Ethicists Argue for Acceptance of After Birth Abortions

By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle

Hat tip to Iggymom

When is a child a person?  At conception?  Viability?  Birth?  In the last case it is none of the above.  According to Alberto Giubilini of Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne if you don't want the child and give birth, you have the right to kill it.

Two ethicists working with Australian universities argue in the latest online edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so to should be the termination of a newborn.

Alberto Giubilini

Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne write that in “circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”

The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion“ as opposed to ”infanticide.” Why? Because it “[emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.” The authors also do not agree with the term euthanasia for this practice as the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated. In other words, it may be in the parents’ best interest to terminate the life, not the newborns.

Francesca Minerva

The circumstances, the authors state, where after-birth abortion should be considered acceptable include instances where the newborn would be putting the well-being of the family at risk, even if it had the potential for an “acceptable” life. The authors cite Downs Syndrome as an example, stating that while the quality of life of individuals with Downs is often reported as happy, “such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

This means a newborn whose family (or society) that could be socially, economically or psychologically burdened or damaged by the newborn should have the ability to seek out an after-birth abortion. They state that after-birth abortions are not preferable over early-term abortions of fetuses but should circumstances change with the family or the fetus in the womb, then they advocate that this option should be made available.

The authors go on to state that the moral status of a newborn is equivalent to a fetus in that it cannot be considered a person in the “morally relevant sense.” On this point, the authors write:

Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.


Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.

Giubilini and Minerva believe that being able to understand the value of a different situation, which often depends on mental development, determines personhood. For example, being able to tell the difference between an undesirable situation and a desirable one. They note that fetuses and newborns are “potential persons.” The authors do acknowledge that a mother, who they cite as an example of a true person, can attribute “subjective” moral rights to the fetus or newborn, but they state this is only a projected moral status.

The authors counter the argument that these “potential persons” have the right to reach that potential by stating it is “over-ridden by the interests of actual people (parents, family, society) to pursue their own well-being because, as we have just argued, merely potential people cannot be harmed by not being brought into existence.”

And what about adoption? Giubilini and Minerva write that, as for the mother putting the child up for adoption, her emotional state should be considered as a trumping right. For instance, if she were to “suffer psychological distress” from giving up her child to someone else — they state that natural mothers can dream their child will return to them — then after-birth abortion should be considered an allowable alternative.

The authors do not tackle the issue of what age an infant would be considered a person.

Read the full story here

I suppose this is the next step by the left to "empower" a woman. Why should anyone be "burdened" or "saddled" with a child.  The child has no value.  It cannot ask work, dress itself, feed itself.  It is nothing to these so-called ethicists.  Ethics?  These two don't know the meaning of the word.  They feel as long as the "mother" doesn't want the child, she should have the right to kill it.

The American Declaration of Independence states this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

Have we forgotten those words?  Have we forgotten the simplest commandment of G-d:

Deuteronomy Chapter 5


16.  Thou shalt not murder.

Why should a child, born into the world, be MURDERED for the reason that it is inconvenient for the woman.  She should have thought of the consequences of her actions 9 months earlier when she decided to engage in sexual activity.

How a society treats the least and most helpless of its citizens shows how civilized, how mature it is.  This goes against all the rules of society.  But I fear it will be forced on us by those on the left.  First the "mother" choosing to kill her child, then the government forcing women to kill their children.  Especially those children who do not measure up to the government's idea of perfection.

Sphere: Related Content

The Church v. Politicians or Is There Finally Some BITE Back in Catholicism?

Anyone who visits here regularly knows at least two things about me: I am Catholic, practicing in the Tridentine tradition (that's the old Latin, Pre-Vatican II version) and I am virulently anti abortion in all its forms. For any reason. No politically correct excuses of rape or incest. No exceptions.

When people accuse me of being against women, I calmly tell them no, I'm simply pro-child. I don't believe a woman, any woman, is entitled to kill her unborn child for any reason--when she begins a pregnancy, she is no longer a singular being but is in fact an incubator for a new life. If that makes me anti-woman, so be it.

Believe me, I've heard it all. And, when I point out no matter how loud I'm screeched at, or how hysterical the other person becomes, the other person generally gives up and goes directly to ad homs.

Again, so be it. I have walked my talk and am entitled to my views. If you don't like them, don't listen. But don't attempt to change my mind either, particularly in a hysterical manner.

Which brings us to politicians.

We have four very prominent politicians who proclaim to be Catholic, yet are rabidly pro-death (do NOT argue with me on this--you are either pro-life or pro-death; choice is a politically correct term chosen so you don't have to face the gruesome reality of your "choice"). Those politicians are Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Joe Biden.

Surprise! They're all democrats.

Surprise! They think the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Bible and Church Doctrine are something you can pick and choose from, sort of like an ecclesiastical buffet.

The trouble is, it doesn't work like that. You either follow Church canon and are in line with your chosen faith or you don't and you aren't. When you are out of line with the Church because you don't understand something or don't know something, that's fine--as long as you are striving for understanding or the answer. To be PURPOSELY out of line with Doctrine is quite another matter. It shows you have CHOSEN to distance yourself, through your own arrogance, from the teachings.

Might I remind anyone here that God gave us free will--yes. Absolutely He gave us free will. Part of that free will is to choose whether we follow Him in our faith or distance ourselves from Him by rejecting His teachings. But you don't get to pick and choose for expediency.

