Tiller the Baby Killer is dead!
I read this on a blog late this afternoon but didn't believe it. I hadn't heard anything about the killing on tv. Then, about an hour ago, I saw a snippet of tv news that said Tiller was shot inside his church this morning. I then did a Google search and discovered that George Tiller, evil late term abortionist, is indeed dead. A 51-year-old "person of interest" is in police custody.
Prominent pro-life individuals and organizations will almost certainly distance themselves from this act. Already, Operation Rescue has condemned the killing. I, though, have no qualms celebrating the demise of that despicable man.
George Tiller was a baby killer. Without conscience he snuffed out the lives of tens of thousands of fully formed, defenseless, unborn infants for blood money. Morally, Tiller was no different from a mafia hit man. He was a killer for hire. He lived by the sword and he died by it. That is nothing to cry about. It would be like crying over the execution of Ted Bundy. It's poetic, maybe even divine, justice. Thousands of unborn babies will live because Tiller is no longer among us. He is in hell where he belongs.
No rest for the wicked. Not in life. Not in death. Not ever.
Showing posts with label Pro-life Issues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pro-life Issues. Show all posts
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
"Life Is Cheap"
My blogging friend Roadie over at Roadhouse Blog--you can find him in my blogroll--is a great writer and has published lots of posts that I really like. He graciously gave me permission to reprint a couple of his posts and I'm reprinting the first one here; it's about stem cell research. Roadie has about the clearest layman's explanation of this issue that I've read. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.
Life is Cheap
by Roadie
Not satisfied with merely peeking into Pandora's box, this week President Obama decided to go ahead and rip the lid off of it in yet another decision designed to show how sophisticated and compassionate he is in comparison to the evil President Bush. Yes, I'm talking about stem cell research. Part of the problem with this particular issue is the mass lack of education of the people on the topic. So here is a very basic tutorial to bring you up to speed.
Stem cells are like the building blocks that our bodies are made of. As technology advances, it is hoped that these cells can be programmed to regenerate faulty organs or even entire nervous systems. It is believed that the cures for cancer or even AIDS will be found via stem cell research. For the record, I believe this myself.
So, what's the problem? Well, there's a little problem with how you go about getting those stem cells. Stem cells can be found in more than one place. They can be found in living adult bodies by taking samples of skin tissue or even bone marrow, without harm to the donor of course. These are known as "adult stem cells". [Stem cells] can also be found in the blood [in] the discarded umbilical cords of newborns, also without harm to the donor. These are known as "cord blood stem cells". Sounds pretty cool so far...right? Now for the controversial part.
Another place [stem] cells can be found [is] in human embryos. These cells are called "embryonic stem cells". For all of you who slept through biology class, an emryo is a person in his/her earliest stages of life. Yes, I said "person". An embryo is not going to grow up to become a tree, a toaster, or an I-pod. It's going to grow to become a person, assuming there are no complications in development. At this point, the uninformed (liberals) might assume the stem cell controversy is just another case of "Bible thumpers" trying to define when life actually starts. Though that is an issue, it's not the issue...at least not for me. My issue is what I call "people farming".
A few years ago there was a moderately successful movie that starred Ewan McGregor and Scarlett Johansson called "The Island". The premise was that there was a corporation whose clients would supply them with DNA in order for them to grow, stock, and "maintain" identical twins for later use as organ donors, according to the need of that client. These "donors" are kept alive in a facility and [are] completely unaware of their purpose thanks to eleborate system of lies and facades controlled by the corporation. As you can imagine, the corporation falls apart when the truth is discovered after the escape of Ewan's and Scartlett's characters. It was early into this movie that I realized that Hollywood had inadvertently provided us with a brilliant case against embryonic stem cells. Though the "big screen" version of the consequences of treating people as parts bins may be a tad exaggerated, it does vividly force you to consider the ethics of such a thing.
I would like to think that there are not people out there who would look at embryonic stem cell research as a way to make a fast buck...but I know better. I would like to think that there will be no pharmaceutical companies that will offer money for the embryos, or women willing to accept such offers...but I know better.
Now that we have decided that embryos are little more than "raw material" to be used at our disposal, I have to wonder what the next step will be. Where will the line be moved to next? Fetuses? Infants? Toddlers? Teens? At what next point do we decide [not] too old to be used as a guinea pig under the false premise of "the greater good" or "science"? Who will get the honor of making that decision?
