Abortion/Pro-Life

Baby Parts [Still] For Sale | Democrats Dehumanizing Human Life

Published by Papa Giorgio

Updated with this video via CHOICE42

“I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don’t know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus.” — Faye Wattleton, former president of U.S. Planned Parenthood

(I am posting most of the headers to each section, but #2 I post in full to compare to the 20/20 investigation many years ago (part of the original post): via THE FEDERALIST

Top 10 Sickening Details About How Federal Employees Trafficked Baby Body Parts

New emails uncovered by Judicial Watch’s FOIA request detail how FDA employees were working with buyers to get ‘fresh’ aborted baby organs for experiments.

In what should have been a national headline, the exposure of the U.S. government’s involvement in trafficking aborted baby bodies is now even more newsworthy following Friday’s announcement from the White House. At President Biden’s direction, the Department of Health and Human Services reversed the Trump administration’s policy protecting preborn Americans from the callous dehumanization of organ harvesting and further desecration of their bodies in research disguised as “science.”

This sickening decision now gives license to our “best and brightest” government researchers and agencies, those in charge of steering the country towards medical breakthroughs and scientific progress, to use the skin, brains, and eyeballs of children in research that affects all of us and is funded by our money. For this very reason, we must know the full extent of how federal agencies traffic aborted baby body parts.

These top 10 shocking examples come from the latest emails uncovered by Judicial Watch’s FOIA request and recent investigations.

1. The FDA Paid $2,000 Per Baby

2. FDA Bought Organs of Dismembered Babies

The FDA bought organs like livers, brains, and eyeballs of dismembered babies for hundreds of dollars apiece, courtesy of ABR’s collusion with local Planned Parenthoods.

ABR fee schedules and pricing charts obtained during a U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Investigation allow us to piece together how much a baby costs by body part, as if each child was a slaughtered animal sold in sections.

3. ABR Sold the Skin of a 21-Week-Old Down Syndrome Baby

4. The FDA Wanted ‘Fresh’ Babies

5. The FDA Asked for Organs from Late-Term Babies

6. The FDA Bought Skulls of Second-Trimester Babies

7. Busy Abortion Clinics Produced ‘Awful Specimens’

8. FDA Requested Boy Organs to Create Humanized Mice

9. FDA, ABR Employees Called Aborted Babies ‘Amazing’

10. Taxpayers Paid for FDA Trips to ‘Humanized Mice Workshops’ in Europe

All I can say is Big Government is an evil sombitch!

OLDER POST

(2015)

BREITBART comments:

America’s utterly useless, hopelessly corrupt mainstream media has once again been scooped by New Media, this time on a major story involving a major left-wing institution. According to undercover video released Tuesday, for anywhere from $30 to $100 a pop, Planned Parenthood is happy to adjust the way in which it murders unborn children.

You want a heart? A liver? A lower extremity? Not a problem. While butchering this child — hopefully during a late-term abortion in order to bump up the price — Planned Parenthood will be super-duper-extra-careful to murder the baby in a very specific way that keeps those organs intact.

This is happening. In America. And we’re only learning about it thanks to a group that has nothing to do with the MSM — the same MSM that has all kinds of time to fabricate racism, stir up riots in inner-cities, fabricate infrastructure problems around a train crash, and ask Donald Trump the same three goddamned immigration questions for a full month.

Why isn’t our media regularly investigating and calling for full transparency from a taxpayer-funded institution like Planned Parenthood?

Why doesn’t our media treat Planned Parenthood with even a tenth the scrutiny it does the NFL or Koch Industries?

The answer is simple: When the media targets certain institutions, there is big political and cultural upside for the Left. On the flip-side, if the media were to investigate others institutions, there is potential downside for the Left. Therefore, this is the media’s driving criteria when it comes to editorial decisions….

THE BLAZE makes this accurate assessment:

…Mysteriously, these “clumps of cells” are suddenly considered identifiable bodies with limbs and organs.

And with the calvarium, in general, some people will actually try to change the presentation so that it’s not vertex. So if you do it starting from the breech presentation, there’s dilation that happens as the case goes on, and often, the last step, you can evacuate an intact calvarium at the end.

In case you’re wondering, the calvarium is piece of the skull. According to Nucatola, as the abortionist is executing the child, he will sometimes “evacuate” it a certain way so the baby’s head can later be sold for money…

GAY PATRIOT comments on the above information:

No one who is pro-abortion should have any problem with this. After all, so long as a woman is not inconvenienced by a pregnancy, nothing else matters. Besides, those organs probably come from “communities we don’t want too many of,” as Democrat heroine Margaret Sanger or Ruth Bader Ginsburg would put it.

ORIGINAL POST

(2007)

The following comes from my old blog dated June, 2007. It is an import perfect for the above new information.

Peter Singer is the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University. Singer was the founding President of the International Association of Bioethics and, with Helga Kuhse, founding co-editor of the journal Bioethics. In his book “Practical Ethics,” he writes:

If the fetus does not have the same claim to life as a person, it appears that the newborn baby does not either, and the life of a newborn baby is of less value to it than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee is to the nonhuman animal.

If we can put aside these emotionally moving but strictly irrelevant aspects of the killing of a baby we can see that the grounds for not killing persons do not apply to newborn infants.

Remember that Peter Singer teaches ethics to generations of medical students. An ABC 20/20 SPECIAL turned up some horribly unsettling info about an industry that has come into being with the slow march towards the devaluation of human life:

ABC News “20/20” Investigation Into Alleged Trafficking In Fetal Tissue Finds Companies That Appear To Be Profiting From Selling Human Tissue For Medical Research

A three-month “20/20” hidden-camera investigation has uncovered an industry in which tissue and organs from aborted fetuses, donated to help medical research, are being marketed for hundreds, sometimes thousands, of dollars.

“20/20” has investigated one businessman whose company issued a price list charging what many call exorbitant prices for fetal tissue. In addition, ABC News “20/20” chief correspondent Chris Wallace has an exclusive interview with a whistle-blower who says two tissue retrieval companies he worked for went so far as to, on some occasions, encourage him to take fetal tissue obtained from women who had not consented to donate their fetuses to medical research. The report will air on “20/20 Wednesday,” March 8 (10:00-11:00 p.m., ET), on the ABC Television Network.

