Yes, this legislation has as its underlying agenda protection for babies from being killed through abortion which will indeed reduce abortion access to those desiring to kill their babies. But abortion access is not the issue. The identity of people as persons who should be protected is the issue. The legislation is entitled the Life at Conception Act. It has as its purpose the clear legal definition of personhood that US Supreme Court denied to the US Constitution.
Those Supreme Court Justices who farcically claimed that they could not declare whether or not babies are persons should have been immediately impeached for directly violating their oath of office. Instead, the annihilation of 14% of the US population has been permitted. 56 million of 400 million is 14 percent! That is 14 out of every 100 or 7 out of every 50 people.
For a more tangible grasp of what this is, imagine sending executioners with machetes into the schools with the mission of going through the school and hacking to pieces 7 children out of every two classrooms!
If one considers the national response of one crazy school massacre, imagine what such an outrageous act as abortion on demand should cause. Yet rather than headlines decrying the continual slaughter of millions of innocent children for profit, rather the headlines demonize those who attempt to act in defense of these poor defenseless children.
The deceptive rhetoric of those arguing for abortion on demand is criminally insane. They call abortion a “reproductive right” of women. Abortion is an act against the reproductive functions and rights of women. Abortion is an act of Anti-reproduction.
Another abortionist favorite is to cry out that to prohibit abortion is to deny a woman the right to do with her body as she desires. But this is another absolutely false claim. The fact is that except in rare cases the woman HAS utilized her reproductive rights and that is why reproduction has occurred. At this point, as abortion is being contemplated or pursued, it is no longer the woman’s body that is at issue, but another person’s body that is at issue. The newly conceived and growing body of a brand new person is what abortion attacks and kills. The woman’s control over her own body is no longer in question. Whether her control of her body was usurped through rape or whether she actively engaged her body in reproductive activity, that time has passed. Reproduction has occurred and now another person is being denied rights concerning that person’s body and life.
This is the real issue being addressed by the Life at Conception Act.
The Supreme Court maliciously overturned the Constitutional right of persons to live. The justices who supported this deliberately and maliciously turned the issue of life into an issue of privacy. They redefined murder as an act of privilege to privacy.
For those who have a desire to see this Supreme attack on Life set right again, here is the link for the Life at Conception Act Petition.
Regarding just how far this issue extends, here again is the link for my earlier post, After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?
See also The Ethics of Killing Babies with Investigative Reporter Jon Rappoprt. This video in 3 clips begins with this issue, shows how far it extends, speaks of the globalist agenda and control of the mainstream media, and concludes by addressing the baby killing issue.
For anyone preferring to view them here, I’ll embed them below as well.
I remember when the veterans of the Viet Nam conflict returned home and were attacked as “Baby Killers.” Do you remember this? Surely it has been regurgitated in enough movies that even younger generations should be aware of this abuse that was wrongfully inflicted upon the devoted military service people who were victimized by this wrongful and unjust military action. These sons of the nation bravely faced horrible conflict, being victimized by the President and Congress, only to return home to be further abused by many of their fellow countrymen.
“Baby Killers” they were called. Yet according to Wikipedia’s Vietnam War casualties the total civilian deaths for the entire period of the conflict, a period of 15 years is as follows:
R.J. Rummel's mid-level estimated that 65,000 North Vietnamese Civilians died from 1960-1975.
The Vietnamese government in 1995 estimated that 4,000,000 Vietnamese civilians on both sides died in the war. Overall figures for North Vietnamese civilian dead range from 50,000 to 2,000,000.
These estimates, which are not clearly defined, are for all civilians killed of all ages. Moreover, these numbers reflect the civilian deaths caused by both sides of the military conflict in open warfare. Still, even if the outside number of 2 million is used, the total number of all civilian deaths is about the same as the number of babies killed in only one year in the US at the peak of the abortion industry’s activity. Compared to the total of more than 56 million babies killed since the Constitutional right to life was usurped via Roe V Wade, 2 million total civilian wartime casualties seems small.
Yet the Viet Nam vets were called “Baby Killers.”
But in the war against humanity called abortion more than 28 times that many actual babies have been killed. Yet those who cry out, “Baby Killers” against those who have killed more than 56 million babies and continue killing thousands of babies each and every day, such voices are called radicals and even terrorists.
How does that make any sense?
Sadly, the only possible expected outcome of this is that this killing spree will expand to include more than just the unborn. It will expand to many people who are of minority status, who have no political clout. Eventually, by this process of singling out “minority” groups, the majority of people will lose their voices until the elite minority have total say.
