Posts Tagged ‘fetus’

Fearfully And Wonderfully Made: From Conception To Birth

October 30, 2010

“For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb.

I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Your works are wonderful,
I know that full well” — Psalm 139:13-14

Does human life begin as worthless “byproducts of conception”?  Does human life only have value if someone is working and producing? (watch out, liberals!  Because most of the Democrat base would be exterminated on a ‘yes’ response!).  Or is human life of incommensurably precious value?

Please watch this six minute Youtube video.  I strongly suggest you turn down the volume level!

If your life began as something that is so valueless that your own mother can destroy you like a disease while the defied State smiles down benevolently, then why do you think that your life has any value whatsoever now?

You were once an embryo.  And if your mother had aborted you, you would have died.

My life has value not because of what I have done, but because of what I am: because I am a human being.  My human dignity is not utilitarian; it is ontological.  Which is why Jews, people on welfare and senior citizens shouldn’t be marched off to the gas chamber.  Nor am I any more “human” today than I ever was as an embryo, as an infant, as a teenager.  When I was in my mother’s womb, I was “human” by virtue of my parents, and a “being” by virtue of the fact that I was a living thing.  Now and from the moment of conception, I am and have been a human being.

Here is a 21-week old “product of conception” reaching out of his womb during surgery to grasp the finger of his surgeon:

Today, that “product of conception” is 11-years old and goes by the name Samuel Armas:

Had Samuel’s mother chosen to abort him rather than choosing surgery to cure his spina bifida in utero, Samuel would have died.  He never would have had a chance to live and play and win medals for swimming:

Here’s another “product of conception” who actually survived an abortion.  This one-time aborted fetus is now 33 years old and calls herself Gianna Jessen:

Gianna wouldn’t be here today if her murder-attempt-by-abortion had succeeded.  She would have been killed by her own mother.  As it turned out, forgiveness of what was done to her is part of her beautiful human spirit.

Don’t be “pro-choice.”  Hitler was pro-choice.  Only Hitler didn’t wipe out nearly as many human beings as the fifty-two million innocent babies annihilated by the abortion movement in America.

Celebrate life.  Cherish life.  Celebrate and cherish the dignity of the human spirit.  Stand with me against the culture of death otherwise known as abortion.

Jill Stanek On Why Barack Obama Voted For Infanticide

August 21, 2008

Top 10 reasons Obama voted against the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act

by Jill Stanek

Here are the top 10 reasons Barack Obama has variously stated why he voted against Illinois’ Born Alive Infant Protection Act when state senator.

10. Babies who survive their abortions are not protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Speaking against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act on the IL Senate floor on March 30, 2001, Obama, the sole verbal opponent to the bill stated:

… I just want to suggest… that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.

Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – child, a nine-month-old – child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place.

I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.

9. A ban to stop aborted babies from being shelved to die would be burdensome to their mothers. She alone should decide whether her baby lives or dies. Before voting “no” for a 2nd time in the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 5, 2002, Obama stated:

What we are doing here is to create one more burden on women, and I can’t support that.

During a speech at Benedictine University in October 2004, Obama said, according to the Illinois Leader, that “the decision concerning a baby should be left to a woman, but that he does not see himself as supportive of abortion.”

8. Wanting to stop live aborted babies from being shelved to die was all about politics. During that same speech at Benedictine University, Obama said, according to the Illinois Leader, “the bill was unnecessary in Illinois and was introduced for political reasons.”

obama%20and%20baby.jpg7. There was no proof. Also during the Benedictine University speech, Obama said, according to the Illinois Leader, that “there was no documentation that hospitals were actually doing what was alleged in testimony presented before him in committee.”

6. Aborting babies alive and letting them die is a doctor’s prerogative. An Obama spokesman told the Chicago Tribune in August 2004 that Obama voted against Born Alive because it included provisions that “would have taken away from doctors their professional judgment when a fetus is viable.”

5. Anyway, doctors don’t do that. Obama told the Chicago Sun-Times in October 2004 he opposed Born Alive because “physicians are already required to use life-saving measures when fetuses are born alive during abortions.”

4. Aborting babies alive and letting them die is a religious issue. During their U.S. Senate competition Alan Keyes famously said:

Christ would not stand idly by while an infant child in that situation died…. Christ would not vote for Barack Obama, because Barack Obama has voted to behave in a way that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved.

Obama has always mischaracterized Keyes’ rationale for condemning Obama by implying Keyes was simply making a statement against Obama’s pro-abortion position, which is untrue. Keyes pointedly stated he was condemning Obama for his support of infanticide.

Nevertheless, live birth abortion must be included in the list of procedures Obama condones. Obama responded first to Keyes by saying, as quoted in his July 10, 2006, USA Today op ed:

… [W]e live in a pluralistic society, and that I can’t impose my religious views on another.

obama%20family.jpg3. Aborting babies alive and letting them die violates no universal principle. In the same USA Today piece, Obama said he reflected on that first answer, decided it was a “typically liberal response,” and revised it:

… But my opponent’s accusations nagged at me…. If I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons but seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

2. Sinking Born Alive was simply about political oneupsmanship. Obama has this quote on his website:

Pam Sutherland, the president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, told ABC News. “We worked with him specifically on his strategy. The Republicans were in control of the Illinois Senate at the time. They loved to hold votes on ‘partial birth’ and ‘born alive’. They put these bills out all the time… because they wanted to pigeonhole Democrats….”

And the #1 reason Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act was:

1. The IL Born Alive Infant Protection Act was a ploy to undercut Roe v. Wade. During a debate against Keyes in October 2004, Obama stated:

Now, the bill that was put forward was essentially a way of getting around Roe vs. Wade…. At the federal level, there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe vs. Wade. I would have voted for that bill.

