The Ubiquitous Insidious Tentacles of Abortion

Under the euphemistic banner of "reproductive rights" "reproductive health" and/or "pro-choice", etc, very little is said about the physical, psychological, and spiritual consequences  of the giant octopus that is abortion despite the fact that it has extended its insidious tentacles into each and every one of our lives, either directly or indirectly. Because even if you have not experienced an abortion, it's almost certain you have a relationship --daughter, granddaughter, girlfriend, wife, mother, sister, niece, friend, co-worker, etc.--with someone who has, and just like the ripples that spread from a single pebble cast into a pond, small waves ripple outwardly and incrementally after each and every abortion, affecting every potential relation to that innocent life who never had a chance.

Of course, the negative impact of abortion on the mother's physical, psychological and spiritual health far outweighs the impact on everyone else. The multiple physical and emotional complications of the procedure can be life-changing insofar as the woman may experience:

• damage to the cervix,  
• scarring of the uterine lining,  
• perforation of the uterus,  
• damage to other organs, 
• inability to conceive in the future,  
• higher rates of miscarriage and premature birth  in subsequent pregnancies,

and in studies across the United States and in other countries, it has been found that women who have had abortions have 

• increased their risk of getting breast and/or cervical cancer by over 50 percent.  

 Regarding cancer, the same is not true for pregancies terminated naturally--miscarriage--because unlike induced abortion, the mother's hormone levels never reach that of a normally developing pregnancy.

Moreover, it's been found that abortion before the birth of a first child is, in particular, highly carcinogenic, because as most of us know, early first full term pregnancy lowers a woman’s risk of getting breast cancer, so if that pregnancy is terminated unnaturally, that protection not only disappears, the abortion is potentially weaponized to turn against the mother in the future. In other words, women who abort their first pregnancy not only don’t get the protective effects of a first full-term pregnancy and don’t receive the protective effects of breast feeding, they've increased their chances of getting cancer, experiencing infertility, etc. over and above that of never having gotten pregnant in the first place.

Keep in mind that less than 1% of all abortions (60 million since 1973) occur because of rape, incest, birth defects or to save the life of the mother, so the use of this argument is very obviously a smoke screen. Moreover, abortion to save the mother’s life was legal before convenience abortion was legalized and would continue to be if abortion were made illegal again.

Abortion Cancer Link

The first study to find the link between abortion and cancer came out in 1957--over 60-years ago--yet the billion dollar cancer foundations/organizations, the mainstream media, the medical industrial complex, Planned Parenthood, etc. not only stay silent and refuse to warn the public, they actively engage in deceiving the public.

 In fact, the abortion breast cancer link in some of these statistically robust studies confirm abortion is stronger than any other risk factor for breast cancer such as advanced age, having a family history of breast cancer, being childless, etc..

“Gill pointed out that the Surgeon General decided to require warning labels on packs of cigarettes highlighting the link between smoking and birth defects when there were only seven studies that showed such a link.

Today, there are more than seventy-eight studies showing a link between abortion and breast cancer and yet most women remain unaware that there is any connection.

In 1989, one study (Holly L. Howe et al., “Early Abortion and Breast Cancer Risk among Women under Age 40,” International Journal of Epidemiology 18, no. 2 (1989): 300-304) relied on New York state medical records reported that abortion increased a woman’s risk of getting breast cancer by 90%.

Then, in 1996, Dr. Joel Brind (J. Brind et al., “Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis,” Journal of Epidemiology  Community Health 50 (1996): 481-496) combined the statistics from 23 different worldwide studies and found a 30% increase of breast cancer risk among women who chose abortion after already giving birth and a 50% increase of breast cancer risk among women who chose abortion before giving birth.

Another study (A.E. Laing et al., “Breast cancer risk factors in African-American women: the Howard University Tumor Registry experience,” Journal of the National Medical Association 85, no. 12 (1993): 931-939) done on African-American women by researchers at Howard University showed that African-American women over 50 were almost five times more likely to get breast cancer if they had abortions compared with women who had not.

