- While many have bought into the simplistic idea that availability of firearms is the cause of mass shootings, a number of experts have pointed out a more uncomfortable truth, which is that mass shootings are far more likely the result of how we’ve been mistreating mental illness, depression and behavioral problems
- Gun control legislation has shown that law-abiding Americans who own guns are not the problem, because the more gun control laws that have been passed, the more mass shootings have occurred
- 97.8 percent of mass shootings occur in “gun-free zones,” as the perpetrators know legally armed citizens won’t be there to stop them
- Depression per se rarely results in violence. Only after antidepressants became commonplace did mass shootings really take off, and many mass shooters have been shown to be on antidepressants
- Antidepressants, especially selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), are well-known for their ability to cause suicidal and homicidal ideation and violence’ more at https://www.theepochtimes.com/97-8-of-mass-shootings-are-linked-to-this_4537542.html?est=BcodoyII203Cu4K2ZcXWE4e%2BptDyqCLaEtC7SLMN3%2BzlxSjxNGOYF5uh6N2nmMyXuw%3D%3D
Abortion/Murder
All posts tagged Abortion/Murder
‘In the abortion debate, the question of “When does human life begin?” is central. Abortion proponents frequently argue that human life does not begin at conception, but at a later time in gestation, and they morally justify abortion on this basis. They argue that abortion of an embryo or fetus before a certain gestational age is moral because the embryo or fetus is not yet a human being.
There is a clear scientific answer to the question “When does human life begin?” Let us consider the various possible scientific answers to that question.
One answer (as given above) would be that the fertilized egg or the embryo or the fetus up to a certain age is not yet a human being and in fact is a part of the mother’s body. The pro-abortion argument would be that the embryo or fetus becomes a human being at some point later in gestation and that aborting the embryo or fetus prior to that point is moral because it is merely a part of a woman’s body and not a human being in itself.
A Completely New Organism
However, from a scientific standpoint, at the moment of fertilization of the egg by the sperm, a completely new organism is present. The organism is not a part of the mother’s body although he or she is located within the mother’s body. Half of the time, the organism is a boy. The genetic complement of the new human being is unique and different from that of the mother.
The argument that this unique human being present in the mother’s womb from the moment of fertilization is a part of the mother’s body until sometime later in gestation is, from a scientific viewpoint, bizarre. What this argument would imply is that human beings reproduce by a process of budding, which is a process by which a new individual organism forms from a part of the mother’s body. This is the means of reproduction of some species of worms but it is most certainly not a means of reproduction by human beings.
Incompetence or Deception
This argument used by abortion proponents — that an embryo or fetus is a part of the mother’s body until a certain point of gestation — is scientific nonsense. When the argument is made by a scientist, it represents either scientific incompetence or deliberate deception.
It is the responsibility of the scientific community to make it clear to the public that this argument is junk science and is obviously used merely to defend the morality of killing a young human being in the womb.’https://evolutionnews.org/2022/05/when-does-human-life-begin-2/
‘Labour MP Rupa Huq is making another attempt to introduce new legislation that would ban any sort of prayer, protest or support offered to people outside of abortion clinics across the country.
In an amendment to the Public Order Bill, the proposed text suggests that anyone found within these censorship zones – which constitute a 150m radius around abortion clinics – could face a fine or six months’ imprisonment, and if found for a second time, could even face up to two years in prison.
To be clear, these punishments are reserved for anyone who “interferes with any person’s decision to access, provide or facilitate the provision of abortion services in that buffer zone.”
However, ‘interferes with’ is further broken down, making it clear that it targets anyone who might be there to offer appropriate support and advice to women looking for help. The amendment lays out that ‘interferes with’ can be defined as:
“(a) seeks to influence; or
(b) persistently, continuously or repeatedly occupies; or
(c) Impedes or threatens; or
(d) intimidates or harasses; or
(e) advises or persuades, attempts to advise or persuade, or otherwise expresses opinion; or
(f) informs or attempts to inform about abortion services by any means, including, without limitation, graphic, physical, verbal or written means; or
(g) sketches, photographs, records, stores, broadcasts, or transmits images, audio, likeness or personal data or any person without express consent.”
The growing use of ‘buffer zones’
The effort to shut down the pro-life voice by any means is sadly not new. In fact, the proposed amendment is simply the re-tabling of the same amendment brought forward by Ms Huq in 2021, which ended up not being put to a vote after opposition from Parliament and the public.
However, an increasing number of local councils have gone out of their way to enact Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs), which essentially have the same legal effect as creating a so-called ‘buffer zone’.
