Archive for the 'Abortion' Category

Who are the Terrorists?

abortions-since-iraq-war.png I was reading Neil Simpson’s blog 4Simpsons Blog and saw graphic above on his sidebar.  I really like the graphics that Neil uses on his blog and have borrowed them and used them here before.  The thesis of this statement is “Since the start of the Iraq War 5,444,155 American Children have died from ABORTION. 

This caused me to remember when Rosie grossly overstated the number of deaths in Iraq since the war and then implied that they were all cause by the Americans when she said, “650,000 Iraqi have been killed since the beginning of the Iraq war, ….Who Are the Terrorists?”  This of course was the source of the major controversy and argument between Elisabeth Hasselbeck and Rosie leading to her Rosie’s quitting the VIEW on ABC.

With this information running through my head I decided to send email to Elisabeth at the VIEW and I stated the following.

Since the start of the Iraq War 5,444,155 American children have died from ABORTION.  In the words of Rosie O’Donnell  “Who are the Terrorists?”

I wonder if Rosie in all her brilliance has that answer.

Advertisements

The Morality of Abortion

dont-force-your-beliefs.jpg 

“The progeny of two humans is always a human.  That’s just biology.”         

I just read a post from Helvidius, a Pachyderm including the quote above by theobromophile its owner.  You should check it out.  I was going to post a comment and decided that I wanted to expand my comment to a post of my own.  I had been doing some research for just this occasion and here it is: 

Since I have been examining the question of abortion since 1967 it seems that the basic question comes to the “personhood” of the “baby,” “Fetus,” “Embryo,” or “Zygote” as you may please.  There has been much discussion (though you don’t hear those on the left using this much any longer) as to the “viability” of the fetus as it relates to when an unborn child has “personhood” and thus protected by the laws of man and has the civil rights that its humanness affords it.

Thomas Aquinas has summed it up the best as far as I am concerned.  He said that when an action is to be taken it is incumbent on the actor to establish its morality in advance.  In this case, determining when human life or personhood begins is incumbent on the person that would take the moral action, otherwise, according to what Aquinas said, that person must follow the “morally safer” course.  In the case of Abortion it is the responsibility of the “pro abortion” crowd to prove that human life does NOT exist and therefore the law of society and the civil rights of the individual do not come to bear.  Since I have never heard any evidence that disproves the personhood at conception or otherwise establishes personhood at a later date, this moral dictum applies to the would be abortionists and would serve to stop that action, otherwise the result would be “immoral.”  This Thomistic Principle is a long held and understood mandate that has also been understood by others beside me.  Allow me to quote some of them:

“the legalization of abortion on demand is not in accordance with the value which our civilization places on human life.”   Ted Kennedy 1973

“abortion is morally wrong. It is not a legitimate or acceptable response to any problem of society. And if our country wishes to remain true to its basic moral strength, then unwanted as well as wanted children must be unfailingly protected.”   Ted Kennedy 1976 after the decision on Roe v. Wade

“It is my deep personal conviction that abortion is wrong, “Let me assure you that I share your belief that innocent human life must be protected ……”   Al Gore 1984

“arguably the taking of a human life.”  “It is my deep personal belief that abortion is wrong.”  Al Gore  1984

he still regarded abortion as the taking of “innocent human life”  Al Gore 1992

There are others that are now not only “pro-abortion” as opposed to when they spoke of abortion being wrong in the past but also consider the pro-lifers to be some type of Neanderthal type of beings.  What changed that made them so learned and the rest of us so stupid.  It is hard to determine exactly why they have changed their views so militantly, but it should be noted that there is a common pattern between this change and their aspiration for “national political office.” 

You have heard attacks from the left and the media concerning certain Republican candidates that have switched their position to “pro life” as though it is some type of crime, all while they are conspicuously quite about these flips flops from pro life to pro abortion.    Thanks to Neil at 4 Simpsons Blog for the Fetus Graphic above.

The Hilderbeast has Spoken

hillary.jpg From her own Hillary for President website yesterday 4/18/2007: 

Washington, DC — “This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman’s right to choose and recognized the importance of women’s health. Today’s decision blatantly defies the Court’s recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the mother. As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account. It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.”

I really find it both interesting and disgusting that she has chosen to attack the Supreme Court on the grounds of “Erosion of Our Constitutional Rights.”  Legal scholars (including those that are pro-abortion) understand and have stated that Roe v. Wade was indeed bad law (which makes it itself the Erosion of Constitutional Rights) even if they agree with that landmark decision as to policy.  Here you have patently “political” (in its worst sense) pandering to voting blocks as though she gives a single hoot about the Constitution.  Just wait until she chimes in on the shooting at Virginia Polytechnic University and starts jibber jabbering about repealing of the 2nd Amendment and she will do so without a word about “erosion of our Constitutional rights.”  P.S. John Edwards has now taken his position on yesterdays decision …. “I could not disagree more strongly.”  In other words (I suppose) there is nothing that is more important to him than the right to Infanticide, ….. but he is a pretender not a contender.

Partial Birth Abortion

supreme-court.jpg Bravo !!!!!   Today the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision upheld the ban on Partial Birth Abortions.  Come on, if this decision is offensive to you get real.  This is a bright line between Abortion and Infanticide.  The opinion was written by Justice Kennedy and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.  Justices Thomas and Scalia joined in the final decision as well.  Although I am most profoundly “pro life” I really can’t see how the pro-abortion crowd can’t distinguish this from infanticide. Former ACLU attorney Justice Ruth (Buzzie) Ginzberg has written the dissent for the minority stating “Today’s decision is alarming,” she further charged that the ruling “refused to take seriously previous Supreme Court decisions on abortion.” (so sorry Ruthie)  Praise for this decision has already come from: McCain, Romney, Giuliani.  Barack Obama has strongly criticized the decision.  Of course Planned Parenthood has also criticized the decision.  We will have to wait to examine how strongly the other contenders and pretenders in the Democratic presidential nomination race express their disgust.


December 2017
M T W T F S S
« Jul    
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Blog Stats

  • 7,379 hits