Hypocrisy and lies of the pro-death movement
It all apparently started when an Associated Press reporter came to Stacey Campfield the other day and said "can I talk to you about your latest bill..." Stacey thought the reporter was going to ask about his porn tax legislation, but instead the reporter asked about a bill that he forgot was filed Monday. Stacey meant to file the bill, but had forgotten that it was filed Monday. He assumed, as have so many others, that it would be a symbolic filing and would be ignored.It has not been ignored.
Those so-called paragons of liberty believe that they are somehow defending freedom when they defend the right of others to take life. I believe, as does Stacey Campfield, that the unborn have rights too. It is not their fault that the world may not want them-God created them to live, and with that intended purpose. When we take life from the innocent, we play the part of God, the giver and taker of all life.
In spite of this, Representative Campfield's bill does not infringe on the license (it is hardly a right) to aborticide-it merely acknowledges that these tiny members of the human family have died, and gives them the dignity of that acknowledgement. This legislation has absolutely nothing to do with any infringements upon personal liberty, but it has everything to do with recognizing basic and fundamental human dignity. The hypocrisy of many of our friends on the other side is exposed in the open when they trumpet human rights as they see them, but fail to support the rights of the most defenseless of all-the unborn child in the womb.
This legislation exposes that hypocrisy by doing nothing more then recognizing that the unborn have human dignity, just as the rest of us do. The real reason the militant proponents of aborticide hate this bill is because it will expose legal aborticide quite publicly for the wholesale slaughter of innocence that it is. Aborticide mills, like drug companies, are involved in a business-the business, in this case, of death. They know that if people begin to see dignity in the unborn-if society sees that-their business is in danger.
It isn't a blob, it is a baby-this legislation merely corrects that lie. That is why so many are afraid of it.
Labels: Aborticide, Tennessee politics
posted by Deacon David Oatney @ 12:05 PM
13 Comments:
David Davis is pro-life.
Anon;
I am aware of David Davis' position. He will have a wonderful opportunity to convince me of his devotion to the pro-life cause this Saturday evening in Jefferson City. I will be there with bells on.
David,
Stacey's recent abortion ploy has been tried before in other states. It's failed there before to and in such a way as make the effort synonomous with self-serving grandstanding. Besides that, we're talking about Stacey Campfield here - poor Stacey could come up with anything and it would be dismissed out of hand. So Stacey might be a great guy but I'm not holding my breath that this will go anywhere.
SteveMule
Well stated Mr. Oatney. I am not familiar with Rep. Campfield but it is refreshing that somebody in the State Legislature has the stones to stand up and call a spade a spade. Unborn people are being casually disposed of, mostly because it is convenient for their undeserving parents to not think of them as people. Acceptance of this gastly practice of abortion by our misguided Judicial System has allowed a label of acceptablity to florish. At some point infanticide will follow, and why not? If it is okay to terminate an unborn baby, why not one that has just been born or one that was born last week...or last month...or before the onset of "self-awareness"? After all, the baby may be harming the mother's mental health.
Here are two things that I have noticed about those who are pro-abortion:
1) They do not believe in God, though some claim to.
2) Life is all about them.
3) Above all else, they need to appear "sophisticated" and "progressive" and agree with the pseudo-intellectuals who have come to dominate the media, the college campus and the entertainment industry. They see these people as "cool" and want to emulate them.
More power to you, Mr. Oatney and Rep. Campfield and to others who will raise their voices in support of those who cannot speak for themselves.
Steve;
Perhaps you don't take Stacey seriously, but believe me, I do. He understands that if we are going to have legalized murder, we might as well at least give the unborn some dignity in death.
As I said in my post the day before I posted this-the real reason it won't pass is because it would give people an idea of the number of abortions performed in this state. The pro-abortion movement cannot have any of that-it would likely turn the tide against it.
Harold;
Quite obviously, I agree with just about everything you said there...I know Rep. Campfield does too.
The issue at hand with this bill is whether we recognize the personhood of the unborn. Some call this granstanding-it is not. This is merely an attempt to do the right thing. The fact that this bill will not pass is not Rep. Campfield's problem-that sad reality is a commentary on the state of our society as a whole.