“Fifty-eight out of 74 worldwide studies dating back to 1957 have shown that abortion increases a woman’s risk of getting breast cancer. Nineteen of the 24 studies done on women from the United States show an increased risk of breast cancer associated with abortion.

and

“In 2014 the prestigious Medical Journal Cancer, Causes, Control published a huge systematic review and meta-analysis of 36 studies across China. They found that women who have at least one abortion, have a substantial 44% increased risk for getting breast cancer; compared to women who did not have an abortion.

Yet,

“while the media is comfortable telling women not to take hormone replacement therapy because of the increased risk of breast cancer, it refuses to extend the same logic to abortion and its effects on estrogen levels in the body. If both result in increased estrogen levels without a subsequent maturation of breasts’ cells, then logically both can result in increased breast cancer risk."

The Power of Words to Deceive Humanity is Unmistakable.

As George Orwell said, “If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought,” and as he predicted, language is growing ever more deceitful every day.

“Given such a grave situation, we need now more than ever to have the courage to look the truth in the eye and to call things by their proper name, without yielding to convenient compromises or to the temptation of self-deception. In this regard, the reproach of the Prophet is extremely straightforward: **“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness” **(Is 5:20). -Evangelium Vitae “The Gospel of Life”, n. 58

Since the landmark decision issued in 1973--Roe v. Wade, the abortion industry has profited immensely from the approximate 1.4 million lives it takes every single year, of which more than half of those "choosing" abortion are younger than 25 years old. (52% to be exact). It accomplishes this by the subversive use of language, attempting to minimize the reality of abortion, using convenient doublespeak and replacing realistic terminology with euphemisms to assure and assuage the gullible public and to cloak its menacing presence in "liberty," "freedom" and "choice."

For instance, when a woman is pregnant and she wants the baby, she will say "I'm having a baby" no matter where she is in her pregnancy. However, when she doesn't want the baby, they call what they want to destroy “tissue.”

Abortion and Systematic Eugenics

Abortion is one of the most identified liberal causes of modern politics, right up there with equal rights for women, African Americans and other minorities. Yet, the founders of the abortion movement were racists who despised the poor, and who advocated abortion as a means of eliminating the poor and undesired races.

We most associate eugenics with the Nazis, but the term "eugenics" was coined in the mid 1800’s by Francis Galton, the cousin of Charles Darwin, and became a very popular movement to create a society in which those who were considered “superior” would reproduce, while those who were deemed “inferior” would be strongly and sometimes forcibly encouraged not to reproduce. Margaret Sanger, founder of American Birth Control League, which later changed its name to Planned Parenthood, and member of the American Eugenics Society, was a strong suppoter of the eugenics movement. She even met with members of the Klan, and supported the use of sterilization to rid the planet of the “unfit.”

In Margaret Sanger’s “Birth Control and Racial Betterment,” the Planned Parenthood founder links the goals of eugenics with her own goals of promoting birth control:

“We who advocate Birth Control, on the other hand, lay all our emphasis upon stopping not only the reproduction of the unfit but upon stopping all reproduction when there is not economic means of providing proper care for those who are born in health. …While I personally believe in the sterilization of the feeble-minded, the insane and syphilitic, I have not been able to discover that these measures are more than superficial deterrents when applied to the constantly growing stream of the unfit… Eugenics without Birth Control seems to us a house builded upon the sands. It is at the mercy of the rising stream of the unfit….

In 1932, Sanger called for the poor and those she considered to be “morons and immoral” to be shipped to colonies where they would live in “Farms and Open Spaces” dedicated to brainwashing these so-called “inferior types” into having what Sanger called better “moral conduct.”

In Sanger's book "Pivot of Civilization", she referred to the urban poor, and their increasing numbers, as "an ever widening margin of biological waste." (p.134.), and one of her mottos was "More [children] from the fit, less from the unfit." (p.104 & 179.) Margaret Sanger wasn't the only founder of the abortion movement with racist and eugenicist ideals. Co-founders and board member Lothrup Stoddard wrote the book The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy, which was reviewed favorably in Birth Control Review, and co-founder and board member, C. C. Little, was president of the Third Race Betterment Conference, and he advocated preserving the purity of "Yankee stock" through limiting the births of non-Whites.

