Originally posted at Live Action News
Currently, America is a society that continues make the case for abortion by insisting that some lives have less value than others. The relentless effort to devalue life could explain why a 35-year-old single mother in Somervell County Texas thought she had the right to choose to place her little 2-year-old baby girl in the family oven.
No one knows for sure what Tasha Shontell Hatcher was thinking, or what her motivation was for burning her baby in the stove. Thankfully, as the child was being roasted alive, for some reason, Hatcher confessed to witnesses who quickly called the authorities.
As a result, shortly before midnight on St. Patrickâ€™s Day, the Sheriffâ€™s Department rescued the little girl who was immediately taken by air ambulance to Texas Health Harris Methodist Hospital in Fort Worth, Texas to be treated for second and third-degree burns. From there, the child was airlifted to a regional burn center at Parkland Hospital in Dallas where she remains sedated.
For burning a baby a stove,Â Miss HatcherÂ is being held in Somervell County Jail after being charged with inflicting â€œserious bodily harm to a child,â€ which is a first-degree felony. After being arraigned on Saturday, Hatcher is being held on a $300,000 bond.
Meanwhile, Somervell deputies, Texas Rangers, and Child Protective Services are investigating the case.Â A spokeswoman from CPS said that when the severely burned child is discharged from the hospital she would be placed in foster care.
Burning children alive is nothing new. It started in Old Testament daysÂ with the sacrificing of infantsÂ to theÂ fire-god Molech.
Today, there areÂ mothers who chose to forgo theÂ saline infusion abortionÂ (which burns preborn children both inside and out) and then, somewhere along the line, apparently change their minds and decide itâ€™s acceptable to cook children alive outside of the womb.
Last December,Â 34-year-old Ka YangÂ was convicted of first-degree murder in the death of her one-month-old daughter Mirabelle Thao-Lo.Â According to prosecutors, in 2011, Mirabelle was placed along with her pacifier into the microwave by her mother for the sin of being â€œirritable and fussy and holding [mom] back from workâ€ at an architectural firm.
And so, if the thought of a mother committing the crime of burning her baby alive horrifies America, itâ€™s probably because itâ€™s happening right before our eyes.
Originally posted at LiveAction News
In yet another example of blatant disregard for the sanctity of life, minutes after giving birth, a young woman, frightened of her Pakistani Muslim parentâ€™s response to her pregnancy, threw her newborn from theÂ eighth-floor windowÂ of a Chicago high-rise.
Sadly, flinging infants to their death seems to be a popular new way to dispose of unwanted children.
Recently in New York there have beenÂ three similar casesÂ where mothers murdered their infants by pitching them out of apartment house windows.
The most recent motherÂ is Mubashra Uddin, who threw her 25-minutes-old baby girl from a window in a bedroom she shared with her younger sister. At around 11:20 pm, the infant was found dying from fractures to the skull, spine, and ribs. The naked and bloody newborn had landed on the grass where she was found by a passerby still breathing and struggling to stay alive.Â After being rushed to Weiss Memorial Hospital, at 12:25 am, the baby died of extensive blunt force trauma which included a lacerated liver and bowel.
According to officials from the Cook County sheriffâ€™s office, the 19-year-old DeVry University A-student tossed her full-term, 7 pound 11-ounce daughter out of her bedroom window because she heard her mother walking towards her room.
Except for one close friend and the father of the child, UddinÂ had kept her pregnancy a secret from everyone by wearing loose clothing.Â Thatâ€™s why, immediately after giving birth, rather than put her babyâ€™s life before her own, Miss Uddin chose to protect herself from parental disapproval by murdering her newborn child.
When police arrived at the Uddin family apartment, despite finding a dead baby in the street below,Â bloody sheets, bloody scissorsÂ and blood on the floor, the woman denied everything. However, once in police custody, the young mother eventually admitted â€œmultiple timesâ€ on video to dropping her baby out of a window to the concrete sidewalk below.
For killing â€œBaby Jane Uddin,â€ Uddin, who was initially hospitalized and held without bail, is being charged with first-degree murder. According to her family lawyer Adam Sheppard, herÂ â€œfamily is standing by her,â€ and, after the fact, sheÂ seemsÂ both â€œcontriteâ€ and â€œhumble.â€
According to police sources, the motive for UddinÂ disposing of the newborn like trash was fear of her East Indian familyâ€™s reaction to her having aÂ child withÂ her African-American boyfriend (of whom the family disapproved).
