Unless we repeal Obamacare, it will drive private sector health care companies out of business, and then it will itself collapse. When Obamacare collapses, and when there are no free market companies left to take over, we’ll get a single-payer system — in other words, socialized medicine.
One doctor has admitted starving and dehydrating ten babies to death in the neonatal unit of one hospital alone.
Writing in a leading medical journal, the physician revealed the process can take an average of ten days during which a baby becomes ‘smaller and shrunken’.
Bernadette Lloyd, a hospice paediatric nurse, has written to the Cabinet Office and the Department of Health to criticise the use of death pathways for children.
She said: ‘The parents feel coerced, at a very traumatic time, into agreeing that this is correct for their child whom they are told by doctors has only has a few days to live. It is very difficult to predict death. I have seen a “reasonable” number of children recover after being taken off the pathway.
‘I have also seen children die in terrible thirst because fluids are withdrawn from them until they die.
‘I witnessed a 14 year-old boy with cancer die with his tongue stuck to the roof of his mouth when doctors refused to give him liquids by tube. His death was agonising for him, and for us nurses to watch. This is euthanasia by the backdoor.’
These are born children, intentionally starved and dehydrated to death by government bureaucrats trying to cut costs.
Behold progressivism. Obama fans, this is what you voted for.
Many pro-lifers believe abortion should be permitted if the mother seeking one became pregnant because she was raped. This position makes no sense.
If the unborn is a human being, then the rape exception says it’s acceptable to kill a human being if her father raped her mother, or if her existence causes her mother emotional distress, or both. Following this logic, a mother of a three year old girl conceived in rape may kill her daughter for the same reasons.
If the unborn is not a human being, then no special exception for rape is required. Mothers may freely abort for any reason or no reason.
To resolve the controversy over abortion in the case of rape, simply answer one question: “What is the unborn?”
Whichever way you answer that question, there is no moral difference between the two fetuses in the photo above. They’re either both human beings, or they’re both not.
Rape is evil. Period. Murder is evil. Period. Murdering an innocent third party using rape as an excuse is evil. Period.
When you shut down your ability to reason your way through a problem, and rely instead on your emotional responses, you risk making a horribly wrong choice.
Clear away your emotions for one brief moment and think. If the unborn is not a human being, then the rape exception is unnecessary. But if the unborn is a human being, then the rape exception is unjustified.
Miss Smith & Mrs. Jones get pregnant on the same date.
Miss Smith is unmarried, uneducated, & poor. 24 weeks into Miss Smith’s pregnancy (the result of an incestuous rape), she delivers early due to complications. Baby Smith survives, but has lifelong physical & mental handicaps.
Mrs. Jones is wealthy, educated, and successful in her career. 36 weeks into Mrs. Jones’ pregnancy, she chooses to abort Baby Jones, who is neither handicapped, the product of rape, nor the product of incest. Mrs. Jones simply decides that she no longer wants to give birth because she misses fitting into her Size 2 dresses.
Logically, there are a limited number of possible positions for a person to hold regarding government policy on abortion. Here’s a Venn diagram that lays them all out.
Anyone who’s thought about the issue for more than a couple of seconds understands this. So how do we make any sense of Herman Cain’s stated position? He’s never given any indication that he’s in the blue area above, so we can rule that out. But when you watch this interview on CNN, it’s impossible to pinpoint where he stands beyond that.
He says “I think it’s a sin.” That puts him in either the red or purple area. Moments later, he says “I believe life begins at conception, and abortion under no circumstances.” That puts him squarely in the red area. But when pressed on making an exception if his daughter or granddaughter were to be raped and become pregnant, he replies:
It’s not the government’s role, or anybody else’s role, to make that decision. … It ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make. Not me as President, not some politician, not a bureaucrat. It gets down to that family, and whatever they decide, they decide. I shouldn’t try to tell them what decision to make for such a sensitive decision.
I can have an opinion on an issue without it being a directive on the nation. The government shouldn’t be trying to tell people everything to do, especially when it comes to social decisions that they need to make.
That puts him somewhere in the purple area. If we take him at his word, he would be morally opposed to abortion, but would reluctantly allow it on demand. That’s squarely a pro-choice stance. When you take that position, you are in favor of a woman’s right to abort her unborn child for any reason or no reason. That is not a pro-life stance.
