A Double Standard of Convenience

A Sienna College Poll taken in March taken March 17^th shows the vast majority of New Yorkers oppose the New York Dream Act. Even so, Democrats in Albany nearly passed the legislation, and their plan now is to include it in the next budget.

Unsurprisingly, Governor Cuomo’s ratings have taken a dive, as did his push to use tax payer money to fund higher education for illegals. I’d like to see the Governor, along with those who want to pay for these educations to put their own money where there mouths are. Set up a voluntary fund.

It’s sad to see that people have moved here illegally, knowingly illegally, and have raised children here, hoping no one would get caught. Its upsetting to see people move here, knowingly illegally, and then demanding legal residents help them or their children.

From the left, the cry goes up, “You can’t make innocent children suffer for the sins of their parent or parents!” Ah, but we do. Everyday. And we make excuses for it.

“It was incest.”
“It was rape.”
“It was not planned.”
“It will hurt my career.”

In the case of the first two I mentioned, one parent is a criminal. And whether or not he is punished has nothing to do with his offspring.

Why the double standard? Many of the same people cry out, “How can you deny someone an abortion?” Where are the shouts from the left for the well being of the legal innocent child?

If Dream Acts are based on human rights, why are those same human rights denied to boys and girls whose only crime is to be an inconvenience?

Granted, there are rare incidences in which a pregnant woman’s life is threatened by continuing a pregnancy. I can’t begin to imagine how painful a situation that must be. But beyond those cases, it becomes a matter of convenience.

“I don’t want to suffer by carrying a child nine months for what a criminal did to me.”
What system of ethics informs us that its better to end the life of another in order to shorten the period of our own suffering? Does punishing the child make what happened any more palatable? 

“We just couldn’t handle a child with a deformity/severe autism/Down Syndrome.”   Less than 6% of children with forms of Down Syndrome make it beyond the womb. 

“A child right now would damage my career.” 

“We wanted a boy this time.” 

So what do we do for the children of illegal immigrants? Do we cast them aside, deport them to a country they've likely never been to? Perhaps the best answer is to grant them citizenship, and make sure no one else suffers as they have by enforcing our borders.

And for children in the womb? Do we continue to cast them aside, or do we grant them citizenship as well?

http://www.siena.edu/uploadedfiles/home/sri/SNY%20March%202014%20Poll%20Release%20--%20FINAL.pdf

http://www.lifenews.com/2014/03/27/only-5-3-percent-of-unborn-babies-diagnosed-with-down-syndrome-escape-abortion/

Horror wrapped in compassion

Much lip service is paid to women by those who support abortion on demand. Their position, they say, is a compassionate and humane one. Yet all too often women are hurt, or allowed to be potentially put in harm's way thanks to the efforts of these same compassionate, humane people.

So many attempts to have abortion mills regulated like other medical practices have been opposed and thwarted by Abortion supporters that it seems ridiculous at this point to list them. But there are a couple of things that haven't been addressed sufficiently.

First, the so-called War on Women. By liberal standards, the very thought of prohibiting any kind of abortion is an attack on women. Since many conservative Republicans do not condone late term abortions, or abortions for anything other than to save the life of the mother (excuse the term,) they are de-facto at war with women. In war there are casualties, and in the abortion arena there plenty of female casualties.

In an article from The Telegraph dated March 24th, 2014, the head of BPAS, the organization that conducts over a quarter of the abortions committed in the U.K. every year,Ann Fuerdi tells an interviewer that aborting a child because you want a boy instead of the girl in your womb is fine. Its no different, she says, than being permitted to abort in the case of rape or incest. Current British law backs her up, I'm afraid. And the practice of eliminating girls before birth in India and China is no secret. Are these practices not a war on women? Are such acts compassionate or humane?


Second, if we do not recognize the pre born infant as a human being then it must be nothing more than lifeless tissue. What happens to that tissue? British government officials were shocked to discover recently that a great deal of these remains were incinerated for energy creation at hospital facilities. Sound humane?

Again, from The Telegraph,

The bodies of thousands of aborted and miscarried babies were incinerated as clinical waste, with some even used to heat hospitals, an investigation has found.

Ten NHS trusts have admitted burning foetal remains alongside other rubbish while two others used the bodies in ‘waste-to-energy’ plants which generate power for heat.

If I were to read about such practices in a dystopian science fiction novel set in a post apocalyptic future I wouldn't be as surprised. But this is happening now, in a civilized society. From a search query, Ask.com responded with "all tissue is disposed of in a sensitive way."

But if the remains are nothing more than tissue, what is all the fuss about? Why are officials from the Department of Health going on record as calling the practice abhorrent, calling for an immediate halt to such practices?

Britain's Channel Four says over 15,000 were incinerated at 27 National Health Service hospitals over the past two years. I don't need to read the novel. I'm living in a dystopian world now.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10316715/Women-are-legally-free-to-abort-a-baby-because-of-its-sex-says-abortion-charity-head.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10717566/Aborted-babies-incinerated-to-heat-UK-hospitals.html

The Real Evolution is in Science

Over the past 100 years, science has been used against the faith community to ridicule beliefs considered antiquated and anachronistic for these modern times we live in.

Evolutionists scoff at the notion of creation. Anthropologists make light of believing we are made in God’s image. Astronomers point to the stars as proof of the non-existence of God. And on a more personal level, scientists have pushed the idea that since we are nothing more than an elevated blob of tissue we have therefore no more rights on this planet than do birds, or whales, or the animals of the Serengeti.