Judge Peggy Chiampas said the teen should be held without bond while she was in the hospital having a surgical procedure.Â After her release from the hospital, at a Â hearing where UddinÂ was again denied bail and told she would beÂ held until she is tried for murder,Â Judge JamesÂ BrownÂ said that â€œDropping a baby out of an eighth-story window to its eventual death is exceedingly evil and exceedingly cruel.â€
Chiampas also said that family circumstances, which apparently played into the infantâ€™s death, would be considered. In other words, it appears that to some,Â if a woman decides to toss a baby out an 8thfloor window, culturally diverse child-rearing, racism, and downright ignorance shouldÂ be considered an excuse to grant lesser charges.
Meanwhile, Illinois has a safe haven law which permits infants up to 30 days old to be dropped off at safe locations, including hospitals, with no questions asked.
That means â€˜contrite and humble,â€™ honor rollÂ college student Uddin â€“ who was clever enough conceal her pregnancy from her parents for nine months, and had three-months-shy-of-a-year to figure out howÂ to deliver her baby to a safe haven â€“ simply decidedÂ to kill her instead.
Originally posted at LiveAction News
Less than a week after a baby boy swaddled in dollar store towels was found in aÂ Christmas mangerÂ on the lawn of a Catholic church in Queens, New York, another newborn was discoveredÂ buried alivealong a riverbed bike path in the Compton area of Los Angeles.
Buried in a foot deep crevice, the 24- to-36 hour old baby girl was discovered by two women who, while out walking, heard a babyâ€™s â€œmuffled cryâ€ that at first one had thought might be a catâ€™s meow.
When local deputies arrived on the scene what they found wasÂ not a cat, but a tiny girl in a hole, buried underÂ asphalt and rubble.
The baby was found wrapped in a hospital blanket, which led Â authorities to believe she was likely born in a medical facility.Â Â AfterÂ being rescued, the childÂ wasÂ treated at the scene by paramedics and taken to the hospital where she was kept for observation. Thankfully, she is in stable condition.
Marvin Jaramilla, spokesperson for the L.A. County sheriffâ€™s office, said that judging from her compromised body temperature, the newborn would not have survived the night if the women hadnâ€™t responded to the cries.
Although 3,000 aborted babies are disposed of daily without much reaction from the public, witnessing a baby being fished out of a foot deep fissure mayÂ jar the senses of someÂ who would otherwiseÂ ignore the treatment of children as human garbage.
Compton residents who were eyewitnesses reacted emotionally, with shock, atÂ seeing a child disposed of in broad daylight by herÂ own mother.
Local grandfather Jesse Brew said,Â â€œI know we living in some bad times, but damn.â€ Brew didnâ€™t mince words when he added: â€œThatâ€™s why Iâ€™m saying they need to catch this person. You know, you need to go to jail. Thatâ€™s the place for you.â€
When the motherÂ is found, jail is Â whereÂ sheÂ may end up if convicted of charges that couldÂ includeÂ attempted murder and child endangerment.
Ryan McCrary, the son of Evangelina McCrary, the woman who initially found the baby, saidÂ that ever since,Â hisÂ mother has been distraught and is â€œreally emotional.â€
Then, likely making reference to Californiaâ€™sÂ Safe Surrender lawwhere babies up to three days old can be surrendered to authorities for safe haven, McCrary shared that â€œIt just hurts to see somebody leave a baby like that when there are so many places they can take them nowadays.â€
Angelica Blount, who with her sister found the baby,Â shared that the tiny girlâ€™s whimpering stopped when a sheriffâ€™s deputy cradled the newborn in his arms.
Neighbor Angel Flores expressed heartfelt gratitude when he said, â€œGod bless the two ladies that found this baby. God bless the babyâ€¦ that strong baby.â€Â Then, as Flores shared his thoughts, he summed up perfectly the current trend in America where women, withÂ disturbing regularity, dispose of living, breathing children. â€œThey could have done the right thing, and instead they came and dumped it here. I donâ€™t know the situation they have or whatâ€™s going on, but this is not right. This is not human.â€
Whether a child is aborted in an abortion facility, or living babies are disposed of in garbage bags,Â bathroomÂ trash cans,Â tossed outÂ of six-floor windows, or in this case, buried alive under asphalt and debris, Flores is right: mothers disposing ofÂ their offspringÂ seems extremely inhuman.
Rather than kill himÂ in the womb, or toss him out a window into courtyard after he was born, a Queens, New York, motherÂ wrapped her newbornÂ in towels purchased from a 99-cent store and laid him in a Christmas Nativity manger on the lawn ofÂ Holy Child JesusÂ Roman Catholic Church.
I looked around and didnâ€™t see anyone. I followed the cries. I walked to the little nativity home we had installed inside the churchâ€¦ I couldnâ€™t believe my eyes. The baby was wrapped in towels. He still had his umbilical cord. He was next to the Virgin (Mary).