Now listen to his statements in this Fox News interview with John Stossel.
Dr. Donald Leslie, medical director at the Shepherd Center in Atlanta, has high hopes.
“We want to cure paralysis,” he said. “We want to stop spinal cord injury. How incredible would that be?”
Leslie’s mission has begun with T.J. Atchinson, the first step in research that he believes could lead to many steps for those who were told they would never walk again. Atchinson, 21, was the first human with a spinal cord injury to undergo embryonic stem cell therapy.
His mother, Anita McDonald, wants this, too, saying that people who oppose the therapy on religious grounds are unreasonable.
“It doesn’t matter how long they’ve been in a chair, they all want to walk again,” McDonald said. “I just know a lot of people are against it, but until they’ve been put in the position, I don’t think they should judge anybody.”
Despite your emotional, illogical, and ridiculous justification, Mrs. McDonald, I’ll happily judge the decision you both made. Harshly. Under your rule, I qualify:
You worked so hard to extract a promise from the Precedent to issue a magic Executive Order, one that can overrule the federal funding of abortion in the Obamacare bill signed into law at noon today. You made such a very big show of accepting your precious little fig leaf, but you’re still standing there naked at 5:00 PM. Where is it, chump? 10:45 Update: Teh One sure is in a hurry to live up to his word, eh? I’ll bet it’ll help you sleep at night, though, Bart. That is, until Obama decides that his EO is no longer convenient (per Geraghty’s Rule), or until some federal judge permanently enjoins its enforcement as incapable of overturning an Act of Congress, or as an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to a dead baby. But hey, just trust the most radical pro-abortion president in history. It’s bound to go well. 3/26 Update: Stupak’s pathetic attempt to justify his action rings hollow. 3/27 Update: Stupak’s price? $578 million in earmarks for his district.
The frail elderly and their families deserve love, support and care from a compassionate society. If we allow willy-nilly healthcare reform, the frail elderly will undoubtedly be targeted, with such rationalizations as “Why devote resources (the liberal euphemism for money) to a hopeless cause such as this?” A physician at our local Tea Party stated one platform of healthcare reform is to withhold vital treatment in the last 6 months of the patient’s life.
Do we really want our government deciding when our last 6 months have arrived? They have not done such a good job predicting unemployment or economic recovery: why should we assume they’d be any better at predicting when we are in the last six months of our life?
Obamacare will decide when you’ve lived past your usefulness. Don’t like that prospect? Do something about it.
If abortion is murder, the most efficient thing you could have done to prevent such murders this month was to kill George Tiller.
Is it wrong to defend the life of an unborn child as you would defend the life of a born child? Because that’s the question this murder poses. Peaceful pro-lifers have already tried to prosecute Tiller for doing late-term abortions they claimed were against the law. They failed to convict him. If unborn children are morally equal to born children, then Tiller’s assassin has just succeeded where the legal system failed: He has stopped a mass murderer from killing again.
[Pro-lifers’ condemnations of Tiller’s murder] don’t square with what these organizations purport to espouse: a strict moral equation between the unborn and the born. If a doctor in Kansas were butchering hundreds of old or disabled people, and legal authorities failed to intervene, I doubt most members of the National Right to Life Committee would stand by waiting for “educational and legislative activities” to stop him. Somebody would use force.
If you don’t accept what [Tiller’s murderer] did, then maybe it’s time to ask yourself what you really believe. Is abortion murder? Or is it something less, a tragedy that would be better avoided? Most of us think it’s the latter.
Saletan pretends that there are only two choices available to a pro-life private citizen like me: kill the abortionist myself, or agree that the unborn are not people. That’s a false dilemma, and it’s a cute but cheap little rhetorical trick.
I’ll make this simple, so that even the oh-so-nuanced Saletan can understand. When we’re talking about individuals acting as individuals (not military members, police, or other government officials acting in their official capacity), the pro-life argument goes like this:
To apply that same reasoning to George Tiller, we’d argue:
Killing people is wrong.
George Tiller was a person.
Therefore, killing George Tiller was wrong.