This was an out-and-out lie. The definition of “born alive” in the federal and Illinois versions were identical. The only difference came in paragraph (c), which was originally identical in both versions but changed on the federal level.

Illinois’ paragraph (c): A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.

Federal paragraph (c): Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

When the senator sponsoring the IL bill tried to amend IL’s paragraph (c), Amendment 1 below, to be the same as the federal paragraph (c), Barack Obama himself, as chairman of the committee hearing the bill, refused, and he then also killed the bill (click to enlarge).

Why Barack Obama Will Never Solve the Problem of Black Fathers

June 17, 2008

More ‘Just Words’ From Obama
Barack Obama spent part of his Father’s Day “by calling on black fathers, who he said are “missing from too many lives and too many homes,” to become active in raising their children.”

“They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it,” the Democratic presidential candidate said Sunday at a largely black church in his hometown.

“We can’t simply write these problems off to past injustices,” Obama said to applause Sunday. “Those injustices are real. There’s a reason our families are in disrepair, and some of it has to do with a tragic history, but we can’t keep using that as an excuse.”

“Any fool can have a child. That doesn’t make you a father,” he said. “It’s the courage to raise a child that makes you a father.”

Obama is being hailed in certain liberal quarters, and assailed in other liberal quarters (for “singling out” black men and “blaming the victim” just like the racist white establishment wants him to).

I don’t disagree with a single word Obama said (as applied to the specific statements quoted above). There is a crisis in the black family that has been taking place for decades. And at the very core of that crisis is the absence of black fathers from the homes of their children. The question is whether we can take any positive steps toward ending the destruction of the black family through liberal approaches.

Let me begin with one of Obama’s “solutions” and play devil’s advocate for a little while.

The AP article states that “Obama often speaks about the importance of parental involvement. In Washington, he’s sponsoring legislation to get more child support money to children by offering a tax credit for fathers who pay support, more efficient collection and penalties for fathers who don’t meet their obligations.”

But how does that view logically square with the sacred liberal doctrine of “a woman’s right to choose“?

How ‘A Woman’s Right to Choose’ Is Inherently Unfair to Men
At the moment a man (white, black, or otherwise) and a woman conceive, standard liberal doctrine is that nothing of any value whatsoever was created. You merely have what the abortion industry lovingly calls the “products of conception.” There is no life in any meaningful sense. There is no child. There’s just valueless, meaningless goo.

Well, that man (please don’t call him a “father“, because you have to have a child to be a father) goes his merry way. And of course, the woman (please don’t call her a “mother” for the same reason as above) gets to go “choose.”

How on earth is the man responsible? He didn’t father a child; he contributed half of the ingredients to some gooey thing called “a zygote” that some leftist philosophers agree will become a child a child at birth (mind you Peter Singer doesn’t think so; a newborn merits fewer “human rights” than does a pig on his view).

Now, on this liberal view, I can see requiring a man to pay for half the cost of an abortion. After all, he was 50% responsible for creating the goo creature “fetus,” and it is only fair that he should be half responsible for taking care of the mess.

But “child support“? Requiring “penalties for fathers who don’t meet their obligations“?

What kind of nonesense is that?

All that poor man did was take part in producing a goo creature. He didn’t “father” “a child.” Liberal theology requires that we affirm that denial.

If he “fathered” “a child,” after all, then logically abortion kills a child. No liberal should tolerate that kind of talk.

And – as wrong as it is to say he “fathered” “a child,” it is even worse to claim that it is in any sense “his” “child.”

If this goo creature “fetus” were “his” “child,” after all, then he would have a right to decide what happens to it. Which he most certainly does not – and MUST NOT – have according to all the tenants of liberal thought that worships “a woman’s right to choose.”

If it is “his child,” then no one could kill it or take it away from him. The goo creature “fetus” is not his child, even in theory: it is not a child at all, and – whatever you want to call the goo creature – it is not his, because the woman and the woman alone gets to make all the decisions for it.

If it is “my shirt” then no one can take it off my back. If it is my dog then you’d BETTER not hurt it. But when it comes to being “a father,” the term “my child” doesn’t mean a whole heck of a lot.

Just to make sure we’re tracking together, allow me to restate: According to liberalism, it aint a child, and it certainly aint his. It is nothing more than a goo creature, a thing, the “products of conception,” and ALL rights without a single exception must necessarily go immediately to the woman. A father gets all the rights he deserves in liberal thought: absolutely none.

Now, if a woman subjectively “chooses” to be “a mother,” then suddenly the man who helped produce the goo creature “fetus” becomes “a father,” and he darned better take his responsibility seriously. She gets to choose for both of them. For all three of them, in fact. That is the fundamental injustice of abortion.

It is her sole, solitary decision whether to kill the goo creature or cherish the child. It is her sole, solitary decision whether the man with whom she became pregnant becomes “a father” or not. It is her sole, solitary decision whether the “father” is forced to pay child support or not. And it is generally her decision whether “the father” has visitation rights or not (she can always move away with her child, if nothing else).

Here’s an anology that I really hope some liberal takes me up on. A liberal and I get a car together (make it a Ferrari, as I want nothing less than the very best in all my analogies). I of course get to possess “the right to choose” in this relationship, and I choose that the liberal doesn’t get to drive it. That is my choice. But once a month, when it comes time to make the car payment, I decide that it is the liberal’s Ferrari too – requiring him to meet his obligation and pay support. And dad burn it, Mr. Liberal, “our” car needs a garage, and you sure better not shirk on providing gas for “our car.”