Most famously, in October 2019, Christian Hacking became the first person to be arrested for publicly praying in front of an abortion clinic, in violation of the UK’s first ‘buffer zone’ in Ealing, West London. Since then, two more ‘buffer zones’ have been created in the UK, effectively silencing the pro-life voice outside abortion clinics.
More recently, Birmingham City Council has consulted on creating a new PSPO around another abortion clinic, arguing that it was in the ‘public interest’ to protect residents from allegedly ‘violent protestors’. Pro-life group 40 Days for Life, which regularly sets up peaceful prayer vigils outside abortion clinics (far enough away from the entrance so as not to cause disturbance), was accused by the council of sending ‘violent protestors’ to the Robert Clinic, Birmingham, who allegedly harass and interrogate the public. Yet the council failed to recognise that in reality, it is the pro-life volunteers who regularly face harassment from the public.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_sGmizYSQs Lots of foul language against those praying for those seeking an abortion.
Yet in reality, these zones are really ‘censorship zones’. The real purpose of them is shut down any form of pro-life action, prayer or support, outside of abortion clinics. In effect, this gives priority to a pro-abortion viewpoint over a pro-life viewpoint.
Even pro-abortion MP Kit Malthouse seemed to point out the hypocrisy of so-called ‘buffer zones’ during the second reading of the Public Order Bill in the House of Commons, commenting:
“I am honestly and genuinely perplexed by the argument about buffer zones … I understand the sensitivity in that particular situation, but why is it that we object to and are willing to restrict that particular form of protest, but not others?”
The pro-life presence outside abortion clinics in the UK is a peaceful one, with most groups setting up prayer vigils or silent demonstrations, with the occasional leaflet or booklet being offered to those who pass by.
Many women – and men – have been helped by these pro-lifers outside abortion clinics, being shown there are other options to abortion. For example, Danny and Carla were helped by 40 Days for Life outside an abortion clinic when they felt they had no other choice than to terminate Carla’s pregnancy. They are now proud parents to baby Betsy.
Similarly, the testimonies of those helped by abortion pill reversal suggest a growing number of women who regret choosing abortion, and point to a much-needed pro-life presence outside abortion clinics.
It makes sense for the pro-life movement to be present outside the very place it objects to; much as you might find animal rights’ protestors outside shops that sell fur or products tested on animals. The difference is, those with a pro-life point of view are effectively being told their views aren’t valid and must be shut down, even when they cause no disruption.
In turn, this essentially allows ideological abortion providers to hide all opposition to what they’re doing to where no one can see it. It lets them keep women, who may be being coerced or uncertain about their decision, on the abortion conveyor belt that always ends in the ‘choice’ to abort.
Breach of human rights
These censorship zones effectively breach freedom of religion and belief by banning a pro-life viewpoint from being expressed within a certain area. They are also a wildly disproportionate response to the activity that generally goes on outside abortion clinics.
Article 9 of the Human Rights Act in the UK protects freedom of thought, belief and religion, which Article 10 protects the right to freedom of expression. Similarly, Article 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights provides freedom of assembly, meaning that everyone, no matter the cause, has a right to protest, demonstrate or march in a public space – which includes outside abortion clinics.
The universal introduction of so-called ‘buffer zones’ would inhibit these freedoms and may well be ruled to breach human rights.
‘Buffer zones’ not supported by Parliament or public
On various occasions, both Parliament and the public have opposed the introduction of these areas of censorship around abortion clinics.’https://christianconcern.com/action/praying-outside-an-abortion-clinic-could-land-you-in-jail-for-two-years/
‘Another school shooting has left too many children dead. There is no way around it. And every time this happens, people sit and talk about how these things happen, why they happen and how they can be prevented.
I come back to the same conclusion every time — if we do not teach people to respect and value life from the very beginning, why are we surprised when they don’t respect or value it at any point after that?
Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in America in 1973. Fast forward about 20 years, and there was pretty consistent jump in the next generation. The generation that grew up in the 70s and 80s being told it was OK to abort unborn babies.
Fast forward another 20 years or so and there is another consistent bump.
We are a few generations into the legalized murder of unborn babies in America. We are a few generations into a human being not being considered anything more than a “choice.”
Unborn babies are considered disposable. There is a political side that refers to innocent unborn life as either “wanted” or “unwanted.”
And they tell kids and adults there is no right to life for the most vulnerable among us. They tell kids an unborn baby deserves nothing more than a 50-50 shot at life.
Through the legalized killing of unborn babies, there is no doubt we as a society have cheapened the value of life itself.
Again, we have taught generations there is no need to value or respect life from the very beginning. We’ve taught them that individuals can “choose” whether an unborn baby lives or dies.
There are all sorts of underlying issues to the violence. All sorts.