There are exceptions to the moral principle laid out in this argument, two of which are self defense and defense of others. When one person is about to kill another, and there’s no way to stop it short of using force, then it’s morally acceptable for the victim (or a third party) to use the necessary amount of force to stop the attack, up to and including deadly force.
Determining how much force is morally justified depends on the specifics of the situation, of course. What kind of attacker are we talking about? What kind of victim? Can we be reasonably sure that the victim’s death is imminent? Can the attack be stopped by less than lethal means? Is a government official better situated to stop the attack? If a meth-crazed powerlifter pulls a pistol and charges an elderly man sleeping in his wheelchair, using deadly force to stop him would probably be justified. If a preteen girl pulls a baseball bat and charges an alert and fully armed Navy SEAL, using deadly force to stop her would probably be excessive.
We must engage in the same kind of reasoning when determining how much force is appropriate for a private citizen to use to stop an abortionist from killing the unborn. Since that’s the situation Saletan wants us to address, I invite him to consider several pro-life arguments against killing abortionists.
The pro-life stance on deadly force is neither simplistic, unthinking, nor illogical. Abortion rights advocates like William Saletan who say otherwise are either dishonest, ignorant, or stupid. You can decide which one applies here.
The murder of Dr. George Tiller was an evil act that saved no lives. Here are ten reasons to oppose the supposed “justifiable homicide” of abortionists, as explained by pro-life Christian David P. Gushee in 1995:
The use of intentional premeditated lethal force by private citizens to defend the innocent from harm is morally unjustifiable.
However one describes the innocent, it is clearly unjustifiable to use lethal force in their defense when such defense could have been achieved through nonlethal means–means which are unambiguously available today through the moral, legal and nonviolent forms of pro-life activities. The absence of nonlethal means, moreover, does not in itself provide sufficient warrant for using lethal force to protect the innocent.
The killing of abortion doctors does not constitute a meaningful defense of unborn life, because the woman seeking the abortion drives the process, not the doctor. Thus if we really seek to prevent abortion, we will lovingly provide the pregnant woman with appropriate support and viable alternatives to abortion.
The use of lethal force is not justifiable as a form of privately initiated capital punishment, as some have claimed.
The killing of abortion doctors is not morally legitimate as an act of civil disobedience.
The use of lethal force cannot be viewed as an act of resistance to a government which has lost its legitimacy by permitting abortion. The U.S. government retains its legitimacy, and Christians should continue to seek redress through the political system.
The transition from nonviolent to violent forms of action for social/legal change is a perilous and almost always morally unjustifiable step, particularly in a functioning democracy.
The resort to violence as a means leads to a morally disastrous shift of ends, the focus of the activist becoming the destruction of wrongdoers rather than the prevention of wrongs.
A social movement’s resort to violence tends to escalate rapidly. The strict limits imposed by just war type thinking are supplanted by crusade-like approaches leading to ever more indiscriminate violence.
The resort to violence is indisputably hurting the cause of the pro-life movement.
Read the whole article for a more in-depth treatment.
In response to today’s murder of abortionist George Tiller, I’ll quote (with my complete approval) the abortion violence statement put forth by the long-time pro-life advocates at Stand To Reason:
It’s always wrong to take a human life without proper justification. Abortion is such a wrong because it takes the life of a valuable, innocent, human being without good reason. Therefore, it is morally obligatory for civilized people to campaign vigorously against such a wrong and use appropriate means to end it.
In opposing this evil, one is justified in using only the degree of force necessary to stop any harm that it is within his power to prevent. Therefore, one is never justified in using lethal force when other measures are available.
Since there are no imaginable circumstances in which lethal force is the only means available to end the harm of abortion, then lethal means are never justified.
Killing abortionists is, therefore, also an example of taking human life without proper justification. To do so would be to violate the basic principle of life that pro-lifers are committed to defending.
Therefore, Stand to Reason does not condone violence to end the harm of abortion and does not knowingly associate with those who do.
I hope the murderer is brought to justice swiftly.
Steel yourself. The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform somehow managed to post a video of a 20-week abortion performed by Dennis Christensen at the Madison Abortion Clinic in Wisconsin.
When the abortion rights crowd blandly lectures you about preserving “choice”, this is what they mean: