“Pro-Choice” Depravity Reaches New Depths of Evil

5065857873_5fd57bd361_b

This author has been ardently pro-life for about 40 years. Along the way, I have participated in some protests by marching with thousands and in others by praying alone in front of Planned Parenthood clinics, as well as helping establish Crisis Pregnancy Care centers in two communities.

During this time, I have also followed the antics and arguments of the “pro-choice” crowd closely and written much about the evil nature of the “pro-choice” philosophy. Earlier this year this vile doctrine of the Left plumbed the depths of evil to the very bottom when politicians in New York and Virginia promoted killing the baby up to, and even beyond, leaving the womb.

Or so I thought. I should have known better. I actually underestimated how grotesque  “pro-choice” actions can, and have become.

One might wonder what could possibly be worse than executing infants even after they are born. The answer is found when the motives of the murderers are seen.

Two recent reports concerning murderous motives used to destroy innocent human life revealed a new depth of depravity in the name of the ‘right’ to be “pro-choice.”

Baby Body Parts Peddled for Politics and Profit 

AbortionThis story is not new, but it is also not well-publicized and non-existent on the Leftmedia. It involves the work of two undercover journalists from back in 2016.

David Daleidien and Sandra Merritt were undercover citizen journalists who videotaped conversations with Planned Parenthood officials who detailed the illegal selling of aborted baby body parts to the company StemExpress.

The videos were released and of course, Planned Parenthood denied that they were authentic. However, with the aid of a current Democratic candidate for president, they also managed to convince California to charge Daleidien and Merritt with 15 counts of the illegal taping of confidential conversations.

Presidential candidate Senator Kamala Harris [D. CA] was then-Attorney General in California and ordered the seizure of the video evidence from Daleidan’s home in 2016. That search and seizure were specifically against California law.

An excellent piece chronicling this case which has now come to court in preliminary hearings in San Francisco was penned by Madeline Osburn on Sept. 11, 2019, at thefederalist.com. Turns out the videos were both legal and authentic.

…former California attorney general Kamala Harris sought to prosecute Daleiden at the behest of her political donors at Planned Parenthood. Even though Daledien’s unreleased footage should have been protected by the California Shield Law, Harris ordered a search warrant against Daleiden in 2016 and a raid of his apartment, seizing his computer, camera equipment, and footage.  Email records show correspondence between Harris’ office and Planned Parenthood officials, orchestrating public responses, filing police reports, and even drafting legislation targeting Daleiden. Harris has received tens of thousands of dollars in political contributions from Planned Parenthood-affiliated entities, so the nature of her behavior is no mystery.

Inset.2.9.14.2019The involvement of Kamala Harris would explain why more hasn’t been forthcoming in the Leftmedia concerning this. That and, of course, one other serious political consideration, the malevolent doctrine of “pro-choice” being a primary icon of the Left.

Otherwise, the Left might see this as a very important free speech case, as Ms. Osburn highlights. However, the video which is now being viewed in court has revealed the most disturbing details yet of Planned Parenthood’s baby body-parts trafficking.

Four days into the hearings, significant and graphic details about StemExpress’ business steadily emerge, such as their supplying of beating fetal hearts and intact fetal heads to medical researchers.

This means Planned Parenthood was selling the beating hearts and complete heads to StemExpress who would then sell hearts that were beating and fully intact heads to the, um, ‘researchers!’ All of this is illegal, by the way, and undercover evidence of illegal activity is legal to obtain not only in California but under most whistleblower laws nationwide.

The fact that the “pro-choice” enthusiasts believe so fervently in their cause that they would support such butchery for profit and political gains even though it is illegal is pure malevolence befitting the label of demonic. Yet as disturbing as this revelation is, the next story matches, if not exceeds it in reaching new depths of malignant depravity.

Abortions for Sexual “Pleasure”

abortion, pro-choice, pro-lifeIf you are staring at the subtitle in disbelief, I shared similar astonishment when I first heard of this in another article from Sept. 11, 2019, at lifenews.com. Author Micaiah Bilger chronicles the beginnings of a disturbing new trend in a particular part of social media.