Since the infant was found, police surveillance video has uncovered footage of a woman entering the church with what appears to be a baby who walkedÂ out with nothing in her arms. Officers also found tape in a local dollarÂ store showing a woman with an infant inside her jacket purchasing towels.
While authorities attempt to locate the woman on the tape, the healthy baby boy is now in the care of Administration of Childrenâ€™s Services.
In New York State, as long as the infant is handed over to an appropriate person, the law permits unwanted newborns to be anonymously abandoned at places called â€œsafe havens.â€ Â Women can surrender babies up to 30 days old at local churches, police stations, firehouses and hospitals.
Unfortunately, this mother could face criminal charges for leaving her baby in a manger without notifying anyone that he was there.
Calling the baby in the manger a â€œChristmas miracle,â€ one of the priests at the church, Father Christopher Ryan Heanue, said that the babyâ€™s mother â€œmust have been in a difficult place in her life.â€
Heanue added, â€œGod works in mysterious ways. â€
He certainly does! Perhaps we canÂ be thankful this Thanksgiving that a woman in New York City, where 40 percentÂ of pregnancies end in abortion, loved and cared enough for â€œBaby JesÃºsâ€ to swaddle him in towels and selflessly place him in a crÃ¨cheÂ at a Richmond Hill church.
Originally posted at Live Action News
A few weeks ago, women proud of destroying their unborn children started a #ShoutYourAbortion campaign on Twitter.Â The goal of the hashtag movement was to emphasize that exterminating oneâ€™s own flesh and blood need not be something a woman laments over or regrets.
Add that motherâ€™s-choice-trumpsâ€“sanctity-of-life message to Planned Parenthood playing down the sale of born-alive baby organs and itâ€™s easy to understand why, in the ultimate act of buyerâ€™s remorse, mothers are tossing their children out of windows like common trash.
Ms. Chowdhury chose not to mitigate her guilt by signing a release form for Planned Parenthood to harvest her infant son Rizwanâ€™s organs for sale. Instead, 20 days after his birth, at four oâ€™clock in the morning, Rashida tossed Rizwan â€“ dressed in a white and blue onesie â€“ out of the fourth-floor bathroom window of her Richmond Hill apartment complex.
Clearly disturbed, Ms. Chowdhury believed that an evil spirit possessed the babe after he was recently hospitalized with a viral infection. So, to banish the demon and to â€˜stop the pain,â€™ Chowdhury flung her son into a trash-strewn courtyard.Â An autopsy revealed that as a result of landing on the cement, Rizwan Ahmad died of blunt impact of the head and torso.Â Rizwanâ€™s tiny skull was fractured and he also had lacerations of brain, liver and spleen.
Had Rizwan been aborted, he would have suffered similar lacerations and fractures. The only difference for Chowdhury is that, unlike the #ShoutYourAbortion groupâ€™s offspring or born-alive children whose hearts were stopped by clinicians eager to harvest their brains, this tiny boy lived outside the womb for three weeks.
For exercising choice after the expiration date, Rashida, who pled not guilty, was charged with second-degree murder and intentional murder of a victim less than 11-years-old.
The following month, former child services worker Jennifer Berry, 33, of Yonkers, also deferred her right to choose until after her daughter was outside the womb.
Jennifer changed her mind after giving birth in her boyfriendâ€™s shower.Â With the babyâ€™s umbilical cord still attached, the mother tossed her still-breathing daughter â€“ together with the placenta â€“ out of a seventh-floor window into the yard of her boyfriendâ€™s Bronx apartment house.
Minutes after she threw the baby out the window, the childâ€™s father, Giovanni Johnson, who didnâ€™t know Jennifer was pregnant, found her bleeding in the shower.Â When he asked her if she was pregnant, she told him sheâ€™d had an abortion four months earlier.Â Maybe what Berry meant to say was â€œfour seconds earlier.â€ MaybeÂ she thought the murder she committed just seconds before Johnson found her in the shower was just a â€˜later-than-late-termâ€™ abortion.
Since then,Â investigators have been looking into the death of another one of Jennifer Berryâ€™s children â€“ a boy that allegedly died of SIDS in 2008 at just two and a half weeks old.
Notwithstanding, Berry toldÂ authorities that the 8-pound healthy baby girl she threw out the window was stillborn. But the autopsy report shows that, just like baby Rizwan, this baby girl was alive before she hit the pavement, and multiple blunt force injuries are what induced this tiny girlâ€™s post-birth demise.
If only Jennifer â€“ who like Rashida also pleaded not guilty â€“ had visited Planned Parenthood a few weeks earlier, the babyâ€™s death wouldnâ€™t have been a homicide. Such an ample supply of fetal tissue would likely have inspired the abortion providers to accommodate her desire to terminate her pregnancy in a less dramatic way and Berry wouldnâ€™t have been charged with second-degree murder and manslaughter.
