![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2021\/01\/Baby4.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
\n
Love Towards Preborn Babies Evident Once Again from the Pro-Abort Crowd<\/span><\/strong> (6-1-17)<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
In a combox at Patheos, I made reference to \u201cchildkilling\u201d (i.e., abortion), but misspelled the word. \u201cStatistics Palin\u201d then replied: \u201cWhat is \u201cchilkilling\u201d? Is it like \u201ccovfefe\u201d? It\u2019s difficult to keep up with you Trumpanzees and your nonsense.\u201d<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/div>\n
I replied:<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/div>\n
It\u2019s precious that you would be more concerned about a typo than with what the word describes<\/em>: the (legal, and highly encouraged) grotesque, merciless dismemberment of a human being before he or she even has a chance to experience the light of day.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/div>\n
Just recently we were treated to the video of Planned Parenthood employees actually joking<\/em>\u00a0about this: making light of an eyeball of a poor murdered child that rolled onto someone\u2019s lap, etc. Really funny stuff, that. We\u2019ve long since surpassed the Nazis in supremely evil acts being sanctioned by law and societal consensus. This is the sick society we live in.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/div>\n
We can\u2019t sensibly, conscientiously talk about the rights of one group of people, while being utterly oblivious to the right of human beings in their mother\u2019s wombs to be allowed to live, and to not be subjected to torture and killing, because of the tortured-logic games we play about rights and the definition of a person, which would seem to have long since advanced beyond argument, due to modern science (especially genetics).<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
But no, we wicked, evil Christians are the ones who are supposedly against the rights of people and against science. We\u2019re the intolerant ones (i.e., regarded as a total group, or policy). I guess that\u2019s why we are now being slaughtered all over the world, because we are so evil and wicked, and deserve it.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
*****<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
\n
\n
Pregnancies Conceived in Rape from the Baby\u2019s Perspective<\/span><\/strong> (9-20-17)<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
I you or I were the child conceived in rape and here comes the vacuum cleaner to brutally suck us away (in pieces), or forceps to crush our skull, or saline solution to scald us to death, I think we would feel a lot differently than the abstract arguments of many in favor of these \u201cexceptions\u201d would have it.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
I think that is all<\/strong><\/em> preborn babies\u2019 perspectives. They all want to live and all have a right to live. And they have every much right to be protected as any of us.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
It\u2019s easy to make an argument if we simply forget all about the baby\u2019s perspective and only talk about the mother. But it\u2019s not<\/em><\/strong> just the mother involved.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Rape is extraordinarily horrific and pregnancy as a result, traumatic and excruciating. But the baby remains what it is: a human being and a person who had no say in how he or she came into existence. And the baby is as much the mother\u2019s child (not just \u201chalf\u201d her child) as any other children are, since every child has only half of its DNA from either parent.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
*****<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Straight Talk on Genocide (ISIS and our Own Childkillers<\/strong> <\/span>(8-14-14)<\/div>\n
\n
\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Pretty soon these ISIS monsters may remotely approach the level of unmitigated evil that we have in the United States, with our 3,500 or so tortures and murders of innocent preborn children day in and day out. They have a long ways to go yet, but they\u2019re starting to get it. Beheading children? The abortionists have done that legally in America for over thirty years (along with tearing children limb from limb, burning them to death with saline solution, sucking them into vacuum cleaners . . .). We barely managed to make illegal sucking the brains out of a full-term child and crushing his or her skull. Obama and many liberals opposed even that<\/em>\u00a0. . .<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
ISIS doesn\u2019t want Christians around, and so they murder them and burn their churches in order to attain their goal. We don\u2019t want \u201cunwanted children\u201d around (as millions eagerly wait to adopt any child) so we burn and murder them to get them out of the way. I see no moral difference whatsoever. Do you? At least ISIS kicks some Christians out rather than kill them on the spot. But the abortionist will have none of that. His aim is to slaughter and mercilessly kill any \u201cunwanted child\u201d (for a fee, of course) before he or she sees the light of day. Being a human being in your mother\u2019s womb in America is far<\/strong><\/em> more dangerous even than being a Christian in Mosul or other areas overrun by these bloodthirsty murderers.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
All of these horrors are occurring every day<\/em> <\/strong>in the good ol\u2019 US of A. And it will continue as long as conservatives or non-Democrats (call them what you will) divide among themselves and play the libertarian or independent or third-party or \u201cI ain\u2019t gonna vote anymore\u201d games (or are actually clueless enough to vote Democrat), so that the rabidly pro-abort Democrats can win elections again and again, thus assuring that the abortion genocide continues unabated.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
[note from 1-26-21: President Trump \u2014 starting two years and five months after I wrote the above \u2014 wiped ISIS off the face of the earth. Now Biden will likely enable them to grow and thrive again]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
*****<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
\n
\n
Murder of Full-Term Babies Has Been Legal in America Since 1973<\/span> <\/strong>(1-29-19)<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
