As we continue to watch the events in Newtown, CT, we are saddened for the needless loss of life. We are saddened that 26 people were killed by a man who was most likely out of touch with reality. We are saddened that these families have to go through such agony and grief. Instead of these families sharing the Christmas season opening gifts and spending quality family time together, they will have the unfortunate task of burying a child during a time that is supposed to be filled with joy and happiness.
As Americans, we find the slaughter of 20 innocent young children and 6 adults to be an atrocious act committed by a completely deranged person. How could anyone do something so horrendous? To what depths of depravity can someone reach?
As horrendous as the murders of these children are in our eyes, it pales in comparison to the greatest massacre that we face today. And that massacre is abortion. We should not have to see even 1 case where a child, or anyone else for that matter, is murdered in cold blood. Yet, the unborn are aborted every day by the thousands, in cold blood, and no one bats an eye about that number.
In Newtown, there were 26 people murdered in cold blood. Since the legalization of abortion in 1973 in the United States, there have been more than 50,000,000 innocent, unborn children murdered through the medical procedure we know as abortion. Yet, no one is on the news today, talking about the number of children that are aborted each and every day.
For some reason, our society today does not seem to have a problem if we kill innocent children, so long as they are still in the womb. I, for one, would love to know why a child outside of the womb is more valuable than the potential of the child that is still in the womb. We even have the terrible procedure where a child is allowed to be partially born, then killed before it is completely out of the womb, a 'procedure' we know as partial-birth abortion. And while there are pro-abortion people who are against this procedure, there is still considerable support from the pro-abortion movement for this kind of child-murder.
Our society has killed off the unborn at an alarming rate. And while the numbers have slowed down a little bit over the last 10 years, we are still aborting close to 1,000,000 unborn children every year. While the pro-abortion crowd cheers the fact that there are not as many abortions, the pro-life crowd continues to mourn that there is even 1 abortion every year, much less 1,000,000 abortions.
Abortion is an atrocity committed against the helpless, defenseless, unborn child. While we are appalled when someone goes into a school and kills children, or someone goes into a movie theater and randomly shoots and kills people, or we hear that a dictator in some third world country kills thousands and thousands of his fellow countrymen, why are we not as equally appalled when we find out that abortion providers have legally taken the life of millions upon millions of unborn children since the legalization of abortion?
While we need to take time to stop and mourn for the loss of life in Newtown, CT, and pray for these families that are directly, and indirectly, affected by this tragedy, we also need to stop and pray that this senseless murder of the unborn comes to an end in this country. No society should accept the loss of innocent life, even if it is legal.
Abortion stops a beating heart. It kills a living being inside the womb. The fact that this kind of act is legal is sad. The fact that there are people who do everything within their power to keep abortion legal is even sadder. The fact that we do not seem to care enough to do anything to stop it - well, that is a problem that we need to address.
We need to stop abortion. Until then, our society, as a whole, will continue to devalue human life. Because if we do not even protect the most innocent and helpless among us, who will?
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Three different, high profile murders.....but with similar motives
Within the past couple of weeks, our nation has had its attention turned to 3 different high profile murders, each of which has been committed by a different person, each of which had seemingly differing motives. However, all 3 of them have one thing in common: a built-up hatred for a certain group of people that drove them to commit the act of murder.
The first murder was that of Dr. George Tiller (aka Tiller the Killer). He was gunned down in a church by Scott Roeder. He was an abortion provider, specializing in late-term abortions, one of the few people in the country to offer this ‘service’. Tiller had aborted tens of thousands of innocent lives over his time in the abortion business. However, what Scott Roeder did was not right. It was not his position to take the life of another man. Though we may not like it, George Tiller was not breaking the law. Abortion is a legal activity, albeit a heinous act. Therefore, he could not have charges brought against him. To take justice into one’s own hand (i.e. vigilante justice) is just as bad as the sins that Tiller was committing. Tiller will be condemned to hell one day for the acts he committed. It is not up to other men to get him there sooner than his appointed time.