But how can we ignore the obvious? Isn’t it obvious that we have cheapened life since 1973 — when the Supreme Court green-lighted the “choice” to end the life of an unborn baby?
And now, about 50 years later, are we really shocked the value of life and the respect for life is low?
Again — if we do not respect life at the very beginning, why are we surprised when we don’t respect life at any point after that?’https://theiowastandard.com/if-our-society-doesnt-value-life-at-the-very-beginning-why-are-we-surprised-when-it-isnt-respected-at-any-point-after-that/
‘The judge asked: “Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?”
The ten words “The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”, gets to the crucial point in this phrase used for centuries to “quicken the conscience” of those giving testimony in court. A lie is commonly what we might call a half-truth – or even mostly all true! It’s simply not the whole truth. We’ve all seen the crime shows where the evidence all appears to lead to one conclusion. But at the last minute, another piece of evidence reveals the falsehood and the true criminal. Indeed, partial truths are frequently used to support a grand lie.
Thus, the grand lie of evolution starts with the truth of adaptation and natural selection. But then are added untruths, conjecture and wishful thinking on the part of rebellious mankind. And natural selection – to support evolution – becomes a grand lie. The truth is that natural selection cannot migrate out from the created “kinds” – the distinct species groups. The truth is that natural selection and mutations cannot add new creation, new complexity and new information to the genome. It can only shuffle the genetics that are already there!
The truth is that in nature the laws of probability are governed and indeed overwhelmed by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics – the incessant move toward increasing entropy (disorder). The truth is that new specified complexity requires an outside energy and intelligence! The truth is that creation requires God.
Epitomizing the Nazi genius of propaganda under Adolf Hitler, Joseph Goebbels famously and correctly said: “If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will come to believe it yourself.” Herein lies the secret to the grand lie of evolution, and to so much of the other disinformation being thrust upon us in the world today.
Climate Change as Climate Alarmism, for example, begins with the undeniable truth that climate changes. But added to a few truths about greenhouse gases are a lot of assumptions, conjecture and agenda-driven grant money for desired research outcomes with computer models. Another grand lie then becomes the drumbeat that is heard everywhere and has been now for 30+ years: We must unite globally to reset world economics and save the planet!
Subverting democracy under the pretense of protecting it is another grand lie. The lie includes people saying: “We must suppress their ‘disinformation’” (which is frequently truth) “in order to advance ‘our truth’” (which is frequently disinformation). And so they feel we don’t actually need free speech at all! They want more authoritarian powers to target political opponents who dissent from their approved narratives – whether that be disagreement with school boards about gender confusion and race theory indoctrination, or disagreement about COVID policy, or pointing out the various problems in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. They cannot and will not allow true reporting or debate on these issues!
Interestingly, Goebbels also said, “This is the secret of propaganda: those who are to be persuaded by it should be completely immersed in the ideas of the propaganda, without ever noticing that they are being immersed in it.” This is the great subtlety of the deception.
These grand lies are from “the father of [lies]” (John 8:44), “which deceiveth the whole world” (Revelation 12:9), i.e., the devil. And they are quite ugly upon examination. Lies, like any evil thing, are inherently ugly. Nobody, not even the worst perpetrators of the worst crimes, would honestly describe immoral acts as “beautiful”. The morally deformed is not beautiful.
Here is where the truth of Biblical Christianity also shines through uniquely. We believe in the Creator Almighty who established His original perfect order and is truly glorious in His perfection. In addition, we define human nature as inherently flawed because of Adam and Eve’s decision to disobey God and to listen to the devil. Understanding the truth about man’s depravity is satisfying because it is true and makes our redemption all the more lovely! Our liberty in Christ from the ugly bondage of evil is truly a beautiful thing!
Truth is vital. Without truth, we are left, in the end, with meaninglessness. We are left unable to detect propaganda, lies and disinformation. Therefore, we are at the mercy of evil, as well as despair. But the absolute truth of God – His righteousness and complete integrity, His omniscience and holiness, His love of liberty and His word – grounds us with meaning, purpose, joy and goodness so that we are able to trust Him and love Him.
We rightly appreciate the created beauty and freedom that God has given us. It is ultimately an appreciation of perfection – a perfection which derives from and is a joyous, marvelous reflection of the truth and nature and personality of the Lord. He is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And that truth is beautiful! As the poet John Keats wrote, “Beauty is truth, truth is beauty.”
Divine beauty is characteristic of God and is vastly superior to even the very best of created splendors. Our great calling is to dwell in His house, “to gaze upon His beauty and to inquire in His temple,” as the Psalmist expresses his desire. The Lord is the purest loveliness and the very essence of joy and wisdom, perfect in all His ways without end.