It's significant that Planned Parenthood continues to support Sanger with no qualifiers.

“But has Planned Parenthood changed? It is significant to note that Planned Parenthood has never distanced itself from the vision and ideology of its founder. Successive presidents of the organization have praised her work, including Faye Wattleton, who said, "As we celebrate the 100th birthday of Margaret Sanger, our courageous leader, we should be very proud of what we are and what our mission is. It is a very grand mission; abortion is only the tip of the iceberg." (Faye Wattleton, president Planned Parenthood Federation of America, speech, February 5, 1979.)

One can only wonder how abortion rights came to be adopted by liberals in the Democratic Party, or any other party. It is difficult to image how it came to be identified with other liberal causes. Through a slick media campaign and effective sloganeering, Planned Parenthood painted abortion as a compassionate and caring alternative to childbirth. Their motivation however may be altogether different. It seems that abortion still today, rather than being seen as a way of helping the poor and minorities, is considered the easiest solution for our economic problems. Don't help the poor, just eliminate them.

Moreover, on par with the eugenics movement of the late 19th and early 20th century, advances in biotechnology have made the possibility of "desinger babies" almost certain. The technology to choose socially advantageous  characteristics of your child using a process called pre-implantation genetic diagnosis already exists. As it is, pre-screening gives parents the choice to eliminate babies who fail to meet their standards or desires.  As it is, with the pressure to produce "superior" or "trophy" offspring, "helicopter" and "snow plow" parents try to transform their children into "achievement machines." In this kind of consumerist environment where survival of the fittest is fully embraced "mistakes" or "unfits" are and will continue to be aborted as the dehumanizing of socitiey continues to escalate. Iceland has nearly eliminated children with Down syndrome through systematic abortion, and in the U.S., it is estimated that the vast majority of babies diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted.

“James Hughes, a bioethicist and director of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, says that the right to choose a child’s traits, cosmetic or not, should be part of a parent’s basic reproductive freedoms. Reproductive freedoms shouldn’t apply just to contraception and abortion rights, Hughes tells Big Think. “They also include the freedom to have children, and the kind of children we prefer.”

According to the history books, the Nazis lost the war, yet, eugenics is not only alive and well, it's accelerating beyond the Nazi's wildest dreams, and abortion is one of its most efficacious tools, or dare I say, weapons.

Abortion and Population Control

In what some tout as an overpopulated world, some advocate the right to an abortion in the cases of overpopulation, poverty, and financial burden, so isn't abortion justified for population control and to ease the financial and emotional burden a child may put on a family? On society?

First of all, overpopulation is a Myth It’s been calculated that the entire world population of 7 billion people could be placed in one gigantic city within the borders of the state of Texas. Our problem is not too many people and not enough resources, very simply put, it's a problem of waste, greed, government inefficiency, and distribution of resources.

Secondly, the European and U.S. birthrate are below replacement levels. Consider that zero population growth requires women must bear 2.1 children. Well, since 1972, there have only been two years where the fertility rate has reached at least 2.1 children. In fact, it's gotten so bad that several countries around the world, including Germany, Singapore, Japan, and Russia, even offer prospective parents incentives for having a baby.

“Contrary to what you might hear, the most pressing problem in country after country today is not overpopulation, but underpopulation. In a time of fiscal austerity, the last thing that we need to be doing is spending more tax dollars to drive down the birth rate, reducing the amount of human capital available, and making us all poorer in the long run--Steven W. Mosher, President of the Population Research Institute (PRI)

If nothing else, legalized abortion has resulted in over 60 million fewer taxpayers in America to support the elderly.



Many abortion laws lay down a stage of pregnancy after which abortion is unlawful, yet as you can see from the picture above, how early in its life the baby begins to acquire human characteristics. At the moment of conception, the embryo receives its own unique genetic code, distinct from that of its mother or father, from the moment a sperm fertilizes an egg, a new individual of the human species is formed and the innate sacredness of human life is evident, a life that can receive and react to personal care from others, a minimal mark of a human being. The evidence of that uniqueness supports the belief that ensoulment takes place at conception, and even if you are unsure that this is true, isn't it always better to err on the side of life? In other words, as long as the mother's life is not in danger, isn't it always better to err on the side of life?