Liberals have been puzzling over this part for decades now. But somehow, for some incomprehensible reason, men (and yes, most definitely black men) don’t seem to appreciate this deal.

How can you possibly hold a man responsible for “child support” when at the time of his involvement it WASN’T a child at all, but merely the “products of conception“? And, given the fact that abortion is strictly “a woman’s right to choose” – with a man being absolutely forbidden from interfering with her decision – how can you possibly require that a man be held accountable for a woman’s decision not to choose abortion when she could easily have done so? Come on: if it used to be a product of conception and subsequently became a child, and if women and women alone get to choose abortion to kill the P.O.C., then whose freakin’ fault is it that that meaningless little P.O.C. became a child?

How does the expression go? Fatherhood and a quarter will get you a cup of coffee (adjust for inflation accordingly).

The liberal doctrine of a woman’s right to choose abortion assumes that women should have only rights, and that men should have only duties imposed upon them. After all, the more stupid an idea is, the more necessary it is to have a fall guy. Otherwise, people might start holding the idiots who came up with the stupid idea responsible.

But there is more. The same root evil underlying abortion has been the root cause resulting in the destruction of the black family.

The Terrible Idea Abortion Shares With American Slavery
Barack Obama’s views on black fathers are nothing new. Bill Cosby spoke out years ago (and was unrelentingly attacked as an “Uncle Tom” for his troubles by so-called “Civil Rights leaders.” And some forty years ago, Senator Patrick Moynihan issued a report trying to understand and help resolve the dilemma of the black family. He too was excoriated by the “black community” for his troubles, and labeled as a racist.

Chapter III of the report, titled, “The Roots of the Problem,” contains the following analysis on why American slavery was so devastating upon its victims.

The most perplexing question abut American slavery, which has never been altogether explained, and which indeed most Americans hardly know exists, has been stated by Nathan Glazer as follows: “Why was American slavery the most awful the world has ever known?” The only thing that can be said with certainty is that this is true: it was.

American slavery was profoundly different from, and in its lasting effects on individuals and their children, indescribably worse than, any recorded servitude, ancient or modern. The peculiar nature of American slavery was noted by Alexis de Tocqueville and others, but it was not until 1948 that Frank Tannenbaum, a South American specialist, pointed to the striking differences between Brazilian and American slavery. The feudal, Catholic society of Brazil had a legal and religious tradition which accorded the slave a place as a human being in the hierarchy of society — a luckless, miserable place, to be sure, but a place withal. In contrast, there was nothing in the tradition of English law or Protestant theology which could accommodate to the fact of human bondage — the slaves were therefore reduced to the status of chattels — often, no doubt, well cared for, even privileged chattels, but chattels nevertheless.

Slavery has always been hard for slaves, but there was something far more sinister to the phenomenon of American slavery. Many peoples have historically become slaves, and yet fully recovered within a fairly short time of the end to their captivity. What was different in the unique case of American slavery was the complete dehumanization of slaves. In contrast to the description of slavery in the Bible, and in contrast to the institution of slavery in Brazil (which endured another 20 years after the United States abolished slavery), American slavery denied the dignity and humanity of Africans in bondage.

It was that denial of humanity and human dignity, more than anything else, that has so traumatized the black descendants of those slaves to this very day.

The horror of abortion, like the horror of American slavery, is that it denies the dignity and humanity of its victim.

When you deny the humanity, dignity, and ultimate incommensurable transcendent worth of a class of human beings, then any depradation or violence can be justified. It was what the American industry of slavery did to blacks, it was what the Holocaust did to Jews, and it is what abortion does to the unborn.

Just as the institution of slavery could not have endured if the human status of blacks was acknowledged, so also the institution of abortion could not endure if the human status of the unborn is acknowledged.

And what impact does that denial of humanity, of human dignity, of transcendent value of the unborn have?

It goes far beyond the status of those who are killed.

If the humanity, dignity, and incommensurable transcendent value of the unborn is recognized, then it necessarily becomes a duty for parents of that marvelous unborn little human being to love, care, and support their child.

This is why ultrasound technology has proven so powerful. The Sep. 30, 2007 Constitutent Insight Report provided concluded that 89% of women who see their unborn children in an ultrasound when seeking an abortion opt out of it and choose to keep the baby. This is because they come to see with their own eyes that their babies are human beings for the first time.

If that status is denied, then the “duty” to love, care, and support becomes a “choice,” and one can choose to love, care and support their child the way they can choose to love their dog. Whether children are precious little human beings or worthless products of conception is entirely up to the choice of the pregnant woman.

Women can renounce any responsibility for the life they helped to create by choosing death for their “products of conception.” Men are denied that recourse, but they can make the philosophically identical choice by choosing to walk away.

If a woman can choose to renounce her child even to the point of choosing to kill it, why shouldn’t a man be able to choose to walk away?

The Abandonment of the Concept of Justice by the Legal System of the Welfare State
Insanity gives birth to more insanity and Injustice gives birth to more injustice, just as a lie gives birth to more lies to cover for the first lie.  Liberals who justify abortion on the grounds that the goo creature who is conceived is most definitely not a child turn around and attempt to force man after man to pay child support in order to fund the welfare state they have created.

Douglas M Richardsonposts his own story of being forced to pay child support to the man who had an affair with his wife. If being a cuckhold isn’t bad enough for you, take your problems before a judge. A man named Andy Bathie who donated sperm to a lesbian couple was made to pay child support, despite having no involvement in the children’s lives.