In the third such incident in New York since August, Fordham Heights section of the Bronx, 27-year-old mother of four/former day care worker Tenisha N. FearonÂ threw six-month-old Junilah LawrenceÂ out of a sixth-floor window.
According to neighbor Lizette Rodriguez, prior to flinging the baby to her death, while standing naked in the window, a psychotic Tenisha #ShoutedHerDelayedAbortion to the gathering crowd, yelling, â€œHallelujah, Praise God! Iâ€™m going to throw her. Weâ€™re all gonna die!â€Â Despite people beggingÂ her, â€œDonâ€™t throw the baby, donâ€™t throw the baby,â€ after dangling her daughter out the window, Fearon let the child fall six stories to her death. On the pavement where she died, Junilah left behind one tiny shoe and a Mickey Mouse headband.
After being charged with murder and held without bail, a judge ordered Tenisha to undergo a psychiatric exam.
Planned Parenthood andÂ #ShoutYourAbortion aside, two medical ethicists formerly associated with Oxford, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, have already argued in a Journal of Medical Ethics articleÂ that newborn babies outside the womb are just as â€œmorally irrelevantâ€ as those inside the womb and disposing of them after they are born is no different from terminating them prior to birth.
Minerva and Giubilini believe that â€œwhat we call â€˜after-birth abortionâ€™ (killing a newborn)â€ should be permissible in all cases, whether or not the newborn is disabled. We can safely assume, however, that no one has yet ordered Minerva and Giubilini to undergo psychiatric exams.
Consequently, arguments for depriving the newborn of personhood are successfully blurring the line between pre- and post-birth abortion. Thatâ€™s why in some circles, infanticide, or the disposal of â€œpotential persons,â€ is now silently accepted by a slowly desensitizing culture as nothing more than a badly-timed belated abortion that women should still have the right to choose.
As a result, women with shrinking consciences, and especially the mentally unbalanced, are flushing babies down toilets, leaving their newborns in restroom garbage cans and at the curb in trash bags, and tossing their tiny infants out of windows.
Originally posted at Live Action News
AÂ woman somewhere in the vicinity of San Diego, California, recently delivered full-term twins. Whether the babies were born alive or were stillborn is yet to be determined by the San Diego Medical Examinerâ€™s office and homicide detectives who are currently investigating the cause of death.
What authorities do know is that at some point, fully developed twins who appeared to have reached 20 weeksâ€™ or more gestation were delivered, wrapped in a blanket, and dumped outside the gate of a private home.
Clearly, whoever discarded these babies didnâ€™t swaddle them to provide comfort or warmth.
Instead, homeowner David Branford spotted the blanket in his driveway, which is located on the north side of St. Peterâ€™s Catholic Church in Fallbrook. At first, Branford thought what he was seeing was a discarded doll. After doing his morning chores, Branford, who was still unsure, went back to check and realized it wasnâ€™t a toy in the blanket, but two dead human babies.
Branford immediately called 911, after which paramedics verified that the twins, with umbilical cords still attached to one placenta, were both dead.
An investigation is now underway, and the San Diego Sheriffâ€™s Departmentâ€™s homicide detectives are requesting information from anyone who knows of a woman in the area who has no baby to show as a result of a recent pregnancy.
The Bible in Micah 6:7 asks, â€œShall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?â€ That pointed question is crying out to be answered by a nation whose transgressions have resulted in millions of women hiding their sin by tossing away the fruit of life from within their bodies.
In the meantime, regardless of the womanâ€™s reason for her horrific act or the outcome of this particular investigation, any mother who would discard her child, dead or alive, on a cold street where garbage, glass, cigarette butts, and chewed gum litter the ground defies human imagination. And as disturbing as this tragedy may be, the case of the dead twins wrapped in a blanket lying in the street is just one more on a long list of examples of children, like rubbish, being coldly thrown away.
Typically, â€œcoming out of the closetâ€ has to do with oneâ€™s sexual orientation. But â€œcoming outâ€ also means â€™fessing up to something youâ€™ve kept secret in order to avoid embarrassment.
When it comes to the subject of abortion, having a vehemently radical pro-choice advocate in the White House has emboldened militant abortion and even latent infanticide supporters to slowly inch their way of the closet.
A prime example of someone whoâ€™s no longer embarrassed is Melissa Harris-Perry. Melissa is the tampon-earring-wearing, Mitt Romney black-grandson-mocking talking head from MSNBC.
