In all of the chaos regarding the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, we should remember one simple fact: if Kavanaugh were pro-choice, he would have been confirmed with 100 votes. He’s clearly not an advocate for abortion, but Democrats didn’t have the votes to stop him so instead, Democrats decided to slander him as a gang rapist. Remember, Democratic opposition to Kavanaugh started not with Christine Blasey Ford, but with women in Handmaid's Tale outfits occupying the Senate confirmation hearing room, and pro-abortion protesters being dragged out of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Abortion to the vast majority of the political left is a sacrament. It’s not merely a political issue, it is a defining character issue. If you are pro-abortion, you’re a good, generous, decent person who values women. If you are pro-life, you are an evil, repressive, nasty person who wants to control women’s bodies. It’s that view that leads to incidents like this one, in which a pro-life advocate was kicked in the face by a pro-abortion nutcase this week.
Shapiro asserted that the word "abortion" is itself a euphemism used to ignore the barbarity of the procedure: "The pro-abortion movement suggests that pro-lifers are extreme. In reality, the extreme position on abortion is held by the Democratic Party. Their platform calls for legal abortion all the way until point of birth. But pro-abortion extremists get away with their rhetoric because they use euphemistic language to describe what exactly abortion is. In fact, the word abortion is itself a euphemism. The procedure of abortion isn’t an anodyne polyp removal; it involves doing terminal violence to an unborn child. Ignoring that fact allows abortion advocates to avoid looking reality directly in the face."
So, for just a few moments, let’s look reality in the face. This is a picture of a 19-week-old baby. This is a human child; this is not a ball of goo; this is not a cluster of cells. In January, 44 Democrats in the United States Senate voted not to protect the rights of babies older than this unborn child. Only three Democrats — Joe Manchin, Joe Donnelly, and Bob Casey voted to protect children at 20 weeks. Only two Republicans voted against such protection, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski. Take a good look at that baby. That is a human being with zero rights, according to the mainstream of the Democratic Party.
And human life doesn’t begin at 20 weeks. This is a picture of a baby at 12 weeks — barely three months. You can see this baby with his hands near his chest, this is not a cluster of cells; this is not a ball of goo. His genitalia have already been formed; his liver and spleen produce red blood cells. This is an unborn human being. Not a single, federally elected Democrat would vote for an abortion ban that would protect this baby’s life.
And life doesn’t begin at 14 weeks. This is a picture of an unborn human being at eight weeks. You can identify the head of this unborn human; you can see where the small buds are forming for arms and legs, but guess what, life doesn’t begin at eight weeks either. It begins at fertilization, when a new human life is formed. A new human being with its own DNA. This human being is not its mother; it is not its father; it is not a polyp.
If we found a human embryo on another planet, the headlines would rightly scream, 'Human Life Found On Mars.
Human life is a continuous process of growth, from the moment of fertilization onward. Abortion is the killing of this human life. The later the abortion takes place, the more brutal the procedure, but no matter the brutality of the procedure, it is obvious that abortion is not some mere optional surgery to be performed for convenience. And it’s even more obvious that those who want to protect the lives of the unborn aren’t trying to control women’s bodies.
Those who cherish abortion are trying to control and dismember the bodies of the unborn. Think about that next time you see a radical feminist in a Handmaid's Tale outfit suggesting that you’d better respect her right to carve apart an unborn baby in the womb or you’re some sort of fascist.
Nowhere is the right of choice defended with more vigor than with abortion. Having chosen to act, and a conception having occurred, it cannot then be unchosen. But there are still choices; always a best one. Sometimes the covenant of marriage has been broken; more often none was made. In or out of marriage, abortion is not an individual choice. At a minimum, three lives are involved.
Except where the wicked crime of incest or rape was involved, or where competent medical authorities certify that the life of the mother is in jeopardy, or that a severely defective fetus cannot survive birth, abortion is clearly a “thou shalt not.” Even in these very exceptional cases, much sober prayer is required to make the right choice. We face such sobering choices because we are the children of God.
In my judgment this is the most unassailable of the four pillars, as it is definitionally always the case with any viable pregnancy. That embryo in the womb is in every way a unique human being with his or her own genetic structure, organs, blood type, etc. And this is foundationally true from the moment of conception, at least with regard to DNA.
Some might argue that this pillar is absent in cases of serious fetal abnormality, such that the child will almost certainly not live a happy or normal life. But as President Nelson explained, “Life has great value for all, including those born with disabilities.” And refusing to acknowledge this point moves down the slippery slope that has led to some of the greatest evils of human history from eugenics to genocide:
“To deny life to an individual because of a possible handicap is a very serious matter. Policy consistent with that logic would dictate that those already living with such deficiencies should likewise be terminated. One more step in that tragic train of thought would lead to the conclusion that those who are either infirm or inconvenient should also be eliminated. Such irreverence for life would be totally unthinkable!”
But I find President Nelson’s response to that argument to be quite persuasive: Elective abortion has been legalized in many countries on the premise that a woman is free to choose what she does with her own body. To an extent this is true for each of us, male or female. We are free to think. We are free to plan. And we are free to do. But once an action has been taken, we are never free from its consequences. To understand this concept more clearly, we can learn from the astronaut. Anytime during selection or preparation, he or she is free to withdraw from the program. But once the spacecraft has lifted off, the astronaut is bound to the consequences of the previous choice to make the journey. So it is with people who choose to embark on a journey that leads to parenthood. They have freedom of choice—to begin or not to begin that course. When conception does occur, that choice has already been made. Yes, a woman is free to choose what she will do with her body. Whether her choice leads to an astronaut’s mission or to a baby, her choice to begin the journey binds her to the consequences of that choice. She cannot ‘unchoose.’ As President Nelson explains, we ultimately choose the consequences of our actions. Therefore an ordinary pregnancy is chosen even if the outcome was not a desired one.
