“The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground. And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand.”
Planned Parenthood (a.k.a., “Planned MurderHood”…yes I thought of that!) has come under some heavy criticism from TheRational lately for videos that show who they are and what they do behind the scenes with the unborn babies they assist in murdering. More videos, indeed, thousands of hours according to the group who was releasing them, were to come. Unless, of course Planned MurderHood succeeds in getting the videos squashed for public review as per this article. And it appears they will.
The sacrifice of children to false gods is nothing new to humanity, but the particularly barbarous act of murdering a defenseless, unborn child is heinous enough in and of itself, without the intent to sacrifice, to have warranted Yahweh to destroy an entire society around the 8th century BC:
Thus says the LORD, “For three transgressions of the sons of Ammon and for four I will not revoke its punishment, because they ripped open the pregnant women of Gilead in order to enlarge their borders. “So I will kindle a fire on the wall of Rabbah and it will consume her citadels amid war cries on the day of battle, and a storm on the day of tempest. “Their king will go into exile, He and his princes together,” says the LORD.
The English word “sacrament” is derived indirectly from the Ecclesiastical Latin sacrāmentum, from Latin sacrō (“hallow, consecrate”), from sacer (“sacred, holy”). In Ancient Rome, the term meant a soldier’s oath of allegiance, and also a sacred rite.
Abortion for convenience sake, e.g., as a matter of birth control (the “Rite to Choose”) is the sacrament of the cult of Liberalism, much as Communion is a sacrament of Christianity. Of course, the difference between the two is that the former sacrifices a viable, unborn, human child at various stages of development to serve the deity of Liberalism (i.e., Self) while the latter utilizes a bit of wine and bread in remembrance of the sacrifice that God the Son made on behalf of Man.
“If women were in charge, abortion would be a sacrament, an occasion of deep and serious and sacred meaning.”
The “sacred”, “holy” act, the “sacred rite”, i.e., the sacrament of Liberalism is the act of abortion, i.e., the murder of the unborn child, and is to be considered, “an occasion of deep and serious and sacred meaning”.
The whole idea of Ms. Heyward’s view of abortion brings to mind a “Satanesque” scene of a naked pregnant woman, spread eagle across a stone, surrounded by candles, scary people dancing, chanting and moaning in a circle around her, while a robed and hooded Heyward looks upon her swollen abdomen eagerly…knife in-hand.
In today’s world, what we have is the same religious rite being performed but in a doctor’s office. The stone has been replaced with a gynecological chair. The candles have been replaced with examination lights. The robed and hooded disciples replaced with disciples clothed in hospital scrubs and masks. The sacramental knife has become a set of forceps.
But the action is the same. The result is the same. The death is the same. The murder is the same.
However you view human abortion, shouldn’t it be true that in a rational, compassionate society with a modicum of respect for human life, that common decency would demand that at the very least the disposal of the child’s body would be done with some human tenderness and warmth?
Not if you’re a Liberal.
If you’re a Liberal the sacrament of abortion is just the beginning. Next you dissect the sacrificial lamb and sell her parts. You profit from her murder. You sell the parts to pay for your Lamborghini or in order that it won’t cost you personally to contribute to Democrat political campaigns. You haggle for the best price you can get, as a slaughter house haggles with Kroger for animal meat.
Naturally, Liberals are denying the veracity of the CMP videos in typical ad hominem fashion, claiming the videos are edited or even faked altogether. In an even more chilling update, the DOJ has decided to use the power of the federal government to “investigate” (i.e., harass to silence) the individuals responsible for the videos, much like Obama’s IRS denied political dissidents tax-exempt status.
According to this story from Politico, reprinted in the Federalist:
JUSTICE TO PROBE CENTER FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS — While congressional committees investigate Planned Parenthood’s practices, the Justice Department agreed to look into whether the group that released the sting videos obtained the footage legally. In response to a request by House Democrats, Attorney General Loretta Lynch said Wednesday afternoon that Justice would “review all of the information and determine what the appropriate steps moving forward would be.” Planned Parenthood has staunchly defended its practices and claims that the Center for Medical Progress illegally obtained its footage, then excessively edited it to misrepresent what the organization does.
Four Democrats in Congress — Reps. Jan Schakowsky, Zoe Lofgren, Jerry Nadler, and Yvette Clarke — have written to Attorney General Loretta Lynch and California Attorney General Kamala Harris, asking them to open investigations into the Center for Medical Progress. The Democrats say the videos were filmed as part of an “elaborate scheme” — using “fake identification” and without the approval of the Planned Parenthood doctor who appears in them.
And as of April 6th, the California DOJ has raided the home of the individual who owns the tapes and confiscated them, ostensibly to review them for further prosecution efforts.
So the issue here is not whether Liberals are selling baby body parts for profit or selling them period.
Of course they’re marketing harvested baby body parts.
Of course they’re profiting from it.