Many say that fetal tissue is vital in scientific research that may provide dramatic medical breakthroughs, and federal law permits the donation of tissue from aborted fetuses for that purpose. But the law says companies that transport fetal tissue to medical research labs may only charge a reasonable fee to recover costs of collecting and shipping human tissue. “20/20’s” investigation found some companies are charging high fees — fees that critics say are not based on recovering costs; for example, the price list for one company, Opening Lines, includes listings of $325 for a spinal cord, $550 for a reproductive organ, $999 for a brain.

How are these prices determined? One “20/20” producer went undercover as a potential investor to meet Dr. Miles Jones, a Missouri pathologist whose company, Opening Lines, obtains fetal tissue from clinics and ships it to research labs. “It’s market force,” Dr. Jones told the producer about how he sets his prices. “It’s what you can sell it for.” He says he hopes to run his own abortion clinic in Mexico where he says he could get a greater supply of fetal tissue by offering cheaper abortions: “If you control the flow — it’s probably the equivalent of the invention of the assembly line.”

“That’s trading in body parts. There’s no doubt about it,” said Arthur Caplan, director of the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Bioethics.

Representative Thomas Bliley (R-VA), who chairs the United States House Commerce Committee, says his committee is now investigating four companies after finding evidence they may be selling tissue for a profit. He says the committee is interested in ensuring that people transporting fetal tissue only recover their legitimate costs. “It appears that it’s more than that. That it comes down to trafficking in tissue parts,” he tells Mr. Wallace. Rep. Bliley’s committee expects to hold hearings on this issue later this week. [Note: The House Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Health and the Environment has scheduled a hearing on Thursday, March 9, at 2 p.m., on the subject, “Fetal Tissue: Is It Being Bought and Sold in Violation of Federal Law?”]

Another piece to this puzzle was added with an article by MONA CHARIN, a nationally syndicated columnist when she wrote this in reference to another think tank article:

Body Parts For Sale

“Kelly” (a pseudonym) was a medical technician working for a firm that trafficked in baby body parts. This is not a bad joke. Nor is it the hysterical propaganda of an interest group. It was reported in the American Enterprise magazine–the intelligent, thought-provoking, and utterly trustworthy publication of the American Enterprise Institute.

The firm Kelly worked for collected fetuses from clinics that performed late-term abortions. She would dissect the aborted fetuses in order to obtain ‘high-quality” parts for sale. They were interested in blood, eyes, livers, brains, and the thymuses, among other things.

“What we did was to have a contract with an abortion clinic that would allow us to go there on certain days. We would get a generated list each day to tell us what tissue researchers, pharmaceutical companies, and universities were looking for. Then we would examine the patient charts. We only wanted the most perfect specimens.’ That didn’t turn out to be difficult. Of the hundreds of late-term fetuses Kelly saw on a weekly basis, only about 2 percent had abnormalities. About 30 to 40 babies per week were around 30 weeks old–well past the point of viability.

Is this legal? Federal law makes it illegal to buy and sell human body parts. But there are loopholes in the law. Here’s how one body parts company–Opening Lines Inc.–disguised the trade in a brochure for abortionists: “Turn your patient’s decision into something wonderful.”

For its buyers, Opening Lines offers “the highest quality, most affordable, freshest tissue prepared to your specifications and delivered in the quantities you need, when you need it.” Eyes and ears go for $75, and brains for $999. An “intact trunk” fetches $500, a whole liver $150. To evade the law’s prohibition, body-parts dealers like Opening Lines offer to lease space in the abortion clinic to “perform the harvesting,” as well as to “offset the clinic’s overhead.” Opening Lines further boasted, “Our daily average case volume exceeds 1,500 and we serve clinics across the United States.”

Kelly kept at her grisly task until something made her reconsider. One day, “a set of twins at 24 weeks gestation was brought to us in a pan. They were both alive. The doctor came back and said, ‘Got you some good specimens–twins.’ I looked at him and said: ‘There’s something wrong here. They are moving. I can’t do this. This is not in my contract.’ I told him I would not be part of taking their lives. So he took a bottle of sterile water and poured it in the pan until the fluid came up over their mouths and noses, letting them drown. I left the room because I could not watch this.”

But she did go back and dissect them later. The twins were only the beginning. “It happened again and again. At 16 weeks, all the way up to sometimes even 30 weeks, we had live births come back to us. Then the doctor would either break the neck or take a pair of tongs and beat the fetus until it was dead.”

American Enterprise asked Kelly if abortion procedures were ever altered to provide specific body parts. “Yes. Before the procedures they would want to see the list of what we wanted to procure. The (abortionist) would get us the most complete intact specimens that he could. They would be delivered to us completely intact. Sometimes the fetus appeared to be dead, but when we opened up the chest cavity, the heart was still beating.”

The magazine pressed Kelly again. Was the type of abortion ever altered to provide an intact specimen, even if it meant producing a live baby? “Yes, that was so we could sell better tissue. At the end of the year, they would give the clinic back more money because we got good specimens.”

Some practical souls will probably swallow hard and insist that, well, if these babies are going to be aborted anyway, isn’t it better that medical research should benefit? No. This isn’t like voluntary organ donation. This reduces human beings to the level of commodities. And it creates of doctors who swore an oath never to kill, the kind of people who can beat a breathing child to death with tongs.

Here is an actual price list from one of the now many companies that participate in the trafficking of human parts (more at Fathers for Life):

Opening Lines
A Division of Consultants & Diagnostic Pathology,
Inc. P.O. Box 508, West Frankfort,
IL 62896
Fee for Services Schedule