There appears to me to be two deviations from this norm. The first is a situation where a form of birth control fails and results in an unanticipated pregnancy. A couple may have done everything possible to minimize the chances of a pregnancy to less than 1%, and yet a pregnancy unexpectedly results. This does not appear to me to be a serious challenge to President Nelson’s claim. Perhaps the odds of pregnancy were very low, but when one voluntarily engages in an inherently procreative act, one is aware of the possibility of pregnancy and accepting the possibility of that consequence.
As President Nelson explained: Another concern applies to pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. This tragedy is compounded because an innocent woman’s freedom of choice was denied. In these circumstances, abortion is sometimes considered advisable to preserve the physical and mental health of the mother. Because the woman’s freedom of choice was denied, it intuitively feels wrong to require her to bear the consequences of something that was thrust upon her. The case of a rape most closely resembles the famous hypothetical of the “violinist” where a woman wakes up attached to a famous violinist who will die if the woman unplugs from him.
But the number of deaths due to childbirth is actually quite small. The CDC estimates that about 700 women a year die in the whole United States from pregnancy related complications. Now that number is a lot higher than it probably should be. But it is still only .01% of the nearly 4,000,000 births in the United States. Given the extremely positive prognosis for pregnancy, it seems morally reasonable to require a woman to bear the difficulties of pregnancy in order to save the life of a separate human child.
On the other hand, many states today employ an exceptionally broad definition of “health” to encompass practically any and all physical or mental discomfort. Such a broad exception for the “health” of the mother essentially swallows the rule and cannot be justified.
As intelligent adults blessed with the ability to learn and understand basics of science, today we are fortunate to know that a child in the womb is not just a clump of pink cells, as Planned Parenthood and other sources of misinformation have told millions of us. The unborn baby is not merely a part of the mother’s own body, like a fingernail or nose hair or parasite (a common analogy, sadly) to be removed with impunity. It is a separate creature with its own circulatory system, it’s own nervous system, it’s own heart. It is alive and looks like a human very early in its existence. Yes, it is vulnerable and dependent on the mother’s body, and even after birth it will continue to be dependent on the mother or perhaps others, but this does not mean that it’s life can be snuffed out at will. It is proper for states to carefully formulate regulations. May they do so in light of modern science and sound ethics.
Nevertheless, Lucifer has supported abortion and in a horrific paradigm shift has convinced many people that children represent lost opportunity and misery instead of joy and happiness.
Feminism has clung to abortion as the means to female empowerment. But it has backfired. Abortion has allowed men to shirk responsibility as fathers and encouraged the workplace to penalize motherhood and family.
With regard to the freedom of the individual for choice with regard to abortion, there's one individual who's not being considered at all. That's the one who is being aborted. And I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born.
I know what I'm about to say now is controversial, but I have to say it. This nation cannot continue turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to the taking of some 4,000 unborn children's lives every day. That's one every 21 seconds. One every 21 seconds. We cannot pretend that America is preserving her first and highest ideal, the belief that each life is sacred, when we've permitted the deaths of 15 million helpless innocents since the Roe versus Wade decision. 15 million children who will never laugh, never sing, never know the joy of human love, will never strive to heal the sick, feed the poor, or make peace among nations. Abortion has denied them the first and most basic of human rights. We are all infinitely poorer for their loss.
The emphasis must not be on the right to abortion but on the right to privacy and reproductive control.
Inevitably, the shape of the law on gender-based classification and reproductive autonomy indicates and influences the opportunity women will have to participate as men's full partners in the nation's social, political, and economic life.
Overall, the Court's Roe position is weakened, I believe, by the opinion's concentration on a medically approved autonomy idea, to the exclusion of a constitutionally based sex-equality perspective. I understand the view that for political reasons the reproductive autonomy controversy should be isolated from the general debate on equal rights, responsibilities, and opportunities for women and men.
Abortion prohibition by the State, however, controls women and denies them full autonomy and full equality with men.
It is essential to woman’s equality with man that she be the decisionmaker, that her choice be controlling. If you impose restraints that impede her choice, you are disadvantaging her because of her sex.
It was always recognition that one thing that conspicuously distinguishes women from men is that only women become pregnant; and if you subject a woman to disadvantageous treatment on the basis of her pregnant status, which was what was happening to Captain Struck, you would be denying her equal treatment under the law…
The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a woman’s life, to her well-being and dignity. It is a decision she must make for herself. When Government controls that decision for her, she is being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices.
Legal challenges to undue restrictions on abortion procedures do not seek to vindicate some generalized notion of privacy; rather, they center on a woman’s autonomy to determine her life’s course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature.
This way of thinking reflects ancient notions about women’s place in the family and under the Constitution — ideas that have long since been discredited.
Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.
So the brunt of all these restrictive laws is on poor women. Not only if they can't pay the plane fare or the bus fare – they can't afford to take days off from work to go.
We need a Disney princess who can stop my money from going to planned parenthood where they spend it on killing future princesses.
See Video
In all of the chaos regarding the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, we should remember one simple fact: if Kavanaugh were pro-choice, he would have been confirmed with 100 votes. He’s clearly not an advocate for abortion, but Democrats didn’t have the votes to stop him so instead, Democrats decided to slander him as a gang rapist. Remember, Democratic opposition to Kavanaugh started not with Christine Blasey Ford, but with women in Handmaid's Tale outfits occupying the Senate confirmation hearing room, and pro-abortion protesters being dragged out of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Missing Reference