To put it more bluntly (and quote Moses): "Who is on the LORD's side? let him come unto me." (Exodus 32:26)
Justice can never be done unless some people are willing to do unpopular things and be blasted and scourned for the sake of what is right. The injustice of abortion will never be ended unless people take a stand, and in the case of people like Rep. Campfield, a very public one.
"Unborn people are being casually disposed of, mostly because it is convenient for their undeserving parents to not think of them as people."
Harold,
That's not as bad as born people being casually disposed, mostly because it is convenient for their undeserving parents who didn't want them to begin with. Are you willing to adopt one of these children? Are you for healthcare for all children and food subsidy programs for them? After school programs so they don't get in trouble with their absent parents?
If you're not willing to adopt and for all of the social programs needed to keep unwanted children from acting out later in life and then you want to kill them--after they've been tortured and abused and they do something stupid and end up on death row.
We may disagree when life begins, but NO one disagrees a life is a life once it is living on its own outside of the womb. That is when many people who call themselves pro life want to stop caring for the child. A glob of cells you'll fight for, but a fully formed baby out of the womb, forget it once it means higher taxes and social programs to keep it out of trouble from the unwanted and unworthy parents. It's not the child's fault, yet that child will pay later on in life if we as a society don't step in.
Then you say:
"Here are two things that I have noticed about those who are pro-abortion:
1) They do not believe in God, though some claim to.
2) Life is all about them."
That is wrong on so many levels, and deeply offensive.
I am indeed pro choice and deeply religious, and I don't know who you think you are to determine someone else's personal relationship with G-d, and #2 is just as absurd as #1.
That's out and out offensive.
Sharon;
Before I say what I am about to, I know you understand that I have great personal respect for you so I hope you are not badly offended by what I am about to say...but I see one of your statements as being deeply flawed.
You write:
"That's not as bad as born people being casually disposed, mostly because it is convenient for their undeserving parents who didn't want them to begin with."
Its not? You'll have to pardon me here, Sharon, but I think children being disposed of like garbage, whether in or out of the womb, is pretty grusome. Both are great injustices and both should be fought with great vigor.
The flaws continue with this: "A glob of cells you'll fight for, but a fully formed baby out of the womb, forget it once it means higher taxes and social programs to keep it out of trouble from the unwanted and unworthy parents."
If the welfare of children really is your primary concern here, I do not understand why you would not be completely opposed to abortion on demand. It ought to follow that if you are going to formulate a social policy that puts kids at a #1 priority status that the very first thing you would want to do as part of that policy would be to protect the child in the womb.
The fact that so many liberals talk about the rights of children and then support taking the lives of children before they see their first sunrise-that is a double standard.
There once was a man who had the kind of philosophy you speak of Sharon...his name was Bob Casey (God rest his soul)-how'd they treat him?
Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Richard Gephardt, even Jesse Jackson, all proclaimed at one time or another that they were pro-life-Gephardt, Jackson, and Kennedy all denounced Roe. What changed their minds? I don't think their hearts changed, I think they followed the political money and who controls the Democratic Party.
Sad for the children and sad for the country.
David,
Arbotion is a medicl procedure and statistics on the number performed in any given time is readily available, as required by law - you can also look up the number appendictomies performed. Stacey saying that he wants know how many are done is indicative of how clueless and/or how desingenuous Stacey can be.
Stacey's bill is a TN version/copy of what has been attempted (and failed) in New Hampshire and Montanna. He can't even write original legislation. This is a grandstand stunt to keep him in the news while stroking the feathers of the conservative base.
SteveMule
Steve;
Abortions are also notoriously under-reported, a fact well-known inside the pro-life movement for years.
This is because the number of botched abortions in these "medical" facilities is much higher than what a lot of people on the other side would have you believe.
It isn't just about the reporting-on that score you are quite correct. This bill is about recognizing the dignity of unborn children and giving them the dignity in death that society will not.
Argh...
I wrote this long response and I hit the wrong thingie and it disappeared.
Anyhow, I agree with you Dave, that disposing of children is horrible. Unfortunately, that is what happens when a child is born to a mother that doesn't want him/her. First the child is disposable to the parent, then to society, and finally ends up acting out and ending up on death row and then that's when everyone wants to murder him/her!
