These people do not fear death or God! Revelation 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Hebrews 10:31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Babies
All posts tagged Babies
Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
‘Pride marches across the United States took on new gravity Sunday as progressives worried that the conservative justices on the Supreme Court who voted to reverse Roe v. Wade could now overrule protections for other rights, including same-sex marriage and same-sex intimacy.
The annual parades and rallies in major cities such as New York and San Francisco came two days after Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurring opinion to the court’s ruling that tossed out Roe, called on the court to overturn the landmark decisions that established those very rights.
Sunday’s events also took place as the LGBTQ movement reels from recent legislative setbacks, including laws that curb classroom discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity. Florida’s Parental Rights in Education Act, for example, turned into a national flashpoint.
Planned Parenthood, one of the leading providers of reproductive health care in the country, kicked off this year’s New York City Pride march. People clad in rainbow colors and waving Planned Parenthood flags lined Fifth Avenue in Manhattan, cheering as the first wave of marchers made their way down the street.
“Today feels monumental, especially considering what happened over Roe v. Wade,” said Jonathan Dago, who attended New York City Pride with a friend. “We’re seeing a lot of signs. Women’s rights are at risk, and it’s going to be a trickle down to LGBT people.’https://www.aol.com/news/supreme-court-abortion-decision-casts-170354899.html
‘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/
‘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/
‘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/
- “Instagram did take our feed post down. This is ok, fortunately we have talked with our team at YouTube and they’re keeping the documentary up there, which is most important. They did demonetise and take the video out of the algorithm. Which is all ok, we assumed this would happen,” said Cole in an update about the video.”
- “The biggest thing this does is significantly reduce the video’s reach. The more people the video reaches, the more people who can find help. This makes it where you can really only watch the video if you have a link or go directly to our channel.”
- “YouTube won’t further share it,” Cole continued. “At this point we’ll leave the message in God’s hands and trust that whoever is supposed to watch it, will watch it. You guys have supported this so much and we’re so thankful. If you feel lead, please share the documentary with people you know.”
BACKGROUND:
- Husband Cole and wife Savannah together have over 10 million Instagram followers and 13 million YouTube, subscribers.
- The pair met and married after Savannah already had her oldest daughter, Everly, whom she carried while in her teens.’https://americanfaith.com/instagram-influencers-the-labrant-familys-pro-life-video-removed-as-fans-attack-their-stance/
whatyareckon 