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.
Mother/Father
All posts tagged Mother/Father
Sadly, in Australia murdering babies gets hardly a mention. However, when the murder of babies in the USA is overturned by Supreme Court the politicians speak out in favor of baby murder! ‘The US supreme court’s decision to wind back abortion rights is “a setback for women and their right to control their own bodies and their lives”, the Australian prime minister, Anthony Albanese, has said.
The minister for women, Katy Gallagher, said the “devastating” decision, while directly affecting people in America, also reinforced the need for Australians “to remain vigilant because hard-fought-for wins before our parliaments can be taken away easily”.
The US supreme court on Friday overturned a ruling that had guaranteed a constitutional right to abortion for almost half a century, with at least 26 states expected to ban abortion immediately or as soon as practicable.
Albanese, who was flying to Spain for a Nato summit on Monday morning, responded to the ruling by saying people were “entitled to their own views, but not to impose their views on women for whom this is a deeply personal decision”.
“That is, in my view, one for an individual woman to make based upon their own circumstances, including the health implications,” Albanese told the ABC AM program in an interview broadcast on Monday.
“This decision has caused enormous distress. And it is a setback for women and their right to control their own bodies and their lives in the United States. It is a good thing that in Australia, this is not a matter for partisan political debate.”’https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jun/27/devastating-australian-politicians-respond-to-us-supreme-courts-decision-on-abortion-rights?CMP=share_btn_tw
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/
‘Since June is Pride Month for the LGBT etc. crowd, I expanded and rewrote a 2019 column that produced late-night phone calls, death threats, and scores of hate-filled emails from the “peace-loving,” “all opinions have equal worth,” “fair-minded,” and always “compassionate” homosexuals.
No doubt, many homosexuals—maybe most of them—agree with the thesis of my article while disagreeing with my criticism of homosexuality which is still legal in America. Both homosexuality and my right to disagree with it are legally protected—for now. But the Homosexual Lobby will not permit any honest disagreement with their positions.
You know, like the knee-jerk response of some homosexuals to the Tampa Bay football players who refused to give credibility to perversion by wearing a rainbow version of the team logo on the team’s “Pride Night,” because of their religious beliefs. It seems everyone has a right to make up his own mind as long as you don’t imply that homosexuality is wrong.
The journalists at Newsweek had every right to accuse me, attack me, and even assassinate me (symbolically) but not use illegitimate and spurious and twisted information to do their job.
I’m not whining about Newsweek, just wanting to hold their feet to the fire. After all, they did spell my name correctly and pulled a good photo from one of my lectures at the University of North Dakota.
The Newsweek piece, about my article published on numerous conservative websites, was filled with errors. Even the first word of the headline was wrong! It yelled, REPUBLICAN PREACHER RUNS SHOCKING BLOG POST ABOUT PETE BUTTIGIEG, CLAIMS GAY PEOPLE DIE YOUNGER THAN ‘NORMAL PEOPLE.’ I have not been a Republican for decades, although I admit to voting Republican most of the time, I’m politically independent as a hog on ice.
Journalists, including news magazines like Newsweek, should try that sometime.
A quick phone call or email from the author would have kept him from adding to the escalating charges of fake news. All journalists are taught to verify the facts; maybe he was sleeping during that class.
The author called my article “Pete Since You Brought it Up, How ‘Gay’ Are You?” offensive, and of course, it was. It is impossible to deal with perversion (and politics) without being offensive; however, if we deal with the details, it would be disgusting.
The author suggests I was offensive because I mentioned that homosexuals don’t live as long as normal people. Well, that may be offensive, but it is also a fact according to Columbia University. Of course, they suggested homosexuals died early because of an anti-homosexual environment rather than their perverted practices.
Another widely cited study from Vancouver revealed, “life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men.” This was supported by a study done by Paul Cameron, Ph.D. It revealed the latest CDC report “tends to strengthen the overall finding based upon obituaries: that the lifespan of MSM [males who have sex with other men] is shortened two to three decades by AIDS and, possibly, other causes.”