In Bernie Goldberg’s book Bias, he includes a chapter titled “Targeting Men.” He related a 1998 story he covered “that would have sent shivers down Kafka’s spine,” about a man named John Johnson who was forced to pay child support for a woman he’d never even met based on a legal technicality. He described the case of Tony Jackson, a working class black man with a wife and family, who was put on the hook by the court for $13,000 in child support even after a DNA test proved he was not the father. An undercover LA police officer was similarly ordered to pay $14,000 in child support based on the affidavit of a former girlfriend even though he was similarly cleared by a DNA test (see pp. 144-147).

A man would get fairer treatment by being cast into a pit of starving feral dogs than he would receive at the hands of a typical liberal family court judge. At least he could have a chance to fight the feral dogs.

The very theory of abortion based upon a woman’s right to choose fundamentally denies men equal rights under the law.

And if, after all, the life of a baby is up to “a woman’s right to choose,” then what does fatherhood amount to? Basically, the prestige and power of fatherhood, like what was once said about the vice presidency, is “not worth a bucket of warm spit.” Why stick around? Being a father means nothing. The goo creature you conceived certainly isn’t worth anything.

The Logic of Abortion Annihilates Objective Human Value
Look at a newborn baby and consider, “You are here only because your mother chose to let you live. If she had chosen differently, you would not be a human being; you would have merely been yet another goo creature to be dismembered and sucked out of a womb.”

That is quite a foundation for recognizing and affirming human value, isn’t it? Only a liberal is morally stupid enough to lack the capacity to understand the horror and chaos that would inevitably result from denying the fundamental human status and dignity of precious unborn human beings.

As terrible and self-defeating as it is, it is nevertheless incredibly common for those who have been victimized to perpetuate victimization. Think of the Stockholm syndrome. Think of the fact that children of physical and sexual abusers tend to become physical and sexual abusers themselves. The descendants of black slaves who were denied their fundamental right to human dignity deny that status to their own children.

The Black Family Has Born the Brunt of the Horror of Abortion
And what are the results of this liberal doctrine on the black community? Kenneth Blackwell writes:

The statistics on African American abortions are shocking. Even though African Americans are only about 13 percent of the U.S. population, one of every three abortions in the United States is performed on a black woman. Three of every five African American women will abort a child. Some 1,452 African American babies are killed each day in abortions. Let’s compare these statistics to the number of African Americans who have been killed by crimes of racial violence. Statistics show that between 1882 and 1968, 3,446 blacks were lynched in the United States. That number is bypassed by the number of African American abortions every three days. Let’s project the favorable consequences had the aborted babies been allowed to live. Had the 13 million babies aborted since Roe v. Wade in 1973 been allowed to live, today’s African American population of 37 million could reasonably be projected to exceed 50 million today. In other words, today’s potential African American population has been reduced 25 percent by abortions. And the 13 million African American abortions are estimated to have enriched the U.S. abortion industry by some $4 billion since Roe v. Wade.

Some in the black community are calling abortion a genocide – a genocide of black mothers against their own children.

And what then becomes of all these surviving “goo creatures” who were allowed to live merely as a result of the complete subjectivity of “a woman’s choice”?

Jeff Jacoby, in a Boston Globe article titled, “Destruction in black America is self-inflicted,” wrote:

In a new study, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics confirms once again that almost half the people murdered in the United States each year are black, and 93 percent of black homicide victims are killed by someone of their own race. (For white homicide victims, the figure is 85 percent.) In other words, of the estimated 8,000 African-Americans murdered in 2005, more than 7,400 were cut down by other African-Americans. Though blacks account for just one-eighth of the US population, the BJS reports, they are six times more likely than whites to be victimized by homicide — and seven times more likely to commit homicide.

Such huge disproportions don’t just happen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously warned 40 years ago that the collapse of black family life would mean rising chaos and crime in the black community. Today, as many as 70 percent of black children are born out of wedlock and 60 percent are raised in fatherless households. And as reams of research confirm, children raised without married parents and intact, stable families are more likely to engage in antisocial behavior.

Conclusion
End abortion. End it once and for all. Affirm the ultimate dignity of every human being.

Barack Obama is right: fathers should bear a fundamental duty to provide care and support for the child.

But he is completely wrong in believing that “more efficient collection and penalties for fathers who don’t meet their obligations” will solve the problem of fatherlessness. His unequivocal support for abortion – which is tantamount to the denial of the most fundamental right of a father: the right to fight to save his child’s life – is more responsible for the abandonment of the role of the father as any other issue.

Fathers should bear the duty to care for and support their child from the moment that child is conceived. And mothers should likewise bear the similar duty to care and nurture her baby from the moment her baby is conceived. Either both parents have such a duty, or neither do. It is as simple as that.

There was a time when walking out on one’s children was regarded by society with revulsion as the ultimate act of cowardice and weakness. Abortion undermined that attitude just as surely as it undermined the right of an unborn child to live. Only a complete moral idiot would attempt to argue that a woman has a fundamental right to kill her child, but a man cannot have the right to walk away from supporting that very same child.

Ending abortion would not solve the problems of fatherhood overnight. Nothing will. But we can never hope to solve the abandonment of the institution of fatherhood until we end the institution of abortion.

Abortion Destroys More Than Just A Baby

April 1, 2008

Abortion is a cancer that makes our society sick on every level. It destroys us individually – one baby at a time; it erodes the essential institution of fatherhood by removing fathers from the most basic decision regarding their children; and, ultimately, it creates unstable consequences that damage our nation and our world. And rather than being a necessary industry that protects the weakest and neediest among us, it is in fact a holocaust among the very groups of people we claim to be trying to save.

