“The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being.”
John Holdren, U.S. Science Czar (quoted on Glenn Beck tonight)
Pro-lifers have been saying it until they’re blue in the face: if you can kill the unborn, then nobody is safe, and there is no logical cut-off to when you can kill the baby. Child abuse and murder have skyrocketed: pro-lifers have pointed out that, if you can kill the baby in the womb right up to birth, then what really changed five minutes, or five months, after birth? Are any of us safe?
The Science Czar doesn’t seem to think that the scientific evidence argues for humanity until, well… at some point.
Apparently, we have gotten so blase about the abortion murders in our midst, it is now ok to be completely out in the open about the lack of humanity for some time after birth. Some of the more radical thinkers in this direction argue for “human” criteria including independence, ability to be self-sustaining, etc. Well, good grief, I said (yelling at the tv, as usual), my brother didn’t fulfill those criteria until about 23 years old!
Others say that the infant doesn’t *count* because they don’t understand tomorrow, long-term plans, etc. Does that mean that people with mental disabilities are the next on the list? What about the elderly who develop dementia or Alzheimer’s? Combine that with the graph from Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, where infants and those over 55 are drastically less likely to receive health care “intervention” if there is any kind of shortage.
Oh, no, no, we aren’t going to kill your grandma, President Obama told us.
Now, if she needs too much medicine, we might just let her die. But that’s totally different, right?
Several public pundits scoffed that, oh, that ditzy Sarah Palin is totally out to lunch when she warns about “death panels” deciding whether or not her elderly parents or child with Downs will get health care.
But a child with a major disability can’t really expect that we’ll waste money on him when we could be curing more useful teenagers, now can he? So we won’t euthenize him, but we won’t do anything to avoid his death or improve his life, either.
When Queen Elizabeth was persecuting the Catholics in England through punitive taxes, prohibitions on education and certain employments, etc., she insisted she was just doing it for the sake of England’s stability. (Never mind that most English were still Catholic until the Gunpowder Plot in 1605, after Elizabeth’s death.) Of course, people resisted. Many were arrested and sent to prison. Not executed, of course: we don’t want to make martyrs… just left in putrid water in the prisons up to their waists until they rotted alive and eventually died. The Queen didn’t actually execute them… technically…
Anybody feel safer yet?
Please listen to this podcast.
Is MICHAEL Reagan Right?
No, I think he’s wrong. Arguing that 8 out of 10 issues is “close enough” is not much of a guiding principle. We have winked at this issue for so long, people expect that this will just continue. As I’m hearing Michael Reagan’s comments, he’s basically saying, “Well, she’s right on everything except abortion, so she’s okay if she’s the one who wins the primary.”
If we were talking about a different issue, he might have a point. Good on 8 out of 10 issues, but he’s bad on taxes. 8 out of 10, but she’s not so great on immigration. Do we hold those things in higher regard than the lives of children? Is our economy more important than premeditated murder? Would you vote for someone who was great on all the “other” issues, but advocated cutting costs by freeing all murderers from prison and not prosecuting murder anymore? Of course not: the taxes may be uncomfortable, but releasing murderers will get someone killed. There’s a difference.
Advocating for abortion is not morally neutral. More than a million dead children and wounded mothers each year is not just a political football to play with. Certain things are non-negotiable. We may have to work harder to find and/or encourage pro-life candidates, but just putting up with pro-abortion politicians who want to call themselves Republicans hasn’t fixed anything.
The problem is that nobody should be winning Republican primaries as a pro-abortion politician.
The radio host made the real point (around minute 49): “How many jobs do you think a baby is worth?”
Michael Reagan finally got frustrated and hung up. “A great family legacy doesn’t define right and wrong.” Yes, Nancy Reagan has promoted embryonic stem cell research and is, therefore, an accessory to murder, great husband or not. “Right and wrong is determined by- stay with me, here- right and wrong!”