“All the DNA is there from conception and the heart begins to beat four weeks after conception!

Why does the mainstream media not only completely ignore the risks of abortion, but promote flawed studies to counteract the evidence of the abortion cancer link?
Why do the billion dollar Cancer organizations and societies supposedly devoted to stopping cancer not only  remain silent, but actively deny the abortion cancer link?
Why are we fed euphemistic language to encourage support of abortion?
Why do the politically-funded national medical organizations refuse to link abortion with cancer, and refuse to acknowledge the negative reprecussions of abortion, instead advocating abortion as "reproductive health"?
Why does the establishment and culture promote abortion and associate it so strongly with civil rights, with women's rights, with freedom and liberty?
Why is it that anyone who is pro-life, or anti-abortion is immediately designated misoginistic? Anti-women's rights?
Why do the abortion elites proliferate abortion clinics in low-income and minority neighborhoods?  Why are abortion patients disproportinately poor? Why do we celebrate the eugenicist, Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood and why do we obscure her outspoken support for eugenics?
Why is Margaret Sanger a hero?
Why do we empower women to avoid having babies?
Why do we embrace the disregarding of human life?

The answers to these questions and many more require one to open his or her eyes and see the "profit before people" "efficiency-before-people" "power before people" wealth plundering dehumanizing establishment for what it is.  Because the more abortion is embedded into the laws and practices of society, the more insensitive and dehumanized we become because we have sanctioned the right to dispose of the life of the weakest and most defenseless members.

“If we say that a mother can kill her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill each other?" -- Mother Teresa

The Business of Abortion "Blood Money"



Links:

Tax Forms Show Buffett, Wealthy Elite Fund Planned Parenthood/World Abortion Empire with hundreds of millions of dollars

Abortion Facts

The State of Abortin in the United States January 2018

National Right to Life
Baby Killing Tourism and the Death of a Culture

The Ripple Effect of Abortion

Studies that Confirm the Abortion-Breast Cancer Link

Informed Concent or Institutionalized Eugenics? How the Medical Profession Encourages Abortion or Fetuses with Down Syndrome.


Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger Spoke to the Ku Klux Klan and Supported Eugenics. So Why Does the Organization Still Honor Her?Margaret Sanger: More Eugenic Than Fellow Eugenicists

Cruelly Crushed by Abortion

Breast Cancer and the Politics of Abortion in the United States

Abortion - A Liberal Cause?

Researchers Uncover Hidden Risk Factor For Breast Cancer

The Breast Cancer Epidemic: Modeling and Forecasts Based on Abortion and Other Risk Factors

The Overpopulation Myth and the New MoralityThe Overpopulation Myth

Do laws work to stop abortion?Canada Silent No More

Abortion: Issues and Controversies

Live Action
Abortion

HUSH

Former Satanic ‘high wizard’: We must fight abortion with spiritual weapons

Former Satanist: ‘I performed satanic rituals inside abortion clinics’

Read more...

Planned Parenthood Does Adjust Abortion Procedures To Harvest Organs

In the first video: Dr. Deborah Nucatola of Planned Parenthood commented on baby-crushing: “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”

In the second video: Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Mary Gatter joked, “I want a Lamborghini” as she negotiated the best price for baby parts.

In the third video: Holly O’Donnell, a former Stem Express employee who worked inside a Planned Parenthood clinic, detailed first-hand the unspeakable atrocities and how she fainted in horror over handling baby legs.

In the fourth video: Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Savita Ginde stated, “We don’t want to do just a flat-fee (per baby) of like, $200. A per-item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it.” She also laughed while looking at a plate of fetal kidneys that were “good to go.”

In the fifth video: Melissa Farrell of Planned Parenthood-Gulf Coast in Houston boasted of Planned Parenthood’s skill in obtaining “intact fetal cadavers” and how her “research” department “contributes so much to the bottom line of our organization here, you know we’re one of the largest affiliates, our Research Department is the largest in the United States.”