So it is no wonder that saints throughout the centuries have experienced an inexpressible delight in worship, prayer and studying His word, even though the Truth is veiled in this fallen world. Through the lenses of our redeemed nature, we can appreciate the Lord as we survey the reflections of His creation. We were redeemed for an interior, supernatural joy as we indulge and even over-indulge our new nature! It is the meaning of “to be blessed”.
“But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed” (James 1:25). May you be blessed in the indulging of the new nature that is given us through faith in our great Creator and Redeemer, looking into the perfect law of liberty and continuing therein!’https://creationmoments.com/newsletter/joyous-islands-of-truth-in-the-worlds-vast-sea-of-lies/?mc_cid=5ecb7de1ed&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
‘Perhaps no subject illustrates the Leftist bias in Big Science better than the abortion issue. If the leading journals and science reporters actually respected observational science, they would have to agree with the pro-life position: that human life begins at conception. Instead, they fall in line with the radical Left on this subject as well as all their other current hotbed issues. A lot has happened since April 29 when we reported on Big Science’s activity promoting abortion, and how a major Supreme Court document was leaked to the press. Take a look.
After this list of recent evidence, we will see an ID scientist with a good rebuttal from actual science and logic.
The Court is ignoring science (Diana Greene Foster in Science Magazine, 19 May 2022).
This essay appeared in America’s leading science journal from the AAAS, with no rebuttal. Foster’s title indicates that she sides with the leftists currently protesting the draft opinion in Dobbs that would overturn Roe v Wade – a document was leaked illegally by a still-unidentified staffer at the Supreme Court. Foster is claiming that her pro-abortion stance is scientific. Let’s see.
The research revealed that patients who were able to receive an abortion were more than six times more likely to report aspirational 1-year plans than those who were denied one. They are more likely to have a wanted child later and better able to take care of the children they already have. Because the majority of abortion patients are already parents, this means that being able to obtain an abortion has powerful, multigenerational impacts.
By contrast, if people are forced to carry a pregnancy to term, they are more likely to experience lasting financial hardships. After being denied an abortion, women had three times greater odds of being unemployed than those who obtained abortions and had four times higher odds of being below the federal poverty level.
Foster’s “science” consisted only of surveys of 1,000 women in the so-called Turnaway Study, commissioned by former justice Anthony Kennedy. It had nothing to do with biology. It only measured subjective feelings of women who had abortions and those who did not. Most importantly, it said nothing about the human life inside the womb. The tacit conclusion is this: if something is inconvenient, and is getting in your way, or is making you unhappy, kill it. Treat it like you would a nuisance dog or cat or gopher.
The US Supreme Court is wrong to disregard evidence on the harm of banning abortion (Nature Editorial, 5 May 2022).
The world’s leading science journal preceded by two weeks the AAAS in jumping on the bandwagon to fight the Supreme Court’s draft opinion, claiming the high moral ground: it is “wrong” to ban the killing of babies (imagine!). Nature makes similar quasi-scientific arguments that only concern the health and convenience of the woman.
Abortion bans will extract an unequal toll on society. Some 75% of women who choose to have abortions are in a low income bracket and nearly 60% already have children, according to one court brief submitted ahead of the December hearing and signed by more than 150 economists. Travelling across state lines to receive care will be particularly difficult for people who do not have the funds for flights or the ability to take time off work, or who struggle to find childcare.
So what’s their solution? Kill the baby who had nothing to do with the problem? These crocodile tears fail to point out that Planned Parenthood puts their abortion centers in poor neighborhoods that are mostly black and minority. Some 40% of abortions are of black children, even though they make up just 7% of the population. This harks back to the plan of racist eugenicist evolutionist Margaret Sanger (31 July 2020), who saw minorities as less fit than whites; abortion was her way of reducing the numbers of the poor and unfit (Fox News). Sanger’s arguments still gain traction; they were reiterated recently by Janet Yellen, Biden’s Treasury Secretary (Daily Wire, 10 May 2022). Nature‘s editors are just as guilty of promoting eugenics. Rather than helping poor women, they want to eliminate them.
Abortion funds are in the spotlight with the likely end of Roe v. Wade – 3 findings about what they do (Gretchen Ely, The Conversation, 13 May 2022).
As a social work professor who studies reproductive health care, I have led research that reviewed thousands of case records of patients who requested assistance from abortion funds to help pay for a procedure that they could not afford.
Dr Ely’s article consists only of statistics about how abortion funds are allocated to women seeking abortions, and how overturning Roe might make them harder to get. Her euphemism (linking abortion with “reproductive health care”) reveals her pro-abort position. Again, nothing is said about the vulnerable living human being inside the womb. Her silence treats “it” as a non-person.