No longer ashamed of embracing the unthinkable, Melissa joined the ranks of bioethicists when she said she believes that life begins when parents â€œfeelâ€ life begins. Harris-Perry came out of the antiquated first-trimester closet when she answered her own question: â€œWhen does life begin?â€ Melissaâ€™s answer: â€œ[it] depends an awful lot on the feeling of the parents.â€
The implication of such a dramatic statement is that abortion is acceptable as long as the parents of an unborn child have the â€œfeelingâ€ that their baby is not a fully living human being. That sort of twisted philosophy seems to imply that freedom of choice can be exercised at any time, at any age.
Planned Parenthood lobbyist Alisa LaPolt Snow testified against a Florida bill that would require that babies born alive in botched abortions be given medical care.Â When asked the question, â€œIf a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?â€ Ms. LaPolt Snow stuck her head out of the infanticide closet and said, â€œWe believe that any decision thatâ€™s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.â€
Recently, yet another representative came out at odds with those who oppose baby-killing. This time it was Planned Parenthood board member Valerie Tarico, Ph.D.
Besides Dr. Tarico being an angry ex-evangelical schooled at Wheaton College, home to The Billy Graham Center for Evangelicalism, sheâ€™s also one of 400 members of the Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwestâ€™s Board of Advocates, all of whom are united by their â€œpersonal integrity and commitment to the Planned Parenthood mission.â€
How anyone can associate â€œpersonal integrityâ€ with the deliberate destruction of innocent human life is in itself perplexing. Clearly, what is going on is an appeal to Americans who are abortion-friendly but conscience-conflicted. Taricoâ€™s goal is to lay out a convincing argument that â€œit is morally or spiritually imperative that a woman can stop a pregnancy that is underway.â€
To prove it, it appears the â€œborn againâ€ abortion promoterâ€™s life goal is to convince the flock and anyone else who will fall for her twisted theological viewpoint that abortion is both ethically and spiritually acceptable.
In an article entitled â€œAbortion as a Blessing, Grace, or Gift â€“ Changing the Conversation about Moral Values,â€ Valerie presents a recipe for abortion advocates to use so that the First Church of Feticide can â€œreclaim the moral high ground in the [abortion] debate.â€
She defines â€œbeing able to stop an ill-conceived gestationâ€ as a â€œsacred gift.â€ The author also portrays those who do the actual baby-butchering as doing the work of God. Ironically, the God she tries to imply theyâ€™re doing the work for is the main character in a Bible Valerie spends an inordinate amount of time mocking.
In other words, Tarico has come out of the closet as an abortion advocate on behalf of those who arenâ€™t as flippant about the unthinkable as Melissa Harris-Perry and Alisa LaPolt Snow.
In Taricoâ€™s past philosophical rantings, she mentions the value of â€œchosen children.â€ Citing â€œa personal example,â€ in her blog Tarico tells the story of why, over fear of possible toxoplasmosis-induced blindness and brain lesions, she aborted her unborn child after the first trimester.
Her reasoning concerns the higher moral ground and the sacredness of the larger village. Tarico said she feared that by having sightless offspring, sheâ€™d be negatively impacting that child and any future children, should she decide to let any of them live. In addition, sheâ€™d be â€œrisking [the] ability to give to the community [and] possibly creating a situation in which our family needed to suck more out of society than we could put back into it.â€
The only thing missing from Valerie Taricoâ€™s abortion-as-religion argument is the moral and spiritual validation of Melissa Harris-Perryâ€™s belief and Planned Parenthoodâ€™s practice of slaying newborn babies.
Itâ€™s undeniable that embarrassments over points of view and actions that used to be shameful and kept to oneself are gone. Instead, there are those emerging unabashed from the darkest closets who push pseudo-religiosity in hopes of spiritualizing selfishness and endorsing murder.
The other night Barack Obama came to Newtown, Connecticut to attend the Sandy Hook Prayer Vigil.Â He was there to offer condolences to the grieving and to honor the memory to the individuals killed in the massacre, whom he described as â€œtwenty beautiful children and six remarkable adults.â€
Of the six women who died, Obama conceded that â€œ[t]hey responded as we all hope we might respond in such terrifying circumstances â€” with courage and with love, giving their lives to protect the children in their care.â€ Right from the start, women being praised for laying down their lives for a child provided a stark contrast to the Sandra Fluke culture Obama usually promotes, where selfishness trumps the sanctity of life.
Nonetheless, the man who warned against tying politics to tragedy segued smoothly from grief and prayerfulness into using a catastrophe for his own political purposes.