The second murder was that of Pvt. William Long, an Army recruiter. He was shot by Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad (aka Carlos Bledsoe), a Muslim convert who had issues against the U.S. Military. He was mad at how the U.S. had treated Muslims in the past, though not specifying exactly what it was the U.S. did to mistreat Muslims. He then took his own self-defined idea of justice into his own hands and shot at 2 men outside the recruiting center, killing one of them (Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula was also wounded). He later went on to say that he would have shot more recruiters had there been more of them there to shoot.
The last murder happened at the Holocaust Museum in Washington. It was there that James VonBrunn shot Mr. Stephen Johns, a security guard at the museum. Mr. VonBrunn was a white supremacist who, by all accounts, was growing more bitter and distressed daily. He did not like Jews or blacks. He often railed against the government. He had been jailed many years ago for 6½ for attempting to kidnap members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Once again, we see that someone took his own idea of justice into his own hands and took the life of another person.
Now, what do these men have in common? On the surface, nothing. When you look deeper, you have 3 murders, committed by 3 different people who obviously had anger management issues. They were all consumed by a hatred for another group in society. They all decided that they were going to act as judge, jury, and executioner in order to make things right (in their own eyes).
The press has been quick to denounce the killing of Tiller and the killing of Johns, painting the killers as ‘right-wing extremists.’ Why do they do this? All of the right-to-life groups have come out and condemned Scott Roeder, as that is not how these groups operate. They are out to change the hearts and minds of people. They do not participate in murder, the same act that the abortionists commit daily. So why do they need to try to put a label on Roeder, especially one that does not really apply?
VonBrunn was a white supremacist, who hated Jews and blacks. He hated President Bush and the so-called neo-cons. He was a 9/11 conspiracy loon. These are many of the same ideas that a lot of the left-wing groups hold dear. So why is he being called a right-wing extremist?
The only one not really condemned by the media (or the President, for that matter) was the killing of Pvt. Long by a Muslim. I guess we do not want to make them mad. However, his pattern of thinking is similar to those who committed the atrocities of 9/11. This is a pervasive ideology and must be stopped. But we cannot do so by committing the same types of vigilante justice that this man committed.
Also, all three of these crimes were committed with guns. And because of the high-profile nature of these crimes, many politicians and gun-control groups are jumping on the soap box and pushing for tighter gun controls. So their answer is to take the guns away from people that obey the law so that the law-abiders can be free game for those who are not interested in adhering to the law.
Through all of this, we can see that the Administration and the media want to paint conservatives as some sort of extremist group (even though conservatives have repudiated all of these acts). The conservatives, in their minds, need to be controlled and suppressed. That is the administration’s goal. They do not like political competition, so this is their way of stomping it out. It is time we start using these despicable acts as political propaganda and call them what they are: acts of murder. Simply put, these are all men who took away the life of another man. Why? Because they were consumed with enough hatred to kill another person.
The administration and the media need to realize that very few things that happen around us take place through the prism of politics. Murder is murder. Hate is hate. We do not need more gun control measures or hate crime legislation. All crimes are committed out of hate, whether it is hate for the government, hate for another person, hate for another race of people. The administration wanted to bring people together. They are doing so by eliminating the competition, only leaving those who agree with them.
The first murder was that of Dr. George Tiller (aka Tiller the Killer). He was gunned down in a church by Scott Roeder. He was an abortion provider, specializing in late-term abortions, one of the few people in the country to offer this ‘service’. Tiller had aborted tens of thousands of innocent lives over his time in the abortion business. However, what Scott Roeder did was not right. It was not his position to take the life of another man. Though we may not like it, George Tiller was not breaking the law. Abortion is a legal activity, albeit a heinous act. Therefore, he could not have charges brought against him. To take justice into one’s own hand (i.e. vigilante justice) is just as bad as the sins that Tiller was committing. Tiller will be condemned to hell one day for the acts he committed. It is not up to other men to get him there sooner than his appointed time.
The second murder was that of Pvt. William Long, an Army recruiter. He was shot by Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad (aka Carlos Bledsoe), a Muslim convert who had issues against the U.S. Military. He was mad at how the U.S. had treated Muslims in the past, though not specifying exactly what it was the U.S. did to mistreat Muslims. He then took his own self-defined idea of justice into his own hands and shot at 2 men outside the recruiting center, killing one of them (Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula was also wounded). He later went on to say that he would have shot more recruiters had there been more of them there to shoot.
