a Presidential veto.
On top of that, Roe v Wade specifically set the limit for abortion on demand (with some regulations) at 26 weeks of pregnancy. Unless the Court changes that ruling, the bill is unconstitutional.
So, what is happening here?
I do not see any reason for late-term abortions. I’ve written about that here. However, I always wonder about the real reason for a vote like this, since it is definitely not to make a law and everyone involved knows it.
Do the bill’s authors view the vote as a statement designed to build consensus over time? Are they throwing down the political gauntlet and forcing people to declare where they stand on this issue by how they cast their votes? Do they want to use it as a way of defining an issue for upcoming political campaigns? Or is this some combination of all these things?
I would guess that almost any member of the United States Congress could take a roll sheet of either the Senate or the House and pinpoint with amazing accuracy how each member will vote on this. I imagine they could have pinpointed it at any time during this session. I’ll go a step further and say that they could probably predict what everyone who speaks on the issue will say.
So they’re not trying to convince one another. This is about something else.
If they had a chance of passing this into law, it would be a powerful thing, indeed. It would force the Supreme Court to either rule against it or let it stand. That could be great, or, if they uphold it, it could make the situation worse; potentially much worse. Everything you do in when you’re in public office can go great or turn sour. In issues with generational punch and Court oversight like this one, strategy is everything.
The reason I’m raising these questions is that I want you to peel back the layers of propaganda and think about what is really happening with your government. I want you to look at the legislative process with understanding. If Christians are to affect change in the world, we need to do more than watch the game and cheer for our side. We need to be able to see through the game.
So, give a thought or two about this bill to limit abortions and tell me what you think they’re doing. Do you think it has any chance to succeed legislatively? Do you think that one of the many similar laws that have passed in the various states will wend its way through the appeals process and on up to the Supreme Court? Do you think there’s any chance the Supreme Court will uphold that law if it does?
These are big questions, and I can tell you, I don’t know the answers to all of them.
What do you think?