In the sixth video: Holly O’Donnell described technicians taking fetal parts without patient consent: “There were times when they would just take what they wanted. And these mothers don’t know. And there’s no way they would know.”

In the seventh and perhaps most disturbing video: Holly O’Donnell described the harvesting, or “procurement,” of organs from a nearly intact late-term fetus aborted at Planned Parenthood Mar Monte’s Alameda clinic in San Jose, CA. “‘You want to see something kind of cool,’” O’Donnell says her supervisor asked her. “And she just taps the heart, and it starts beating. And I’m sitting here and I’m looking at this fetus, and its heart is beating, and I don’t know what to think.”

In the eighth video: StemExpress CEO Cate Dyer admits Planned Parenthood sells “a lot of” fully intact aborted babies.

The ninth video: catches a Planned Parenthood medical director discussing how the abortion company sells fully intact aborted babies — including one who “just fell out” of the womb.

The 10th video: catches the nation’s biggest abortion business selling specific body parts — including the heart, eyes and “gonads” of unborn babies.The video also shows the shocking ways in which Planned Parenthood officials admit that they are breaking federal law by selling aborted baby body parts for profit.

Unreleased Videos: Unreleased videos from CMP show Deb Vanderhei of Planned Parenthood caught on tape talking about how Planned Parenthood abortion business affiliates may “want to increase revenue [from selling baby parts] but we can’t stop them…” Another video has a woman talking about the “financial incentives” of selling aborted baby body parts.

The 11th video: catches a Texas Planned Parenthood abortionist planning to sell the intact heads of aborted babies for research. Amna Dermish is caught on tape describing an illegal partial-birth abortion procedure to terminate living, late-term unborn babies which she hopes will yield intact fetal heads for brain harvesting.

Full unedited footage:

Read more...

The Abortion Industry: Baby Flesh Pills, Roasted Human Fetuses and the Harvesting of Fetal Baby Parts

Sound like a horror movie? It's not. Although, it seems as if real life is becoming a horror movie, especially considering our grisly human fetal industry.

A British man of Taiwanese origin,has been arrested by the Thai police for having six roasted human fetuses in his luggage. Reports say he intended to sell the fetuses in Taiwan where some believe they would bring luck and wealth.  He could have made about $40,000

The fetuses were wrapped in gold leaf which led the police to believe that they were meant to be used in a black magic ritual called Guman Thong, which translate to 'golden child'. A traditional Guman Thong is made from the dead baby of a woman who died in childbirth.In the past, monks would cut the baby's body out of the mother', which they had exhumed from the grave, performed a ritual over it and then baked it. The recent arrest, along with the 2,000 fetuses found hidden in a Buddhist temple morgue that appear to have come from illegal abortion clinics.over 2,000 fetuses found in a Buddhist temple in Thailand less than two years ago,  has revealed that the ancient, illegal practices are still ongoing, catering to an international black market of the occult.

However, this is just the tip of a very dark iceberg.  The "abortion industry" is a huge profit making business. On March 8, 2000, ABC's news weekly 20/20 produced evidence of "a thriving industry in which aborted fetuses women donate to help medical research are being marketed for hundreds, even thousands of dollars." Chris Wallace interviewed several people involved in the harvesting of fetal body parts and produced a price list from one firm, Opening Lines, offering fetal spinal cords for $325, fetal reproductive organs for $550, fetal brains for $999 (if less than eight weeks), and the like.  A 1999 brochure from Opening Lines, a Division of Consultative and Diagnostic Pathology, Inc. stated purpose is to “maximize the utilization of fresh fetal tissue [they] process.”

Here is a current price list.

Partial-birth abortion, much more risky to mothers, are favored over other late-term methods of abortion because it affords the greatest opportunity to profit from the harvesting of fetal parts.  A hearing before congress revealed that most of the babies are 'harvested' alive, without anesthesia, to secure freshest organs. 

A new product warning label is needed: Fetal Free.