Gainsayers will continue to mock this until their day comes. They will continue to vote for those who go along to get along in the mainstream establishment of the elite. Because of this either the Obama will be “reelected” or one of the Republican globalists will be “elected.” And the people will stand bewildered and wonder how their Constitutional freedoms disappeared.
The pace is being accelerated, as the following clips declare. Mr. Jones and Mr. Rappoport express more hope for the country than I personally hold. They express hope that people are waking up and will take action. My long-time observation is that people go along until they are personally affected and then they rise to action that results in violence and bloodshed. History is replete with evidence of this pattern. This is truly sad because especially in this case we have some candidates who would make a genuine difference.
Here are the video clips for anyone caring to view them:
Mr. Rappoport speaks of people making videos of the issues and making them public. For a short time this will likely happen. However, the Internet is largely controlled by the elite. They own Google and YouTube. They control ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers). And the Obama or whomever the next president may be, has been given power to shut down the Internet if an “emergency” is declared. Since the sitting/ruling president has the authority to declare an emergency, that gives total control for when the Internet becomes too “out of control” for the elite globalists.
But for the time being, we do have this for our use and we have the power to go and flood the voting stations with votes for a candidate whom the elites fear will shut them down. What if people actually did awaken from their apathetic stupor and defended the defenseless and placed into office those who actually uphold their office in accord with the Constitution? What if people feared injustice more than they feared taking responsibility for their own sexual activity and responsibility for raising their children? Could it be that something unprecedented in the history of nations could actually occur in these United States of America? Could it be that the precedent of reestablishing true liberty and justice for all could be held before the world?
- - -
4 comments:
While I can agree that abortion is not a pretty thing, I do not feel that it is the government's place to legislate morality. The decision to abort or not should never be placed in the governments hands, but on the conscience of the woman and her doctor. I would not think that encouraging that sort of interference would be the politically conservative thing to do. ;)
My dear friend, if morality is not to be legislated, then what is?
The morality of one specific religion should not be made law of a country that contains multitudes. Concerns need to be addressed in ways that are accessible to all that are affected by the law. There are instances where the development of the fetus has gone so wrong that even if the child were to come to term it would live only a short period of time in excruciating pain. I'm not sure how that situation is more humane than termination.
My biggest problem with legislating personhood beginning at conception is that it then criminalizes several forms of birth control and complicates in vitro fertilization for couples struggling with infertility. And in the case of tubal pregnancies or any case of implantation outside of the uterus it places the life of that cell cluster over the life of the mother even though the situation is not viable for either party.
You know how much I love my son, and how much we are looking forward to adding to our family, but I still do not wish for someone to make it illegal to put the interests of my health above those of an entity that cannot survive outside of my body.
My friend, some of your statements leave me aghast. I can only imagine that you have not truly considered what you actually have said. I truly wish that it were unnecessary to make the following points.
The very use of the insidious term “birth control” is an horrendous aberration of thinking that has become commonplace in modern society. If a person actually considers what this term declares, a person with an active conscience will become ashamed. This term betrays the hideous and selfish nature of this entire issue. It is an inversion of the beauty and blessing of procreation/progeneration. It reduces family and humanity to a presumed management of resources.
To speak of a “cell cluster” is inhuman. Only those wishing to dehumanize the conceived child use such terms. Never, absolutely never, does a woman who loves her newly conceived child use such terminology. Such terms are only used by someone seeking to rationalize what cannot otherwise be justified.
Most appalling of all is that you refer to your anticipated child as a mere entity. I cannot imagine that you would actually use this term apart from attempting to justify this atrocious notion that abortion upon demand must be permitted. Setting aside your own love for your yet to be conceived child, you speak of this little one in such inhuman terms.
Your yet to be conceived child is not a corporation of cells. And if you are so blessed as to conceive another little one, I cannot imagine that you would even allow anyone to speak of your baby as an entity that could not survive outside of your body (which is not even factual). But from what I know of you, you would be incensed at such a remark concerning the baby of your motherly affections.
What is more, such remarks would also apply to any newborn baby’s dependency upon the parents for survival. No newborn baby can survive without intense and continual care. Very few six year olds would survive for very long without ongoing care.
My friend, making legal acknowledgment of the truth of the personhood of unborn children and providing for their protection is a simply matter of honesty. They are truly persons, as any loving expectant mother knows, and as genuine science declares. The child imposes no burden upon the parents. Whatever burden that occurs is the result of the reproductive activity of the parents. Sexual activity does not happen by any decision or choice or activity of the baby. Conception is not the baby’s fault. But conception is the beginning of the baby’s life and personhood.
Finally, from what I know of you, I do not believe that you would put your health interests above those of your child, born or unborn. I believe that you would be willing to sacrifice yourself for the safety of your beloved child. That is the kind of woman I believe you to be.
Post a Comment