 As unimaginably evil as it seems, apparently some couples find a sexual high in purposefully getting pregnant and aborting their unborn babies. Summit News recently uncovered couples discussing the disturbing sexual fetish on Reddit. The comments came from a post where one user explained that their female friend “has a really powerful fetish for breeding.”… “My girlfriend enjoys her pregnancies and she enjoys the abortion,” the person responded. “Her preferred date to abort is between 20 and 24 weeks of gestation. I enjoy making her pregnant. And I enjoy the time of her pregnancy. She has no menstrual period and she is sexually very active. …“In the last ten years in our relationship we have done seven abortions and my girlfriend is pregnant again with a little girl,” he continued. …A third person praised the abhorrent behavior, writing: “It is good (and rare) to hear of a couple (both man and woman) where both members are into abortion and pregnancy. This is a wonderful and potent example of personal power, where sex meets violence and creation combines with destruction,” the report continues.

The most surprising aspect of this behavior is not that it actually happened. Something akin to this was always the logical extension of the legal and societal approval of abortion on demand.

One thing that is more surprising and disturbing is this scenario makes abortion a “good” thing because couples can exercise their “personal power, where sex meets violence and creation combines with destruction.” It’s kinda like being a pair of sex-crazed serial killers without ever having to see your victims or worry about getting caught.

To put it another way, the couple gets a high playing God by sacrificing other lives over and over. Moreover, it’s all for the physical comfort and ‘pleasure’ of the self-made demigods which they can enjoy again each time a child is snuffed out!

What I also found astonishing was the nonchalance the Reddit commentators showed discussing killing the unborn child when they obviously know he or she is really a human child. The one whose girlfriend was now pregnant for the eighth time casually noted that the child now in her womb was a girl.

He makes this comment knowing that in a few weeks, they were going to pay someone to have this little girl killed once she served her purpose for their pleasure. Not only was he okay with that, but he seemed happy that they could just start the cycle all over again!

pro-life, pro-choiceThis is a different level of depravity on display than any I know. It manifests a deeper evil than even the abuse and murder of slaves or the Nazi medical experiments on living human beings.

This practice is a deeper evil for two simple and virtually unprecedented reasons. First of all, there is no force or coercion of any kind toward the mother.

In the vast majority of abortions, coercion plays a large part in the decision to abort. The mother is often pressured by the father, her own parents, other authority figures and peers to “fix” her “mistake,” so she can move on with her life.

However, in this scenario, the father and the mother agree to a long series of abortions, one after the other, for as long as they are together and physically able, for the sake of their own ‘pleasure’!

Secondly, the child in the womb is viewed here as a “sex toy” to be used and later discarded in favor of another human child to use as another “sex toy.”

Not only is the life of the child viewed on a lower level than the life of the parents, but the child herself is regarded as an inhuman non-living thing! Even when deceptive “pro-choice” advocates say that the fetus is a “lump of cells” they at least acknowledge that those are living human cells.

Recently an official from Planned Parenthood said this,

…we will continue to defend the truth: EVERY reason to have an abortion is a valid reason,” said Colleen McNicholas, chief medical officer for Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region.

This means that Ms. McNicholas would have no problem with serial abortions as a sexual fetish. Taking what she has said in another light, she could add that according to this view, there is also no good reason to actually give birth to a child and every good reason to destroy that child!

Welcome to the depths of depraved “pro-choice” ideology where what was called light is now darkness and what was good is now called evil. Should this ideology continue unabated, it is a frightening omen for the future of society.