Also, keep in mind that it is only the media and leftists politicians who imply that conservatives are against all forms of stem cell research. Truth be told, we are for stem cell research just not the type that requires the death of another person.
Reprinted post. Orginially published March 10 on Roadhouse Blog.
Life is Cheap
by Roadie
Not satisfied with merely peeking into Pandora's box, this week President Obama decided to go ahead and rip the lid off of it in yet another decision designed to show how sophisticated and compassionate he is in comparison to the evil President Bush. Yes, I'm talking about stem cell research. Part of the problem with this particular issue is the mass lack of education of the people on the topic. So here is a very basic tutorial to bring you up to speed.
Stem cells are like the building blocks that our bodies are made of. As technology advances, it is hoped that these cells can be programmed to regenerate faulty organs or even entire nervous systems. It is believed that the cures for cancer or even AIDS will be found via stem cell research. For the record, I believe this myself.
So, what's the problem? Well, there's a little problem with how you go about getting those stem cells. Stem cells can be found in more than one place. They can be found in living adult bodies by taking samples of skin tissue or even bone marrow, without harm to the donor of course. These are known as "adult stem cells". [Stem cells] can also be found in the blood [in] the discarded umbilical cords of newborns, also without harm to the donor. These are known as "cord blood stem cells". Sounds pretty cool so far...right? Now for the controversial part.
Another place [stem] cells can be found [is] in human embryos. These cells are called "embryonic stem cells". For all of you who slept through biology class, an emryo is a person in his/her earliest stages of life. Yes, I said "person". An embryo is not going to grow up to become a tree, a toaster, or an I-pod. It's going to grow to become a person, assuming there are no complications in development. At this point, the uninformed (liberals) might assume the stem cell controversy is just another case of "Bible thumpers" trying to define when life actually starts. Though that is an issue, it's not the issue...at least not for me. My issue is what I call "people farming".
A few years ago there was a moderately successful movie that starred Ewan McGregor and Scarlett Johansson called "The Island". The premise was that there was a corporation whose clients would supply them with DNA in order for them to grow, stock, and "maintain" identical twins for later use as organ donors, according to the need of that client. These "donors" are kept alive in a facility and [are] completely unaware of their purpose thanks to eleborate system of lies and facades controlled by the corporation. As you can imagine, the corporation falls apart when the truth is discovered after the escape of Ewan's and Scartlett's characters. It was early into this movie that I realized that Hollywood had inadvertently provided us with a brilliant case against embryonic stem cells. Though the "big screen" version of the consequences of treating people as parts bins may be a tad exaggerated, it does vividly force you to consider the ethics of such a thing.
I would like to think that there are not people out there who would look at embryonic stem cell research as a way to make a fast buck...but I know better. I would like to think that there will be no pharmaceutical companies that will offer money for the embryos, or women willing to accept such offers...but I know better.
Now that we have decided that embryos are little more than "raw material" to be used at our disposal, I have to wonder what the next step will be. Where will the line be moved to next? Fetuses? Infants? Toddlers? Teens? At what next point do we decide [not] too old to be used as a guinea pig under the false premise of "the greater good" or "science"? Who will get the honor of making that decision?
Also, keep in mind that it is only the media and leftists politicians who imply that conservatives are against all forms of stem cell research. Truth be told, we are for stem cell research just not the type that requires the death of another person.
Reprinted post. Orginially published March 10 on Roadhouse Blog.
Monday, September 08, 2008
Pro-Life Women
Sarah Palin's pick as John McCain's VP has elicited a torrent of responses from across the political spectrum. One of the almost instant speculations that arose was that picking Palin was McCain's effort to woo Hilary Clinton's disgruntled female supporters. Opponents of this view argued that however unhappy the female Clintonistas may be they wouldn't rush to vote for a conservative, pro-life woman. I believe that the opponents of McCain are right on this point, and that bothers me.
I'm a pro-life woman. I hold this view deeply. I've never participated in any pro-life protest nor have I joined any pro-life organization, but my pro-life belief definitely influences how I vote. In fact, being pro-life was a deciding factor in me switching my allegiance from the Democratic to the Republican party. Millions of other women believe as I do and I resent the way we are dismissed by feminists, liberals, and all others who claim to speak for women.