In matters of life, the Church has always been firm--life begins at natural conception and ends at natural death. From the inception of the Church over 2,000 years ago, this has been the teaching.

On July 25, 1968--in the wake of the advent of "The Pill" and the subsequent sexual revolution--Pope Paul VI published the groundbreaking encyclical "Humanae Vitae".

From Section I: Problem and Competency of the Magisterium, Point 2:

2. The changes that have taken place are of considerable importance and varied in nature. In the first place there is the rapid increase in population which has made many fear that world population is going to grow faster than available resources, with the consequence that many families and developing countries would be faced with greater hardships. This can easily induce public authorities to be tempted to take even harsher measures to avert this danger. There is also the fact that not only working and housing conditions but the greater demands made both in the economic and educational field pose a living situation in which it is frequently difficult these days to provide properly for a large family.

Also noteworthy is a new understanding of the dignity of woman and her place in society, of the value of conjugal love in marriage and the relationship of conjugal acts to this love.

But the most remarkable development of all is to be seen in man's stupendous progress in the domination and rational organization of the forces of nature to the point that he is endeavoring to extend this control over every aspect of his own life—over his body, over his mind and emotions, over his social life, and even over the laws that regulate the transmission of life.

The next subsection is "New Questions" Point 3:

Moreover, if one were to apply here the so called principle of totality, could it not be accepted that the intention to have a less prolific but more rationally planned family might transform an action which renders natural processes infertile into a licit and provident control of birth? Could it not be admitted, in other words, that procreative finality applies to the totality of married life rather than to each single act? A further question is whether, because people are more conscious today of their responsibilities, the time has not come when the transmission of life should be regulated by their intelligence and will rather than through the specific rhythms of their own bodies.

And the last, "Interpreting the Moral Law" Point 4:

No member of the faithful could possibly deny that the Church is competent in her magisterium to interpret the natural moral law. It is in fact indisputable, as Our predecessors have many times declared, (l) that Jesus Christ, when He communicated His divine power to Peter and the other Apostles and sent them to teach all nations His commandments, (2) constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the whole moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel but also of the natural law. For the natural law, too, declares the will of God, and its faithful observance is necessary for men's eternal salvation. (3)

All of this is very basic. However, it does illustrate those politicians were called out by the Church. The Church in no way dismissed women, nor has it ever. It recognizes women have a separate but equal calling. That has been drowned out by the screeds of the femi-nazis. One of those is Nancy Pelosi.

Several times now, Nancy Pelosi has decided she can be all Catholic and totally pro-death, including partial birth abortion. Most recently on Meet the Press and her follow up interview. The YouTube video is below and relevant quotes are below it, from A Shepherd's Voice here:

Text:

The corruption of reason is one of the logical consequences of legalized abortion.

Here is the Speaker of the House this morning on "Meet the Press":

MR. BROKAW: Senator Obama saying the question of when life begins is above his pay grade, whether you're looking at it scientifically or theologically. If he were to come to you and say, "Help me out here, Madame Speaker. When does life begin?" what would you tell him?

REP. PELOSI: I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator--St. Augustine said at three months. We don't know. The point is, is that it shouldn't have an impact on the woman's right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child--first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester. There's very clear distinctions. This isn't about abortion on demand, it's about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and--to--that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god. And so I don't think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins."

To answer the simple question "When does life begin?" Nancy Pelosi chooses to cite the authority of a bishop who lived 1500 years ago. Madame Speaker, we don't ask the Doctors of the Church to "make that definition." One does not read St. Augustine to find out when life begins. One reads modern textbooks on biology and embryology. And when one does that, one finds out that we do know when life begins:

Nancy: "And so I don't think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins."

Actual expert: “When scientists could examine embryos under the microscope, they recognized that the processes of development constituted a continuum from fertilization through delivery. There is no magic moment at which an embryo suddenly becomes something different.” -William L. Nyhan, M.D.; Ph.D; “The Heredity Factor, " p256. (Professor Nyhan is a graduate of Harvard, Columbia, and the University of Illinois, and one-time Chairman of the Department of Pediatrics at the University of California.)

The fact is that Nancy Pelosi deliberately chooses not to consult the experts as to when a human life begins. She must make this choice because she knows she can only maintain her support for legalized abortion by a deliberately cultivated ignorance.

But truth is one. To justify her support of legalized abortion, Nancy must not only ignore the teachings of scientists, who are the proper authorities on the question of when life begins. She must also ignore the teaching of the Church, who are the proper authorities on the morality of abortion:

"Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops—who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine—I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church."
-Pope John Paul II; "Evangelium Vitae," paragraph 62, March 25, 1995.

Pelosi says "that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time." Both assertions in that statement are false. She has not seriously studied the issue at all--to do so would force her to change her position. And no "ardent, practicing Catholic" has ever been, or ever will be, "pro-choice" on abortion.

Reactions were swift and immediate:

From Faithworl (Catholic Bishops Correct Pelosi on Abortion):

In a statement late on Tuesday, Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs said: “Those Catholics who take a public stance in opposition to the most fundamental moral teaching of the Church place themselves outside full communion with the Church, and they should not present themselves for the reception of Holy Communion.”

From FoxNews (Congressman Calls Pelosi's Abortion Remarks Scandalous):

"I hope she understands this is not an historical controversy recently settled but a long-standing, fundamental teaching of the Catholic Church that abortion is inherently immoral. And perhaps it will help open her heart," he continued.

