The Pro-Death crowd is back.

I was going to write about another subject but a series of comments I received pushed that idea back for a day. They were all directed at one of the columns with regard to abortion. As anyone who reads this column will know, I am an unashamed proponent of life. I know (which is far stronger of a stance than mere belief) that life begins at the moment of conception. There is far too much science that proves this. The question is really when do any rights of humanity become endowed upon this life?

That question I posed is enough to send many of the pro-death crowd into a screaming frenzy because if what we now call the de-humanizing terms of zygote, fetus, etc, is recognized for what it really is, what they now see as a fundamental right becomes rather an act of legalized murder. What is really interesting is that many of this group will also stand vigil protesting the execution of a serial killer whose primary target was children.

If anyone will notice, I have not once said that an abortionist or their “patient” does not have the right to do what they do, yet these comments fairly shrieked that accusation attempting to shame me into silence. One comment was not allowed to be published because it used profanity, in spite of the prohibition for that sort of language clearly posted in the comment box. Apparently some folks can write but not read.

Throughout all the columns on this subject my single push has been to inject honesty into the discussion; honesty based on actual science and biological evidence not politically correct terminology. The problem, as exhibited by the comments, is that at least one side of the discussion cannot deal with such honesty, so I will, with glee, express it yet again.

I want a member of the pro-death camp to answer this question honestly and without rancor: what is the result of human conception if it is not human? I can almost guarantee that not one of them will give a well-reasoned answer because the only correct answer is “human life”. There are stages within the growth of this life that it has yet to achieve sentience and there are stages where it is completely reliant on the mother for sustaining that life, but if not human, what is it?

You see, when the rhetoric is broken down and the discussion is brought to fundamentals there is no room left for semantics and this is what really bothers the fanatics on both sides. Where abortion is concerned, most of the fanatics live on the left but not all of them. Those who shoot abortionists are just as wrong as those doctors who violate their oath by hiding behind contracts. The Hippocratic Oath as translated from the Greek is,

“I swear by Apollo, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath.
To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art.

I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.

I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.

In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.

All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.

If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot.”

There is no room in the oath, if it is followed honestly, to perform an abortion. If the comments to my blog are read, you will see that the writers did not bother to do any research, they simply reacted because I was disputing an article of their faith. They call for tolerance, but react with intolerance when someone disagrees with them. The comments give ample evidence to that, but if you will notice, I published them…except when profanity is used.

For those who didn’t pay attention in school, profanity is the four-letter dialogue you commonly use when your mother isn’t listening.

The "Pro-Choice" Crowd lies

For anyone who has read this blog, it will come as no surprise that I am not a fan of the Republican party. As with many in my position, I did not leave them, they left me when they dedcided to adopt the morals of Dick Cheny and toss out the lessons of Lincoln and Reagan. But there is on last remaing plank on the GOP platform with which I still find a modicum of agreement; abortion.

In recent news Nancy Pelosi did what so many politicians who alos happen to be marginal catholics did, she tried to use her absolute lack of biblical knowledge to justify a position against the unborn. To quote an obscure saint, especially out of context would be laughable if her abuse of the bully pulpit did not influence so many people...the majority of them women. Let's put her statement through a bit of dissection.

Pelosi based her views on conception on the "views of Saint Augustine, who said, 'The law does not provide that the act (abortion) pertains to homicide, for there cannot yet be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation.'"

On it's face, this may be nothing more than a faithful follower of church teaching explaining the foundation of her belief, that is, if it is left there. However, Ms. Pelosi is a member of the Senate and as such, someone who writes law. Does what Augustine supposedly said have more authority over chuch doctrine that the bible? No, that would be the same as saying a district court judge's opinion overrides the constitution. The bible is the constitution of the chuch and every reputable scholar (those who do not have an abortion agenda, either pro or con) acknowledges that the bible considers abortion the killing of a human life. All you have to do is look at the amount of money Planned Parenthood has poured into Pelosi's campaigns and you can understand the real reason for her stance.

Now, let's move from religion into science, because obviously Augustine did not have either the medical technology or the understanding of DNA that we do today. What happens when an egg is fertalized? The egg begins to divide, but why? What has happened is that DNA transported by the father has mingled with that of the mother, causing the egg to transform into the next stage which is called a zygote. A number of stages occure between zygote and birth, but in all of them any honest person would have to call that stage a form of human life. For those of you either in disaggreement or outraged by that statement, here is your chance. Submit a comment. Tell me where I am wrong. I am willing to be taught, but consider this, if not human, than what species is this growing lifeform? You have to land somewhere in your argument. Nebulous symantics are not going to win the day.

In every other species on earth, the developing young are considered to be the same species as the parents. Is there a magical process that somehow keeps a human fetus from being human until the moment after delivery? If so, no labratory I am aware of has published a paper detailing this process. Science has actually shown the opposite. A developing fetus shows reaction to stimuli, which automatically renders Augustine moot. Blood and tissue samples show the baby has it's own unique genetic characteristics and often, a bloodtype incompatible with the mother. So, is this merely a lump of tissue similar to a tumor? Planned Parenthood has said just that to women they wanted to sell an abortion to. Notice I said sell, not give. Money is the root of this issue, not philosophy.

What it comes down to is symantics. If they call a pro-abortion stance "pro-choice", than it sounds moral and righteous, while in reality the only choice they will honor is death...of the developing child. If choice was a reality, all the pertinent information would be offered. It is not. Occaisionally ultrasounds and other noninvasive proceedures are offered, but that is the exception, not the rule. A true pro-choice stance would be to offer every bit of advice that is available and then honor the decision. If abortion is chosen, and it is legal, than the proceedure should be performed free of charge as a service, all the while with the understanding that the mother is asking for the death of her unborn child. Truth is truth, even if it is uncomfortable. Tax money should not be put up to pay for it as too many citizens disagree with abortion. If organizations such as NOW and Planned Parenthood trully believed what they preach, they would forego federal money and fees, existing purely on donations. Yeah, like that is ever going to happen.

Agendas can be treacherous things. Often the people following an agenda become little more than disposable tools of those running the movement. Look at people like Jesse Jackson, Dick Cheny and his oil buddies, Al Sharpton, and the above-mentioned Nancy Pelosi. Their allegiance is to the money and power their agenda can bring them. The average citizen means nothing to them. They never see the emails or letters sent to them. A staff secretary has templates and an electronic signature for that purpose. In the pro-life/pro-choice debate, the truth has been tossed in favor of an agenda. Sadly, the real victim has been innocence in its truest form.