> greater than

< same or less than

  • Unprocessed Specimen (> 8 weeks) $ 70
  • Unprocessed Specimen (< 8 weeks) $ 50
  • Livers (< 8 weeks) 30% discount if significantly fragmented $150
  • Livers (> 8 weeks) 30% discount if significantly fragmented $125
  • Spleens (< 8 weeks) $ 75
  • Spleens (> 8 weeks) $ 50
  • Pancreas (< 8 weeks) $100
  • Pancreas (> 8 weeks) $ 75
  • Thymus (< 8 weeks) $100
  • Thymus (> 8 weeks) $ 75
  • Intestines & Mesentery $ 50
  • Mesentery (< 8 weeks) $125
  • Mesentery (> 8 weeks) $100
  • Kidney-with/without adrenal (< 8 weeks) $125
  • Kidney-with/without adrenal (> 8 weeks) $100
  • Limbs (at least 2) $150
  • Brain (< 8 weeks) 30% discount if significantly fragmented $999
  • Brain (> 8 weeks) 30% discount if significantly fragmented $150
  • Pituitary Gland (> 8 weeks) $300
  • Bone Marrow (< 8 weeks) $350
  • Bone Marrow (> 8 weeks) $250
  • Ears (< 8 weeks) $ 75
  • Ears (> 8 weeks) $ 50
  • Eyes (< 8 weeks) 40% discount for single eye $ 75
  • Eyes (> 8 weeks) 40% discount for single eye $ 50
  • Skin (> 12 weeks) $100
  • Lungs & Heart Block $150
  • Intact Embryonic Cadaver (< 8 weeks) $400
  • Intact Embryonic Cadaver (> 8 weeks) $600
  • Intact Calvarium $125
  • Intact Trunk (with/without limbs) $500
  • Gonads $550
  • Cord Blood (Snap Frozen LN2) $125
  • Spinal Column $150
  • Spinal Cord $325

Here is the last article dealing with this topic, and is a recent discovery the devaluing of human worth under a more socialized medicine in Europe:

HARVESTING ORGANS

Sarah Boseley, health editor

Thursday January 11, 2001

The true scale of the scandal of human organ retention by hospitals will be revealed today by the government’s chief medical officer, who will tell parents and professionals that 50,000 organs are being stored in hospitals in England alone. The number far exceeds expectations.

Liam Donaldson will say that what was done in the name of the NHS over many years was an affront to families who had lost their loved ones. Addressing a public seminar, whose audience will include top pathologists and other senior doctors:

“Some of the past practices around organ retention belong to an era where decisions were made by the NHS for patients, but not with patients. This has caused a period of immense distress for families, especially in places like Bristol and Liverpool, when they found out their children’s organs were taken without their knowledge. Something went seriously wrong in the way the health service dealt with the issue of organ retention.”

Prof Donaldson will pledge that the government “will do whatever it takes to put things right, changing the law if necessary to ensure that relatives are given the right kind of information so they can give consent in a fully informed way if they choose to do so.”

At Alder Hey hospital in Liverpool, where an inquiry will report shortly, more than 3,000 children’s organs have been discovered; other hospitals were not thought to have anything like that number.

The chief medical officer will offer an unmitigated apology and assurances for the future to the parents of the Alder Hey children and those whose children died and had organs removed at the Bristol royal infirmary who have been invited to today’s seminar. None of the parents knew that hearts, brains and other whole organs would be removed and kept after the autopsy on their son or daughter.

Ian Kennedy, chairman of the inquiry into children’s deaths following heart surgery at Bristol, published an interim report into organ retention at the hospital last May. He found that the law was complex and obscure. Different laws covered hospital autopsies – which help doctors find out about the progress of disease – and those ordered by the coroner to find out the cause of death. Prof Kennedy recommended at least a new code of practice and preferably a new law.

Prof Donaldson has issued interim guidance to hospitals, requiring them to tell parents and relatives exactly what an autopsy involves and get their explicit permission if there is any need to remove organs. Today’s seminar is part of his information-gathering process on the way to producing his final report to the health secretary, Alan Milburn. That is expected, along with the Alder Hey inquiry report, before the end of the month.

Ed Bradley, chairman of the Alder Hey parents’ support group, said more than 140 parents and relatives had travelled to London for the seminar and were glad of the opportunity to give evidence, “however, we do question how much benefit can be gained from a one-day conference where we have only been given five minutes to represent our views.” They also felt it would be more appropriate to discuss the way forward after the Alder Hey inquiry had reported.

Alder Hey hospital is generally considered a special case, because whole organ systems were found to have been collected by a consultant pathologist, Dick Van Velzen, who is facing disciplinary hearings at the General Medical Council.

Bristol parents at the seminar will be asking for Prof Kennedy’s recommendations to be implemented and questioning why there has been no action since his report was published. “It was quite clear the law was in a mess,” said Steve Parker, chairman of the Bristol Heart Children’s Action Group.

Charlie Kirk Defending the Unborn Against a College Student

Published by Papa Giorgio

Some of my previous posts this should be paired with:

And this post is perfect for her ending argument about educational and financial reasoning for an abortion:

“Judge Not” | Abusing Matthew 7

Published by Papa Giorgio

So, I realized because of the below comment on my RUMBLE that I do not have a post dedicated to answering the charge that one “should not judge…”, often in response to critiquing cultural norms. So this comment was on my RUMBLE video titled: “You are Homophobic if You Mention How Badly LGBT People Are Treated in Gaza” — here is the comment:

I will be asking some questions when the time comes, but, for now? I am filling an apologetic pothole in my posts. So here is a short and sweet answer that stands on its own… so you could quit there. Anything after that are merely other answers from apologists that broaden the possible responses for the researcher.

Do not judge. Judging others comes far too easy for most, but in Matthew 7, what does Jesus mean when he says Judge not least ye be judged? Are we to judge not, or Judge righteously? What’s the difference? What does the Bible say about judging people? In this video Pastor Nelson with Bible Munch explains what the Bible says about Judging others to answer the questions, is judging a sin, and what does the Bible mean that we are not to judge others?

Firstly, the statement “you are not to judge” is a judgement. What do I mean? Here are a few examples of this in conversation via Frank Beckwith and Greg Koukl:

You Shouldn’t Force Your Morality On Me!

FIRST PERSON: “You shouldn’t force your morality on me.”

SECOND PERSON: “Why not?”

FIRST PERSON: “Because I don’t believe in forcing morality.”

SECOND PERSON: “If you don’t believe in it, then by all means, don’t do it. Especially don’t force that moral view of yours on me.”

FIRST PERSON: “You shouldn’t push your morality on me.”

SECOND PERSON: “I’m not entirely sure what you mean by that statement. Do you mean I have no right to an opinion?”

FIRST PERSON: “You have a right to you’re opinion, but you have no right to force it on anyone.”

SECOND PERSON: “Is that your opinion?”

FIRST PERSON: “Yes.”

SECOND PERSON: “Then why are you forcing it on me?”

FIRST PERSON: “But your saying your view is right.”

SECOND PERSON: “Am I wrong?”