Oblivious to the contradiction posed when a person who believes that a fetus is not a human and that medical care should not be given to infants born alive in botched abortions speaks touchingly of newborn babes, Obama said â€œWith their very first cry, this most precious, vital part of ourselves â€” our child â€” is suddenly exposed to the world, to possible mishap or malice.â€
The President, who in the past has likened unwanted pregnancy to punishment, then shared that â€œ[e]very parent knows there is nothing we will not do to shield our children from harm.â€
After discussing parents protecting their children, Obama entered African proverb â€œit takes a village to raise a childâ€ territory. The President suggested that parents are shocked when they realize that â€œloving your children isnâ€™t enough to keep them safe.â€ According to Obama, â€œteaching them well, is something we can only do together, with the help of friends and neighbors, the help of a communityâ€ â€“ and most importantly, â€œwith the help of a nation,â€ otherwise known as a liberal-ideology-pushing entity called the U.S. government.
The Collectivist-in-Chief then proceeded to shepherd Americaâ€™s children into the village with the following pronouncement: â€œAnd in that way, we come to realize that we bear a responsibility for every child because we’re counting on everybody else to help look after ours; that we’re all parents; that they’re all our children.â€
Then, he said â€œThis is our first task â€” caring for our children. It’s our first job. If we don’t get that right, we don’t get anything right. That’s how, as a society, we will be judged.â€ Amen to that one Mr. President, because right about now itâ€™s good to know that caring for all our children is what could stem the tide of judgment.
And by that measure, can we truly say, as a nation, that we are meeting our obligations? Can we honestly say that we’re doing enough to keep our children â€” all of them â€” safe from harm? Can we say that we’re truly doing enough to give all the children of this country the chance they deserve to live out their lives in happiness and with purpose?
Americaâ€™s most famous feticide and infanticide crusader, answered himself correctly when he then stated, â€œ[i]f we’re honest with ourselves, the answer is noâ€¦ And we will have to change.â€
He then recounted the grim fact that â€œSince [heâ€™s] been President, this is the fourth time [America] came together to comfort a grieving community torn apart by a mass shooting.â€ What Obama failed, or chose not to point out, was that since 1966 there have been 16 mass shootings in America, eight of which â€“ 50 percent â€“ took place on his watch.
In response toÂ a 953% increase in the annual mass-shooting rate in the last four years as compared to the previous 42 years, what did the President propose? Â More change, of course!
Therefore, in anticipation of the forthcoming arguments that are bound to arise in response to the sort of â€˜changeâ€™ he plans to implement, the President took preliminary steps to defuse predictable resistance. Obamaâ€™s vigil visit lay the groundwork for the â€œmeaningful actionâ€ he promised on the night of the shootings, by jumping in front of the debate.
The President argued that â€œWe will be told that the causes of such violence are complex, and that is true.â€Â However, in anticipation of enacting new laws, he then said â€œNo single law â€” no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world, or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society.â€ Using that kind reasoning, the truth should not be an â€œexcuse for inaction.â€
From the sound of things, it seems Americaâ€™s most ardent advocate for choice is about to circumvent the opposition to address gun laws, because â€œwhat other choice do we haveâ€ besides his choice? Â During a prayer service, Americaâ€™s Executive Power addict inappropriately flexed his sovereign muscle when he said that â€œin an effort aimed at preventing more tragedies like thisâ€ he would, once again, use â€œwhatever power this office holds.â€
Liberals believe 60 million dead babies and counting is a price worth paying for the right to choose. Now it sounds like the Second Amendment might be the price America is about to pay to ensure the safety of the same children who, were they inside a womb instead of a classroom, Obama would have zero problem aborting.
Signaling that freedom is about to be targeted and after expressing unwillingness to â€œaccept events like this as routine,â€ Obama then posed an unsettling question: â€œAre we really prepared to say that we’re powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard?â€
Letâ€™s remember â€“ for community organizer types, random carnage is not only a crisis, itâ€™s an opportunity that cries out for a remedy, especially when the death of innocent children provide the motivation to guilt the resistant into submission. Â Therefore, the tone and direction of the Presidentâ€™s remarks seemed to suggest that disagreeable Constitutionalists had better get out of the way.
Then, exploiting a grieving community, the President probed further, â€œAre we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?â€ That statement should incite terror in every American who cherishes liberty.
And so Barack Obama offered Sandy Hook his presidential condolences, tearless weeping, and poignant personal anecdotes on parenting. However, after the statement that indicated he plans to place the unpredictable security of a few above the established freedom of many, â€œthe price of our freedomâ€ was truly a chilling choice of words.
It is heartbreaking to think about the horror that ensued in that small Connecticut town where 28 innocent people were gunned down, eighteen of whom were the most innocent of innocents â€“ wide-eyed, angelic first graders -Â and one of whom was the shooterâ€™s own mother.
Babies â€“ little munchkins who came to school to learn to count, read and sit cross-legged on the floor during story hour â€“ these were the victims of a terror too unspeakable to comprehend.