Pope Benedict XVI weighs in here:

"Children are the major richness and the most precious good of a family," he said.

"For this reason, it is necessary to help all people to be aware that the intrinsic evil of the crime of abortion, which attacks human life at its beginning, is also an aggression against society itself," the pope said.

Many, MANY others have weighed in on this. The fact is the Church is VERY clear on it's stands regarding life and death and always has been. It is unequivocal. You cannot be a practicing Catholic and be pro-death. It's a dichotomy which will never meet.

Pelosi has garnered special attention and is finally being called out publicly, to the point of being denied Holy Communion:

National Catholic Reporter Online: San Francisco Archbishop Invites Pelosi to Discuss Abortion here and Archbishop Niederauer Responds to House Speaker's Statements here:

If a Catholic in his or her personal or professional life were knowingly and obstinately to reject the defined doctrines of the church, or knowingly and obstinately repudiate her definitive teachings on moral issues, however, he or she would seriously diminish his or her communion with the church. Reception of Holy Communion in such a situation would not accord with the nature of the eucharistic celebration, so that he or she should refrain.”

and:

In The Catechism of the Catholic Church we find this statement: “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, willed either as an end or a means, is grossly contrary to the moral law.” (2270-71) The Catechism then quotes the Didache (also referred to as The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles), the oldest extant manual of church order, dating from the late first or early second century: “You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.

Well. That seems pretty clear to me.

Since Vatican II, the Church has been pretty lax on a lot of her teachings. Many, particularly on the liberal side of the aisle, feel the Church isn't lax enough--they want birth control, women priests, Holy Communion without Penance, "freedom" to cohabitate without marriage, etc. They simply don't understand the Church will not change her stance on these items--ever. No matter the currently in vogue "revolution", the Church will not change for expediency. She can't change. These are doctrines laid down by Jesus Himself. They are forever. And the unchanging nature of the Church on these doctrines is what has made the Catholic Church the Universal church all these centuries.

Since Vatican II, churches are closing, seminaries and convents are closing, pews sit empty. Why? Because of the changes. The people DID NOT want the changes. Those changes didn't strengthen the Church, they weakened her.

Pope John Paul II started the road back to what she was; Benedict XVI is following in his footsteps. But understand this--artificial birth control, pro-death views, demanding women priests, demanding accomodations for homosexual behavior--the doctrines will not change. There was one good thing that came out of Vatican II. Instead of feeling condemned in confession, the trend has indeed been on hate the sin, love the sinner.

The Church has given her warning. If you are a politician and/or a public figure and claiming to be Catholic, and if as a Catholic politician and/or public figure you are espousing positions outside of Church doctrine, you will be denied Holy Communion. Both Pelosi, Biden and Kerry have been told not to approach. As it should be.

Is this a matter of separation of Church and State? No--because you have to make a choice at sometime. If you make a public choice to live outside your stated faith, that faith has the right to deny you the benefits of that faith as you are not a steward by example. It really is that simple.

Here, for those who think abortion is no big deal, are a few views of "women's choice" espoused by Biden, Pelosi, Kerry and Kennedy:

This is a saline abortion:

This is a partial birth abortion:



I dare anyone to tell me these children were simply blobs of tissue. This is what pro-death means. This is what is meant by those screaming for "women's rights".

People like me are very dangerous indeed. We are not perfect by any means. But we do the best we can to walk our talk. And for that, we are screamed at and called "religious" as if it were a dirty word. Perhaps it's because those who believe in this kind of "enlightenment" are truly dangerous--and yes, evil. This isn't about a woman's choice, her personal doctor and her body. This is about the wholesale slaughter of children, pure and simple.

Pelosi, Biden, Kerry and Kennedy--I truly hope you see the light. Otherwise, I hope you remove yourself from the Catholic family. We cherish our children whereas you cherish the killing of them.

Sphere: Related Content

Nancy Pelosi is a Liar

Nancy Pelosi on when life begins

On Meet the Depressed...er...Press this morning... 

MR. BROKAW: Senator Obama saying the question of when life begins is above his pay grade, whether you're looking at it scientifically or theologically. If he were to come to you and say, "Help me out here, Madame Speaker. When does life begin?" what would you tell him?

REP. PELOSI: I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator--St. Augustine said at three months. We don't know. The point is, is that it shouldn't have an impact on the woman's right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child--first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester. There's very clear distinctions. This isn't about abortion on demand, it's about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and--to--that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god. And so I don't think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins. As I say, the Catholic Church for centuries has been discussing this, and there are those who've decided...
  
From: Hyscience 

August 24, 2008

Nancy Pelosi Lied On National TV About The Catholic Church's Position On Abortion

Topics: Political News and commentaries

Clearly, unequivocally, and no possible doubt whatsoever, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is either a babbling idiot who makes claims and says things with no thought whatsoever as to the validity of her statements, or she callously and blatantly lied on Meet the Press today while attempting to spin the Catholic doctrine on human life.

Pelosi has decided on her own that Pope Benedict's warning that Catholic politicians that support abortion risked excommunication from the Church and should not receive communion if they support abortion. She actually told Tom Brokaw that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, she has studied the issue of abortion for a long time and she knows that over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to "make that definition."