First of all, abortion clearly results in the death of a child. Do the math: if your beloved mommy had decided to have an abortion during her pregnancy with you, you would not have been born. More specifically, you would have died. Mommy would have killed you. The same you who was once a teen ager, once a toddler, once an infant, was also once a fetus, once an embryo, and once a zygote. Killing you at any point during that continuum would have rendered you every bit as dead. If you don’t believe me, look at your brother or sister; a different egg and sperm produce a totally different child every time. Even in the case of identical twins – where a zygote divides – we end up with two different children. Abortion destroys a child.

But when the Supreme Court looked down from Mount Olympus and divined in the Constitution a woman’s right to choose abortion, it did something else: it destroyed the rights of fathers, and undermined the traditional family structure.

Think about it: if a mother exercises her “right to choose” abortion, it presupposes a duty upon the father of that child to idly sit by while his child is killed. While mommy beams down at her little bundle of joy and says, “I could have chosen to kill you, but let you live because I wanted a baby, daddy is outside somewhere saying, “Well, mommy didn’t decide to kill it, so I guess I’m a father. How can anyone who claims to have an IQ above that of the baby that abortion kills not see how radically abortion undermines the role of the father?

Conversely, if daddy dearest is a “pro-choicer” who doesn’t want anything to do with his child and would very much like to choose death for it, he may well be subjectively compelled by the courts to pay child support. A woman can kill her child at will during pregnancy. That is her right. But if she subjectively decides to keep her baby, the courts impose the burden on a father to support that child whether he wants it or not. That is his duty. Where’s daddy’s “right to choose”? He has no rights at all, only duties selectively imposed upon him by the granting of this bizarre woman’s right. So much for equal rights; so much for equal protection under the law. If daddy desperately wants his child and mommy wants to abort, too bad, so sad, dad. If daddy doesn’t want to be responsible for his kid but mommy wants to keep it, to bad, so sad, dad. Abortion is not only murder, it is also patently unfair by any meaningful standard.

In their infinite wisdom, the courts decided that fatherhood amounted to nothing more than donating sperm and writing checks. A woman kills her child and is regarded as making a choice with all the moral consequence of choosing whether to buy a particular blouse. A father walks away from a liftime commitment of supporting that same kid that momma could have had chopped into little pieces and he becomes a “deadbeat dad.” And the same courts that made all this possible – after creating the chaotic disaster of “no-fault divorce” – have also nearly unanimously decided that fathers shouldn’t get custody of their kids. They’re lucky if they get joint custody! Being a father means being pretty low on the totem poll. And of course, in recent years, we have lesbians actually taking advantage of the latest science to bypass daddy altogether. So much for dads.

Incredibly, the same secular humanists who utterly failed to see the consequences of their utter contempt for fathers have for going on forty years continued to fail to see the clear cause-effect relationship between abortion and the declining participation by fathers. But suprise, suprise. Fathers by the millions recognized and internalized the utter meaninglessness that society clearly impugned upon them and simply walked away. Duties without rights, plus criticism without recognition, is no way to attract men to embrace fatherhood. And, for that matter, rights without duties is no way to attract women to embrace motherhood.

The statistics are overwhelming and inexorable. Abortion. Fatherlessness. Out of wedlock births. Single parent households. Crime. Drugs. Gangs. Prison. Chronic dysfunction. Studies galore support the death of the family with the rise of a sociopathic youth culture. In many major cities, 65% of babies are born to unmarried women. Nationally, 70% of the long-term inmates in prisons who have committed the most violent crimes grew up without fathers. INTERPOL statistics have likewise revealed that single parenthood ratios were strongly correlated with violent crimes. Studies of juvenile offenders have shown that family structure significantly predicts delinquency. Children born out of wedlock are three times more likely to drop out of school than children in two parent households, and they are far more likely to end up on welfare. And study after study has demonstrated that children without fathers are far more likely to abuse alcohol and drugs, far more likely to be sexually, physically, and emotionally abused, far more likely to become obese, and far more likely to perpetuate the vicious cycle by having out of wedlock children themselves. And there is no connective link – NONE! – that more determines poverty than single parenthood.

You want to turn this tide around? Criminalize abortion. The problem isn’t too many children being born; the problem is fatherlessness! Stop the insane double standard. If fathers should have any duty whatsoever to support their children, surely mothers have at the very least the duty to allow their children to live! Hey, guess what? This isn’t a meaningless fetus; it is a precious, valuable human being, and BOTH mother and father have a duty to care for their child. Dad, you brought this little mouth into the world, and you have an obligation to provide for your baby; mom, you conceived this little bundle of joy, and you have an obligation to nurture your baby. But only a fool decrees that mother gets to decide whether a child should count enough to live, and that a father must somehow be duty-bound to completely respect and honor whatever her choice is. That is insane, and it is evil.

If we as a society begin to respect life enough that we begin to recognize that it is worth nurturing, worth, providing for, worth loving, and worth sacrificing for, then we will finally begin to see a turnaround in our society. Decades of terrible statistics will begin to improve as the society that demands that fathers recognize their children itself fundamentally recognizes children.

Abortion by its very design and by its very nature removes fathers from the equation of life. It is time to bring them back.

When fatherhood is trivialized, ignored, and removed as a factor by abortion, chaos follows. That’s what all the trends tell us. And that chaos has had a terribly detrimental impact upon society. The liberals who decry the United States’ involvement in the five-year old Iraq war may well have a point in noting the trillion-dollar debt that the war will cost American society; but they will not for a single nanosecond consider the multi-, multi-, multi-, multi-trillion dollar cost of abortion upon our society as it triggered massive fundamental philosophical and sociological degredations of human life. It is frankly incredible that so many supposedly intelligent people failed to see that the stupid logic that you are human only if you are wanted would not have massive unintended consequences.