"Unborn babies at 20 weeks development actually feel pain more intensely than adults,” reports Dr. Ranalli, a neurologist at the University of Toronto. He adds, “[This is a] uniquely vulnerable time, since the pain system is fully established, yet the higher level pain-modifying system has barely begun to develop”

Despite this known fact, abortions are still routinely performed without the use of pain-mitigating interventions for the fetus".

While many companies tout humane and cruelty-free practices in industries involving animals (poultry) and in product-testing methodologies, abortion techniques are decidedly painful for the fetus and include one of the following procedures,

• Partial-birth abortion(D X): The unborn baby is delivered feet first, except for the head, which is punctured at the base of the skull with a sharp object. Thebrain is then suctioned out, killing the child.
• Dilation and Evacuation (D E): Sharp-edged instruments are used to grasp,twist, and tear the baby’s body into pieces, which are then removed from the womb.
• Saline abortion: Salt water is injected into the womb through the mother’s abdomen. The unborn baby swallows this fluid, is poisoned and dies in a process that sometimes takes 24 hours. The toxic saline solution causes severe burns over the unborn child’s entire body

In 1999, fifty U.S. company's purchased the stem cells, one company under the name American Society for Anti-Aging, and a company called Senomyx uses embryonic stem cells to test popular foods that we all eat. Pepsi just recently stopped using them , but Nestle, and Lipton are patrons of Senomyx. The latest company to hit the headlines is StemCells Inc, which has just gained federal approval in the US to harvest the brains from abortions, and use them in experiments.

I guess if you believe a fetus is not really a human, just a clump of cells, then you should have no objection to to this grisly industry.  At the same time, I bet you can't help but feel a twinge of disgust.   .

Links:

Thousands of pills filled with powdered human baby flesh discovered by customs officials in South Korea

Read more...

Babies are"Morally Irrevelant" So Killing Babies No Different than Abortion

As the abortion debate continues to rage on, the most important question at the center of this hot-button issue remains the same, "When does human life begin?." The answer very much depends on one's view of what a human being is. For instance, do you believe human beings deserve special dignity? Are human beings worthy of special respect? Or, is it okay to kill and eat human beings the same way we kill and eat chickens, pigs, and cows? Is it okay to enslave and use human beings the way we do horses and/or oxen? One thing is certain: the answers to these questions cannot be determined by empirical science.

Up until now, most of us believe human beings are intrinsically valuable - equal in fundamental worth and dignity - because of who we are. Not because of the transient qualities we may, or may not possess? Not because of what we can contribute to society. After all, we're human-beings, not human-doings. So, if we are intrinsically valuable because of who we are, and not because of our capacity to do things  when does that unique cluster of cells that we all start out as, become a human being? Remember, the physical/materialistic is the only aspect of the human being that empirical science can confirm. Science cannot substantiate the immaterial aspect of the human being - the consciousness/ soul.

Today, in America, one in four pregnancies ends in abortion. Most of us, including myself, do not give this subject much thought because it's become so universally accepted, whether we are "pro-life" or "pro-choice". This could also signal what might be called a hardening of sensibilities, especially considering what some academics are seriously discussing and publishing. That is, the right to kill your newborn, or as they so eloquently put it, "after-birth abortion".

That's right. The Journal of Medical Ethics recently published the paper, After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?  Parents should have the right to kill newborn babies because they are not "actual persons".  The authors argue that there is no moral difference between a fetus and a newborn because their capacities to do things are the same; hence, if abortion is lawful, infanticide should be lawful.

You might say to yourself, "So what...it's not been made law." While that's true, it's important to understand that since these arguments are acceptable to publish, the implication is there is potential for societal acceptance. To be sure, The Journal of Medical Ethics rejects many more papers than it accepts.

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

As absurd as this sounds, it's not, when you really think about it. Many of those who cringe at the thought of killing a newborn, defend, tooth and nail, the right to kill that same child a few days/months sooner. They're that certain there is a difference. If a fertilized egg is not a human, then it never will be, because nothing is added to it after that time.

The bottom line is that this is just part of an overall message that becomes clearer everyday: if for any reason you are an inconvenient and/or non-productive member of society, you need to be eliminated for the "greater good".

Read more...