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Isaiah 5:20 [ESV]

D.T. Osborn

Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001

Featured and Top Image courtesy of David Jackmanson’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 1 courtesy of American Life League’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 2 courtesy of Victoria Pickering’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 3 courtesy of billy verdin’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 4 courtesy of Walt Stoneburner’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License

All other sources linked or cited in the text

Originally published at TIL Journal

Advertisements

A Behavioral Experiment: Predicting the Pro-Abortion Left’s Response to Alabama and Company [Video]

Scientist.article.5.23.2019

There has been a number of states who recently passed measures to severely limit and outlaw abortion. These pro-life laws have brought down the wrath of the Leftists who favor abortion at all times and for any reason.

The most controversial of these so far is the new Alabama law criminalizing abortion except for saving the life of the mother. With this and other such activities in mind, I decided to conduct an experiment concerning Leftist’s mindsets on abortion and see if they really were as easy to predict as I surmised.

This experiment was conducted in two steps. First, I drew from my experience in the pro-life movement for 36 years and predicted seven reactions from the Left to this law in advance. Then I compared my predictions to the actual responses represented by 10 articles either giving the Leftist response or pieces talking about multiple responses.

Predicting the Predictable

Leftist, pro-abortion

My predictions took the form of generalizations, as I had no way of knowing in advance the precise wording which was used in the articles. Here are my seven prognostications of Leftist responses to the new pro-life legislation in states such as Alabama and Georgia.

1.) In at least one article, [and likely many] the response that the new law is attempting to regulate women’s bodies will be mentioned.
2.) Ditto for one or more mentions that the law is a threat to Roe v. Wade.
3.)There will be false assertions of what the law actually requires.
4.) In some manner, the humanity of the unborn child will be denied.
5.) It will be asserted that the law will harm women.
6.) Trump will be criticized because he is pro-life.
7.) The ‘far-right’ and/or the ‘religious right,’ will be blamed and scorned.

I made these predictions at 8:51AM, CDT,  on May 18, 2019. I realize that the reader will have no way of knowing for certain that I didn’t read the article responses ahead of time except for my word that I didn’t do so.

However, besides my assurance, when the results are tabulated it should bolster my claims… I hope. I returned to the experiment for part two on 5/21/2019 and checked on how my predictions panned out.

The results are calculated by number for each source that was cited. Whether or not a particular prediction was actually used more than once in an article was not noted, merely counted as one ‘fulfillment’ of a prediction.

It should be noted that this is far from any kind of scientific survey. I selected 10 examples only, which is insufficient for any definitive conclusion according to statistical science.

I suggest, however, that even this small sample could be expanded over a longer period of time with more responses and the results would vary only slightly. More importantly, even this smattering of evidence reveals the priorities and motivations of the Left when they try to argue for a woman’s ‘right to choose.’

Each example of at least one predicted response is noted in the list below. I read each article and recorded the instances when a predicted Leftist reaction/response occurred and assigning it a number from my list of 7.

218px-Protesting_Illinois_6th_District_Republican_Congressman_Peter_Roskam_Chicago_Illinois_7-26-18_2843_(42951185284)In other words, in the first article, I found at least one example of my number 2 prediction that the new laws would be seen as a threat to Roe v. Wade. This ‘raw data’ if you will, is compiled and analyzed afterward, as will be seen.

1.) From a Reuters story, 5/16/2019: Responses 2, 4, and 6 were shown in this.  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-abortion-republicans-idUSKCN1SM2KL

2.) From a Washington Post story, 5/15/2019: Responses 2, 4, 5, and 6 occurred here. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democratic-2020-candidates-warn-roe-v-wade-at-stake-after-alabama-abortion-bans-passage/2019/05/15/f4f77c7a-7719-11e9-bd25-c989555e7766_story.html?utm_term=.9f0f3f2842b3

3.) From Townhall.com story about the reactions 5/16/2019: Responses 1, 2, and 4 are used in this example.   https://townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/2019/05/17/democrats-unhinged-over-alabamas-abortion-bill-n2546477

4.) From a NY Times article on 5/14/2019: This uses predicted responses 2 and 5  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/14/us/abortion-law-alabama.html

