This is the hypocritical, cold-blooded reasoning (blood-guilt rationalizing) of most ‘civilized’ women and men today:
“While [common-folk] pedophilia is a heinous crime against children, abortion, on the other hand, is simply a political-right of all women. It’s not murder! That thing in the womb isn’t alive, it’s called a fetus by scientists and physicians for a reason. So no harm done, right?
And besides, the world is overcrowded, especially with certain types of people who just don’t fit in. You know what I mean, right? And therefore, we need to save the planet by ridding it of those folks who are not fit to be alive. So party on, and fuck the consequences of your actions, as long as, that is, you are one of us, the chosen!”
By posting the following article, I am not suggesting that this genocidal, hypocritical government should outlaw abortion, since I believe all massive government (Statism) should be outlawed by we the individuals: there should be no need for any government-mandated law dictating what we can or can’t do, as universally free men and women.
But I am suggesting that we, individually and collectively, have lost touch with our own humanity, and this is why we, and the world, are so fucked up. We have been programmed/mind-controlled to devalue, in particular, human life. We should have a sense of when we are harming another human being (a sense of what is right and wrong), especially when it comes to a helpless baby in the womb, but we seem to have lost this sense.
We need to get back to being responsible for our own actions, and how our actions impact other human beings, inside or outside the womb. We need to get back to governing and policing our individual selves, like sane, mature adult men and women.
Atlantic Fake News: Fetal Heartbeats Are ‘Imaginary’
The Atlantic magazine had to scramble Tuesday to repeatedly amend a new article against ultrasound technology that spoke of fetal heartbeats as “imaginary” and denied that unborn babies are alive.
When a series of observers pointed out the many flagrant falsehoods in the story, the Atlantic issued a formal retraction of its statement that there is “no heart to speak of” in a six-week old fetus. Nonetheless, it merely changed its provocative subtitle without comment: “The technology has been used to create an ‘imaginary’ heartbeat and sped-up videos that falsely depict a response to stimulus.”
It also silently expunged other embarrassing errors in the piece, such as calling John Kasich the governor of Indiana.
Timed for publication just before the massive March for Life in Washington DC for the anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, the article by Moira Weigel attempts to show how ultrasounds of unborn children have no discernible effect on a woman’s choice to carry the baby to term.
Even the amended piece contains outright lies, taking the Atlantic’s “fake news” to a whole new level.
Weigel makes the ludicrous claim that ultrasound “made it possible for the male doctor to evaluate the fetus without female interference.” According to a 2015 study, women make up an impressive 85 percent of all residents in obstetrics and gynecology in the graduate medical education class of 2013-2014. This means that the vast majority of doctors wielding ultrasounds are women, not men.
Ultrasounds are not a weapon of the patriarchy, but an important scientific tool used more often by women than by men.
Weigel also claims that “science” attributes no meaning to an ultrasound image, and thus pregnant women who see an ultrasound will not recognize this meaning. The inference is that pregnant women should not see an ultrasound of their child, lest they mistakenly and “unscientifically” attribute some meaning to it (for example, the sex of their baby?).
“The origins of fetal ultrasound lie in stealth warfare,” Weigel ominously declares, and “opponents of abortion enlisted it in their cause. It became an article of faith that women would respond to seeing ultrasound images by ‘recognizing’ that the fetus gestating inside them was a ‘baby’—and, by extension, that abortion would be murder.”
Weigel’s solution? Keep women in the dark. If you don’t like the message, kill the messenger.
Follow Thomas D. Williams on Twitter
Roe v. Wade Is A ‘Jealous God’ That Demands Blood And Generates Rage
Jurisprudence Built on a Foundation of Lies
…Norma McCorvey, the “Jane Roe” of Roe v. Wade, had told her lawyers she’d been gang-raped, but she at least was seeking an abortion. Sandra Cano, the “Mary Doe” of Doe v. Bolton, wasn’t even seeking an abortion. She was a homeless mother seeking a divorce and custody of her children.
Cano admits she was young, uneducated, and naïve. “I never wanted an abortion; I just wanted my children back,” she said. Her legal-aid attorney filed the case under false pretenses. Cano said she could barely read, never mind understand, the court documents they asked her to sign. In fact, in a sworn affidavit she said the signature on one legal document claiming she wanted an abortion wasn’t even hers.
These weren’t the only lies. One of the rationales cited in Roe was the supposed number of women dying from illegal abortions, allegedly in the tens of thousands. But Bernard Nathanson, founder of the Abortion Rights Action League, later said the numbers were simply made up.
During the debate over partial-birth abortion, abortion-rights people argued the procedure was rare—as if even one case of puncturing the skull of a nearly born infant and sucking out its brains would be acceptable. Imagine the outcry from the animal rights crowd should someone do that to a baby seal. Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, admitted, “We lied through our teeth.” The gruesome procedure was performed as often as a thousand times a year.
How Roe Undermines Natural Rights
Aside from the lies, Roe has distorted our legal system and the Constitution itself. In Hill v. Colorado, the Supreme Court upheld a Colorado “bubble law” that forbids any person within 100 feet of a “health care facility” to approach another person without that person’s consent in order to pass a leaflet, display a sign, or engage in protest, education, or counseling with that person.
Justice John Paul Stevens disingenuously said the law was “content neutral.” It regulates, not speech, he wrote, but merely “certain places where some speech may occur.” This is the same Justice Stevens who thundered in an Erie, Pennsylvania, case regulating the location of strip clubs that the city of Erie had “silenced a message the dancers at [the strip club] want to convey.”
Make no mistake—there is only one kind of “health care facility” the Colorado law is meant to protect…
Read More Here: