I just don't get it

A few days ago people across North America and the world took a moment to remember those who died as a result of the terrorist attacks against the US on September 11, 2001. It was the worst act of terrorism committed against the US with nearly 3000 people losing their lives. To this day it is not forgotten and to this day it is used as a rallying cry for those who would encourage the US to be ever more vigilant in defending its interests domestic and abroad.

It was a tragedy and one that I am in no way trying to diminish or disparage.

But given the way this one event has seared the soul of America one would think that an even greater tragedy would not go by with the minor level of attention that it does receive.

Imagine if you would if last year more than 300,000 Americans were murdered. Killed in cold blood. Imagine if we knew who the murderers were but chose not to bring them to justice. Even worse imagine if hundreds of thousands of Americans took to the streets in order to argue that these people did nothing wrong and in fact their murderous actions should be defended by the government.

It reads like an absurd scenario, one not worthy of consideration or a moments thought.

Unless of course you understand that I'm speaking about abortion.

Yes, I believe that abortion is murder and it pains me that each year approximately 3/4 of a million innocent people are murdered in cold blood and our society would argue that this is okay.

One of the most important questions that we have to answer as a society is: who is a person?

The abortion promoter would argue that a baby inside a woman's womb is not a person. This is the stance of the government. So if a woman is pregnant and decides to have an abortion it is a legal procedure that does not injure a person.

Yet if I were to kill a pregnant woman I would be charged with murdering the woman and the child who was in her womb.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, passed in 2004, defines a fetus as a "child in uterus" and a person as being a legal crime victim "if a fetal injury or death occurs during the commission of a federal violent crime."[10] In the U.S., 36 states have laws with more harsh penalties if the victim is murdered while pregnant. Some of these laws defining the fetus as being a person, "for the purpose of criminal prosecution of the offender" (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2008).

So let me get this straight, if a woman kills a "child in uterus" its called an abortion and its legal. If a pregnant woman is harmed and her "child in uterus" dies, it is murder.

How does that make any sense?

It seems that the distinction is the intent of the woman. In the first case the woman doesn't want to be pregnant and so the "child in uterus" is not a person and so when killed its not murder. In the second case the woman wants to be pregnant and so the "child in uterus" is a person and therefore a murder was committed.

How convenient.

What kind of society does one expect to have when we allow 16 year old girls to be the arbiter of what does and what does not constitute person - hood?

To make this tragedy of epic proportions even more heinous is that now people are using the twisted logic of abortion to argue that even if a child were born it could still be killed and be legal.

Florida legislators considering a bill to require abortionists to provide medical care to an infant who survives an abortion were shocked during a committee hearing this week when a Planned Parenthood official endorsed a right to post-birth abortion. 

Alisa LaPolt Snow, the lobbyist representing the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, testified that her organization believes the decision to kill an infant who survives a failed abortion should be left up to the woman seeking an abortion and her abortion doctor. 

"So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief," said Rep. Jim Boyd. "If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?” 

"We believe that any decision that's made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician," said Planned Parenthood lobbyist Snow. 

Rep. Daniel Davis then asked Snow, "What happens in a situation where a baby is alive, breathing on a table, moving. What do your physicians do at that point?” 

"I do not have that information," Snow replied. "I am not a physician, I am not an abortion provider. So I do not have that information.” 

Rep. Jose Oliva followed up, asking the Planned Parenthood official, "You stated that a baby born alive on a table as a result of a botched abortion that that decision should be left to the doctor and the family. Is that what you’re saying?” 

Again, Snow replied, “That decision should be between the patient and the health care provider.”

So what she is saying that even if the baby is born, lying on a table, kicking and screaming, it is still not a person because only a person deserves to be protected by the law whereas this person's fate should be decided by the woman and her doctor and if they should choose to kill it, that should be okay.

We are a sick and perverse generation that argues for and defends the right to murder their own children. If we were killing babies by burning them alive it would be barbaric and everything should be done to stop such a horrific crime against humanity. Call it a "choice" and use the term "abortion" and its all okay.

Don’t you see that children are God’s best gift?
    the fruit of the womb his generous legacy?
Like a warrior’s fistful of arrows
    are the children of a vigorous youth.
Oh, how blessed are you parents,
    with your quivers full of children!
Psalms 124:3-5

The first command that was given to man by God was to be fruitful and to multiply; to have children. Yet here we are killing 2150 of these innocent children every day!

Solomon once wrote:

There is a way which seems right to a man,
But its end is the way of death.

How wise he was.

Viagra does not equal an abortion

The sheer idiocy of people such as this is mind boggling. 