Less of a right in fact, since whales, and many birds and African animals are protected and take priority over the rights of mankind in public policy.

But science is beginning to become inconvenient for some who have used it over the past 50 years to deny life to the weakest among us. As more and more people are given the opportunity to see an ultra-sound of an unborn child, as more and more children are rescued from troubled pregnancies at earlier and earlier stages of pregnancy, and as more and more is learned of the humanity of the unborn child, science is tipping the scales in the fight for children.

Its been over 40 years since the Supreme Court, using what was already dubious scientific findings, made abortion on demand the law of the land.

On January 22^nd tens of thousands will make a pilgrimage to Washington DC to remind our elected officials that science has come a long way since Roe v. Wade. Its time they did as well.

What would Dr. King say?

In a recent press release, Dr. Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, said the following,

Why can't we have health care that provides healthy bodies for our families without the death and destruction offered by harmful contraceptives and abortions? I'm a mother and a grandmother. My girls do not need free contraceptives and abortions. My sons and grandsons don't need free condoms and easy access to abortions for the females in their relationships. They all need good education, healthy meals, decent homes and healthy morals and values.

The breakdown of morality in this country has emboldened liberal politicians to push contraceptive and abortion funding to the point where they will not negotiate on either point. The Department of Health and Human Services is charged with protecting the safety and well being of our citizens, but this is done selectively. To mandate that all health plans provide free contraceptives and abortion pills is to omit the safety of boys and girls at their most vulnerable age, and to encourage men to ignore their responsibilities in creating life and women in carrying life.

In a 1967 Christmas sermon, Martin Luther King said "The next thing we must be concerned about if we are to have peace on earth and good will toward men is the nonviolent affirmation of the sacredness of all human life. ...Man is a child of God, made in His image, and therefore must be respected as such."

In the eyes of the architects of the HHS mandate, human life is not sacred, is not made in the image of God, and does not deserve respect.

 http://www.theconservativepundit.net/?page_id=1155

NARAL Tosses out the Bathwater

Every state and municipality that has either passed or attempted to pass laws requiring abortion clinics to include mandatory sonograms during treatment has met with vehement opposition to such requirements from, among others, the National Abortion Rights League (NARAL).

So I find it somewhat disingenuous for NARAL to accuse Crisis Pregnancy Centers of that very thing.

“Anyone seeking health-care services should receive comprehensive, unbiased, medically and factually accurate information. Women facing unintended pregnancy deserve no less. When women are fully informed, they are better able to make responsible and appropriate decisions about their reproductive health. Mindful of this, the anti-choice movement has for years tried to restrict, control, and manipulate the information doctors give women facing unplanned pregnancies.” (1)

 
NARAL argues that the Centers, “continue their campaign to misinform women about abortion and to dissuade women from exercising their right to choose…” They also state that, “Women are entitled to accurate, comprehensive and unbiased medical information with which they can make their own decisions.” I would like to know how the inclusion of a sonogram during treatment can be considered biased. And how does the exclusion of a sonogram enhance a woman’s right to accurate, comprehensive and unbiased medical information?

NARAL is a large tax-exempt 501(c), eligible to receive contributions deductible as charitable donations. (2) On NARAL’s website, they say they oppose “bans on safe abortion methods that protect women’s health,” and “Dangerous laws that jeopardize young women’s health and safety,” and “distortions of science to instill fear.”(3)

The truth is they have thwarted attempts to bring abortion clinic regulations in line with existing requirements for any other medical facility. Jeopardizing women’s lives in their view is suggesting they carry their baby full term. And while science pushes steadily back the curtain of “personhood” by showing just how alive and human a baby is earlier and earlier in a pregnancy, and doctors save early births at ever earlier points in pregnancy, they want a blanket thrown over such research and procedures. After all, if a child was a child at delivery before, and at five months of a pregnancy now, what can their organization say when scientists stand up and tell them that all the requirements for human life are complete at conception? That would mean abortion is tantamount to murder.

The government should support legitimate, comprehensive reproductive-health clinics, rather than centers whose goals are to prevent women from exercising their constitutionally protected right to choose. (1)

Is that it? Rights trump human life?

Representative Trent Franks (R-Ariz) introduced into the House of Representatives, H.R.3541, “The Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act.” The intent of the legislation is to eliminate the use of abortion to choose the sex of the child, that is to say, aborting a child because the parent(s) wanted a boy instead of a girl, or vice-versa.

Painting the legislation’s supporters as women hating men who oppose prenatal care, equal pay, and contraception, NARAL promises to defeat any law that would prevent a woman from having an abortion for any reason. Nancy Keenan, head of NARAL, sees it as an attack on a woman’s right to choose, and insists NARAL has always been opposed to the use of abortion for sex selection. (4)

Taking her cue from Margaret Sanger, Keenan holds abortion as a sacrosanct right.

I agree with Keenan in that I think the legislation will not have the intended effect. Planned Parenthood and their ilk will no more report sex selection abortions than they have teen rape victims that come to their clinics for abortions.

But I will say dismissing the bill is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Seeing no baby anyway, NARAL will disagree.

(1) http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/media/fact-sheets/abortion-cpcs.pdf

(2) http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/national/health/naral-pro-choice-america-foundation-in-washington-dc-507

(3) http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/what-is-choice/abortion/

(4) http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/media/press-releases/2012/pr05292012_prenda.html