FIRST PERSON: “Yes.”

SECOND PERSON: “Then your saying only your view is right, which is the very thing you objected to me saying.”

FIRST PERSON: “You shouldn’t push your morality on me.”

SECOND PERSON: “Correct me if I’m misunderstanding you here, but it sounds to me like your telling me I’m wrong.”

FIRST PERSON: “You are.”

SECOND PERSON: “Well, you seem to be saying my personal moral view shouldn’t apply to other people, but that sounds suspiciously like you are applying your moral view to me.  Why are you forcing your morality on me?”[1]

SELF-DEFEATING

“Most of the problems with our culture can be summed up in one phrase: ‘Who are you to say?’” – Dennis Prager.  So let’s unpack this phrase and see how it is self-refuting, or as Tom Morris[2] put it, self-deleting.

  • When someone says, “Who are you to say?” answer with, “Who are you to say ‘Who are you to say’?”[3]

This person is challenging your right to correct another, yet she is correcting you.  Your response to her amounts to “Who are you to correct my correction, if correcting in itself is wrong?” or “If I don’t have the right to challenge your view, then why do you have the right to challenge mine?”  Her objection is self-refuting; you’re just pointing it out.

The “Who are you to say?” challenge fails on another account.  Taken at face value, the question challenges one’s authority to judge another’s conduct.  It says, in effect, “What authorizes you to make a rule for others?  Are you in charge?”  This challenge miscasts my position.  I don’t expect others to obey me simply because I say so.  I’m appealing to reason, not asserting my authority.  It’s one thing to force beliefs; it’s quite another to state those beliefs and make an appeal for them.

The “Who are you to say?” complaint is a cheap shot.  At best it’s self-defeating.  It’s an attempt to challenge the legitimacy of your moral judgments, but the statement itself implies a moral judgment.  At worst, it legitimizes anarchy!

[1] Francis Beckwith & Gregory Koukl, Relativism: Feet Planted in Mid-Air (Baker Books; 1998), p. 144-146.

[2] Tom Morris, Philosophy for Dummies (IDG Books; 1999), p. 46

[3] Francis Beckwith & Gregory Koukl, Relativism: Feet Planted in Mid-Air (Baker Books; 1998), p. 144-146.

Frank Turek talks about the assertion that Christians shouldn’t judge.

So, aside from Matthew 7:1-3 ripped from it’s context, if we let it stand as is, it is self deleting. But the CONTEXT is not that you should merely “not judge… gays, murderers, pro-choice arguments, and the like.” APOLOGETICS PRESS has a great article from which I will except a bit from the meddle of it:

… In Matthew 6:1-4, Jesus instructed us not to do charitable deeds…“as the hypocrites do” (to be seen of men). In 6:5-8, Jesus told us not to pray…“like the hypocrites” (to be heard of men). In 6:16-18, Jesus taught us not to fast…“like the hypocrites” (to be seen of men). Likewise, in Matthew 7:1-5, Jesus was teaching us that judging another is wrong… when that judgment is hypocritical.

But, what if we are doing charitable deeds to be seen of God? Then by all means, “do good to all men” (Galatians 6:10)! What if our prayers are led from a pure heart and with righteous intentions? Should we pray? Most certainly (cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:17). Can we fast today, if the purpose of our fasting is to be seen of God and not men? Yes. But what about passing judgment? In Matthew 7:1-5, did Jesus condemn all judging, or, similar to the above examples, did He condemn only a certain kind of judging? Matthew 7:5 provides the answer. After condemning unrighteous judgments (7:1-4), Jesus instructed a person to “first remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” He was saying, in essence, “Get your life right first. Then, in love, address your brother’s problem.” This is consistent with what Paul wrote to the church at Philippi: “Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others” (2:4). God never intended for Christians to be recluses who never interacted with those around them. Rather, He gave us the responsibility of helping others by lovingly correcting them when they sin. In Matthew 7, Jesus was not suggesting that a person can never judge. He was saying, when you judge, judge righteously (as when we pray, fast, and do good deeds—do it without hypocrisy—John 7:24). Incidentally, Jesus already had judged the Pharisees. Thus, He obviously was not teaching that we should never judge anyone.

Further proof that Jesus did not condemn all judging can be found throughout the rest of chapter 7. In fact, in the very next verse after His statements about judging, Jesus implicitly commanded that His followers make a judgment. He said: “Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces” (7:6). Disciples of Christ must judge as to who are “dogs” and who are “hogs.” Otherwise, how can we know when not to give that which is holy to “dogs”? Or how can we know when not to cast our pearls before “swine”? Jesus said we must judge between those who are “worthy,” and those who are like dogs and pigs (cf. Matthew 10:12-15; Acts 13:42-46). A few verses later, Jesus again implied that His disciples must make a judgment.

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them (Matthew 7:15-20).

Question: How can we “watch out” for false prophets if we cannot make judgments as to who the false prophets are? According to Jesus, determining the identity of false teachers involves inspecting “their fruits” and making judgments—righteous judgments.

What does the rest of Scripture have to say to those who regard all judging as being wrong?

  • In his letter to the churches of Galatia, Paul commanded those “who are spiritual” to restore those who have been “overtaken in any trespass…in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted” (6:1). Certainly, determining who is spiritual and who has sinned involves making judgments.
  • While addressing an issue in the church at Corinth where a man had “his father’s wife” (1 Corinthians 5:1), Paul wrote through inspiration:

    In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus…. I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person…. Therefore, put away from yourselves the evil person (1 Corinthians 5:4-5,11,13b).

    Paul commanded the church at Corinth to purge a fornicator from its midst. This man’s sin was even to be addressed in a public manner. To follow Paul’s command, the church had to make a judgment. Paul also commanded the congregation to “put away” others who were living in a state of sin. When we make such judgments today, they are to be righteous judgments that are based on facts and carried out in love. Such judging should be performed in a merciful spirit (Luke 6:36-37), and for the purpose of saving souls (“that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus”—1 Corinthians 5:5). Judgments are to be made from good (righteous) intentions. But judgments nevertheless must be made.