... St. Augustine said at three months. We don't know. The point is, is that it shouldn't have an impact on the woman's right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child-first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester. There's very clear distinctions. This isn't about abortion on demand, it's about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and-to-that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god. And so I don't think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins. As I say, the Catholic Church for centuries has been discussing this, and there are those who've decided...

She even goes on to say that the Catholic Church's present position on the pill began 50 years ago with the event of the pill.
Pelosi is so typical of the liberal Democrats. They see the world and life as they want to see it, and express their distorted perceptions as such, and seldom, if ever, see the world and life as it really is based on the facts and uncontested truth.

For the benefit of Madam Pelosi and the Democratic Party, Church writings specifically naming abortion as murder appear as early as 70 AD in the Didache, the first written catechism of the Christian church, and in spite of the attempts of various writers and groups, and even some church authorities and a few popes to the contrary, the history of the position of the Catholic Church that abortion is murder and that it is evil dates back as early as the Didache and remains the same to this day. And as for Pelosi deciding on her own what the position of the Church is at the time of her sitting before Brokaw based upon her own readings and interpretations - if in fact she actually did so, perhaps as a practicing Catholic, as she so claims to be, instead, might consider following her faith as her Pope and mine, Pope Benedict XVI, proclaims. (Which is what a "practicing" Catholic does)

By the way, one cannot honestly say they are a "practicing catholic" and support abortion. Each position unequivocally disqualifies the other.

Related:
Pope warns Catholic politicians who back abortion.
Abortion is crime against society

Sphere: Related Content

On Birthdays and Roe...

Anyone who reads my posts with any regularity knows I'm rabidly anti-abortion in any form, for any reason. No matter how much I rant, though, these two pictures say far more than I ever could.



Babies are miracles. There is no other way to describe them. Perhaps I'm feeling this more than the ordinary person due to some news I received on Christmas. My oldest is pregnant with her fourth, and possibly fifth child (twins are everywhere in the families).

Now, this may not seem so remarkable; people become grandparents all the time. I thoroughly love being a grandma. But is is remarkable because by all rights my daughter shouldn't be pregnant.

See, her fiance had testicular cancer as a teen. Her two youngest children are his. So they've already bucked the odds with two beautiful, healthy children. However. My daughter had her tubes tied 13 months ago, after the birth of her third. Immediately after the birth. She had been pregnant for two straight years (the grandbabies are 5, 2 and 1).

So, we have a man who is technically sterile and a woman who has been sterilized herself--and they are now pregnant again.

If that's not a miracle, I don't know what is.

There is danger involved as well. Because she had the ligation, there was a very good chance this child was an ectopic pregnancy and my daughter has been in extreme pain and ordered on bedrest. It was just too early to tell.

Well, this past weekend, we finally found out--after a rather protracted emergency room visit. The baby is not ectopic and is stronly situated. We will have at least one new addition in late August. I'm sadistic enough to want twins, but any child is more than welcome in our family.

Tell me, if this child ISN'T a miracle, can you please explain to me what is a miracle?

God likes babies and sometimes goes to some awesome lengths to see to their arrival. Abortion destroys these miracles. It sickens me and makes me weep for those mothers who will never hold that child and those children who will never have a birthday.

God help us if we continue to kill these miracles.

Also posted at Real Clear Politics here and Grizzly Groundswell here.

Sphere: Related Content

I Had to Ruminate on This--Vick vs. Humans

A few days ago, I received an article from A Newt One regarding Michael Vick. It was a powerful article and I will link it at the bottom of this article. But the author brought up something that's been on my mind for quite some time, and that is the value of a human life vs. the value of an animal life.

Anyone with even the most rudimentary knowledge of me knows I'm virulently pro-life. I don't believe abortion should be legal for ANY reason, no matter how many ways you can say "but what if"...

None. No reason at all. Abortion is murder, plain and simple, in any form and for any reason. If you want to know why I feel this way, please check my previous posts on the issue, and they will be linked below as well.

John Edwards made a stupefyingly stupid statement regarding the war on terror, stating it was nothing more than a bumper sticker war. Well, here's some bumper stickers for ya:



I WISH I saw more of THESE particular bumper stickers.

But we don't and we won't because they're not politically correct. They speak to a culture of life instead of a culture of death. They deny a woman her choice to hire a murderer and become an accomplice in her own child's murder.

They speak to a conscience most people lack these days, a conscience that's been suppressed in favor of defeat, hate America, glorify excess and revel in bad behavior.

They make a rational person stop and think about what's going on inside a womb--a heart beating, nerves feeling, a baby sucking his or her thumb, engaging in life, feeling protected--until the murderer's scalpel invades his or her domain and starts cutting that child to pieces because that child had the misfortune to be conceived by an irresponsible bitch who lay down and spread her legs and doesn't want to be bothered. Or, in a much rarer instance, where the child had the misfortune to be conceived during an act of violence such as a rape or child molestation. Either way, the child is a complete innocent paying the ultimate price for nothing more than existence and a murderer has been hired, the blood money paid and the child is killed.

The murderer and accomplice(s) go scott free with no consequences, free to murder again. With impunity. And this happens over 4,000 times per DAY.

Enter Michael Vick.

I'm not a huge sports fan--I know everybody has their hobbies and for a vast majority of people that includes professional sports. That's fine. I'm appalled at the outrageous salaries professional players are paid. One reason I'm not a fan. And the fact those salary costs are passed down to the consumer in ticket prices, memorabilia, etc.

Up until this latest "scandal" broke, I didn't even know who Michael Vick was, nor did I care.

Along with my feelings on abortion, though, I am a pet lover. I've had or known a few pit bulls of my own, all of them the most gentle of dogs, fiercely protective of their loved ones, incredibly gentle with the younger members of a family. I currently have 4 cats--1 I inherited from my dead mother, 1 I inherited from my dying stepmom, 1 who walked into my house and adopted ME, and one I rescued from an abusive situation. I also have one dog--inherited from my dying stepmom as well. One thing keeping her agitated was who was going to take her animals and care for them. Most of my pets have been "mutts" because, frankly, mutts don't have the inbred problems purebreds have. However, my stepmom's animals are purebreds (the cat is a Himalayan with siamese markings, the dog is an American eskimo). My stepmom's dog has not endeared herself to anyone, but for some reason we get along and I couldn't hurt my stepmom, so I took the dog as well and she has since calmed down immensely and become a valuable member of the household.

I'm also a meat-eater. I firmly believe in the hierarchy of life, when God gave man dominion over the animals it was for the proper use of animals and animals to serve man--NOT the other way around.

That in no way implies ANYONE has a right to grossly abuse the animals under their care.

What Michael Vick has done to those animals under his care is horrible. It's disgusting. There are simply no words for it.

There's a controversy over whether or not Michael Vick should be banned for life from football. Of course he should. Why is there even a controversy? For crying out loud, Pete Rose was banned for life for GAMBLING. What Vick has done is so far beyond what Rose did, there's no comparison. So why is it even being discussed?

Because this country has lost all sense of a moral compass is why it's being discussed.

Murder is acceptable, at least if it's an unborn child being murdered. Gambling is *gasp* horrible and the gambler has to be banned for life.

Murdering, maiming, engaging in illegal behavior? That's up for discussion. BUT only if it's an animal's life under discussion. Humans don't count--unless you're one of the current crop of celebs--Lohan, Spears, Ritchie, Hilton, Smith. Or a corrupt sports star--Bonds, Vick.

Whatever happened to true heroes and stars? Police, Firemen, REAL Teachers (not paid shills of the NEA), Astronauts, sports stars of old, Hollywood stars who were virulently Pro American, Doctors. Stars who, had they engaged in behavior considered acceptable today, were black-listed as box-office poison, shunned for their immorality? Whatever happened to the people kids looked up to who loved God, cried unashamedly when the National Anthem was played and would no more think of murdering a baby than the man in the moon (back when it was made of green cheese)? People of conscience, not afraid to speak out when something was wrong, and to shun the wrong doer? Whatever happened to those people?

They don't exist anymore--not really. Or they've become part of the slumbering giant awakening and saying NO MORE WILL WE TOLERATE THIS NONSENSE.

In the meantime, it's more acceptable to discuss the fate of a man who willingly destroyed canine life and ignore the fate of the murdering doctors and their accomplices, the birth incubators because that's not "chic". It's acceptable to kill an unborn human with not a second thought while it's an outrage to kill an animal.

Michael Vick should be no more than a blip on our radar screens...a passing news story, with a simple byline--NFL star stripped of contract, banned for life for animal atrocities, prison sentence to follow excessive fines, stripped of all awards, end of story.

Instead of worrying about the casualty counts of the war on terror, how about we start publishing the statistics on the everyday murders going on in our backyard each and every day? The libs want to publish the names, addresses and pictures of sex offenders and drunk drivers--cool, do it. How about the names, addresses and pictures of abortion doctors, women getting abortions and all the attendant personnel each day on the evening news? And, while you're at it, publish their abortion of choice--full, gory pictures of the child they've slain right alongside mom's picture? There was certainly no hesitation to publish the gory pictures of Vick's handiwork.

Since when is an animal's life worth more than a human's? What kind of idiotic world are we living in?

One we deserve--for not putting a stop to this insanity 30+ years ago. When Roe v. Wade was legislated from the bench and murder was made legal. One where human life was legislated as irrelevant.

However, in a truly just world, the picture below would be a fait accompli:


Until we as a nation put our priorities back in order, this kind of insanity will continue. The first step to restoring our sanity is to put human life above animal life, where our Creator intended it to be.

Quit killing humans with impunity. Punish the abortion mill workers and their murdering customers.

Punish those that abuse animals. That's abuse--not using them for what God intended--to SERVE us, not the other way around.

My Previous Abortion Posts are here:
http://missbethsvictorydance.blogspot.com/2007/03/my-pet-rant-of-all-time-abortion.html
http://missbethsvictorydance.blogspot.com/2007/03/statistics-on-abortion.html
http://missbethsvictorydance.blogspot.com/2007/04/thank-you-supreme-court-9-or-at-least-5.html
http://missbethsvictorydance.blogspot.com/2007/04/this-is-partial-birth-abortion.html
http://missbethsvictorydance.blogspot.com/2007/04/state-of-nevada-v-daryl-o-clark-ndoc.html

A Newt One's post is here:
http://www.anewtone.com/2007_08_22_archive.html
Title for it is: Dogs are More Precious than Babies

Sphere: Related Content

The State of Nevada v. Daryl O. Clark, NDOC Prisoner Id 24347

Before I go on to current events, I'm wrapping up (for now) my abortion rants. I often hear how abortion should remain legal for rape and incest victims. This is one such TRUE story (and can be investigated through the State of Nevada) and illustrates why I don't believe it should be legal even in situations such as rape and incest. I stand firmly behind my conviction abortion in any form is murder.

Read on dear readers.

In the State of Nevada, there exists a division of the Division of Parole and Probation that writes Pre-Sentence Investigation ("PSI's") reports once a defendant has been adjudicated guilty and prior to sentencing. These reports encapsulate the defendant's prior criminal history, familial background, "instant" offense and sentencing recommendations to the judge based on all of those factors.

According to Daryl O. Clark's PSI, he had a criminal history of 2 prior Breaking and Entering an Occupied dwelling (convicted on both), 1 prior Unlawful Driving Away of Motor Vehicle (convicted) and the instant offense was 1) Burglar; 2) Robbery with Use of a Deadly Weapon; 3) Sexual Assault with Use of a Deadly Weapon in the Commission of a Crime (8 counts) (instant offenst).

In the State of Nevada, use of a Deadly Weapon in the Commission of a Crime is an automatic enhancement with a sentence equal and consecutive to the actual crime. So, in this case, he committed and was convicted of Sexual Assault, with an equal and consecutive enhancement for Use of a Deadly Weapon.

The offense report reads as follows:

"Records of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the Clark County District Attorney's Office reflect that the instant offense occurred substantially as follows:

On March 3, 1987, between 5:30 a.m. and 6:30 a.m., the defendant entered the residence of the victim, a 25-year-old female. This residence was also occupied by her 5-year-old daughter. The suspect entered by lifting out the kitchen window. The victim woke up in her bedroom and observed a male adult, subsequently identified as the defendant, wearing a brown and black ski mask with holes cut out over his face and also wearing a blue nylon windbreakertype jacket and high top tennis shoes that wrapped around the ankle area with red shoe laces. The suspect was pointing a small snub-nosed, blue steel revolver at her head threatened to kill her and her daughter if she did not submit to his demands.

The suspect forced her to perform oral sex on him. After this was completed, he got into bed and performed normal vaginal sex on her, then turned her over and sodomized her. After this, he got up and ransacked her entire house and took several pieces of jewelry, $6 in cash, and two cartons of Benson & Hedges cigarettes. The suspect then left by the front door and stated that he would kill her and her daughter if she reported the crime to the police. She immediately reported the crime.

On 3-4-87, the victim, while walking to her apartment, saw a suspect whom she believed to be the perpetrator, standing in the same apartment complex near her apartment. She telephoned the police, who responded to apartment #280, which the victim saw the suspect enter. The officers questioned a female, who stated that Darryl clark was her cousin and had been living with her for several months.

She advised that Clark was not in the apartment. While this investigation was going on, security advised the officers that they had located the suspect and had him in custody. He was advised of his rights and questioned by the officers. At this point, Clark began smoking a Benson & Hedges cigarette. He extinguished the butt and placed it in his right jacket pocket. This cigarette butt was retrieved at booking and placed into evidence.

Clark was further asked if he had any prior arrests in the United States, and he stated that he had an arrest for Breaking and Entering in St.Louis, Missouri. After several attempts to gain information from the suspect, he was questioned as to where he had obtained the cigarettes, and he stated that he had bought them at the Green Valley Grocery. This was determined to be false information.

Thereafter, the officers obtained consent to search the apartment being occupied by the defendant's cousin, Terrie Jones. The search revealed: One unopened carton of Benson & Hedges cogarettes, one Smith & Wesson .38 caliber blue steel revolver with a 2 inch barrel, bearing serial no. D32219. The gun was loaded with five rounds of .38 special wadcutters. Also found was a blue cloth jacket, one pair of Adidas blue high top sneakers with red shoelaces. Also found was one gray and blue ski cap. All of these items were impounded into evidence.

As Clark matched the general height and build of the described suspect, he was arrested for Sexual Assault, Burglary, and Robbery With Use of a Deadly Weapon in Commission of a Crime. He was also booked for False Information to a police officer. Clark was transported to the Clark County Detention Center, where a blood kit was obtained from him as well as hair samples.

Clark made no admissions and claimed no knowledge of any sexual assault. The victim positively identified the defendant through the sound of his voice and his physical description. She had remembered that his penis was uncircumcised. This characteristic was also noted of the defendant.

Victim Information:

According to the victim, she is afraid that the defendant will be released from custody and will come and get her and her daughter. She wants him to go to prison for as long as possible. She further revealed that she became pregnant as a result of the repeated assaults and had to have an abortion. She indicated that she has had law enforcement training and can identify suspects through voice and physical description.

In her written statement, the victim indicates that he left, but returned again and took her purse and other personal property. She indicates that her pride, her self-confidence, and her security has been threatened. She indicates that she has been threatened by the defendant's friends since he has been in custody. She lives in constant fear. She and her daughter are seeking counseling, but this cannot erase the trauma that they both suffer.

Those two sections were taken directly from the PSI regarding this defendant. Unfortunately, victims aren't allowed to see a PSI before it's submitted to the Court and there were errors in both sections.

In the "OFFENSE REPORT" section, it neglected to mention that Clark had actually broken in two months prior and stolen all the jewelry and the victim's purse. It also failed to mention how Clark had forced the daughter into bed with the mother, covered both their heads with a pillow and then left, with the mother fearing the gun would be firing any second.

