01 Jun The day will come . . .
A reference to a now infamous Supreme Court case that declared the African slave known as Dred Scott was the property of his master. Not a person, not someone the law recognized as possessing legal rights, but as the personal property of his master–to use the term assigned slaves by Aristotle; a tool.
Proof the Supreme Court can be wrong–hideously, shockingly, absurdly wrong!
Such was the Roe v Wade decision of 1973 and its companion case Doe v Bolton which allowed abortion for the full nine months of pregnancy. Roe opened the legal door to abortion on demand, but the justices wanted to do more than just open the door, they wanted to kick it off its hinges. Doe did that.
Now, the latest polls indicate for the first time, those identifying as pro-life are in the majority, barely: 51%
The pro-abortion folk are frantic in what this means for their future. So they have re-trenched in their opposition to any restrictions on abortion. ANY!
They say a vehement “Nay!” to parental consent of minors seeking abortion. They fight tooth an nail against all attempts to end the obscene practice of partial birth-abortion. And now, they won’t allow a ban on sex-selection abortions. Let me say that again in case you didn’t catch the absurdity –
The House on Thursday rejected a measure that sought to impose fines and prison terms on doctors who perform abortions on women who are trying to select the gender of their offspring — a practice known as sex-selective abortion.The legislation, which required two-thirds support to win passage under the fast-track procedure used to bring it to the floor, fell short on a vote of 246 to 168. Republicans did not anticipate that the legislation would pass, but saw it as an opportunity to force Democrats to vote on an issue with appeal among conservatives.
“Today’s vote is a stunning declaration by supporters of abortion that they oppose any restrictions on abortion,” said Representative John Fleming, Republican of Louisiana. Democrats accused Republicans of contriving a vote on legislation to address a problem that does not exist.
Well then, if there’s NO REAL PROBLEM, if there are really only a tiny number of cases in which someone might seek an abortion because they are pregnant with a girl when they wanted a boy, why not permit the ban? And wait – have you ever heard of China? Yeah, it’s that big country across the Pacific with over a billion people where they have a one child policy and everyone wants boys instead of girls because girls can’t support their elderly parents while the culture dictates that boys do. So they abort girls, and practice infanticide if their baby is unlucky enough to be female. The problem of not enough women in China is terrifying, one the Chinese are only now waking up to. They’ve sown the wind & are already seeing the swirling clouds of a scary whirlwind.
To say no one practices sex-selection abortion is ludicrous. But the pro-abortion industry has to say such foolishness because it’s the party line to oppose any restriction on killing unborn boys and girls.
The day will come when some future generation looks back on our day with its comfortable acceptance of the wholesale slaughter of the millions of innocents, and a shudder of disgust will sicken them.
That the right and proper reaction to abortion on demand.
Too bad our age doesn’t feel it.