  • Paul instructed the church at Ephesus to “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them” (5:11). And to the Christians in Rome he wrote: “Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them” (16:17). Were churches going to have to make important judgments to comply with Paul’s commands? Yes.
  • Similarly, the apostle John indicated that “whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds” (2 John 9-11, emp. added). To determine whether or not we are going to allow someone into our homes, necessitates a judgment on our part.
  • Finally, if all judgments concerning spiritual matters are wrong, then why would Jesus have commanded His disciples to go and teach the lost (Matthew 28:19-20; cf. Acts 8:4)? Before one ever teaches the Gospel to someone who is not a Christian, a judgment must be made. Is this person lost in sin, or saved “in Christ”? If we are to teach the lost today, then it is necessary to determine who is lost and who is not.

If we never can “judge people” in any sense, as many today suggest (through the misuse of Matthew 7:1), then the above commands never could be obeyed. But, they must be obeyed! Thus, (righteous) judgments must be made. ….

Alan Shlemon of Stand to Reason answers the question: “Aren’t Christians commanded not to judge and therefore we shouldn’t judge homosexuals for their behavior?”

CARM end their article with this:

… Since the Bible does not contradict itself, what’s going on? It would seem that Jesus is talking about rash unwarranted judgments, not those judgments that are of sound consideration. This makes sense when we see what judgments Jesus made on people.

  • Matt. 7:5, “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”
  • Matt. 23:33, “You serpents, you brood of vipers, how shall you escape the sentence of hell?”
  • Luke 11:40, “You foolish ones, did not He who made the outside make the inside also?”
  • John 8:44, “You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father . . . “
  • John 8:55, “and you have not come to know Him, but I know Him; and if I say that I do not know Him, I shall be a liar like you, but I do know Him, and keep His word.”

So, Jesus would not be contradicting Himself. He made spiritual judgments as did Paul the Apostle. But when we make judgments, they need to be according to Scripture and not arbitrary judgments. Here are some commentaries on Matt. 7:1.

  • “The context makes it clear that the thing here condemned is that disposition to look unfavorably on the character and actions of others, which leads invariably to the pronouncing of rash, unjust, and unlovely judgments upon them.”
  • “1–5 warn against criticizing other people without considering how open to criticism we ourselves may be; be judged may well refer to God’s judgment, as well as that of other people. But v 6 indicates that there is also a right kind of judgment which the disciple is called on to exercise (cf. also vs 15–20).”
  • “Jesus did not prohibit judging of any sort, as verse 6 makes clear. Rather, He warned against judging others in way that we would not want applied to ourselves. To judge another person in a harsh spirit is to take on a role reserved only for God. Only the Lord can see beyond the outward appearance to underlying motives and causes in a person’s heart.”

Bill Maher Abortion Statements | Michael Knowles – Tim Pool

Published by Papa Giorgio

Republicans don’t hate women….

Republicans just view it as murder….

It basically *is* murder….

— Bill Maher

Here is another by Faye Wattleton, former president of U.S. Planned Parenthood:

  • “I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don’t know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus.”

So, Bill Maher is all for murder based on the lie of overpopulation.

Timcast

Bill Maher Says ABORTION IS MURDER But That He Is OK WITH IT In Shocking Statement

A flashback to some better known atheists than Maher discussing being Pro-Life! More at my post as well:

There’s Nothing New Under the Sun – Abortion

Published by Papa Giorgio

There’s Nothing New Under the Sun: Child Sacrifice Never Stopped

Infants were sacrificed to Molech for prosperity, wealth. No different than today… babies are sacrificed for careers, schooling, or just convenience. See my “Forcing Morality” post for more.

Here is a good post detailing the history of abortion.

….As Carthaginians succumbed deeper into this form of worship their self-abasement grew, along with the population, and thus, babies were plentiful. One could surmise that the gods rewarded their worship. This worship, however, gradually turned to child sacrificing, especially when times were tough, in order to appease the gods Molech and Ashteroth, the darker and more sinister gods – who demanded human sacrifice in order to grant the community “health and well being.” It started with sacrificing the firstborn, but it appears that the gods grew greedier and greedier. Eventually, and as times got tougher, i.e. during famines and disasters, they practiced massive annual sacrifices of thousands of babies and children, in order to invoke greater blessings and prosperity. It is believed that this civilization became quite sophisticated, under the caste system, and the noble class sometimes practiced substitution for their firstborns through the “ladies of the sanctuary,” or temple prostitution in order to fulfill their mandatory quotas of children for the gods.

When a mother, willingly or not, released her infant onto the down-stretched arms of Moloch’s bronze statue, the baby consequently rolled off the arms and fell headlong onto a fire-y brazier pit. Burial monuments found in Carthage and other places were inscribed with the Tanit symbol, in honor of the Phoenician goddess.

The Carthaginians were hated, and perhaps envied by other contemporary cultures for their practice of child sacrifice, and respectively their riches. Chief among their enemy was the Romans. Ironically, Rome conquered Carthage, yet the Romans later practiced infanticide themselves as well as other tortures for sport, like killing Christians. Is there some kind of progression here for doomed civilizations?

The gods Asherah, Baal, Molech and Ashteroth had also been a stumbling block for the Israelites, when they possessed the “promise land” east of the Jordan River, or Canaan. Ironically, they purged the Canaanites out, who practiced child sacrifice, and yet they too in time did the same thing. Disobeying God’s commands to purge out the idols and religious practices of the Canaanites and the Ammonites, they eventually came to commit these same spiritually adulterous and idolatrous practices. They set up the “grove,” a group of trees with graven images carved into them near the altar of Jehovah. The prophets soundly condemned the grove, and practicing the heathen religions and warned of coming judgment. Judgment did fall in Jerusalem, when the temple and the whole city was completely destroyed by the Babylonians and the kingdom of Israel was taken into captivity in 587 BC…..

Also, from Joseph M. Holden and Norman Geisler in their The Popular Handbook of Archaeology and The Bible

In 1928, a farmer (Brahim) in northern Syria accidently discovered a vault in his field. Later this area would be known as Ras Shamra due to the expedi­tion and excavation led by F.A. Schaeffer and George Chenet. Then in 1929, archaeologists unearthed a scribal school and library adjoining a temple. The fifteenth-century BC tablets found at the location contained a script previ­ously unknown to scholars, but it soon would be understood to be Canaan­ite, a language similar to Hebrew. The tablets describe the dark religious practices of the Canaanite peoples indigenous to the land prior to Joshua’s conquest. These wicked practices offer confirmation of the deities, practices, laws, and religious beliefs and customs of the heathen described in the Old Testament, which include 1) the burying alive of children, 2) child sacrifice of other kinds, 3) male and female religious prostitution, 4) the malice and jealousy among the gods, 5) absence of morality among the gods, and 6) idol worship among others.