5.) From a NY Times ‘op-ed’ with a pro-abortion actress, 5/15/2019: Here we find responses 1, 4, and 5.  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/15/style/busy-philipps-abortion-youknowme.html?  action=click&module=RelatedCoverage&pgtype=Article&region=Footer

6.) From an article concerning Leftist talking points on “The Federalist” site highlighting social media posts from the pro-abort crowd: Here it can be seen that points 1, 2, 4, and 5 are used.  https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/17/many-pro-choice-talking-points-border-propaganda/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=215d30f116-RSS_The_Federalist_Daily_Updates_w_Transom&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-215d30f116-84040107

7.)From a National Review article concerning NPR’s rules for discussing abortion: Predicted response number 4 is mentioned.  https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/nprs-abortion-rules/

8.)From a May 19, 2019 ‘Intellectual Conservative’ article on leftist reactions: Here predictions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 can be found. http://www.intellectualconservative.com/the-progressives-socialist-anti-science-on-abortion/

9.)From a May 21, 2019, Townhall Article on a pro-abortion rally in D.C.: Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are featured. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/05/21/pro-abortionists-held-a-stopthebans-rally-outside-the-supreme-court-heres-what-n2546698?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=05/22/2019&bcid=8620a513a8eac12722df4b6aed35298b&recip=27779030

10.)From May 21, 2019, on ‘Twitchy.com’ about the pro-abort protest in D.C.: This piece featured responses 1, 3, 4, and 5. https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2019/05/21/wtf-is-she-smoking-dem-rep-jackie-speier-takes-a-page-from-aocs-book-to-argue-for-abortion-rights-video/?utm_source=twtydaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&bcid=8620a513a8eac12722df4b6aed35298b

Results and Some Surprises

Leftist, Pro-abortionThe results of this ‘experiment’ yielded a mixed bag of the expected and the surprising among the pro-abort Left’s responses.

All of the predicted responses appeared at least once. However, the top four responses are revealing about the mindset of the Leftists as these give vital clues to what they consider most important in the abortion battle.

The highest frequency pro-abort response among those I had predicted was number ‘4.) In some manner, the humanity of the unborn child will be denied.’  In 9 of the 10 examples, this response was observed.

The next most frequent Leftist response was number ‘2.) …mentions that the law is a threat to Roe v. Wade.’ This was used in 7 different pieces.

The third most frequent response was recorded 6 times in two different articles. First is prediction ‘1.) In at least one article, [and likely many] the response that the new law is attempting to regulate women’s bodies will be mentioned’ which is tied with response number ‘5.) It will be asserted that the law will harm women.’

The other three predicted responses had a large drop in stating what I assumed they would. Only 3 pieces used predicted reaction number ‘3.) There will be false assertions of what the law actually requires.’ Two articles used the number 6 prediction that ‘Trump will be criticized because he is pro-life.’

The most unexpected result to this author was that only one response used number 7.) The ‘far-right’ and/or the ‘religious right,’ will be blamed and scorned. In some cases responses that I should have predicted also appear in these articles I examined.

One of those is the false claim that the Bible and Christianity are supportive of abortion, which was cited in at least one case. This journal has covered that claim in a number of past articles.

Another false claim from the Left that I should have expected was the accusation that these laws are a reflection of ‘racism’ on the part of conservatives. The racism claim did surface, however, I did not record the number of times it appeared.

In The Final Analysis

From this small experiment, we can only make limited assumptions rather than hard conclusions. Yet, these assumptions are not without merit and can be instructive to gain some understanding of the destructive worldview that pro-abort Leftists embrace, in order to rightly oppose its evil design.

Of course, the pro-abort Left could as easily make predictions about the pro-life responses to these new state laws concerning abortion. I would concede that, however, I also would stress that one side is predictable for its object to preserve life, while the other is staunch in a campaign to destroy life.

Leftist, pro-abortion

If the frequency of occurrence indicates importance, the factor the pro-abort Left considers most important is that the humanity of the unborn is denied always, regardless of the truth. The pro-abortion mindset is that above all else and at any cost, it cannot be admitted that the unborn child is a living human being.