Feminists always portray anyone who's pro-life as being against women's rights. What, then, must they think of pro-life women? Do they think we're too stupid to know what's in our best interests? Do they think we're benighted relics who'll soon go the way of the dinosaurs? Do they think we're brainwashed by men or religion? Whatever feminists think of pro-life women it's certain they don't respect us, else they wouldn't act like we don't exist. It's as if they believe that ignoring us will invalidate our existence and our beliefs. It won't.
Sarah Palin's pro-life views will definitely be used against her in this election. She'll be condemned as anti-woman even though she's a woman herself. Being a woman won't protect Sarah from attacks from abortion devotees outraged by what they see as gender treason. We distaff pro-lifers are a strong folk, though. We can withstand the vitriol of feminists who babble on about "sisterhood" while rigorously excluding us from their liberals-only sorority. We won't let their hatred stop us. We will continue our struggle against the legalized murder of "inconvenient" life. We will support our Sarah. We will not falter, we will not fail and, come November, we will not lose.
I'm a pro-life woman. I hold this view deeply. I've never participated in any pro-life protest nor have I joined any pro-life organization, but my pro-life belief definitely influences how I vote. In fact, being pro-life was a deciding factor in me switching my allegiance from the Democratic to the Republican party. Millions of other women believe as I do and I resent the way we are dismissed by feminists, liberals, and all others who claim to speak for women.
Feminists always portray anyone who's pro-life as being against women's rights. What, then, must they think of pro-life women? Do they think we're too stupid to know what's in our best interests? Do they think we're benighted relics who'll soon go the way of the dinosaurs? Do they think we're brainwashed by men or religion? Whatever feminists think of pro-life women it's certain they don't respect us, else they wouldn't act like we don't exist. It's as if they believe that ignoring us will invalidate our existence and our beliefs. It won't.
Sarah Palin's pro-life views will definitely be used against her in this election. She'll be condemned as anti-woman even though she's a woman herself. Being a woman won't protect Sarah from attacks from abortion devotees outraged by what they see as gender treason. We distaff pro-lifers are a strong folk, though. We can withstand the vitriol of feminists who babble on about "sisterhood" while rigorously excluding us from their liberals-only sorority. We won't let their hatred stop us. We will continue our struggle against the legalized murder of "inconvenient" life. We will support our Sarah. We will not falter, we will not fail and, come November, we will not lose.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Abortion Does NOT Protect Women's Rights
I got to hear John McCain's appearance on The View today. While asking McCain a question Joy Behar, one of the show's liberal hosts, said something that ruffled my feathers. She claimed that overturning Roe v. Wade, which McCain apparently wants to do, would take away women's rights. As a pro-life person nothing makes me madder than this enormous falsehood that legalized abortion promotes/protects women's rights. It doesn't.
First of all, if Roe v. Wade is overturned it would NOT mean the end of legal abortion. It would only mean that abortion would become a state issue, decided by the states as they see fit. Considering that legal abortion has been the norm for over a generation I seriously doubt if any state would outlaw it entirely. I do see at least some states putting more severe restrictions on the practice, though.
But even if abortion was outlawed in all fifty states it wouldn't mean the end of women's rights. The idea that it would is one of the pro-choice movement's most successful weapons against pro-lifers. When we march against Roe or against abortion in general we are routinely, even hysterically, accused of marching against women's rights. The fact that women are the backbone of the pro-life movement doesn't deter the accusation. But women's rights are bigger than abortion nonetheless. The accusation is false, and I'll tell you why.
The simple truth is that abortion has been legal in times and places where the rights of women were few or nonexistent. In colonial America, for instance, abortion was legal so long as it was performed before "quickening", the time when the mother could feel her baby move. The practice was common but this didn't translate into a high legal or social status for women. Society defined marriage and motherhood as their primary roles in life (anathema to feminists). They were not educated as much as men, if at all, and when married became legal dependents of their husbands. They had no legal right to their own children who went to the father in the event of a divorce. Clearly, the rights of women in colonial America left much to be desired in spite of legal abortion. And the same is true elsewhere in the world.
The Japanese legalized abortion in 1948, a full 25 years before it was legalized in America. Few feminists, however, would consider post-war Japan a hotbed of women's liberation. The same is true of India, which legalized prenatal infanticide one year after the US did. Far from protecting women, legal abortion is used to eliminate them. As many as 50 million females are reported to be missing from India's population, a holocaust due almost entirely to abortion. Rather than going through pregnancy only to end up with a worthless girl, many Indian women use ultrasound to find out their babies' sex and then abort their daughters.
