The North Dakota House of Representatives has passed the first personhood amendment in the United States, 57-35. Read more
You can tell from the title of David Badash's post that he would rather engage in asininity than intellectual argument. Here's the title:
Look: Every Lawmaker At House Hearing On Nationwide 20-Week Abortion Ban Is A Man
Because, don't you know, men are entirely incapable of recognizing that abortion is murder. Without having a uterus, how could anyone determine whether or not it's ok to rip the arms and legs off an innocent baby?
See also Ever Experience Abortion?
Emily Dugan, at The Independent, reports that in the UK:
A pregnant woman suffering from “severe” mental health problems has made an impassioned plea to a High Court judge, asking that she be granted an abortion…
“If you force me to have this baby and lock me up I will try to kill myself.”
Her solicitor also reported her saying that she would kill the baby if she was forced to carry it to term.
Prenatal baby-killing is legal in the United Kingdom, so I’m not sure why the woman needs to get permission for an abortion. Ms. Dugan doesn’t say, but perhaps the baby is past the age limit allowed for such killings.
That aside, this story is relevant to the bill currently under consideration in Ireland. Irish politicians have proposed legalizing prenatal murder when the mother threatens suicide.
This reminds me of the back-alley excuse that pro-aborts offer in support of legalized abortion. The idea is to hold the woman hostage to allow baby killing:
"If you force me to have this baby” (if you don’t keep it legal to kill my baby) then I’ll risk my own life by doing it illegally.
We shouldn’t negotiate with hostage takers nor give in to such blood-thirsty ransom demands.
Pete Kasperowicz posts at The Hill blog that:
Democrats in the House and Senate are looking to stop what they say are deceptive advertising practices by anti-abortion health clinics that imply they offer abortion services, but instead encourage birth and promote adoption.
Supposedly, Pregnancy Resource Centers misrepresent themselves as baby-murderers in order to entice women seeking abortion to reconsider. Of course, such misrepresentations are completely justified when done to save the life of an innocent human being. When the Nazis ask if there are Jews hiding in my basement, I've never seen a Jew and I don't have a basement.
You'll quickly notice if you read the post and the proposed bill, that the pro-aborts offer no evidence that PRCs actually misrepresent anything. Bills often have "whereas" clauses that detail the evidence that makes it clear why the bill is necessary. Not this bill. Not a peep of evidence.
To be liberal is to be liberated from the need for evidence. Pro-aborts are blind-faith based.
This is just the latest slimy attempt to malign PRCs who work to help mothers, their unborn and newborn babies.
Rolley Haggard, at BreakPoint.org, writes an excellent piece entitled "Agape Defiled, How the Church Has Failed 55 Million Orphans". The Christian church in America has cared more about "the church" than about fulfilling the gospel charge to care for the weak and powerless, the unborn.
Please read his article and share it with others.
The Blaze's Billy Hallowell, in reference to the Gosnell trial, asks, "When is it no longer a woman’s right to choose?" He doesn't answer the question but he points to something that everyone should have learned from the trial. He writes:
On April 16, as I sat in the courtroom at the Criminal Justice Center in Philadelphia, an important revelation was delivered from an unexpected source. The moment came when Gosnell’s attorney, Jack McMahon, publicly echoed what pro-life advocates have long argued: That abortion is a violent (or “rough,” as he termed it) act, particularly when the unborn are further along in their development.
As I reported on TheBlaze at the time, in defending his client in front of the judge and jury, McMahon said of abortion, “The process itself is kind of rough. You go in with forcepsﾅ[you may go in and pull out an arm, a leg].”
The quote, alone, dealt a stinging blow to my conscience, as I fought off the mental images that the attorney’s stunning admission conjured. Of the handful of days that I spent in the courtroom, this was the most jarring, thought-provoking and pivotal moment I encountered.
I left the courtroom that day considering the cognitive dissonance that some in the pro-choice lobby regularly tout and that our society willingly tolerates. Consider that it’s difficult to condemn, on moral grounds, terminating a viable baby outside of the mother’s womb if one supports the right to do so in utero. This is more rooted in logic than it is opinion.
After all, the difference between the two is merely the tactic used to ensure death, isn’t it?