The last murder happened at the Holocaust Museum in Washington. It was there that James VonBrunn shot Mr. Stephen Johns, a security guard at the museum. Mr. VonBrunn was a white supremacist who, by all accounts, was growing more bitter and distressed daily. He did not like Jews or blacks. He often railed against the government. He had been jailed many years ago for 6½ for attempting to kidnap members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Once again, we see that someone took his own idea of justice into his own hands and took the life of another person.
Now, what do these men have in common? On the surface, nothing. When you look deeper, you have 3 murders, committed by 3 different people who obviously had anger management issues. They were all consumed by a hatred for another group in society. They all decided that they were going to act as judge, jury, and executioner in order to make things right (in their own eyes).
The press has been quick to denounce the killing of Tiller and the killing of Johns, painting the killers as ‘right-wing extremists.’ Why do they do this? All of the right-to-life groups have come out and condemned Scott Roeder, as that is not how these groups operate. They are out to change the hearts and minds of people. They do not participate in murder, the same act that the abortionists commit daily. So why do they need to try to put a label on Roeder, especially one that does not really apply?
VonBrunn was a white supremacist, who hated Jews and blacks. He hated President Bush and the so-called neo-cons. He was a 9/11 conspiracy loon. These are many of the same ideas that a lot of the left-wing groups hold dear. So why is he being called a right-wing extremist?
The only one not really condemned by the media (or the President, for that matter) was the killing of Pvt. Long by a Muslim. I guess we do not want to make them mad. However, his pattern of thinking is similar to those who committed the atrocities of 9/11. This is a pervasive ideology and must be stopped. But we cannot do so by committing the same types of vigilante justice that this man committed.
Also, all three of these crimes were committed with guns. And because of the high-profile nature of these crimes, many politicians and gun-control groups are jumping on the soap box and pushing for tighter gun controls. So their answer is to take the guns away from people that obey the law so that the law-abiders can be free game for those who are not interested in adhering to the law.
Through all of this, we can see that the Administration and the media want to paint conservatives as some sort of extremist group (even though conservatives have repudiated all of these acts). The conservatives, in their minds, need to be controlled and suppressed. That is the administration’s goal. They do not like political competition, so this is their way of stomping it out. It is time we start using these despicable acts as political propaganda and call them what they are: acts of murder. Simply put, these are all men who took away the life of another man. Why? Because they were consumed with enough hatred to kill another person.
The administration and the media need to realize that very few things that happen around us take place through the prism of politics. Murder is murder. Hate is hate. We do not need more gun control measures or hate crime legislation. All crimes are committed out of hate, whether it is hate for the government, hate for another person, hate for another race of people. The administration wanted to bring people together. They are doing so by eliminating the competition, only leaving those who agree with them.
Friday, January 23, 2009
35 years and 50,000,000 unborn children later...
At what point in time do we, as people, say that enough is enough? How can we continue to allow a genocide to occur in front of our faces with our eyes wide open and yet say nothing or do nothing about it? What does it say about us that we would allow the taking of some 50,000,000 innocent lives and we do not stand in the way and stand up for these poor, helpless souls? Better yet, how can people stand up for the practice of taking these lives all in the name of convenience and the right to choose?
Well, it all goes back to January 22, 1973, when the U.S. Supreme Court made a new law stating that abortion is a constitutional right of a woman. It is her right to do with her body whatever she believes is right. No one can tell her what to do. It was back then that Norma McCorvey, aka Jane Roe, sued for the right to have an abortion. She had previously given birth to 2 children, who she subsequently gave up for adoption. Not wanting to go through that same ordeal with a 3rd child, she fabricated a story that she was raped. After that, the doctor and a few lawyers ran with it, and now we see what it has turned into.