A similar situation arose in China after that country instituted it's one-child policy. The practice got so bad that the Chinese government was forced to amend the policy and allow parents whose first child was a daughter to legally try for another one, hopefully a boy. But this only created another problem. Chinese women who wanted two children began aborting their male babies because the birth of a daughter ensured them the right to have another child. At first glance the abortion of boys in favor of girls seems like a pro-female act, but it's not. The reason Chinese women whose first child is female are allowed to try for another one is because sons are considered vital to the family whereas daughters are not. If the first child is a boy there's no reason to try for another one. Abortion fails to protect women again.
There are other examples I could site but I think you get the picture. Legal abortion does NOTHING to protect, enhance, or promote women's rights. Things such as the right to vote, own land, get custody of children, enter the professions, or go to school are not dependent on the "right" to abortion. The early American feminists were committed to suffrage, not abortion. Many of them, including Susan B. Anthony, were staunchly against the practice. Indeed, they saw the outlawing of abortion, which began in America in the mid 19th century, as progressive reform.
We pro-lifers, then, shouldn't be intimidated by the charge that we're against women's rights. It's a baseless accusation which reveals the ignorance of those who make it. Rather, we should hold our heads up high and continue in the long and proud tradition of fighting for the weakest among us, no matter what Joy Behar says.
First of all, if Roe v. Wade is overturned it would NOT mean the end of legal abortion. It would only mean that abortion would become a state issue, decided by the states as they see fit. Considering that legal abortion has been the norm for over a generation I seriously doubt if any state would outlaw it entirely. I do see at least some states putting more severe restrictions on the practice, though.
But even if abortion was outlawed in all fifty states it wouldn't mean the end of women's rights. The idea that it would is one of the pro-choice movement's most successful weapons against pro-lifers. When we march against Roe or against abortion in general we are routinely, even hysterically, accused of marching against women's rights. The fact that women are the backbone of the pro-life movement doesn't deter the accusation. But women's rights are bigger than abortion nonetheless. The accusation is false, and I'll tell you why.
The simple truth is that abortion has been legal in times and places where the rights of women were few or nonexistent. In colonial America, for instance, abortion was legal so long as it was performed before "quickening", the time when the mother could feel her baby move. The practice was common but this didn't translate into a high legal or social status for women. Society defined marriage and motherhood as their primary roles in life (anathema to feminists). They were not educated as much as men, if at all, and when married became legal dependents of their husbands. They had no legal right to their own children who went to the father in the event of a divorce. Clearly, the rights of women in colonial America left much to be desired in spite of legal abortion. And the same is true elsewhere in the world.
The Japanese legalized abortion in 1948, a full 25 years before it was legalized in America. Few feminists, however, would consider post-war Japan a hotbed of women's liberation. The same is true of India, which legalized prenatal infanticide one year after the US did. Far from protecting women, legal abortion is used to eliminate them. As many as 50 million females are reported to be missing from India's population, a holocaust due almost entirely to abortion. Rather than going through pregnancy only to end up with a worthless girl, many Indian women use ultrasound to find out their babies' sex and then abort their daughters.
A similar situation arose in China after that country instituted it's one-child policy. The practice got so bad that the Chinese government was forced to amend the policy and allow parents whose first child was a daughter to legally try for another one, hopefully a boy. But this only created another problem. Chinese women who wanted two children began aborting their male babies because the birth of a daughter ensured them the right to have another child. At first glance the abortion of boys in favor of girls seems like a pro-female act, but it's not. The reason Chinese women whose first child is female are allowed to try for another one is because sons are considered vital to the family whereas daughters are not. If the first child is a boy there's no reason to try for another one. Abortion fails to protect women again.
There are other examples I could site but I think you get the picture. Legal abortion does NOTHING to protect, enhance, or promote women's rights. Things such as the right to vote, own land, get custody of children, enter the professions, or go to school are not dependent on the "right" to abortion. The early American feminists were committed to suffrage, not abortion. Many of them, including Susan B. Anthony, were staunchly against the practice. Indeed, they saw the outlawing of abortion, which began in America in the mid 19th century, as progressive reform.
We pro-lifers, then, shouldn't be intimidated by the charge that we're against women's rights. It's a baseless accusation which reveals the ignorance of those who make it. Rather, we should hold our heads up high and continue in the long and proud tradition of fighting for the weakest among us, no matter what Joy Behar says.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)