In the "VICTIM INFORMATION" section, the pregnancy was misreported. The victim was not pregnant; however, due to the extreme stress of the situation had missed periods and thought she was. She did not obtain an abortion, but had prepared for one. She had even asked her father for the money for one, after agonizing over whether she should raise the child herself (would she be able to divorce the child from his/her father's actions) or put the child up for adoption (did she want to inflict another couple with this child's aberrant genetic anomalies).

As stated, she did not, in fact, obtain an abortion.

This was also in the early days of AIDS--for the next 10 years, the victim had to be tested every six months to see if she had contracted AIDS from the rape. This added to the anger and frustration the victim suffered and, had she tested positive at any given time, it would have been possible to re-try Clark for attempted murder. Fortunately the victim tested negative at all times.

Clark was sentenced to four consecutive life terms--two terms for sexual assault and two equal and consecutive terms for Use of a Deadly Weapon in Commission of a Crime. At the time, he was eligible to attempt parole after serving 5 years on one sentence, and roll-over to the next term. Optimally, he would have been out in 20 years (the 20th anniversary just passed). At this time, he is still on term 3 and has yet to "roll over" to term 4. He will not be eligible to apply until June, 2009.

Now, with all the talk about abortion in the cases of rape and incest. Unless you have been there, done that--as in this victim's case--you don't have a leg to stand on.

To indulge yourself in such rhetoric sounds good, makes it look as if you are an "informed" person with an "informed" opinion--however, it's nothing more than mental masturbation, designed to make you look good, sympathetic to the victim, up to date and "hip" to the rhetoric currently raging. You are, however, ignorant of the true facts surrounding such circumstances.

You cannot possibly understand what goes through a rape victim's mind. The victim has the initial trauma; the skipped periods, the "Oh my GOD what if...." to deal with, the possibility of AIDS, the investigation, the trial and the sentencing. The victim has it resurrected repeatedly when the defendant comes up for parole and the nightmares start again. The victim has gone through counseling and still the anger and rage return.

This victim was "lucky" in that she WAS NOT pregnant. She agonized; as she grew older and learned more about the issues of abortion, she realized under no circumstances would that child (had there been one) have deserved a death sentence for what its father did. Even though it would have been difficult to carry a child conceived in these circumstances, she could have given that child a chance with a loving family.

Yes, it WOULD be difficult to carry a child to term under these circumstances; however, knowing the child would be given life, knowing the child would have a loving home, would make it easier than living with a murder for the rest of the victim's life. It would also, ultimately, make it easier on the victim as the victim grew and matured, to know in her heart she hadn't compounded the crime with another, more heinous crime.

Now, Miss Beth, how did you get access to this information? How do you know so much about this crime and this rapist? How do you know so much about the whole subject? What makes YOU the reigning opinion-maker on this subject?

It's quite simple, really. I AM THIS victim and this is MY story.

I now KNOW, deep in my heart, that had I been pregnant and gone through with the abortion, I would be in deep mourning for murdering my child. I have had the advantage of age and wisdom, as well as hindsight, to mature and to know the facts.

The very simple fact is this: NO CHILD, REGARDLESS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF HIS OR HER CONCEPTION, DESERVES TO BE MURDERED.

Sphere: Related Content

A Compilation of Pelosi Nonsense-Courtesy of Snooper at Capitalism or Socialism...You Decide

I'm a day late, but hopefully not a dollar short with this compilation. Most of these writings are Snooper's, but he allows me to share his writings with y'all.

I'm sharing on the Pelosi weed today because of the wonderful news handed down from the Supreme Court regarding upholding the ban on Partial Birth Abortions. Nancy Pelosi voted FOR these heinous procedures over 8 times. What a murderous bitch.

Keeping mind her tendency towards infanticide, I felt it appropriate to re-run Snooper's compilation. Enjoy!

Tuesday, April 17, 2007 1:52 PM

The below are posts with various takes on the SoH Nancy Pelosi...a good portion mine [Snooper]...

I Am A Loyal Democrat

Subversion? Treason? You Decide...Part 1

Subversion? Treason? You Decide...Part 2

Surrender Is NOT An Option

A Gunny's Letter To Pelosi

What Constitution?

Double Standard Pandemic

Idiot Pelosi...What A GOMER

Carter and Pelosi?

Madame Traitor

Pelosi Owned?

Impeach Pelosi

Censure the Leftinistra

WSJ Behind the Curve

General Moonbat Pelosi

Wrong-Way Leftinistra

Pathology Of The Leftinistra

Will SoH Pelosi Heed The Call To Resign?

Another Call For Pelosi To Resign

Wannabe SecState Pelosi

Pelosi And Our Enemies...Birds Of A Feather

Recall Congress

Terrorists Laugh At Pelosi

Send A Thank You To Nancy

Keeping Up The Pressure On Pelosi

Impeach Pelosi Fax

Unlike Pelosi, THIS Is an Authorized Visit

Also, in light of the surrender tactics being played out in Congress, led by Pelosi, this petition was sent to me and I'm passing it on to you: (Hat Tip: Cassy)

Congressional leftists have passed a bill to shut off funding for the troops and put a deadline on their withdrawel from Iraq. The result would be a complete surrender in the Middle East, and we have to stop it while there's time.

TheVanguard.Org is sending a giant postcard to the House Democrats: everyone needs to sign it (for free), at

http://www.TheVanguard.Org/r/fax/pmpsp1.shtml

They also provide a way to fax all the Congressmen and Senators who've voted wrong, and demand they change their vote immediately.