Nonetheless, while America takes in and tries to process the sights, sounds and anguish of a tragedy of this magnitude, itâ€™s hard for those who are committed to the sanctity of life to ignore the hypocrisy currently afoot in the aftermath surrounding the ordeal.
Some may argue that it is highly inappropriate and insensitive, while 20 first-graders are being prepared for burial, to tie human suffering to the topic of abortion.Â But since liberals â€œnever want to let a serious crisis to go to waste,â€ why not follow that lead by using this tragedy as a â€œteachable moment?â€
For starters, itâ€™s important to recognize that some do not understand that for most conservatives itâ€™s the babies that drive our politics.Â A problem arises whenever little ones are hurt and liberals respond by condemning violence against children. Instantly, the prolife community is criticized for recognizing the absurd paradox and pointing out the leftâ€™s hypocrisy.
As pint-sized bodies are shuttled away from the Connecticut crime scene, itâ€™s important to remember that our nation legalized the slaughter of innocents more than 40 years ago.Â Then, recently we put our approbation on continuing the carnage by reelecting the most radical advocate for abortion rights in our nationâ€™s history. Five weeks later, in broad daylight, when slaughter and carnage come out of hiding we wonder why?
The brutality of senseless violence is hard to comprehend, especially when a high-powered rifle mows down precious little ones. But daily, Americans ignore the fact that weaponry like scalpels, saline, and suction exterminate far many more children than those who die in classrooms.
In essence, what happened in Newtown merely pulled back the curtain and revealed the spirit behind the everyday viciousness perpetrated against Americaâ€™s children.Â The difference is that normally the bloody massacre is hidden from the publicâ€™s eye.
As for those on the left who now weep for the lost, nice try, but not convincing.Â Prochoice advocates shedding tears for the loss of the pure and the blameless just doesnâ€™t fly. Neither does hearing partial birth abortion backers pontificate about preserving and protecting life. Doing so is comparable to the world’s most famous butcher, Dario Cecchini, lending his face to a PETA ad.
And while no one can, or should, judge the heart of a man, it is also quite perplexing to see infanticide supporter Barack Obama crying over the demise of small children when, if they were 6Â½ months in utero versus 6Â½ years old in a classroom, heâ€™d be defending an individualâ€™s right to terminate their lives.
Furthermore, after earning a 100% voting record score from NARAL, itâ€™s also mindboggling at best to hear President Obama utter the following words about a select group of children: â€œThe majority of those who died today were children — beautiful little kids between the ages of 5 and 10 years old. They had their entire lives ahead of them — birthdays, graduations, weddings, kids of their own.â€
The only difference between the dead Obama wept for on national television and those that Planned Parenthood deprives daily of â€œbirthdays, graduations, weddings [and] kids of their ownâ€ is that the latterÂ are victims of the kind of violence the President approves of.
Nonetheless, in response to the tragedy Obama is now talking about â€œmeaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.â€Â What heâ€™s really talking about is taking â€œmeaningful actionâ€ to institute more stringent gun control laws that will restrict law-abiding gun owners
Someone should remind Planned Parenthoodâ€™s presidential cheerleader that on the same day children were sprayed with bullets in a Connecticut elementary school, 3,500 innocent babies died at the hands of abortionists â€“ and not one gun was involved in those murders.
Moreover, the words â€œregardless of politics,â€ are being used to support the gun control argument. Yet, while claiming to omit politics from the â€˜violence against childrenâ€™ issue, Obama is predictably using politics to retain his prochoice political base by conveniently disregarding the fact that in America every 10 days, 35,000 viable infants are victims of feticide.
As America deals with the horror in Connecticut, itâ€™s clear to some that what happened in Newtown, Connecticut is the heartbreaking symptom of a national disease where to some the life of a child is nothing more than a disposable throwaway.
The sadÂ truth is that the small and defenseless die horrific deaths everyday in America – some huddled under a desk and others under cold florescent lights in an abortion clinic.Â Either way, the formula isÂ the same: violence and the intent to kill which, regardless of the method, both deliver the same result â€“ dead babies.Â Â In a first grade classroom there are 20; in a clinic across town there could be 220.
Whatâ€™s stunning is that this truth has not deterred the disingenuous from campaigning for the right to kill the unborn on Monday and then publicly quoting Scripture, weeping, and lighting memorial candles for murdered children on Friday.
And so, as usual, liberals try to have it both ways. Yet, for those who recognize hypocrisy it will be painful to watch as a nation in mourning accepts the feigning of grief from those who, under different circumstances, would heartily support killing the children they now weep for.