It seems that many people are under the illusion that abortion up to nine months was not<\/strong><\/em> legal before now (in New York). It\u2019s been that way ever since 22 January 1973. On the same day Roe v. Wade<\/em> was issued, there was also Doe v. Bolton<\/em>. This in effect made abortion legal for all nine months (since legal loopholes were provided that were large enough for a Mack truck to drive through). Here are the exact words:<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n[T]he medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors \u2013 physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman\u2019s age \u2013 relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n\n*<\/div>\nIt\u2019s been that way ever since. The Supreme Court (with no help of Justice Ginsburg, who wrote the dissent) prohibited partial-birth abortion a few years ago, but that\u2019s not the only way to murder a full-term baby.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nAlso, many states have restricted abortion, since this was allowed by the Supreme Court after 1989. Apart from that, if no state restrictions were present, abortion was legal all the way up to birth.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nThis is one of the things that made me instantly change my mind about abortion in 1982. Up till then I was dumber than a doornail and thought abortion was about \u201cclumps of cells\u201d that were scarcely human. There are many people who are this ignorant about abortion today, and also many who know exactly what is going on, and favor it anyway.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nMay God have mercy on the souls of the latter on Judgment Day. If they don\u2019t have the excuse of ignorance I don\u2019t think it will go well for them unless they have repented. There are particularly gruesome places in hell reserved for such unspeakable sins.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nNo one need go to them or to hell itself. God\u2019s forgiveness is always available to those who ask for it and who truly repent.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n*****<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\n\nDemocrat \/ \u201cNew\u201d Liberal \/ Leftist Pro-Lifers Never Seem to Meet an Abortion-Restricting Law That They Like<\/span><\/strong> (1-22-20)<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nI\u2019ve long noted this. Here\u2019s a classic example, from Rebecca Hamilton, writing at Patheos today:<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\nI\u2019ve been queasy about some of the more outlandish \u201cpro life\u201d bills that have been passed in various legislatures around the country. In the first place, those bills create laws that damage and attack women more than they are aimed at saving the lives of the unborn. They expose the misogynist core in the hearts of some pretend pro lifers.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n\n\nIn the second place, these laws are so radical and crazy that they might tip the Court \u2014 this court which we have all but destroyed our democracy to gain \u2014 into \u201cfinding\u201d a right to abortion in the Constitution. That would be much worse than Roe, which did not find such a right. Roe \u201cfound\u201d a right to privacy, which is something else entirely.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\nI am aware that this distinction seems almost nonsensical to people who aren\u2019t used to dealing with lawmaking. But believe me, it is not.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nGranted, she qualified with \u201csome<\/em> . . . bills\u201d yet it remains true that she is bashing a great many of them and not mentioning a single one that she actually applauds and is grateful for.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nPeople like this are little more than useful idiots for the pro-abortion cause, even though they truly and sincerely are pro-life (which I would never deny, as they routinely do with us non-liberal pro-lifers: as evidenced by some of the derogatory quotation marks above).<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n*<\/div>\nThe whole essence of the useful idiot is that they oppose a position, yet in the way they act and vote they in effect are doing all they (unwittingly and unwillingly) can to further it.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n*<\/div>\nBelieve me: the pro-aborts absolutely love pro-lifers who write and reason in this fashion. Nothing could make them happier. They have unpaid secret agents infiltrating the pro-life movement: folks who actually sincerely believe the nonsense that they are communicating.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\n\nNo one is denying that leftist \/ liberal pro-lifers\u00a0 exist. It\u2019s how they reason<\/em>, how they vote<\/em>, and how they too often view<\/em> pro-lifers who aren\u2019t as politically liberal, that is our concern.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nIf they would simply hold their view and let us hold ours, a lot less harm would be done, but it seems to be in the nature of liberalism to look down noses at the non-liberal, and many liberals in fact do that. Surely, some conservatives do that as well (humans being humans), and all movements have their fringe wackos, but I don\u2019t think it\u2019s nearly as widespread.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n*****<\/div>\n<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\n\n\u201cNew\u201d and \u201cOld\u201d Pro-Life Positions: Never the Twain Shall Meet?<\/span><\/strong> (8-27-20)<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nRebecca Bratten Weiss, channel manager at Patheos Catholic, whom I consider a friend (we have met in person), just wrote a post explicating key opinions of the strain of pro-life opinion of which she is a major proponent (new pro-life, as she calls it; basically leftist pro-life). I tried to respond to a similar post by Michelle Arnold in the last few days, to no avail. Here is my reply to Rebecca today, under her article:<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nOnce again, as always, there is no dialogue between so-called \u201cold\u201d and \u201cnew\u201d pro-lifers. I put up two posts yesterday that directly attack key assumptions in the new pro-life outlook. No one has dared make a direct reply to them. I drew analogies (which I\u2019m very fond of) which I think apply to the arguments commonly used. I challenged Michelle Arnold, who wrote a post similar to yours.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nI wish that for just one time, \u201cnew pro-lifers\u201d would respond to our critiques of them. I\u2019ve critiqued the new pro-life views over and over (the articles are on my blog), so I need not do so again. But I\u2019d love to see one o\u2019 y\u2019all extend the same courtesy back, and actually engage in a back-and-forth, real, authentic dialogue.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n