And we will increasingly see the result of the international aspect of abortion as well. A June 13, 2007 news story (Infanticide, Abortion Responsible for 60 Million Girls Missing in Asia) begins as follows:

There is a little-known battle for survival going in some parts of the world. Those at risk are baby girls, and the casualties are in the millions each year. The weapons being used against them are prenatal sex selection, abortion and female infanticide — the systematic killing of girls soon after they are born.

According to a recent United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) State of the World Population Report, these practices, combined with neglect, have resulted in at least 60 million “missing” girls in Asia, creating gender imbalances and other serious problems that experts say will have far reaching consequences for years to come.

“Twenty-five million men in China currently can’t find brides because there is a shortage of women,” said Steven Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute in Washington, D.C. “The young men emigrate overseas to find brides.”

The imbalances are also giving rise to a commercial sex trade; the 2005 report states that up to 800,000 people being trafficked across borders each year, and as many as 80 percent are women and girls, most of whom are exploited.

“Women are trafficked from North Korea, Burma and Vietnam and sold into sexual slavery or to the highest bidder,” Mosher said.

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,281722,00.html

Here we have a clearly established link between abortion and sex selection, as well as clear correspondence between abortion and sex slavery as well as a link between abortion and an unstable and unsustainable societal dilemma in a nuclear state. What will be the long-term psychological state of an already rogue nation as hundreds of millions of men begin to come onto the scene who cannot possibly marry or ever enjoy a normal relationship with a woman?

I still recall Senator Hillar Clinton going to a women’s conference in China and lecturing the Chinese on abortion. In her view, although it is perfectly legitimate for American women to abort their progeny out of whatever subjective preference that entered their minds, as long as it is a woman’s “choice.” However, it is immoral for a nation-state to attempt – out of what they perceived as a direct threat to their national survival (i.e. a one child per family edict to control overpopulation) – to control the number of children born. This view is particualarly hypocritical coming from a liberal Democrat who generally favors big government bureaucratic solutions over individual free market ones. If her reasoning process wasn’t already twisted enough, she then proceeded to undermine her whole “abortion is wonderful as long as women choose to do it” by lecturing the Chinese on sex selective abortions, which are done not only in China but in much of the developing world out of long-standing cultural practices that value sons over daughters. In Senator Clinton’s reasoning, abortion is fine as long as it is a woman’s choice, as long as she doesn’t choose to abort her girls.

Sex selective abortions routinely take place throughout Asia, and is also a rampant practice in India and much of Latin America. In a bizarre but talionic twist, “a woman’s right to choose” has resulted in a literal holocaust against women.

And it is not only women who fall prey to the abortion mills. While so many liberals who claim to champion civil rights laud abortion, the fact remains that abortion has cut a terrible swath among black Americans. There is a clear prima facia case to be made that abortion seems to selectively favor the weakest, the poorest, and the most vulnerable members of society. If liberals had a functioning moral compass, they would be troubled by the ramifications of their ideologies. They don’t, and they aren’t.

Last month UCLA students had an actor call Planned Parenthood development centers in seven states asking whether his donation could be specifically targeted to “lower the number of black people.” Each branch agreed to process the racially earmarked donation. None expressed concern about the clearly expressed racist motives for the donation, and some staffers explicitly agreed with the racist reasoning. Planned Parenthood issued a statement that attempted to redirect attention from its profoundly racist staffers. We should likewise forget that 79% of Planned Parenthood abortion facilities are in minority neighborhoods, or that the founder of Planned Parenthood was a prodoundly racist proponent of eugenics. From its inception, Planned Parenthood has readily agreed with the statement, “the less black kids out there, the better,” which was uttered by the UCLA actor in his recorded conversation with Planned Parenthood’s Autumn Kersey. She called his position “understandable,” and indicated her excitement to process the donation. He was acting; the Director of Development at the Idaho Planned Parenthood office was not.

The Rev. Johnny Hunter has bemoaned the plight of black Americans, who are killing themselves off at an incredible rate, and has pointed out that abortion has killed far more blacks than the Klu Klux Klan. Dr. Alveda King, the niece of the famed Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., has used the same analogy, saying, “The great irony is that abortion has done what the Klan only dreamed of.” She quoted her uncle as having said, “It’s time that we remember the sacrifices of men like my father and my uncle who worked and died so that our children could live.” And she said, “It’s time to stop killing the future and keep their dream alive.”

The numbers are simply staggering. Dr. Alveda King says that a full one quarter of the black population is missing from the abortion genocide. “15 million black people have been denied their most basic civil right, the right to life,” she says. Out of 42 million total abortions in the United States, 15 million (35.7%) have been black. Black women are three times more likely than white women to have an abortion, and a nearly half of all black pregnancies are ending in abortion!

If conservatives championed a campaign that would inevitably come to result in the termination of women and blacks in massive numbers, one can only imagine the rhetoric of disgust and righteous outrage that would flood the media ink and airwaves. But the central plank of both liberalism and the Democratic Party has clearly done exactly that, and there is nothing but stony silence.

And may I point out (again) that abortion – which removes fathers from the equation and thus trivializes fatherhood – has anhiliated black fatherhood every bit as much as it has anhiliated their babies. When we look at the shocking statistics regarding black crime, drug use, incarceration, and dysfunction on virtually every level we need to realize that abortion is not the cure, but the disease.

Finally, let me discuss the relationship of abortion with the impending Social Security meltdown. By 2017, Social Security be greater than what it takes in (the definition of bankruptcy, by the way), and the trust fund will be completely emptied by 2041.