The second most important point is that Roe v. Wade must be untouchable. Roe v. Wade is the Left’s symbolic Holy Grail and it is considered a sacred validation of an absolute right.

The problem with that position is the history of bad precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court, namely the 1857 “Dred Scott” decision. “Roe” has been compared many times with this infamous SCOTUS ruling which enshrined the institution of slavery as a supposed constitutional ‘right’.

The comparison is from a different era and addresses a different issue, but the point is the same. That point being that just because the SCOTUS makes a ruling does not automatically create a newly-imagined Constitutional right.

The third item on the pro-abortion acolytes’ list of most cherished beliefs is that pro-life advocates wish to regulate and control women’s bodies. Any threat to the full legalization without exception of abortion on demand is a perceived threat to a woman’s bodily autonomy, and therefore must be opposed.

The final important finding is that abortion is portrayed as good for women’s ‘health,’ while any other solution to a pregnancy, including birth, is harmful to women. This fiction is peddled constantly and is easily refuted by many facts, not the least of which is this, as Anna Paprocki writes in the Federalist,

There is no federal abortion reporting requirement. Even the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute acknowledges that the current “patchwork of surveillance efforts” relies on “incomplete” reports from states and that California—estimated to account for 17 percent, or one out of every six abortions in the country—is one of three states that “do not report to the CDC at all.” Guttmacher uses voluntary reporting from abortionists, filtered through its own ideological lens, which fails to fill these gaping holes.

The following video demonstrates the use of these four beliefs employed by the pro-abort Left in a brief debate recently shown on CNN.

The desperation of the Leftist pro-aborts is evident from the blatant denial of reality especially on the part of the woman in the video, as well as the deflection of the host. For example, Cuomo is correct when he says that no states currently allow for the killing of a child already born in an attempted abortion.

However, he also fails to mention that Virginia recently tried to pass such a law which was proposed in January of this year. The law failed to pass in that state, but it is a harbinger of things to come if Leftists have their way.

America must make the choice to embrace either life or death and in doing so embrace either God’s curse or His blessings. The lovers of abortion today are clearly favoring a choice of death without understanding the terrible consequences that will follow.

I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live.  Deuteronomy 30:19 [ESV]

D.T. Osborn

Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001

Featured and Top Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons by Isaiah Mahanga – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 1 courtesy of Wikimedia Commons by JRBrown – Public Domain
Inset Image 2 courtesy of Wikimedia Commons by Charles Edward Miller – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 3 courtesy of Wikimedia Commons by Sam Pullara – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 4 courtesy of Wikimedia Commons by Rebecca W. – Creative Commons License

All other sources linked or cited in the text

Originally published in TIL Journal

The Left’s War on Science, Part 2: The Abortion Deception [Video]

The Left's War on Science, Part 2: The 'Pro-Choice' Deception

I begin with an apology to my readers. I had planned to present the case against the radical environmentalism of the Left in this article. That is still coming so stay tuned.

However, the desperate attempts by Democrats to stop the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court suggested a change in the order. The vehemence of this opposition has an explanation that is part of the leftist war on science.

The Left fears that Kavanaugh will tip the court against legalized abortion. This drives the hysteria displayed by their minions and politicians.

In that hysteria, the Left pushes against the science of human reproduction and basic biology. They deny facts showing the humanity of the unborn for their devotion to ‘choice.’

The Left’s Utter Devotion to ‘Choice’

The Left is maniacally devoted to the concept of being “pro-choice” on abortion. It is the main motivating factor in the determined, if clownish and disgusting, efforts to stop the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings.

5933214224_039f6c67df_mSome could dispute that observation by saying that hatred of President Donald Trump is the real energizer of the Left. After all, Trump has been a large focus of leftist hatred since his nomination as a presidential candidate.

However, it should be noted that Kavanaugh is not the first Supreme Court nominee to be so fervently opposed. Both Robert Bork and current Justice Clarence Thomas are prominent examples of leftist character assassination attempts.