Moreover, these tablets have provided an answer to the critical argument that denied the possibility of Moses writing a sophisticated religious law code as early as 1440 to 1400 BC. In addition, the Ras Shamra tablets have contributed to our understanding of the development of the Hebrew script from about 1500 BC to the modern day. This discovery has also dealt a blow to negative higher critics who asserted that Aramaic words included in Moses’ writings did not develop until after the exile to Babylon (sixth century BC). Several Aramaisms were found in the Ugaritic texts, which are contemporary with Moses, which refutes this notion.

(Pages 84-85)

Conceived In Rape | Survivors Speak to the “Rape Clause”

Published by Papa Giorgio

THIS TOPIC IS ALL WITH GRATITUDE TO REBECCA KIESSLING
–originally posted January 2013–

Rebecca Kiessling in a very focused way, explains how the “rape clause” is the foot in the door for abortion through all 9-months. Uploaded for the 40th of Roe v Wade. Rebecca deals with some myths as well. For instance, a higher percentage of rape victims decide to keep their baby than the general population of women having abortions.

Stories and affirmation of the preciousness of life!

What about children conceived in rape or incest? What about fetal deformity? What about threats to the life or health of the mother? These are the abortion exceptions.

From video description:

Forcing Morality (Updated)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Originally Posted August 2010 (Conversation was from 2001 via SPACEBATTLES)
Updated in January of 2017, and again today (July 2023)

Susan said:

“No SeanG, unlike you, we are not forcing morality on anybody. We are for allowing a choice.  NOWHERE in the pro-choice agenda is there anything about making abortion mandatory.” (Emphasis in the original)

Answer: For women, Roe means more than having control over their bodies; it allows them to plan her life. If there’s a contraceptive failure, the law protects her, permits her to decide whether-or-not to become a parent.

Once contraception has failed, the women have ALL the rights. She can get an abortion. If she decides to have the child, she can make the father pay support, whether or not he wanted it. According to Roe, the man’s obligation begins and ends with his wallet. This is true, but money facilitates existence (one of the reasons an abortion is allowed… monetary standard of living). The quality of life is measured in dollars and cents.

Inarguably, the man is required to pay support for eighteen years and will have his standard of living diminished (severely so, if his circumstances are modest). Certain career, education, and family options will be foreclosed – for the man at least. >> UPDATE TO THIS PART BELOW | JUMP

(Sound familiar? These are excuses for the women to get “off the hook” – e.g., abort a life – but men don’t have that choice.)

If maximizing personal freedom is the primary goal of our legal system, why should men be held to their traditional obligations (supporting the children they’ve fathered) while women are liberated from theirs?

Question:

  • “Do you believe the government should be able to force someone to become a parent?”

Well? This is precisely what is being done by the government à as I speak! You would argue that the government should stay out of your affairs when choosing whether to become a parent (i.e., to abort or not), however, you wish the government to be involved in telling the father that he has to become a parent and supply all the necessary needs for that child. Thus, you are forcing your morality on me Susan (as a defined group) and using the power of the Federal Government to boot!!! You cannot say any differently with what I just have shown above. This belief is self-refuting and shows you to-be-the hypocrite, and not me. You see… I am for equal rights under the Constitution. A “right” has no “moderation (see below). You, on the other-hand, are for special rights inferred upon groups of people.

An aside: in the Laws of Logic, the Law of Non-Contradiction is the most important and can thus be stated like this – “A” cannot both be “A” and “non-A” at the same time. This law is valid in science, law, politics, philosophy, etc. Any theory which purports something, cannot also deny that purport’ion. As in this case, the pro-choice movement is purported to be about liberating – “civil” rights – etc., however, in doing this they deny to some what they want for others… it is self-refuting, a non-logical theory that is really about special rights rather than equal protection under the law.

An Update via Gay Patriot:

Good point: If women can’t be “forced” to become mothers, why should men be “forced” to become fathers?

Expectant fathers in Sweden should have the right to ‘legally abort’ their unborn child up until the 18th week of pregnancy, the youth wing of the country’s Liberal Party has proposed.

Swedish Liberal Youth argues that men should be given an equal say in whether or not they wish to become a parent, and be granted the option to cut any lawful responsibilities.

The suggested ‘legal abortion’ would be irreversible and would see the man renounce all parental duties and rights to see the child once it has been born.

This completely at odds with the position of the American Feminist Left which is that men should be forced to provide child support even for children that are proven to be someone else’s…

(read the rest)

Via Life Training Institute:

  • Student: You made some good points in your talk, but you shouldn’t force your morality on me or anyone else who wants an abortion.  It’s our choice, isn’t it?
  • Me: Are you saying I’m wrong?
  • Student: I’m not sure.  What do you mean?
  • Me: Well, you think I’m wrong, don’t you?  If not, why are you correcting me?  And if so, then you’re forcing your morality on me, aren’t you?
  • Student: No, I just want to know why you are telling people what they can and cannot do with their lives.
  • Me: Are you saying I shouldn’t do that?  That it’s wrong?  If so, then why are you telling me what I can and cannot do?  Why are you forcing your morality on me?
  • Student (regrouping): I’m confused.  Look, the simple fact is that pro-choicers are not forcing women to have abortions, but you want to force women to be mothers.  If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one.  But you shouldn’t force your beliefs on others.  All I am saying is that pro-life people should be tolerant of other views.
  • Me: Is that your view?
  • Student: Yes.
  • Me: Why are you forcing it on me?  That’s not very tolerant, is it?
  • Student: What do you mean?  I think women should have a choice and you don’t.  It’s your view that’s intolerant, wouldn’t you say?
  • Me: Okay, so you think I’m wrong.  What is it you want pro-lifers like me to do?
  • Student: You should let women decide for themselves and tolerate other views.
  • Me: Tell me, what exactly do pro-choicers believe?
  • Student: We believe everyone should decide for themselves and tolerate other views.
  • Me: So you are demanding that pro-lifers become pro-choicers?
  • Student: What? No way.
  • Me: With all due respect, here’s what I hear you saying.  Unless I agree with you, you will not tolerate my view.  Privately, you’ll let me think whatever I want, but you don’t want me to act as if my view is true.  It seems you think tolerance is a virtue if and only if people agree with you.