Anti-Abortionists and Advocates for Gay Marriage Naturally Form a Symbiotic Relationship.

Believe me, it's not easy to oppose abortion and advocate for gay marriage at the same time, as those who believe this way tend to ruffle the feathers of both conservatives and liberals. So, I will frame this argument from a "morally relativistic" point of view (even though I'm a moral realist), as it eliminates any type of overall morality from interfering with my attempt at "logic".

Christians often choose abortion as the issue that determines which lever they pull when choosing who they want to represent them in Washington. Unfortunately, those same Christians often oppose gay marriage. This is clearly a non-sequitur, as gay marriage is a natural "antidote" to abortion. On the other hand, advocates of same-sex marriage often support the right to choose when abortion should be a non-issue for the exclusively homosexual, as homosexuality naturally limits abortion. Remember, this argument is from a morally relativistic point of view as a moral relativist has no right to impose his sense of morality on anyone else.

Therefore, I propose the following argument to support my position.

1. Premise: Life begins at conception.
2. Premise: Homosexuals who practice homosexuality exclusively cannot conceive.
3. Premise: Abortion ends the process that conception began.
4. Inference: This implies that homosexuals cannot begin the process of life.
5. Inference: Therefore homosexuals cannot have abortions.
6. Conclusion: Homosexuals naturally limit the number of abortions.

Right off the bat, people will dispute premise #1 because most "pro-choicers" do not believe life begins at conception, however I argue it does. With the exception of Jesus Christ, without conception, 99.9% of us would not exist. Evidence to debate premise #2 and #3 is non-existent.

Okay, where does "symbiosis" enter the equation? Well, homosexuality, by its very nature cuts down on the rate of abortion without any effort from anti-abortionists. Abortion, by its very nature, is a non-issue for homosexuals, if they are allowed to love the way God intended and since marriage, supposedly, is the ideal institution for the love between two people to flourish, then gay marriage is inevitable, as it promotes love, contains promiscuity, and greatly cuts down on the rate of abortion in more ways than one.

In addition to the natural deterrent gay marriage plays in lowering the abortion rate, it also has the potential to reduce the rate of abortion even further. Gay married couples, because they cannot conceive on their own, often adopt children, something "pro-lifers" often argue as an alternative to terminating a pregnancy.

So, in my humble opinion, anti-abortionists arguing against gay marriage is like...like, I don't know, anti-evolutionists arguing against the bible.

Read more...

Defining Life Beginning and End

Presidential nominee Ron Paul, an obstetrician for thirty years, who has delivered 4,000 babies is convinced life begins at conception and he is not making a political, moral or religious statement; he is making a scientific statement.

I can assure you life begins at conception. I am legally responsible for the unborn, nomatter what I do, so there's a legal life there. The unborn has inheritance rights, and if there's an injury or a killing, there is a legal entity. There is no doubt about it.

Determining when the fetus is "viable" outside the womb is often used as a measure of when "life" begins. There is no doubt that future advances in medical technology will continue to reduce the time a fetus is dependent on the womb for survival, thus, lowering the legal definition of when life begins. Should our definition of when life begins depend on future scientific achievements or should we use our common sense and determine the beginning of life by the beginning of life?

Our current and future capability should have nothing to do with determining when it's OK to terminate "life". Sophisticated ultrasound and other technological breakthroughs show the roots of human behavior begin to develop only a few weeks after conception. The embryo's brain begins to bulge right away. At five weeks, the cerebral cortex is deeply creased and convoluted. At nine weeks, the embryo can bend its body, hiccup and react to loud sounds. At week ten, it moves its arms, "breathes', amniotic fluid in and out opens its jaw, and stretches, yawns, sucks, and swallows as well as feels and smells. From 12 weeks gestation, the baby appears to be “walking in the womb” and between 13-15 weeks the baby can taste. By the end of the second trimester, he or she can hear. These little creatures sure keep busy and sound full of life to me.

Life the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally; the animate existence or period of animated existence

New evidence shows that fetuses can feel pain by 20 weeks gestation and possibly earlier. Don't you think it's better to err on the side of the baby feeling pain earlier?

