When human life was relegated by those who promote Darwinian Evolution to the status of mere animal, Western Civilization was well on its way to a sliding chasm of genocide, and eventual infanticide.
We witnessed the outcome; the atrocities committed to untold hundreds of millions of human beings in the former Soviet Union, Red China, Communist Viet Nam, Communist North Korea, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Communist Cambodia, Communist Zimbabwe, Communist Angola, Communist Nicaragua, Communist Cuba, Communist Venezuela; the list goes on, and continues to this day - the atrocities are myriad, and are nothing short of genocide on a global scale since it encompasses multitudes of population, crossing national, racial, ethnic, religious, and regional barriers.
This has been the fruit bitten from the tree of Darwinian Evolution and the cheapening of human life which it has produced.
What has followed has been the elevation of animal life to the level of and at times above human life.
When human life is cheapened to the point that animal life supercedes it, and disregarded to the point that it no longer holds value, but animal life holds the value that human life should hold; then those whose viewpoint stems from this, will by natural inclination, consider that human life does not begin at conception.
Indeed, such a person, having cheapened the value of human life and consigned it to nothing more than mere protoplasm, will not hesitate to dismember a human life at any stage of development.
This is the horrendous crime of abortion by demand in general, and partial birth abortion in particular.
There is no difference between such an action and killing in cold blood.
Both are an affront to life and life's Creator.
There are three premises which are the cornerstone of the multibillion dollar abortion industry and it supporters in the Senate and House; and these are the following. Let us now examine these one by one:
1.) A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE.
2.) A WOMAN'S REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS.
3.) A WOMAN'S RIGHT OVER HER OWN BODY.
A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE
1.) It is not a woman's right to choose that is at stake here, or even at question.
Such a question is rhetorical in nature, assuring that the answer be just one - a woman can do what she pleases with the living being inside her, even though she cannot do as she pleases once she has given birth to it, and that life is outside of her womb.
It is inconsistent to allow harm to be done to a living and developing life form in a woman's body during certain stages of its development, while proscribing it once it has come to term and been born. True choice is the choice to carry to term, not just one choice; therefore those who say they are for choice should consider that true choice is the choice also not to abort. The proponents of "choice" are not really for true choice at all - only so long as the choice is to abort.
A WOMAN'S REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS
2.) It is not reproductive rights that is at question here - as the people who support abortion on demand would claim, but human rights - the right of the infant to live.
Abortion is not a reproductive right, since it does not entail reproduction, but extinction.
To call it reproduction, and then give it the status of a right is to do a terrible disservice to the meaning of the word reproductive.
It is nothing less than doing human rights a injustice, since it elevates an action of killing above the life which is being killed, and the right of that life to exist.
Reproductive denotes the reproduction of an existing element or thing, not its extinction.
Abortion is not reproduction.
Abortion is extinction.
As such, it cannot be termed a right; much less a reproductive right, since it does not entail a reproduction, but a destruction of something which exists in the mother's womb; a human life.
A WOMAN'S RIGHT OVER HER OWN BODY
3.) The premise of such a statement is that one is defining the fetus in a woman's womb as an integral part of her body, which it is not at any time, but is essentially a separate entity living and developing inside the womb of its mother. As such a woman's right over her body is not at question here, since it is not the woman's body which is being ripped to shreds and dismembered out of the womb, but another body within the woman's body - the body of the life which was within her.
Therefore, for anyone to claim that the argument of Abortion Rights is one of a woman's right to choose, or a woman's reproductive to rights, or a woman's right over her own body; remind them that such rights are reserved when human life is being preserved (in every stage of development - conception - first, second, or third Trimester, throughout life, and in Old Age), not when the choice is one - death, or when the fetus (as they call the human being inside the womb) is being ripped apart and killed, or when the surgery being conducted on the woman entails ripping or sucking out by force the living being inside of her body.
AN OBSERVATION
Strange as it may sound, those who promote Abortion on demand will be the first to defend animal rights, but will blanch at defending an infant's right to live.
It is interesting to note that Pro-Abortion Advocates are often augmented by Animal Rights and Homosexual Rights Advocates.
One elevates an irresponsible behavior and its outcome over an infant's right to life, another elevates animal life over human life, and the last group elevates dysfunctional deviant behavior to the status of a right.
CONCLUSION
This is the posterity of those whom have embraced Darwinian Evolution, and with it the elevation of the beast over the human being.
This is what a great many of our elected officials have been funding with your tax dollars and mine to the tune of almost a billion dollars a year since the Supreme Court decision termed Roe v. Wade was made.
Abortion is not the right of choice, nor is it the right of a woman over her body, nor is it a reproductive right.
Abortion is the licensed murder of innocent human life, bought and paid for by your tax dollars and mine.
This is what I think of the misconception and oxymoron " a woman's right to choose," or "a woman's reproductive rights," or "a woman's right over her own body."
No comments:
Post a Comment