Anyway, Norma McCorvey is no longer an advocate of abortion. In fact, she is exactly the opposite. She is a proponent of the rights of the unborn. In a 2001 interview, she admits that she felt used by the pro-abortion groups. They used her as a means to advance their cause. They would stop at nothing to have abortion legal and readily available. They really did not care about her, only the issue.
We are now living in a day 35 years later where the pro-abortion groups have tried to morph into groups labeled as pro-choice (because it does not sound as bad). They now say that they do not want abortions to be commonplace. Rather, they need to be available, just in case the need arises for a woman to have an abortion (and these are usually brought up as cases of rape, incest, and where the life of the mother is in danger).
While I do not know anyone that has ever been in any one of these ‘special needs’ cases, I am sure that there are a lot of ideas running through one’s mind in such times. In the cases of rape and incest, there is physical and emotional pain to be dealt with. There is much psychological trauma that one goes through. However, to have an abortion is not the answer. As the old adage goes, ‘Two wrongs do not make a right.’ To take your anger out on an innocent 3rd party cannot remove the grief and agony of what one is going through. It can only add to it.
Concerning the life of the mother being at risk, we have made so many medical advances over the years that this is very uncommon. There are many medical ways, now, that a woman, experiencing some medical difficulties, can have a child without putting her life at risk. I would encourage you to read the book Legislating Morality by Dr. Norman Geisler for further information regarding this.
As far as the act of abortion, most are done due to the mother not wanting to be pregnant. The main reason we hear is that women should have a right to do with their body whatever they want to do. However, I have a problem with this. They already have done with their body what they wanted to do. That is why they are in this position in the first place. The real issue is that they do not want to deal with the consequences of their actions. They think that by having an abortion they can get rid of the consequences. However, more often than not, it does not. It only creates greater problems, whether physically, or more importantly, emotionally and psychologically. How many women have been talked into having an abortion, and now regret it? My guess is that this number would be fairly substantial.
Some abortions are done because of a detection of a birth defect. People will tell you that they want their kids to be ‘normal’ children. A birth defect will only limit that ability. It will also upset their own life, as the child will have special needs which will upset the apple cart that we consider to be our own perfect little lives. The problem with this excuse is that we decide to play God. Who are we to decide who should be born and who should not be? That is not for us to decide. God gives life. Who are we to decide that this unborn child should not have a chance to live? God has a reason for allowing this to happen, and we should trust in Him.
Yet others would say that abortion should be necessary because some people cannot afford to have children. Well, if that is the case, don’t engage in behavior that could lead to becoming pregnant. The child may be born into a home where they will not be loved. I admit that this is a problem, but abortion is not the answer. There are many out there who are willing to adopt because they are not able to have children. To witness the pain and agony of a couple who wants to have a child but cannot become pregnant, or worse yet, they become pregnant, only to end up having a miscarriage, is heartbreaking. Yet women out there, every day, get pregnant and discard their yet-to-be-born children through the act of abortion – this is wrong.
Some would say that there are not enough people out there willing to adopt these unborn children, which very well may be true. However, first and foremost, it is the responsibility of the couple that becomes pregnant to take care of that child. My wife and I are responsible for our 3 children. I am not responsible for other people’s children. They are responsible for them. They should be taking responsibility, not looking to duck it.
May people today criticize Abstinence Only types of sex education. People like to point out that many girls going through this type of program still become pregnant. The reason for that is that these girls (and guys, too) do not practice what they have learned. Abstinence works. You will not get pregnant if you do not have sex. You just have to make it part of your lifestyle.
Others would say that the fetus is not a viable life form. Well, after my wife and I have had 3 children, I can say that this is a viable life that is within the womb of the mother. I have been to several ultrasound appointments (with my wife), where I was able to see the movements of the child in the womb. I could see that outline of a human body. I could hear the heartbeat. I could feel the baby kicking. This is life, not just mere tissue.
I saw a commercial for a special to be run on the National Geographic Network about cats and dogs and life in the womb for these animals. I was captivated by the images of ultrasounds on these animals. Then it made me think: would the pro-abortion crowd perform abortions on these animals because they do not want to see more animals end up in shelters or they do not have the room in their house for a litter of dogs or cats? Most likely, the answer is no. Then why would we consider doing this to an unborn child? Are the lives of dogs and cats more valuable to us than the life a human being?