The case of Bork ended with his nomination failing to be confirmed and a new popular leftist term, being “Borked” came to notoriety. Justice Thomas survived the false allegations of sexual misconduct to make it to the Court.

However, in all of these cases, a common denominator is a perceived threat to the hallowed ideal of the ‘right to choose’ abortion. The tactics may differ a bit from time to time, but that factor is consistent.

This complete and utter devotion to abortion on demand is based on a false claim. It is the claim that equality among the sexes means that women must be free of bearing children they had not planned or chosen to bear.

Thus pregnancy by the ‘right to choose,’ can be halted per the mother’s wish up to and including the delivery. Since legalization, there have been Supreme Court decisions which upheld it yet also allowed individual states to place some restrictions on abortion practices.

Despite these, there remain places where the child can be killed at nine months old if the mother wishes or consents. As long as the delivery is not fully completed, the federal law allows it, and the taxpayer is on the hook for the cost.

The False ‘Science’ of Roe v. Wade

Supreme CourtIn 1973 the Supreme Court decided the case of “Roe v. Wade” which effectively legalized abortion in all 50 states and at any time of pregnancy. This was easily the worst decision since the infamous 1857 “Dred Scott” case which enshrined a right to own slaves as property.

Dred Scott was later overturned. However, it helped fuel a bloodbath known as the Civil War costing over 600,000 lives before its work was done. Roe itself is not simply ‘bad’ law, it is fantasy law, a made-up tale with no basis in the Constitution.

It was much more a decision of idealistic commitment than it was of interpreting the Constitution. Shamefully, a hundred times more deaths have resulted from Roe than from Dred Scott and the Civil War. Worse, Roe is still in effect 45 years later.

There is a part of the decision which bears scrutiny for scientific purposes. Within the maze that is the actual text of Roe, is this statement.

We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

The portion which begs attention is the claim that those in the medical community cannot come to a consensus “at this point in the development of man’s knowledge” about the unborn as a human life.

The accuracy of that claim was suspect even in 1973. With the passing of time, more biological knowledge has made the claim obsolete.

The philosophical and theological views on abortion have been partially addressed in previous TIL Journal pieces. A more thorough treatment will follow in future articles.

The late Dr. Jerome Lejeune was a world-renowned geneticist in the late 20th century. He was the discoverer of the genetic cause of Down Syndrome.

Moreover, he was insistent that the child in the womb was a living human being from the point of conception onward. He despised the fact that some have used his discovery to urge abortion of Down Syndrome babies.

Scientifically, Human Life Begins at Conception

In the years following Roe Dr. Lejeune was called to testify before congressional committees concerning ‘pro-choice’ versus ‘pro-life’ legislation.

In one unusual instance, he was asked to aid in a 1989 divorce proceeding in Tennessee. The question put forth was whether embryos frozen for implantation later should be adjudicated as property or under the rubric of child custody.

…if I can say a word as a geneticist, I would say: An early human being inside this suspended time… cannot be the property of anybody because it’s the only one in the world to have the property of building himself. And I would say that science has a very simple conception of man; as soon as he has been conceived, a man is a man.”

The argument in favor of humanity at conception has only gained plausibility with the continued progress of medical science since 1973. The advent of imaging technology has allowed viewing of the entire human gestation process.

In this particular ultrasound video, the baby is seen moving at just over 8 weeks old

This technology has confirmed that the person in the womb is not ‘potential life,’ as pro-choicers claim, but that it is human and alive as a separate being in the womb.

However, little attention is paid to the consequences of denying this fact. Make no mistake, such denial only produces more evil consequences based on a belief that is both wrong and immoral.

The Baby at ‘War’ with the Mother

One of the consequences of the ‘pro-choice’ philosophy is that the mother should not view the baby within as her blessed offspring. Rather the child should be thought of much like a parasitical invader of the woman’s body.