However, the last study was done by a Christian psychologist who is viciously hated by the LGBT crowd. Cameron is allegedly biased by his biblical worldview, but somehow, homosexuals are not biased, blinded, and bigoted by their twisted lifestyle which they cannot defend. The Homosexual Lobby doesn’t understand that facts don’t lie, but that can’t be said about the radical left.
Most mainstream journalists like the ones in Newsweek deal in fantasy, falsehood, and fiction—not facts. They have an agenda that must be disseminated without regard for reality.
Homosexuals die about 20 years earlier than normal people because their lifestyle is really a deathstyle. The human body was not made to endure violent attacks—their use of illegal drugs; their autoerotic playtime; their bondage and sadomasochism; their fisting; ad nauseam—all shorten lives. After all, if eating fried foods will shorten your life, living the dangerous, diseased, and depraved life many homosexuals live will be more deadly than eating fried chicken.
The hit piece charged, “The former lawmaker [this writer] said it was his right as a voter to ask ‘how gay Pete is’ and if his medical records would be made public. Boys, asserting that ‘homosexuals are notoriously promiscuous,’ made a series of baseless claims and suggested Buttigieg should address them.”
It is interesting but common that Newsweek did not list any baseless claims, and they rejected my well-documented charges knowing few readers would discover their deception. And, yes, a politician must answer questions (most Democrats are sorry they did not ask about Biden’s health) but then maybe Pete has been given a No Obligation to Answer Card. That isn’t surprising since homosexuals have demanded and received numerous special rights from cowardly judges, legislators, college presidents, media personalities, and Hollywood.
And everyone, even some Conservative and even Christian websites are careful not to offend them by suggesting that perversion, like fornication, is always wrong, even wicked. The safe pitch is that each person can make his own decision about such issues and then we will all “live and let live.”
The almost universal message is to be very careful what you say about homosexuality. However, an American does not have to worry what he declares as long as it is truthful. Moreover, no one, especially a Christian, should be malicious, hateful, or even unkind.
Newsweek’s use of claims suggests that my assertion about homosexual promiscuity is not true when everyone with an I.Q. equivalent to his ring size knows it is true. It’s like saying some people claim the earth is round.
The hit piece suggested that homosexual promiscuity is dubious, so let me be clear: no honest, informed, and sane person disagrees, debates, or even sees a need to discuss the issue—homosexuals change partners as often as they change socks—almost.
A 2006 study of 2,294 homosexuals in the homosexual magazine The Advocate reported that 248 men admitted to having more than 300 sexual partners with fewer partners for the others.
The classic Bell and Weinberg study, produced with the help of the American National Institute of Mental Health, consisted of about 1100 men. That pre-AIDS report revealed that 83% of the homosexual men in their survey said it was likely they had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, while 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners. But it gets worse because 28% had sex with 1,000 or more partners!
Even if they are “married,” male homosexuals set aside a “night with the boys.” Of course, there are exceptions, but let’s say it all together now, “Homosexuals are notoriously promiscuous.”
The claim that homosexuality is not influenced by family or trauma was shot down by Neil E. Whitehead in the Journal of Human Sexuality: “It is simply a myth that there are no sociological data showing influence on adult sexual orientation.”
Newsweek reproduced significant points of my column, which added some much-needed juice to their article: “Purporting to cite ‘the largest study ever conducted,’ he said 23 percent of homosexuals ‘participate in golden showers.’” The writer was careless in his use of purporting. He used the wrong word because I did not purport—or claim or assert or allege to cite “the largest study ever conducted” that revealed that 23% of homosexuals “participate in golden showers.” I cited the report and received no rebuttal.
He was trying to denigrate the study without dealing with it, which is common among desperate people. The Gay Report was done by Karla Jay and Allen Young and involved 4,400 respondents. In that study, homosexuals admitted to their usual vile practices, and homosexual leaders criticized it from its publication. Critics never have revealed that the authors were “gay!”
It is much worse today. In a 2006 study of a group of “male S&M practitioners,” 47.3% admitted participation in “watersports” according to The Health Hazards of Homosexually.
