I have had more discussions with Facebook (and real) friends over the past few days. In one, I asked my liberal friends to please explain how they can justify (and celebrate) the new New York abortion law.
I had only two people to attempt to answer the question, but they actually dodged it. After several back-and-forths on the issue of adoption and the need for more pro-life supporters to step up and walk their talk by supporting women who were choosing life for their baby, I tried to reign things back in for my original question. Here’s how I finally wrapped it up.
My original point was to ask the most basic of questions. If we can’t agree on the answer to the most basic of questions, we’ll never be able to agree on the follow-up answers. Too often, instead of answering the question, people ask more questions.
Unfortunately, it appears that “we” can’t agree on the answer to the most basic of questions. Even those who call themselves “Christians” (which we don’t always agree on that definition either!) can’t agree on the answer to the most basic of questions.
Take away all the arguments of “reproductive rights”. Take away even the arguments for/against abortion. Take away the arguments of what a woman chooses to do with her body. Take away all of these things that distract from THE most basic of questions.
“What is life?”
Can we not all agree that a baby that has entered the birth canal is in fact a baby whose life should be protected by law? Evidently not.
That was the question answered by delegates in Virginia on Tuesday when the committee voted to table the bill proposed by Kathy Tran. The vote to table the bill came down to 5-3 decision along party lines. Ms Tran acknowledged that her bill would not prevent an abortion on a fully-developed fetus when the mother was dilating.
And in his attempted explanation, the Virginia Governor Ralph Northam explained what would happen to a baby that survived such an abortion. “If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians & mother.” (Note that Northam used the term “infant” three times. He acknowledged that this was a human baby and then said that discussions would determine its fate.
When party lines are more important to us than protecting a baby in the birth canal, something is seriously wrong with us as a nation.
We must pray!
It seems like liberals are trying to out-liberal each other. Well, not to be outdone by New York’s recent abortion law, Virginia is considering revising its abortion laws.
The bill allows for abortion even during labor. Yes, you read that correctly. And if a baby is delivered? Virginia Governor Ralph Northam responded,
If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians & mother.
Note: Governor Northam says, “The infant would be delivered.” Infant. Not “clump of cells”. Not “product of pregnancy”. Infant. Three times the Governor used the term “infant“. There is absolutely no way to say this bill is anything but a push for infanticide.
Where is the outcry?!
On Tuesday, January 22, 2019 — on the 46th anniversary of the US Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision — New York Governor Mario Cuomo (D) signed into law the state’s making abortion legal up past the twenty-fourth week (6 months). And on Tuesday Night, Cuomo directed the 408-foot spire on the One World Trade Center, the Governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge, the Kosciuszko Bridge, and the Alfred E. Smith Building in Albany to be lit pink to “celebrate this achievement and shine a bright light forward for the rest of the nation to follow.” (Source)
The law for the first time allows abortions after the 24-week mark to protect the mother’s health or in cases where the fetus won’t survive. (Source)
Every pregnancy puts the mother’s health at risk to some extent.
Would someone please tell me how this new law can be acceptable to anyone with a conscience? How can this be tolerated, much less celebrated in a civilized society?
I promise to post your (PG-13) comments without editing (Note: I moderate comments to keep spam off my website, so you only need to comment once; I’ll post it, just give me time).
This was one of the most moving films I’ve ever seen. And no one in the theater said a word until after they were outside the building.
The Gosnell trial wasn’t about abortion. Neither was the movie. Regardless of how you feel about abortion or “reproductive rights”, this is a very important film to see.
As I watched the movie, I kept asking myself, “How did we ever let this happen?”
As I walked around for a while after the movie, I found my anger turn to praying for Dr. Gosnell and for our nation.
And SCOTUS nominations are one of those consequences.
If Roe v. Wade were to be dismantled/overturned (as the Left and the MSM are freaking out about in light of Justice Kennedy’s retirement and his upcoming replacement), it will be because the 1973 SCOTUS decision is bad law plain and simple, “passed” by a majority of unelected SCOTUS activist judges.
And Roe v. Wade will be seen (rightly) as the Twentieth Century version of Dred Scott and Plessy vs. Furguson.