As someone who was unwanted and severely abused as a child, I would have rather have not gone through all of that and been aborted and gone home to G-d. Of course I don't want to die now, but I would rather not have been born. No child should have to suffer being unwanted and being abused.
Now, having said all of that, your side could gain more support if you all would be more reasonable about supporting a fully formed child outside of the womb. But health insurance and after school programs and food stamps and whatever else it takes to see that unwanted child is cared for is going to take money which means higher taxes. And a lot of the same people who scream about the importance of an unborn child scream about supporting the born child. That doesn't make sense. I also think everyone who calls themselves pro life should have to adopt a minimum of one unwanted child. Because of all the things I mentioned that an unwanted child needs, there's no amount of money/taxes that can compete with what the child needs most, which is love.
As I've pointed out to several conservative bloggers, Mike Huckabee is the first pro life conservative Presidential candidate I've ever heard talk about the need to take care of unwanted children once they are outside the womb. You all should really take a good look at him.
Anyhow,I am against 3rd term abortions,(except when the life of the mother is in jeopardy)but I think your side and my side can meet in the middle somewhere if safety nets are in place for the born child. And again, every pro life person needs to step up and adopt an unwanted child.
While that won't eliminate abortions, it will make them a lot less common.
Sharon;
Your argument about adoption is a valid one and it is one that the major national leaders of the pro-life movement have harped on for years to the tune of campaigning very hard for adoption reform.
Our current adoption system in this country makes it very hard for good people to adopt unwanted kids. Adoption waiting lists are a mile long (I know, I have a grandmother on my Dad's side who is a retired social worker who worked with neglected, abused, and unwanted kids)...the kids are there, and so are the families who want them. The system makes it nearly impossible for good people to adopt, because if you are trying to adopt, the process can take years and years and often cost money you don't have to spend. When some say that it is easier to have your own kids, they aren't joking...it should be the other way around. In the end, it is often only the very well-off who can afford the expense.
When your side uses language like "every pro-life person should adopt an unwanted child," they forget what they ask of them and what the system will put them through just for wanting a child!
I know a lady who is about to adopt an unwanted little girl from China. Why China instead of an American child? Well, plane tickets and all, the Chinese make the process a Hell of a lot easier and less consuming than our own country does! That's just wrong...
If you really want to adopt unwanted children instead of abort them (and if you do, I agree with that) join us in making it much easier to adopt.
You write:"As someone who was unwanted and severely abused as a child, I would have rather have not gone through all of that and been aborted and gone home to G-d. Of course I don't want to die now, but I would rather not have been born."
Shoron, I am sorry you feel that way. God has a purpose for the life of every child, and that includes you. I am thankful that His ways are not ours. As the Scriptures tells us, God's ways are so far above our ways as the Heavens are above the earth.
While I agree with the adoption side of the abortion argument, I have to take issue with "every pro life person needs to step up and adopt an unwanted child".
First and foremost, I have a beautiful three year old son, whom my husband and I love dearly. I went from being pro-choice to pro-life in the matter of minutes it took me to hear my son's heartbeat for the very first time (and once I snapped out of liberal haze I was in).
Where is personal responsibility - when this topic is being discussed? Aborticide should never be an option for birth control, and if you are not ready or do not want children, then do the responsible thing - keep your pants on. As an fairly intelligent person and as a Catholic, abstinence is the only 100 percent way to prevent unplanned and unwanted pregnancies. And before I hear - well, people are going to have sex...that's fine, but don't expect me to take on the burden of their mistake. And in no way should an unborn child have to pay for the mistake of the irresponsible parties with his/or her life.
And please don't throw medical reasons or rape at me as an argument either, because statistically - those abortion numbers are relatively low and research shows that most abortions are done because there was an "uh-oh or oops!".
An unborn child is not a glob of cells, or a tissue mass. It's not going to turn into a car, or a duck. It is a living, breathing human being who is able to feel pain very early on during the gestational period. (I would have to reference my child development books for the age in weeks.)
To allow those who support the largest human rights violation in the world to keep dehumanizing children, does a great disservice to our society and to the most innocent among us. Then people wonder what in the hell is wrong with kids nowadays.
Post a Comment
<< Home