We hear news stories about a woman giving birth in a bathroom stall or in a bedroom or a hotel room somewhere who does not want to keep the child. They throw the child away or leave that child behind in hopes that it will die and they can walk away. First, they can never get away from the inner struggle and the guilt of their actions. Second, we as a public, are generally outraged when events like this occur. We ask ourselves how someone could possibly do this. Yet, if they would have had an abortion 10 minutes before the child was born, then we would think nothing of it. This would then be a legal act. Tell me, what is the difference in that 15-20 minute span? The only thing I can think of is the location of the baby in relationship to the womb.
Let’s stop and think about this: Abortion has been legal in the U.S. now for 35 years. Approximately 50,000,000 children have been aborted over that time. If the U.S. population is approximately 305 million, then this would be equal to about 16.4% of the population. Imagine if we had those children with us today. We would have doctors and researchers trying to find cures for different diseases, business leaders, political leaders, educators. Yet we have chosen a different path, all in the name of convenience, in the name of choice.
Yes, this is a genocide, more specifically, infanticide. It bothers us when we hear accounts of children being killed in accidents, by the actions of a parent, in the face of war. As a nation, we look at places like Darfur and Somalia and their ongoing genocides, brought on by their tyrannical leaders. Are these wrong? Yes, they are, and there are not many, if any, who would disagree. The people are guilty of nothing but living in a country where their leaders rule with an iron fist and suppress every possible human right and privilege that they possibly can.
How then is abortion any different? What are these unborn children guilty of? Did they do something wrong? No, they did not. Rather, they are a mere inconvenience to someone looking to run away from the consequences of their own actions.
Well, it all goes back to January 22, 1973, when the U.S. Supreme Court made a new law stating that abortion is a constitutional right of a woman. It is her right to do with her body whatever she believes is right. No one can tell her what to do. It was back then that Norma McCorvey, aka Jane Roe, sued for the right to have an abortion. She had previously given birth to 2 children, who she subsequently gave up for adoption. Not wanting to go through that same ordeal with a 3rd child, she fabricated a story that she was raped. After that, the doctor and a few lawyers ran with it, and now we see what it has turned into.
Anyway, Norma McCorvey is no longer an advocate of abortion. In fact, she is exactly the opposite. She is a proponent of the rights of the unborn. In a 2001 interview, she admits that she felt used by the pro-abortion groups. They used her as a means to advance their cause. They would stop at nothing to have abortion legal and readily available. They really did not care about her, only the issue.
We are now living in a day 35 years later where the pro-abortion groups have tried to morph into groups labeled as pro-choice (because it does not sound as bad). They now say that they do not want abortions to be commonplace. Rather, they need to be available, just in case the need arises for a woman to have an abortion (and these are usually brought up as cases of rape, incest, and where the life of the mother is in danger).
While I do not know anyone that has ever been in any one of these ‘special needs’ cases, I am sure that there are a lot of ideas running through one’s mind in such times. In the cases of rape and incest, there is physical and emotional pain to be dealt with. There is much psychological trauma that one goes through. However, to have an abortion is not the answer. As the old adage goes, ‘Two wrongs do not make a right.’ To take your anger out on an innocent 3rd party cannot remove the grief and agony of what one is going through. It can only add to it.
Concerning the life of the mother being at risk, we have made so many medical advances over the years that this is very uncommon. There are many medical ways, now, that a woman, experiencing some medical difficulties, can have a child without putting her life at risk. I would encourage you to read the book Legislating Morality by Dr. Norman Geisler for further information regarding this.
As far as the act of abortion, most are done due to the mother not wanting to be pregnant. The main reason we hear is that women should have a right to do with their body whatever they want to do. However, I have a problem with this. They already have done with their body what they wanted to do. That is why they are in this position in the first place. The real issue is that they do not want to deal with the consequences of their actions. They think that by having an abortion they can get rid of the consequences. However, more often than not, it does not. It only creates greater problems, whether physically, or more importantly, emotionally and psychologically. How many women have been talked into having an abortion, and now regret it? My guess is that this number would be fairly substantial.
