Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Commentary on the abortion decision

How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish decisions of the United States Supreme Court?

Stop the
Murder of

“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4:17 (NIV)

The Peoria Journal Star today (April 23, 2007) published three commentaries and a political cartoon in relation to the recent Supreme Court decision to uphold the laws passed to regulate and end “partial birth abortion.” Tonight, I am going to quote the commentary by Kathleen Parker with a few comments of my own. The commentaries were printed on page A4. Be forewarned, some of this article to me is repugnant just as murdering our unborn babies should be repugnant to every civilized individual.

“From the clamor following the Supreme Court’s ruling to ban partial-birth abortion, one might assume that American women have been robbed of choice.

In fact, women can still render themselves unpregnant, in the vernacular of choice-speak, by several means. They can ‘disarticulate the fetus,’ and ‘reduce’ or even ‘separate the fetal calvarium.’

If the vocabulary is confusing, that’s the point. Using Orwellian speak, is a time-honored tactic of the pro-choice arbiters. If we don’t say what it is, we can pretend what it isn’t.

Herewith, a brief translation: Disarticulating a fetus means to dismember it. Reducing a calvarium—a thoroughly desirable-sounding procedure, like lancing a boil—means to suck the brains from the baby’s head. Separating the calvarium means to sever the head with scissors.

Paying attention to the language of abortion—or anything else for that matter—is instructive when trying to consider right from wrong. If you have to dress something up to obfuscate the truth of what’s in play, you can probably assume it’s wrong.

When a man murders his wife, we don’t say, ‘Mr. X rendered his wife unalive by efficiently evacuating her cranial cavity with an instrument customarily associated with construction.’ We say, ‘He bashed her brains out in a brutal attack with a claw hammer.’ We apparently have no stomach for similarly descriptive terminology when it comes to the unborn. But then, one might argue, Mrs. X—unlike a fetus—was a completely alive human being when Mr. X committed the deed.
With its partial-birth abortion decision, the Supreme Court took a step towards defining the aliveness of not-quite-born human beings and drew a bright line between abortion and infanticide. Until now, a baby whose head was still inside the mother’s body was not alive enough to be protected under the laws of a nation that calls itself civilized. Understandably, it’s easier to kill a baby—sorry, ‘terminate a fetus’—when you don’t have to see its face.

Now, if a baby’s body has been partly delivered from its mother, it is alive enough to be protected.

Opponents of the ruling assert that this is a dark day for Americans’ constitutional rights and women’s right to choose. They say this ruling is merely part of the pro-life strategy for gutting Roe v. Wade, one ruling at a time.

They also argue, correctly, that this ruling saves no babies from abortion. As stated previously, a fetus can still be disarticulated. And that ‘procedure’ is, arguably, equally brutal, though perhaps not as painful as collapsing the skull.

According to expert testimony, a fetus from 20 weeks’ gestation forward may feel ‘prolonged and excruciating’ pain during a partial-birth abortion—especially when the skull is crushed or punctured for ‘evacuation’ of its brains. The other side did not rebut the claim. (Not exactly like removing a wart is it!!!—my addition)

The main argument from the pro-choice side, and the constitutional issue at stake, has been that partial-birth abortion is sometimes needed to protect the health of the mother. But in no single court case were doctors able to demonstrate that partial-birth abortion was ever a medical necessity. Instead, all arguments were in the realm of the hypothetical. Indeed, the majority of partial-birth abortions are performed on the healthy babies of healthy women. Meanwhile, other alternatives are available that are safe for the mother, if no less unpleasant for the fetus. (If no less murderously fatal for the unborn baby—my addition.)

It is, of course, true that pro-lifers are celebrating this ruling and that they also hope eventually to see abortion regulation reverted to the states. (Not exactly correct. We intend to end the murder of unborn babies everywhere in this country. The baby murderers made the murder of unborn babies a national issue when they convinced a libertine Supreme Court to rewrite the Constitution of the United States—my addition.) It is also true that many states will pass partial-birth abortion bans, as well as ‘informed consent’ laws that may require women to view a sonogram before consenting to abortion. Pro-lifers expect the informed consent laws to be challenged.

Whatever legal battles lie ahead, Wednesday’s high court decision seems a civilizing step forward, affirming as it does that the state has a substantial interest in protecting and preserving life.” (The state has more than a substantial interest in protecting life. Protecting life is the state’s primary responsibility and because of past Supreme Court rulings, it has failed miserably at protecting the life of unborn babies!!!—my addition)
“If the vocabulary is confusing, that’s the point. Using Orwellian speak, is a time-honored tactic of the pro-choice arbiters. If we don’t say what it is, we can pretend what it isn’t.”

Here are some of the terms used by the baby murderers which although sometimes correct and sometimes incorrect are all used to soften the reality of the meaning:

Abortion—the murder of an unborn baby (baby murderers never refer to the procedure as murder and almost never use the term “kill an unborn baby” or even “kill a fetus”)

Alive—having been delivered from the mother and now completely removed from all contact with the mother (Before such delivery, the baby is considered by the baby murderers to be a portion of the mother and therefore dead (Since by definition you can only be one of two things: alive or dead.) or nonexistent. See mother’s body.)

Fetus—an unborn baby (baby murderers almost never use the word baby; fetus is the normal term. Does fetus even sound human?)

Moderate—anyone who supports the murder of unborn babies (grossly inaccurate)

Mother’s body—the unborn baby (This is an outright lie since the mother’s DNA and the baby’s DNA are different and therefore by definition the baby can not scientifically be a portion of the mother’s body. They seem to believe that they have the right not only to murder unborn babies but to define words as they choose—another right to choose philosophy.)

Pro-choice—supports the murder of unborn babies

Protect women’s health—murder an unborn baby using the excuse of being concerned about the mother’s health (As stated many times, most abortions have nothing to do with health issues.)

Right to choose—right to murder an unborn baby

Terminate a pregnancy—murder an unborn baby

Truth—their definition of the way they want things to be (Want to murder your unborn child; deny that the child is a child.)

It is easier to murder an unborn baby when you deny that you are murdering an unborn baby. Of course, the CREATOR of the universe knows the truth. Of course, they are not fooling GOD the FATHER. However, that does not stop them from supporting their own depravities. Without repentance, they are not only murdering unborn children but also murdering themselves spiritually. What an awful price to pay to be humanly allowed to murder an unborn baby!!!


Post a Comment

<< Home