(More Media)

UPDATED VIDEO ADDITION:

Pro-Life Man Hilariously Trolls Women’s March

See more on this at LIFE NEWS.

 

The Law Is Clear, Life Begins In The Womb (Scott Peterson)

Published by Papa Giorgio

I saw the video [to the right] on Seth Gruber’s Rumble, and I realized I did not have a post here concerning Scott Peterson.

So I wish to fill in the gap with this posting. What follows are some pro-life apologists using Scott Peterson as an example to argue for the life, from conception. Who is Scott Peterson? — for my younger audience.

Who Is Scott Peterson?

In a case that riveted the nation, Scott Peterson was convicted of killing his eight-month pregnant wife, Laci, in 2002. With the help of his mistress, who had not previously known he was married, the FBI was able to collect evidence for the case against him. He was sentenced to death by lethal injection in 2004 for the first-degree murder of his wife and the second-degree murder of their fetus son.

(BIOGRAPHY)

In doing some searching for “stuff” for this post, I came across this blogpost by SECUALR PRO-LIFE… an atheist pro-lifer (yes, THEY EXIST, but they DO – NOT… lol). Here is a portion of that post that mentions Scott Peterson — and brought me to a video I likewise isolated, edited, and posted to my RUMBLE. Both the text and the video discuss what pro-life philosopher, Trent Horn, calls “Golden Retriever Reasoning.”

Enjoy:

Gradualism

This is the argument that pro-life philosopher Trent Horn referred to as Golden Retriever Reasoning. This position essentially states that the unborn don’t have the same value that we do, but they do have some value, just like dogs do. It would be wrong for me to kill my neighbor’s Golden Retriever, not because he’s as valuable as humans but because he belongs to my neighbor. Additionally, you shouldn’t just kill them for a trivial reason, but if circumstances get very tough, then you are justified in killing them.

But as Trent points out in the video, this doesn’t account for why we treat the unborn as no different than infants in some situations (for example, in some states if you kill a wanted unborn child you are charged with murder, not animal cruelty, such as when Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife and unborn child in California several years ago; he was charged with two counts of murder). In fact, many pro-choice people do treat the unborn as babies if they’re wanted.

We don’t become “more human” by developing further, we just develop more of the traits that humans possess. Similarly, we don’t become “more of a person” by developing further, we just develop the capacity to perform the functions that persons can perform.

So the Gradualist position just doesn’t account for why abortion should be available, especially on demand as we currently have it in the United States now.

(I also add a clip from Seth Gruber)

Much more can be found at my Roe v. Wade post: SCOTUS Overturns Roe/Casey!

SEA TURTLES VS. HUMANS

Bill Maher: Kathy, why do you oppose a women’s right to choose

Kathy Ireland: Bill, when my husband was going to medical school I underwent a transformation.  Because I used to be in favor of abortion.  But I noticed when I was reading through some of his medical teaching books, that according to a law in science known as the law of biogenesis, every living thing reproduces after it own kind.  That means dog produce dogs, cats produce cats, humans produce humans.  If we want to know what something is we simply ask what are its parents. If we know what the parents are, we know what the thing in question is.  And I reasoned from that because human parents can only produce human offspring, unborn human fetuses could be nothing but human beings, because the law of biogenesis rules out every other alternative.  And I concluded therefore that because human fetuses were part of our family, we should not harm them without justification.

Mr. B responds to the claim that “life begins at conception” is only a religious belief.

This is an excerpt from Randy Alcorn’s book (older edition), “Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments Expanded & Updated“

It is uncertain when human life begins; that’s a religious question that cannot be answered by science.

An article printed and distributed by the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL [the original, and still largest pro-choice organization]) describes as anti-choice the position that human life begins at conception. It says the pro-choice position is, Personhood at conception is a religious belief, not a provable biological fact.

Bill O’Reilly of Fox News said on July 3, 2000, “No one knows when human life begins.” He made no distinction between biological life and any other kind of life. Mr. OReilly then went on to ask a guest if “is an embryo in a [petri] dish a human life”? Sen. Hatch’s claim that “an embryo in a petri dish is not a human life”?

1a.  If there is uncertainty about when human life begins, the benefit of the doubt should go to preserving life.

[One of the reasons the Supreme Court allowed the legalization of abortion is that they werent sure of when life began.] Suppose there is uncertainty about when human life begins. If a hunter is uncertain whether a movement in the brush is caused by a person, does his uncertainty lead him to fire or not to fire? If youre driving at night and you think the dark figure ahead on the road may be a child, but it may be just a shadow of a tree, do you drive into it or do you put on the brakes? If we find someone who may be dead or alive, but were not sure, what is the best policy? To assume he is alive and try to save him, or to assume he is dead and walk away?

Shouldn’t we give the benefit of the doubt to life? Otherwise we are saying, This may or may not be a child, therefore it’s all right to destroy it.

1b. Medical Textbooks and scientific reference works constantly agree that human life begins at conception.

Many people have been told that there is no medical or scientific consensus as to when human life begins. This is simply untrue. Among those scientists who have no vested (monetary) in the abortion issue, there is an overwhelming consensus that human life begins at conception. (Conception is the moment when the egg is fertilized by the sperm, bringing into existence the zygote, which is a genetically distinct individual.)

Dr. Bradley M. Pattens textbook, Human Embryology, states:

  • It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and the resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of a new individual.

Dr. Keith L. Moores text on embryology, referring to the single cell zygote, says:

  • The cell results from fertilization of an oocyte by a sperm and is the beginning of a human being. He also states, Each of us started life as a cell called a zygote.

Doctors J. P. Greenhill and E. A. Friedman, in their work on biology and obstetrics, state:

  • The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life.

Dr. Louis Fridhandler, in the medical textbook Biology of Gestation, refers to fertilization as:

  • that wondrous moment that marks the beginning of life for a new unique individual.

Doctors E. L. Potter and J. M. Craig write in Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant:

  • Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition.

Popular scientific reference works reflect this same understanding of when human life begins. Time and Rand McNallys Atlas of the Human Body states:

  • In fusing together, the male and female gametes produce a fertilized single cell, the zygote, which is the start of a new individual.