Since Pete said: “I’m gay as a… I don’t know, think of something really gay, that’s how gay I am.” I want to know what he meant. No doubt some homosexuals are fairly strait-laced compared to others but just how “gay” is Pete? No one expects him to go into details, but on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the most degraded, diseased, and dangerous, where is Pete?
Most people expect a national magazine to produce quality work but not this time. Newsweek’s source, the Friendly Atheist, is such an embarrassment it would make any honest reader run for a barf bag.
My article appeared on May 15, and was picked up by Joe.My.God. on the 17th, the Friendly Atheist on May 18, and was critiqued by Newsweek on May 21. Newsweek did not do any original reporting, just some ramblings from the Friendly Atheist and some of my brilliant comments. So, it was not a total loss.
The Friendly Atheist piece supports the would-be censors out there who want to eliminate bad writing. The blogger is Hemant Mehta, whose claim to fame is “selling his soul on eBay.” He titled his blog “Christian Bigot: Pete Buttigieg Can’t Be President Because Gay People Die Young.” Hemant is right in calling me a Christian but completely wrong using the B-word. Evidently, he is infected with the virus that makes leftists lash out rather than support their position. Accusations are much easier to make than answers and argumentation. Hemant probably doesn’t even know he is infected. Tragic.
Far leftists don’t seem to understand that an American can disagree with their agenda and not be a hater. Disagreement is healthy. It is good to challenge people to analyze an issue and produce their reasons for believing it. Facts are not emotional. Unstable, dishonest people often are.
He then accuses me of declaring that Pete would not be a good president, but I never suggested that. Far leftists have a difficult time reading or comprehending or telling the truth.
In response to my demand that Pete release his medical records, Hemant seems to run off the rails. He charged, “His bigotry [mine] isn’t worthy of a response, but it should be noted that Donald Trump never released his proper medical records.” However, the president is examined annually, and his medical reports are released.
Voters have an obligation to make decisions about a candidate’s total life: his family, education, associations, criminal record, politics, etc., when deciding whether to vote for him.
After many embarrassing gaffes, Hemant dug a deeper hole by writing, “The rest of the article is no better, with Boys arguing that we should know everything about Buttigieg’s sex life.” I did not write that we should know everything about Buttigieg’s sex life. As a voter, I want to know if his “gay” lifestyle will affect his effectiveness as president.
Buttigieg is in Biden’s cabinet, and will no doubt be a national candidate again so I still want to know if his lifestyle might affect his ability to serve Americans.
Hemant continued with his convoluted tirade by charging, “Boys doesn’t bring up how Donald Trump had an affair with a porn star (without protection).” Hemant failed (again) to research the facts. Had he not been so lazy or incompetent, he would have discovered many of my critical articles about Trump. I voted for him because the alternative was Horrific Hillary. Trump’s affairs were despicable, deplorable, dumb, and double dumb without protection— just as homosexual perversions are dumb and disgusting.
Finally, Hemant runs out of steam, takes a deep breath, wipes the foam from his quivering lips, and writes, “This is conservative Christian ‘logic’ for you. A gay guy in a monogamous marriage is somehow a threat to family values, but President P****grabber is somehow a man of virtue.” I wrote nothing about Pete’s “monogamous marriage,” and neither Hemant nor I know if Pete’s “marriage” is monogamous or not, although many studies do not reflect faithful monogamous homosexual “marriages.”
The national homosexual magazine, The Advocate reported in 2006 that less than half of homosexual “couples” were monogamous, a fact supported by the Male Couples Study and others.
It is a fact that homosexual “marriages” or live-in arrangements last two to three years, according to Male and Female Homosexuality, by Saghir and Robins and other studies.
Moreover, I did not refer to family values nor refer to Trump as “a man of virtue.” I doubt if Trump can spell virtue, but he at least did what he promised, something few presidents have done in a hundred years.
Is Pete traveling in the homosexual fast lane that always comes to a dead-end?
Voters have a right to know just how “gay” Pete is.’https://donboys.cstnews.com/newsweek-hit-piece-attacks-and-slanders-me-because-of-my-question-to-pete-buttigieg-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/
‘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 