My mother told me I was operated on at three-months old with no anesthesia because infants didn't feel pain. Well, guess what? They do. No wonder I feel so strongly about this issue as I'm sure anyone older than 25-years old who has had the great privilege to be sliced open in the first couple months of post womb experience would. Supposedly we are not able to remember pain, well, I do! I remember the pain!

Maureen L. Condic, a assistant Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah, in her article, Life: Defining the beginning by the end tries to answer the question, "What does the nature of death tell us about the nature of human life?"

The medical and legal definition of death draws a clear distinction between living cells and living organisms. Organisms are living beings composed of parts that have separate but mutually dependent functions. While organisms are made of living cells, living cells themselves do not necessarily constitute an organism. The critical difference between a collection of cells and a living organism is the ability of an organism to act in a coordinated manner for the continued health and maintenance of the body as a whole. It is precisely this ability that breaks down at the moment of death, however death might occur. Dead bodies may have plenty of live cells, but their cells no longer function together in a coordinated manner. We can take living organs and cells from dead people for transplant to patients without a breach of ethics precisely because corpses are no longer living human beings. Human life is defined by the ability to function as an integrated whole-not by the mere presence of living human cells.

What does the nature of death tell us about the beginning of human life? From the earliest stages of development, human embryos clearly function as organisms. Embryos are not merely collections of human cells, but living creatures with all the properties that define any organism as distinct from a group of cells; embryos are capable of growing, maturing, maintaining a physiologic balance between various organ systems, adapting to changing circumstances, and repairing injury. Mere groups of human cells do nothing like this under any circumstances. The embryo generates and organizes distinct tissues that function in a coordinated manner to maintain the continued growth and health of the developing body. Even within the fertilized egg itself there are distinct "parts" that must work together-specialized regions of cytoplasm that will give rise to unique derivatives once the fertilized egg divides into separate cells. Embryos are in full possession of the very characteristic that distinguishes a living human being from a dead one: the ability of all cells in the body to function together as an organism, with all parts acting in an integrated manner for the continued life and health of the body as a whole.

Embryos, fetuses, babies or whatever term you choose, are unique human organisms. As Ms. Condic pointed out, life is not determined simply by a group of living rather by the ability of various cells to function as a coordinated organism.

From the landmark case of Karen Ann Quinlan (1976) on, the courts have consistently upheld organismal function as the legal definition of human life. Failure to apply the same standard that so clearly defines the end of human life to its beginning is both inconsistent and unwarranted.

Read more...

Unwanted Baby Girls In India

New Delhi, Feb 18: The Union government plans to set up a series of orphanages to raise unwanted baby girls in a bid to halt the widespread practice of aborting female foetuses, according to a senior government official.

Dubbed the "cradle scheme," the plan is an attempt to slow the practice that international groups say has killed more than 10 million female foetuses in the last two decades, leading to an alarming imbalance in the ratio between males and females in India, Renuka Chowdhury, the minister of state for women and child development, told the Press Trust of India news agency in an interview published Sunday.

"What we are saying to the people is have your children, don't kill them. And if you don't want a girl child, leave her to us," Chowdhury told the agency, adding that the government planned to set up a centre in each regional district.

"We will bring up the children. But don't kill them because there really is a crisis situation," she said.

On Sunday, police arrested a gynaecologist and janitor at a hospital near Bhopal after the discovery of nearly 400 bones from foetuses and newborns in a pit behind the hospital. It is believed they are the remains of unwanted baby girls.

Many districts in the country routinely report only 800 girls born for every 1,000 boys. According to the latest census figures in India, the number of girls per 1,000 boys declined from 945 to 927 between 1991 and 2001.

Asked if the scheme would not encourage parents to abandon female infants, Chowdhury said: "It doesn't matter. It is better than killing them."

Discrimination against girls stems from the low value attached to females in Indian society. Girls are seen as a burden on the family, requiring a large dowry, which many poor families cannot afford. Females are generally the last to be educated or to get medical treatment.

Tests to determine the gender of a foetus are outlawed and the government says it is clamping down on doctors who break the law.

Read more...