In 1950, there were 16 workers for every recipient of Social Security. Today there are only three workers for every recipient. And given current trends, within a few decades there will only be two. There are obviously other factors to account both for this trend and for the overall problems with Social Security in general, but no problem is greater than the fact that we have killed off more than 42 million potential workers since the 1970s. Grandpa’s generation did not exterminate themselves, you see (and all the wars from the Revolutionary War to the war in Iraq haven’t begun to kill off Americans the way abortion has!), and so there are a lot of people to support, and way too few to support them.

Medicare is in even worse shape. By 2014, payroll tax revenue will cover just over half of Medicare’s budget, and the program’s trust fund – which pays for critical medicare care – will be exhausted by 2019. Something dramatic will have to be done to save the program, and liberals’ promises to pump more government money into health care amount to what one of my professors – commenting on students who wrote lengthy answers to exam questions that somehow never arrived at an answer – called “pumping sunshine.” By the time the bickering parties and entrenched interest groups get around to seriously trying to turn around this Titanic, it will be too late to cut benefits, and workers will revolt on a level not seen since the early 1930s if they are called upon to pay the taxes necessary to keep the entitlement programs alive.

My fear is that the younger generation and the government bureaucrats will apply the same twisted reasoning as the thinking that brought us the abortion mills that caused so much of this growing disaster in the first place. If you can kill a baby before it has a chance to be born and become potential burdens upon society, why not kill the elderly before they have a chance to become guaranteed burdens on society? Watch out, grandpa! Because the generation that survived abortion will almost surely come after you!

Liberals despise the Bible, so let me end by quoting it. Proverbs 8:32-26, urging readers to pursue godly wisdom, says, “And now, o sons, listen to me: blessed are those who keep my ways. Hear instruction and be wise, and do not neglect it. Blessed is the one who listens to me, watching daily at my gates, waiting beside my doors. For whoever finds me finds life and obtains favor from the Lord, but he who fails to find me injures himself; all who hate me love death.”

Abortion is the love of death, and the pursuit of death over the pursuit of life. And the end of a culture that loves death is death.

In Defense of Life

March 27, 2008

There are many people who oppose the abortion industry, but they generally can’t do a very good job explaining why. The Republican Party is officially pro-life in its platform, but I’ve never heard a GOP candidate offer a good reason for being pro-life. But there are excellent reasons for being pro-life, and it is way past time that society heard them.

Democrats and “pro-choice” proponents offer “a woman’s right to choose” as the primary reason to support abortion. But let us think about that for a moment: should women have “a right to choose?” Sure they should, up to a certain point. But should that right extend to anything a woman might want to do? What if she wants to drive her car through a crowd of people? What if she wants to hijack an airplane and fly it into a skyscraper? Clearly, a woman doesn’t – and shouldn’t – have a right to do anything she chooses. The first question needs therefore needs to be, “the right to choose to do what?”

If you were busily working on peeling potatoes over the kitchen sink when your oldest child came in and said, “Is it okay if I kill this?” What would you do? Would you say, “Sure! Go ahead! Since I’m not certain of the ontological status of whatever you’re considering killing, I’ll leave the decision up to you!” Or would you turn around and look to make sure your little gremlin wasn’t talking about your youngest child? (Or maybe it wouldn’t matter, because you’d figure your firstborn was exercising that sacrosanct “right to choose“?). The ability to use rhetoric to cast metaphysical doubt on the meaning of “being human” does not mean that ignorance is bliss, and one can abort at will. The fact of the matter is, we haven’t even begun to understand the miraculous – and it truly is miraculous – process of a baby forming in mommy’s womb. The age of viability has decreased dramatically; medical experts have been repeatedly proven dead wrong again and again in determining brain function in comatose patients who later recovered after being declared ‘brain dead’; the Hippocratic Oath recited by doctors for centuries explicitly banned the performing of abortions; and so on, and so on. When in doubt, why not choose life?

And there really is no doubt, once we truly consider the issues. Ever hear the argument that fetuses aren’t human beings, so it’s okay to kill them? Think again. Both science and logic assure us that – from the moment of conception – that thing in the womb of a human mother is fully a human being. Take a moment and consider the taxonomic system by which every living thing is rigorously categorized and classified. By that system a human embryo is of the kingdom Anamalia, of the phylum Chordata, of the class Mammalia, of the order Primate, of the family Pongidae, of the genus Homo, and of the species Sapiens – same as any other human being. Put even more simply, that embryo is a human by virtue of its parents, and a being by the fact that it is a living thing: it is a human being.

And then there’s that whole “It’s a woman’s body” line. That one falls rather flat as well. The fact is that that from the moment of fertilization there is a separate, distinct, unique genetic individual in the mother’s womb; every cell in its little body is different from that of its mother. Half of children are male, for goodness sake! We are clearly not talking about a woman’s body; we are talking about her child’s body.

Then there’s the notion of a woman’s rights to her own body, which views the baby in her womb as a hostile invader forcing itself upon her. Why should she carry it to term if she doesn’t want to? Well, for one thing, because it’s her child. The so-called “violinist argument” is fatally flawed from the outset by casting a woman’s child in terms of an unwanted intruder whom the woman has no moral obligation to care for. Furthermore, we would never consider that rather despicable line of moral reasoning after a child is born – when it actually requires a far greater sacrifice and burden to care for (ask a new mother whether her child required more chasing around the house before or after birth). We go from the rather passive act of “being pregnant” to the extremely active act of caring for a newborn – and that burden proceeds to continue for years as the child grows up. Leave your five year old at home and go gamble in Las Vegas for a week and see what happens when you come back home if you don’t believe me. See how far that, “But I have a right to my own body” line takes you. It ought to take you all the way to jail for abandoning your child.