There's still time to make a difference, but not much. The President will veto their current bill, but since all money bills have to be passed by the House, failure to pass any bill cuts off funds for the troops too. This is a fight which can only be won by a public outcry, and it's time for us to stand up. Please sign the postcard -- and if you can, call Congress and send them faxes too -- at

http://www.TheVanguard.Org/r/fax/pmpsp1.shtml

Our safety and our futures may literally depend on it.

Sphere: Related Content

Statistics on Abortion

According to the statistics posted at the National Right to Life website, http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html, since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, Americans are responsible for 48,589,993 abortions.

According to the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html, the worldwide number of murders per year is approximately 46 MILLION, with a daily murder rate of approximately 126,000. American numbers are 1.29 MILLION (2002 figures) murders per year with approximately 3,700 murders per day.

We've had 3,200+ troops killed in the greater war on terror in 4 YEARS yet we are allowing 3,700+ MURDERS PER DAY in this country, and the murderers are walking free with impunity.

When, I pray WHEN, are people going to WAKE UP and beg forgiveness for the amount of blood on this country for this atrocity?

Justices Blackmun, Berger, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall and Powell....this is YOUR legacy to America-48, 589,993 AND COUNTING.

Justices White and Rehnquist, thank God you dissented and stood up to these accessories to murder-in-black!

Sphere: Related Content

My Pet Rant of All Time--Abortion

My pet rant is probably, to me, the most heinous thing in the world and to me, demonstrates exactly what we're fighting for in the way of VICTORY against liberals and defeatists. That rant is abortion, followed closely by euthansia.

But, Miss Beth, you say, what about a woman's right to choose? My response is when an unborn child has a right to choose, then so will a woman.

But, Miss Beth, you say, what about in cases of rape? My response is that child, while a product of a violent act, did not choose his or her existence. He or she didn't cause the rape and didn't ask to be brought into this world as a result of a violent act. Therefore, he or she has just as much right to life as the rest of us. If the child is too heartwrenching a reminder, place the child for adoption with a loving family.

But, Miss Beth, you say, what about in cases of incest? See above.

But, Miss Beth, you say, what if it's not convenient for the mother to have a child at this point in her life? My response is, then she shouldn't have lain down and opened her legs.

But, Miss Beth, you say what about when continuing the pregnancy is a danger to the mother? That's a little more complicated. However, there have been many instances where a continuing pregnancy was "dangerous" to the mother and both mother and child have lived.

But, Miss Beth, what if the mother is an uneducated teenager and the child interferes with the rest of the mother's life and her future opportunities? There are many schools designed for teenage mothers, teaching them how to be good mothers and continue their education. Again, if the child is truly a "hinderance" to the mother, 1) she shouldn't have lain down and opened her legs and 2) place the child for adoption with a loving family.

The truth is we could go on for days with "But, Miss Beth, what if...".

The truth is abortion is murder, pure and simple. A capital crime. An ending to a life.

We hear so much on the liberal left against capital punishment. I'd like to pose a question: If there are so many against capital punishment, for those who have been properly tried and convicted, why then, are they for abortion against an innocent life that has not been tried and convicted?

And the most horrific, the most heinous of these procedures is partial birth abortion.

For those not familiar with this, let me describe. It involves the mother going into labor, or being induced into labor. The child is turned around so he or she is born "breech". The entire body is delivered and just before the head is fully presented and before the child takes his or her first breath, the base of his or her skull is punctured and the brains sucked out. Then the rest of the child is delivered and often placed into a "dying room" to let the child die on their own.

Thankfully, Congress continues its ban on these horrific murders. However, possibly not for long. Not with San Fran Nan in charge. And not with everybody's beloved poster boy, Bill Clinton, lurking in the background. Clinton, who tried to have the ban lifted, was overridden by Congress. Thank GOD Congress showed some spine then!

In a recent issue of Time, there was a significant article regarding crisis pregnancy centers. They provide counseling, help, clothing, find pre-natal care, etc. for women. Planned Parenthood, the biggest slaughterhouse in the country, was boo-hooing becazuse these centers aren't "playing fair". Just what are the crisis centers doing that PP doesn't consider fair? They're showing these women in crisis their children on sonograms. These women see their children moving, breathing, engaging in LIFE. And PP doesn't think that's fair. Why? Because these mothers often choose to give their children life after seeing them on the sonogram. TOO BAD FOR PP!!!

I APPLAUD the crisis centers for crusading to end abortions, for showing women there are numerous options for their unborn children, for helping these women--in short, for trying to stop the slaughter.

Now, there's "Exhale" that provides "e-cards" for women who have had a "procedure". Sounds like they're just getting a tooth pulled instead of committing murder. Something warm and fuzzy to make the would-have-been mother/murderer "feel better" about her "decision" rather than forcing her to face the consequences of murder and not just murder, but murder of her own child. How disgusting can you get?

People on the left are more concerned with the spotted owl and clubbing seals than they are with children. Taking that one step further, your teenage daughter can have an abortion without your permission yet needs your permission for a tattoo or piercing. Where are their priorities?

The Supreme Court decision giving women the "right" to a legal abortion, the "right" to commit murder with impunity, was wrong. It's yet another instance of the court trying to legislate in a moral and religious arena. Look at the blood on the justice's hands--not just the deciding justices but all the justices since then who have upheld that decision.

Sphere: Related Content