Mr. Hallowell is hung up on late term baby-killing but it's all the same violence. Whether you rip arms off the child in the third trimester or the first, it's the same.
Let's answer the question that Mr. Hallowell poses but refuses to answer: When is it no longer a woman’s right to choose?
When a new human being comes into existence, her parents' choice is past. They chose to create a new vulnerable human being and by so choosing obligated themselves to care for that human being. What pro-aborts call "the right to choose" is nothing but the license to kill.
The Strait Times reports that Boston Cardinal Sean O'Malley is boycotting the Boston College graduation ceremony because Ireland's Prime Minister, who will be speaking at the graduation, is pushing for suicide-excuse abortion in Ireland.
Thank you Cardinal O'Malley for making a stand in defending pre-born children. We hope Prime Minister Kenny will reverse himself and oppose prenatal murder.
Tony Leys at the Des Moines Register reports that pro-life groups have been inappropriately targeted by the IRS.
The agent wanted to know what went on during the group’s prayer sessions and during vigils outside the local Planned Parenthood clinic.
The agent followed up with a letter in June 2009, asking similar questions. “Please explain how all of your activities, including the prayer meetings held outside of Planned Parenthood, are considered educational,” the letter said. “… Please explain in detail the signs that are being held up outside of Planned Parenthood and explain how they are educational.”
The IRS agent inappropriately wanted to weigh what the group members were saying about abortion before deciding whether they deserved a tax exemption
In light of the special attention the IRS gave to Tea Party groups, it’s not a surprise that pro-life groups would endure similar politically motivated discrimination.
The IRS, your tax dollars at work.
David Knowles, at the New York Daily News, reports that:
A Florida man has been charged with first-degree murder after tricking his pregnant girlfriend into taking an abortion pill.
He gave his girlfriend an "antibiotic" for a supposed infection but the pill was really a poison for her baby.
What else is a guy supposed to do when the mom refuses to kill the baby? Like Toure, he doesn't want live up to his responsibility as a father and as a man. So he does what he has to do. She forced him into it.
The good news is that Florida allows murder charges on behalf of the unborn baby to be brought against this scumbag.
Eric Eckholm at the NY Times reports that
The Harris County district attorney’s office said Wednesday that it would investigate charges that a Houston doctor had delivered live babies during third-trimester abortions and killed them after they emerged...
Women come to the clinic for a dead baby and a dead baby is what they're going to get.Thank you, Operation Rescue for exposing the murder that is abortion.
Take a look at the cartoon to the left. How does the cartoon portray women? Does it portray them as willful, in control of their lives, strong, capable and decisive? Or does the cartoon portray women as without will or control, weak, incapable and without decision?
I'm sure the pro-abort who drew the picture didn't want to portray women in such a demeaning way. She had a message to convey and didn't think about what that message said about women. This is typical of pro-abortion propaganda. Pro-aborts virtually always convey the idea that women are mindless victims of circumstance.
Setting aside the drawing, consider the intended message behind the cartoon: Without legal abortion, women will be forced into dangerous illegal abortions. The idea that women will be "forced" is common in pro-abortion parlance, even in news reports. But you have to wonder, if abortion were illegal, who would be forcing women into the backalley? Are women no better than trained rats that simply react without thinking? Are they forced by their thyroids into killing their babies? Pro-aborts think that women are forced by their circumstances; that women have no will and no self-control. Women don't make decisions. They don't choose to endanger their own lives because they're not moral actors but mere objects.
This demeaning view of women has been symptomatic of pro-aborts since the beginning of the debate. Consider Judith Jarvis Thompson's famous "violinist" analogy in her 1970 paper A Defense of Abortion. Ms. Thompson compares normal pregnancy with getting kidnapped and forcefully connected to a violinist as a living dialysis machine. Women don't get pregnant because of their own willful acts but because of forces beyond their control.
Pro-aborts portray women in this demeaning way because it gives their assertions emotional appeal. Imagine if pro-aborts admitted that women were actually responsible for their own actions. They'd have to say something like "If abortion were illegal, some women would foolishly choose to endanger their own lives by having abortions". Where's the emotional power in stating the truth that women who choose to kill their own babies are choosing to endanger themselves?
No, it's much better to portray women as weak. Rosy the Riveter died too long ago.