If this isn’t enough to dispel the “woman’s right to her own body” argument, then let us think about the way they are using the term “rights.” We must realize that in virtually every case one person’s right presupposes someone else’s duty. One person’s right to freedom of speech imposes the duty upon the remainder of society to tolerate what might be offensive to them for the greater good of a free society. In other cases, the duty imposed is far more selective: When liberals describe the duty of the rich to pay their fair share of taxes, they are imposing a duty on a small class of people. The wealthiest 5% of Americans already pay 57% of the taxes, and the wealthiest 10% pay 68% of the tab. The top 1% earn 19% of the income but pay 37% of the taxes; meanwhile the “poorest” 50% of Americans earn 13% of the income but pay only 3% of the taxes. This introduces a legitimate question for some future discussion: just how much more should the wealthy be expected to pay? [Don't allow the issue of taxation to distract you from my argument: I merely raise taxation as an issue in which certain advocates subjectively claim that a few should have a duty to pay more, while the majority should have a right to pay less]. But in the case of abortion, the right given to the mother presupposes the most extreme duty upon one single individual – her child – the duty to die for the convenience of its mother. On the side of the “right of a woman to choose” are not only women who suddenly find themselves pregnant and their anxious parents, but hedonistic men and women who want to abdicate any responsibility for their “sexual expression,” along with a powerful media culture that aggressively pursues the same end, a powerful abortion industry and its lobby, the stem cell research lobby, unelected judges who impose their will on society, etcetera. Who is on the side of the right of the unborn to live? The Constitution – which guarantees the right to life as preeminent over all others – but other than that, far too few allies. One side has sole access to the megaphone; the other cannot speak. If we were to stop focusing on the Constitutionally-invisible “right to choose” and focus just for a moment on the DUTY OF PARENTS to nurture and care for their children, we would have a very different discussion indeed. I cannot help but remember the slogan of the Ministry of Health vans that Nazi Germany used to haul away retarded children, epileptics, children with malformed ears, chronic bed wetters, and the like to their deaths: Lebensunwertes Leben – “Life Unworthy of Life.” Today I still see cars bearing bumper stickers with the equally oxymoronic – but far more deadly – slogan, “Pro child, Pro choice.” What a shame that so many Americans have so blithely come to champion Nazi morality.

Then there’s that, “It’s only a potential human being” pseudo-argument. First of all, I’m not even sure what it means to be “a potential human being” – and neither do those who are reciting it. I do understand what it means to be “a human being with potential.” Let us begin this discussion with the straightforward observation that had your mother decided to have an abortion during her pregnancy with you, that you would not have been born. It would NOT have been some potential you that perished; it would have been you. You would have been one of the nearly 50,000,000 babies in America alone who were killed by abortion. Just as you were once a child, once a toddler, once an infant, you were also once a fetus, once an embryo, once a zygote. Killing you while you in any of those stages would have killed you just as dead.

And let us pause for a moment to consider what murder actually does to the victim. The character Clint Eastwood played in Unforgiven put it pretty well: “When you kill a man, you take away everything he has and everything he’s ever going to have.” A human baby will naturally inherit every quality of human life unless someone steps in and unnaturally ends that life. It is simply his or her nature as a human being to do so. You merely have to contemplate your own life to consider what would have been taken away from you had you been among the abortion statistics. This idea of “potential” as some ambiguous term that allows a mother to kill her baby is as ridiculous as it is amoral. If I were to walk up to you in a parking lot as you got out of your car and shoot you to death, what would I be guilty of? I certainly didn’t take away your past, as it has already happened. And if your future – when is clearly merely “potential” - doesn’t count, all I truly deprived you of is the two or three seconds of immediate conscious awareness. And I could have deprived you of at least that much had I merely asked you for the time instead of shooting you! For murder to be a serious crime, “potential” has to be a real, tangible thing that has intrinsic, incommensurable value. To attempt to argue that an unborn baby’s potential is somehow meaningless but a born person’s matters is both a fundamentally irrational and immoral distinction that leads inevitably to a degradation in the value of human life. Tyrants have routinely made the same type of “status of humanity determined by selective criterion” distinction when they said that Jews, or blacks, or any other class of people should not matter.

Deep down, I believe that even the Democrats and other abortion advocates realize the immorality of abortion in their choice of language. They demonstrate this by reciting the new mantra, “Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.” But why on earth should it be rare if it is a fundamental human right? How many other basic rights should be rare? Put “free speech,” “freedom of the press,” “the right to peaceably assemble,” or any other right that liberals hold as sacrosanct into this “____ should be safe, legal, and rare” equation and see how it flies. If abortion is a good thing, why on earth should it be rare? In point of fact, we should be encouraging more of it, not less.

During the Lincoln-Douglas presidential debates, when Douglas said that states ought to have a right to choose the institution of slavery, Lincoln famously said, “One cannot say that people have a right to do wrong.” Fortunately the country chose Lincoln’s moral reasoning over Douglas’. The Civil War was subsequently waged by a Confederacy which argued that their own rights were being systematically violated, even as they inhumanly violated the most fundamental rights of the blacks they oppressed. Apart from the fact that the party of Lincoln, the party of abolition, was the Republican Party and the party of Douglas, the party of institutionalized slavery, was the Democratic Party, I cannot help but see the parallels between the Party of Slavery and the Party of Abortion. For one thing, the Party of Abortion uses the identical arguments to justify its abominable institution that the Party of Slavery relied upon. For another, the Party of Abortion is just as insistent upon its “rights” as was the Party of Slavery, even as they systematically violate the rights of the most innocent and most helpless.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 513 other followers