Originally posted at American Think blog
Here we are, folks – we’ve reached the tipping point.Â Seems brilliant medical ethicists linked to the highly esteemedÂ Oxford UniversityÂ have decided that killing a live-born infant is “no different from abortion.” The eggheads, who obviously have no problem with feticide, have finally concluded: “Parents should be allowed to have their babies killed because newborns are ‘morally irrelevant.'”
A recent articleÂ by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva was published in theÂ Journal of Medical EthicsÂ entitledÂ After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?Â The articleÂ sharedÂ the opinion that “newborn babies are not ‘actual persons’ and do not have a ‘moral right to life.'”
These two demonically-inspired minds concluded that what they call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is permissible. What ethicists Guibilini and Minerva are actually describing is an abortion extension. If one misses the chance to dispose of a baby prior to birth, the murder permission slip should still apply after the baby is born.
Taking the legalized horror of abortion a step further, Giubilini and Minerva have come to what they perceive to be a principled conclusion that “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”
Therefore, babies are still killable after birth because, according to fiends disguised as so-called medical ethicists, “rather than being ‘actual persons,’ newborns are just ‘potential persons.'”Â Â The dastardly duo argued that “We take a ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such as that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.” That means suffocating or drowning an infant should be able to be done without a hint of struggle from the ‘potentialÂ person’ being deprived of air.
Moreover, Guibilini and Minerva stand by the opinion that most people agree that disabled people are ‘less than human’ and certainly without question do not have a right to life.
Thus if by some chance a parent doesn’t know before birth that their offspring is imperfect, once it’s born that parent should certainly be allowed deliver the infant over to death.Â Â According to the after-birth abortion authors, only 64% of Down’s syndrome cases are diagnosed prior to delivery, which means 36% of the remainingÂ childrenÂ should fall into the ‘kill a newborn’ classification.
And therein is the crux of the matter; according to the unethical ethicists, “To bring up [imperfect]Â childrenÂ might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”Â Rest assured, granting Mom and Dad the ‘choice’ to kill a viable human being paves the way in the future for society to make similar ‘choices’ to preserve the common good.
Maybe for their next scholarly article the ethicists could argue on behalf of how the concept of ‘actual persons’ versus ‘potential persons’ could also be applied to the elderly and the infirm and how, in addition to newborn babies, if need be, after-birth abortion could also be administered at any stage of life.
Guibilini, a former visiting student at Cambridge University, and Minerva, a former research associate with the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, didn’t argue that some “baby killings were more justifiable than others – their fundamental point was that, morally, there was no difference to abortion as already practiced.”Â In other words, these two are equal opportunity baby killers.
On the upside, this convenient philosophy could do away with the need to prosecute teenage girls who perform self-administered “after-birth abortions” in mall restrooms and then emerge for anÂ Auntie Anne’sÂ soft pretzel and go shopping for glittery nail polish and jeans.
‘After-birth’ abortion apologist Professor Julian Savulescu said that arguments in favor of killing newborns are “largely not new.” That’s true – child sacrifice is as old asÂ God speakingÂ to the prophet Jeremiah in the Old Testament when He said, “They have built the high places of Baal to burn theirÂ childrenÂ in the fire as offerings to Baal-something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind.”
Since sharing their opinions, the journal’s editor and director of the Oxford Uehiro Center for Practical Ethics, Julian Savulescu, said that authors Giubilini and Minerva have received death threats. Savulescu said, “Those who made abusive and threatening posts” in response to the authors’ abusive and threatening opinions are “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.”Â Note the key words: “values of a liberal society.”
Liberal convictions aside, reproving the article’s critics a shocked Professor ‘silence and kill’ Savulescu expressed outrage over infanticide critics’ “dangerous human tendencies [and] moral certainty” and argued on behalf of the “sort of society” that embraces practices that promote “lynching and genocide.”
This ‘debate’ has been an example of ‘witch ethics’ – a group of people know who the witch is and seek to burn her. It is one of the most dangerous human tendencies we have. It leads to lynching and genocide. Rather than argue and engage, there is a drive is to silence and, in the extreme, kill, based on their own moral certainty. That is not the sort of society we should live in.
What individuals like Savulescu, Guiblini and Minerva fail to realize is that by diminishing the value of a human life at any stage, what they are promoting is a philosophy that one day will threaten even their own lives. The reality is, if liberals are in charge, once they’re old and frail even highly distinguished medical ethicists will eventually become an “unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole.”
When that day comes, the state that will ultimately “economically provide for their care” using the reason promoted by the likes of Guiblini and Minerva will surely use their own logic against them when it upgrades toÂ genocideÂ what Dr. Trevor Stammers, director of medical ethics at St Mary’s University College, calls “antenatal infanticide.”