Some abortions are done because of a detection of a birth defect. People will tell you that they want their kids to be ‘normal’ children. A birth defect will only limit that ability. It will also upset their own life, as the child will have special needs which will upset the apple cart that we consider to be our own perfect little lives. The problem with this excuse is that we decide to play God. Who are we to decide who should be born and who should not be? That is not for us to decide. God gives life. Who are we to decide that this unborn child should not have a chance to live? God has a reason for allowing this to happen, and we should trust in Him.
Yet others would say that abortion should be necessary because some people cannot afford to have children. Well, if that is the case, don’t engage in behavior that could lead to becoming pregnant. The child may be born into a home where they will not be loved. I admit that this is a problem, but abortion is not the answer. There are many out there who are willing to adopt because they are not able to have children. To witness the pain and agony of a couple who wants to have a child but cannot become pregnant, or worse yet, they become pregnant, only to end up having a miscarriage, is heartbreaking. Yet women out there, every day, get pregnant and discard their yet-to-be-born children through the act of abortion – this is wrong.
Some would say that there are not enough people out there willing to adopt these unborn children, which very well may be true. However, first and foremost, it is the responsibility of the couple that becomes pregnant to take care of that child. My wife and I are responsible for our 3 children. I am not responsible for other people’s children. They are responsible for them. They should be taking responsibility, not looking to duck it.
May people today criticize Abstinence Only types of sex education. People like to point out that many girls going through this type of program still become pregnant. The reason for that is that these girls (and guys, too) do not practice what they have learned. Abstinence works. You will not get pregnant if you do not have sex. You just have to make it part of your lifestyle.
Others would say that the fetus is not a viable life form. Well, after my wife and I have had 3 children, I can say that this is a viable life that is within the womb of the mother. I have been to several ultrasound appointments (with my wife), where I was able to see the movements of the child in the womb. I could see that outline of a human body. I could hear the heartbeat. I could feel the baby kicking. This is life, not just mere tissue.
I saw a commercial for a special to be run on the National Geographic Network about cats and dogs and life in the womb for these animals. I was captivated by the images of ultrasounds on these animals. Then it made me think: would the pro-abortion crowd perform abortions on these animals because they do not want to see more animals end up in shelters or they do not have the room in their house for a litter of dogs or cats? Most likely, the answer is no. Then why would we consider doing this to an unborn child? Are the lives of dogs and cats more valuable to us than the life a human being?
We hear news stories about a woman giving birth in a bathroom stall or in a bedroom or a hotel room somewhere who does not want to keep the child. They throw the child away or leave that child behind in hopes that it will die and they can walk away. First, they can never get away from the inner struggle and the guilt of their actions. Second, we as a public, are generally outraged when events like this occur. We ask ourselves how someone could possibly do this. Yet, if they would have had an abortion 10 minutes before the child was born, then we would think nothing of it. This would then be a legal act. Tell me, what is the difference in that 15-20 minute span? The only thing I can think of is the location of the baby in relationship to the womb.
Let’s stop and think about this: Abortion has been legal in the U.S. now for 35 years. Approximately 50,000,000 children have been aborted over that time. If the U.S. population is approximately 305 million, then this would be equal to about 16.4% of the population. Imagine if we had those children with us today. We would have doctors and researchers trying to find cures for different diseases, business leaders, political leaders, educators. Yet we have chosen a different path, all in the name of convenience, in the name of choice.
Yes, this is a genocide, more specifically, infanticide. It bothers us when we hear accounts of children being killed in accidents, by the actions of a parent, in the face of war. As a nation, we look at places like Darfur and Somalia and their ongoing genocides, brought on by their tyrannical leaders. Are these wrong? Yes, they are, and there are not many, if any, who would disagree. The people are guilty of nothing but living in a country where their leaders rule with an iron fist and suppress every possible human right and privilege that they possibly can.
How then is abortion any different? What are these unborn children guilty of? Did they do something wrong? No, they did not. Rather, they are a mere inconvenience to someone looking to run away from the consequences of their own actions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)