That’s not the travesty of justice being committed here because doing so presents no moral problem whatsoever for the Liberal. It’s just meat. It’s just tissue. It’s not human. There’s nothing to see.
Nay, rather, the travesty of justice is whether those who exposed the barbarism are criminal “schemers” who use “fake identification” and don’t request of the doctor who appears in the videos whether or not they may have permission to expose them.
Indeed, first we must request the approval of the taxpayer funded, murdering Liberal to expose to the public-at-large the heinous acts of barbarism he commits in the name of the cult!
Of course, why didn’t I think of that…
Let anyone who significantly threatens Liberalism beware…you will be targeted. You will be investigated. You will, if at all possible, be silenced by any means necessary, including the full faith and power of the United States government, depending on how dire the threat and far-reaching the consequence to Liberalism of the exposure.
Now, I wonder why anyone is surprised at Liberals selling the body parts of murdered children? Do Liberals think like rational individuals? No, they think like Liberals. All that is wrong is right, up is down, left is right, cold is hot, and the list goes on.
My good friend, the Statist, describes being pro-death this way:
Indeed being pro choice is a bias for the life already born over the life not yet in existence. Until the people already here can make better accommodations for a greater share of the pie for those already here now, bringing in new people that are not wanted and not affordable by their parents is not wise and a burden for any society. It’s a pragmatic choice that is the lessor of two bad choices rather than right vs wrong.
It’s also quite debatable whether anything innocent but a blob of cells is murdered by ru488. Is it murder to cut out a tumor?
So the rationalization for why we murder our children is egocentric greed based on a denial of the child’s humanity:
- We didn’t want the child in the first place (egocentric)
- He will cost us money (greed)
- Until he’s exited the birth canal he isn’t even human (denial of humanity).
We’re not offered a rational definition of “life not yet in existence”:
You should clear something up first…
You seem confused concerning the definition of “existence”. That which is “not yet in existence” has no state of being whatsoever, because it doesn’t yet exist.
The Liberal responds:
Are u unable to make an argument besides semantics?
Existence has more definitions than just yours. A person not yet born, is not yet in this worlds environment. It is medically defined that conciseness [sic] cannot exist before the brain or first neuron exists.
That is not at the time of conception.
Therefore, there is no self, no concise [sic] brain, no soul, for some time period after conception, and before birth.
An ru488 abortion occurs well before any medical definition of life exists.
Get real dude.
I suspect that “conciseness” should actually be “consciousness”. This Liberal has been partaking in highly potent weed for a number of years, hence, naturally his synapses are firing at less than optimal performance.
What we learn here is that for Liberals, human existence is determined solely by the birth state of the individual in question. Babies not yet born are said not to exist and therefore are not afforded an identification as human:
A person not yet born, is not yet in this worlds environment
Therefore, there is no self, no concise [sic] brain, no soul, for some time period after conception, and before birth.
The unborn child is not of this world, therefore lacks self identification, a soul, and his humanity until he is cleared of the birth canal (“before birth”). Literally, the Liberal is arguing that prior to the day, the hour, the minute or even the second before birth, the child has no claim to humanity because he is not human.
We are not afforded any definition of where exactly the child is if the child is not “in this world’s environment”.
This irrational logic is what allows the gruesomely barbaric practice of child sacrifice in the name of convenience to prevail over human decency and rationality in the United States as well as the rest of the world.
Note, however, that Liberals contradict themselves when we consider situations with similar circumstances involving other animals.
Suppose a Liberal rancher takes ten of his beef stock to auction. Five cows are open (not impregnated) and five are impregnated (at any stage whatsoever of the unborn animal’s embryonic development). What do you suppose the Liberal will do with the impregnated cattle with regard to price?
The Liberal will demand a premium price for the five impregnated cows, i.e., for the unborn animal. The five “open” cows will go for a lesser price. The Liberal will say, “You’re receiving two cows in one, therefore, you’ll pay me more for this pregnant cow.”
Now, you can’t sell a cow that is not a cow, can you? As the buyer, shouldn’t I use the Liberal’s own logic to deny his argument that I’m buying more than one cow? Is it not true that, “the cow not yet born, is not yet in this world’s environment”, hence it is not yet a cow?
The Liberal will laugh in your face and send you on your way. “Of course it’s a cow!”, he will snort, while at the same time denying the humanity of the unborn human child.
Is it not the height of logical contradiction and hypocrisy that the Liberal should claim his unborn cow a cow but deny humanity to an unborn human?
Imagine yourself, ladies and gentleman, as a Liberal. Imagine you believed like a Liberal. Imagine your mind, your thinking, your ideas, your worldview were like the Liberal’s, i.e., contradictory, confused, inconsistent, irrational…imagine the notion of objective truth were anathema to you.
Imagine a world where everything you correctly believed true was true solely as a matter of coincidence or existential undeniability (e.g., “the sun is red”) while the rest of your beliefs were lies?
These are Liberals. And this is Liberalism.
It’s a good reason to pity them.