The woman, it is said, is justified in viewing the baby as waging biological ‘war’ on their bodies. Their self-defense is to respond by declaring war against the invader with abortion.

In their view, any attempt to restrict the use of abortion is also viewed as an act of war. The language used by the Left clearly establishes this.

Inset Image.9.20.2018

screen capture from 2013

This is another case of denying the scientific knowledge of reproduction. Biology testifies that gestation is not an invasion of the female body by a parasite. For one thing, a parasite never feeds on its own species. The host is always a separate species.

Moreover, gestation is natural to reproduction for all mammalian species. Science does not view pregnancy as a parasitical condition in a female chimpanzee. There is no legitimate biological reason to do so for human beings either.

Yet, academic feminism does not accept the science. Here is an excerpt from one such academic found in Harvard magazine.

Eileen McDonagh, a visiting scholar at Radcliffe College’s Murray Research Center, seeks to rewrite the “feminine” self-sacrificing language of pregnancy and replace it with “masculine” terms of self-defense in an effort both to strengthen a woman’s right to abortion and to win universal government funding for the procedure. In her new book, Breaking the Abortion Deadlock (Oxford), McDonagh argues that doctors who perform abortions should be paid by taxpayers to stop unwanted fetuses from “kidnapping” women’s bodies, just as the government pays police officers to prevent rapists from invading the bodies of women.

Per this feminist scholars’ suggestion, this twisted view is carried to the point that it should be legally recognized and paid for regardless of anyone else’s views. In fact, this is actually played out via Planned Parenthood which taxpayers fund with hundreds of millions of dollars whether the taxpayer likes it or not.

Yes, the conditions of receiving that amount of funding include the promise that PP will not use those funds for abortion. But money is fungible and funds allocated for one project easily get moved to other priorities in large organizations.

The Push for Infanticide

1444740980_c58171d36d_mWhen scientific facts are denied the consequences which result can be terribly destructive. The tens of millions of aborted children and devastated mothers since Roe have shown that.

Yet the evil continues to grow and foster acceptance of the grossest immoralities. It has even begun to produce a nightmarish scenario where the killing of children after birth is advocated and sometimes carried out.

If it is true that abortion is justified because of the child in the womb’s dependency, the same logic would allow the disposal of a child out of the womb until a certain age… People like Princeton ethicist Peter Singer use this to propose a waiting period of 30 days before considering a baby a human person.
“In 1993, ethicist Peter Singer shocked many Americans by suggesting that no newborn should be considered a person until 30 days after birth and that the attending physician should kill some disabled babies on the spot.”

Be assured that Singer is not the only person who has promoted this. Moreover, he is not the only academic to push for the infanticide particularly of the disabled.

I have written previously on the subject of killing the disabled, unborn and born, and the movement in Europe to spread the heinous practice. However, the disabled infant is only a stepping stone for infanticide supporters.

The prize these medical ‘ethicists’ seek is the legalization and normalization of infanticide worldwide. Their arguments for this boil down to a couple of plainly understood reasons.

One reason employs utilitarianism to justify such killing. The same reasoning that relegates the baby in the womb to non-personhood, is applied to the infant after birth.

For example, according to influential medical publications, infants should not be regarded as human persons because they lack the qualifications to perceive life. Since the infant is not self-aware, for instance, he or she is not really a human person, and killing the born infant is acceptable.

The second reason involves economic concerns. It is extremely expensive to care for the disabled, and that cost grows as the disabled person grows. This rationale has been applied in many countries in Europe who actively seek to legalize some form of infanticide.

For whoever finds me [wisdom] finds life and obtains favor from the LORD, but he who fails to find me injures himself; all who hate me love death.” Proverbs 8:35-36 [ESV]

D.T. Osborn

Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001

Featured and Top Image courtesy of thecrazyfilmgirl’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 1 courtesy of Angela’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 2 courtesy of Matt Wade’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 3 courtesy of furiousjethro’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 4 courtesy of Antonio Pavon’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License

All other sources linked or cited in the text

Originally published at TIL Journal