Before getting a prescription for Viagra or other erectile dysfunction drugs, men would have to see a sex therapist, receive a cardiac stress test and get a notarized affidavit signed by a sexual partner affirming impotency, if state Sen. Nina Turner has her way.

The Cleveland Democrat introduced Senate Bill 307 this week. 

A critic of efforts to restrict abortion and contraception for women, Turner says she is concerned about men’s reproductive health. Turner’s bill joins a trend of female lawmakers submitting bills regulating men’s health. Turner said if state policymakers want to legislate women’s health choices through measures such as House Bill 125, known as the “Heartbeat bill,” they should also be able to legislate men’s reproductive health. Ohio anti-abortion advocates say the two can’t be compared.

This 'senator' is doing nothing more than playing a game of tit-for-tat. She is upset that a rival bill has been put for the state senate that would see abortion laws changed to restrict abortions when a heartbeat is detected in the fetus.

Now however you stand on abortion (I'm against) one cannot make the logical correlation between a man receiving a doctor's prescribed medication and abortion. Just as you can't make a logical correlation between a restriction on abortion and erectile dysfunction.

So rather than stand up in the state senate and make a case for the defeat of House Bill 125, this elected official spends her time playing childish games with people's lives simply because she can.

Human babies aren't persons but dolphins should be?

I just don't understand what people are thinking some days.

I recently wrote about a group of ethicists who published an article arguing that babies, while human beings, should not be considered as persons but rather as potential persons. As such killing them after birth is not morally wrong.

Now comes another group of enlightened thinkers who argue that dolphins and whales should be given the title of persons and all the subsequent protections that go along with it.

Experts in philosophy, conservation and animal behaviour want support for a Declaration of Rights for Cetaceans. 

They believe dolphins and whales are sufficiently intelligent to justify the same ethical considerations as humans. 

Recognising their rights would mean an end to whaling and their captivity, or their use in entertainment. 

The move was made at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Vancouver, Canada, the world's biggest science conference. 

It is based on years of research that has shown dolphins and whales have large, complex brains and a human-like level of self-awareness. 

This has led the experts to conclude that although non-human, dolphins and whales are "people" in a philosophical sense, which has far-reaching implications.

So while human beings can be labeled as mere 'potential persons' the killing of whom should warrant no moral or legal condemnation, dolphins and whales should be labeled as persons the killing of which should warrant moral and legal condemnation.

What?!

I have nothing against dolphins or whales. I don't want to see them slaughtered or treated cruelly but they are not people. They don't warrant the same status or protections as humans because they are not humans. If we  as a society can get to the point of wanting to protect these animals, why can't we work to protect actual human beings?

Scientists: killing human babies is amoral

A year or so ago, I was having dinner with some friends and the conversation turned first political and then somewhat controversial when the subject of abortion was brought up. I don't know of anyone who doesn't have an opinion one way or the other. Its a very divisive issue and and emotional one at that.

So when I made the comment that I could foresee post-birth abortions being legal within 50 years, you could imagine the shock and outrage by some of those present. I didn't make the statement flippantly, nor was I trying to be sarcastic. I was serious, sadly serious.

What gave me the courage(?) to make such a statement / prediction was the argument that all too often was used in defence of abortion. That if a fetus that was eligible for abortion was removed from the mother's womb, it would not survive and as such aborting it was not murder. Of course, my counter this line of asinine thinking is that a month old baby would not survive if left on its own too. So should we be able to do away with babies that have been born as well?

This line of thinking can of course be continued to look at other people who are unable to care for themselves. If the test of what would constitute murder is whether the "victim" was able to survive on their own haven't we taken a major step backwards as a society? As human beings?

Of course being human is not enough, but rather being considered a person and you aren't a person if you can't survive on your own and as such ending your life is not murder. At least this is what this group of scientists think:

Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued. 

The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born. 

The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article's authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”. 

The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. 

They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.” 

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

There is so much in this article that offends me. Obviously I am against abortion as I believe that even as a fetus, they are human beings and therefore persons worthy of life and protection. 

What I would like for people to really understand about this article is how it points rather plainly to the 'brave new world' that liberal humanism is shaping for society now that they have managed to dislodge God from much of society. 

If you say that a human baby, after being born, is simply a potential person and therefore unworthy of a "moral right to life" that is okay. That is forward thinking. That is the type of thinking that demonstrates the values of a modern "liberal society."

Think about that. 

If you are against the notion that babies are no more a person than a carrot or a rock is, then you are a fanatic who is "opposed to the very values of a liberal society."

Is this really the world you want to create?