The Lancet warns US Supreme Court over abortion (Medical Xpress, 13 May 2022).
Editors of one of the leading medical journals in the world, The Lancet in Britain, give their support to protestors who are fighting the draft Supreme Court decision. Look for any sign of balance, or any concern for the life of the unborn, or any analysis of whether the Roe decision in 1973 was a good legal decision. It’s not there. Instead, you will find slogans and hate speech that could have been shouted by Chuck Schumer, Senate Majority Leader, who literally threatened two pro-life justices (Kavanaugh and Gorsuch) from the steps of the Supreme Court during their confirmation hearings (YouTube).
“The fact is that if the US Supreme Court confirms its draft decision, women will die,” the publication said.
“The justices who vote to strike down Roe will not succeed in ending abortion, they will only succeed in ending safe abortion.”
“Alito and his supporters will have women’s blood on their hands,” it concluded, referring to justice Samuel Alito, who authored the draft majority opinion of the court that was leaked last week.
Less than 1% of abortions take place in the third trimester – here’s why people get them (Katrina Kimport, The Conversation, 17 May 2022).
Baby in the womb (Illustra media)
Kimport’s article begins with a stock photo of 9 smiling young women with the caption, “If Roe v. Wade is overturned, more people could find themselves needing a third-trimester abortion.” Is that a scientific argument for abortion? No. Like the other articles emanating from Big Science and its lapdog Big Science Media, it is another argument for the convenience of the mother. Knowing that late-term abortion is unpopular even among those who support abortion “rights,” Kimport tries to make the case that there aren’t very many of those now, but there will be more if Roe is overturned (see fear-mongering in the Baloney Detector). Her evidence is anecdotal, not scientific:
Other women described barriers that weren’t directly related to policy. One young woman, for example, was so afraid that her parents would judge her for becoming pregnant and wanting an abortion that she took no action toward getting the abortion. By the time she felt able to confide in her brother, who was able to get her an appointment for an abortion, she was in the third trimester of pregnancy.
Such an argument, though, is inconsistent, because it assumes that late-term abortion is bad. So if early-term abortion is good, where does she draw the line to where it becomes bad? Like the others, she completely overlooks the issue of whether the baby growing within the mother, with its own genome, sex and human potential, has a right to life.
Roe v. Wade FAQ: What if abortion rights law gets overturned? (Live Science, 4 May 2022).
Devoid of any pro-life arguments, this article, pretending to be objective, ends up only telling women where they can still get abortions if Roe is overturned.’ The rest of the article may be read at https://crev.info/2022/05/big-science-goes-all-in-for-abortion/
‘Following Politico’s report of a leaked draft opinion in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization indicating that a majority of justices seem inclined to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide, multiple churches and pro-life advocacy organizations have been burned, looted and vandalized by abortion extremists.’https://www.christianpost.com/news/churches-pro-life-offices-burned-vandalized-since-supreme-court-leak-list.html?uid=*%7CUNIQID%7C*&vgo_ee=FHunWZOlcI1UzNC2%2Fz2RaNSYFmrMikCwlKFARSZoYAo%3D
‘It’s almost too hilarious to cover in a serious tone. The same radical left-wing nutjobs who have been screaming for the last two years about how there’s “no such thing as a woman” while demanding biological men should have access to women’s sports, women’s locker rooms and women’s public restrooms, are all suddenly now claiming “women’s rights” must be respected by all.
When the Left wants to mass murder babies, suddenly “women” count again. You know why? Because it would sound totally stupid to claim to be fighting for “abortion rights for men.”
Even though that’s exactly what the Left believes… that MEN might need abortions, too. So they use “women” as a kind of human shield to justify the carrying out of medical violence against infants and unborn children.
The Left’s utterly incoherent ramblings on biology completely discredit any argument they have about “women” or abortion
The shrieking, howling and sheer stupidity of the Left has become utterly incoherent. No one can make sense of any of it, including themselves. What was once a movement of people who protested against war, Big Pharma, Monsanto and censorship has now become the party of shrieking lunatics who demand the silencing of their political opposition, the mandatory shoving of Big Pharma’s vaccines into everyone’s bodies, and the unfettered “right” to mass murder their own babies at will… even after they’re born alive! (Post-birth abortions, now legal in several US states.)’https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-05-04-in-fight-for-abortion-the-radical-left-suddenly-rediscovers-the-gender-of-women.html
Video at https://www.brighteon.com/8dbc7f36-9249-433d-9f3e-e4dcea44aa17