In an article on pregnancy, the Encyclopedia Britannica says:

  • A new individual is created when the elements of a potent sperm merge with those of a fertile ovum, or egg.

These sources confidently affirm, with no hint of uncertainty that life begins at conception. They state not a theory or hypothesis and certainly not a religious belief every one is a secular source. Their conclusion is squarely based on the scientific and medical facts.

1c. Some of the worlds most prominent scientist and physicians testified to a U. S. Senate committee that human life begins at conception.

In 1981, a United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee invited experts to testify on the question of when life begins. Al of the quotes from the following experts come directly from the official government record of their testimony.

Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania, stated:

  • I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of a human life.

I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty is not a human being. This is human life at every stage.

Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Downs syndrome. Dr. LeJeune testified to the Judiciary Subcommittee that:

  • after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. He stated that this is no longer a matter of taste or opinion, and not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence. He added, Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.

Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic:

  • By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.

Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School:

  • It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive. It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception. Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data.

Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School:

  • The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view as simple and straightforward matter the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological [familial, age, or medical advances], political [pro-choice], or economic goals [cannot finish school].

A prominent physician points out that at these Senate hearings, Pro-abortionists, though invited to do so, failed to produce even a single expert witness who could specifically testify that life begins at any other point other than conception or implantation.

1d. Many other prominent scientists and physicians have likewise affirmed with certainty that human life begins at conception.

Ashley Montague, a geneticist and professor at Harvard and Rutgers, is unsympathetic to the pro-life cause. Nevertheless, he affirms unequivocally, The basic fact is simple: Life begins not at birth, but conception.

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, internationally known obstetrician and gynecologist, was co-founder of what is now the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL [Dr. Nathanson help start the entire pro-choice movement]). He owned and operated what was at the time the largest abortion clinic in the Western hemisphere. He was directly involved in over sixty thousand abortions.

Dr. Nathansons study of developments in the science of fetology and his use of ultrasound to observe the unborn child in the womb led him to the conclusion that he had made a horrible mistake. Resigning from his lucrative position, Nathanson wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine that he was deeply troubled by his increasing certainty that I had in fact presided over 60, 000 deaths.

In his film, The Silent Scream, Dr. Nathanson later stated, Modern technologies have convinced us that beyond question the unborn child is simply another human being, another member of the human community, indistinguishable in every way from us. Dr. Nathanson wrote Aborting America to inform the public of the realities behind the abortion rights movement of which he had been a primary leader. At the time Dr. Nathanson was an atheist. His conclusions were not even remotely religious, but squarely based on the biological facts.

Dr. Lundrum Shettles was for twenty-seven years attending obstetrician-gynecologist at Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center in New York. Shettles was a pioneer in sperm biology, fertility, and sterility. He is internationally famous for being the discoverer of male- and female- producing sperm. His intrauterine photographs of preborn children appear in over fifty medical textbooks. Dr. Shettles staes:

  • I oppose abortion, I do so, first, because I accept what is biologically manifest that human life commences at the same time of conception and, secondly, because I believe it is wrong to take innocent human life under any circumstances. My position is scientific, pragmatic, and humanitarian.

The official Senate report on Senate Bill 158, the Human Life Bill, summarized the issue this way:

  • Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a humans being a being that is and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.

Does It Matter?

In a statement form the The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, Director of Media and Policy Daniel McConchie said:

  • “Stem cell lines are quickly becoming marketable items. Once some integral human parts can be bought and sold, we run the risk that democratic societies will decide that other weak and defenseless members of the human race in those societies can be utilized for profits as well.”

Jews and Blacks were once said by the courts to be less than human, I wonder if we are headed down that path again?

Democrats Don’t Actually Want To Debate Abortion (Matt Walsh)

The Negro Project | Margaret Sanger

Published by Papa Giorgio

“We do not want word to get out that we want

to exterminate the Negro population.”

-Sanger’s letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, Dec. 19, 1939

To wit, 78% of their clinics are in minority communities. Blacks make up 12% of the population, but 35% of the abortions in America.

Sanger’s Own Words

In this clip below I am more interested in her first statement that Margaret Sanger made, which is:

  • I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world that have disease from their parents, that have no chance to be a human being, practically. Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they’re born. That to me is the greatest sin – that people can – can commit.

She is talking about minorities here…. as the quote from GRAND ILLUSIONS gives context to.

From my VERY LONG post on Sanger:

…TO WIT… QUOTE:

Let us pick up from Grand Illusions (pp. 41-42), some of which was already pointed out by Goldberg:

Not surprisingly, Planned Parenthood officials have always tried to deflect any criticism of their founder’s B-movie worldview of weird science and ideological compulsion. Though they have managed all manner of intellectual gymnastics and historical revisionism in a feeble attempt to deny it, hide it, and belie it, Sanger was undeniably mesmerized by the fashionable elitism of Malthusian Eugenics.”

She was thoroughly convinced that the “inferior races” were in fact a “menace to civilization.” She really believed that “social regener­ation” would only be possible as the “sinister forces of the hordes of irresponsibility and imbecility” were repulsed. She had come to regard organized charity to ethnic minorities and the poor as a “symptom of a malignant social disease” because it encouraged the prolificacy of those “defectives, delinquents, and dependents” she so obviously abhorred. She yearned for the end of the Christian “reign of benevolence” that the Eugenic Socialists promised, when the “choking human undergrowth” of “morons and imbeciles” would be “segregated” and ultimately “sterilized.” Her greatest aspiration was “to create a race of thoroughbreds” by encouraging “more children from the fit, and less from the unfit.” And the only way to achieve that dystopic goal, she realized, was through the harsh and coercive tyranny of Malthusian Eugenics.”

In other words, she was a true believer not simply someone who assimilated the Flash Gordon jargon of the times—as Planned Parent­hood officials would have us believe. She was a committed elitist bent on undermining the familial bonds of the poor and disenfranchised.”

Thus, as she began to build the work of the American Birth Con­trol League, and ultimately, of Planned Parenthood, Margaret relied heavily on the men, women, ideas, and resources of the Eugenics movement. Virtually all of the organization’s board members were Eugenicists. Financing for the early projects—from the opening of the first birth control clinics to the publishing of the revolutionary lit­erature—came from Eugenicists. The speakers at the conferences, the authors of the propaganda and the providers of the services were almost without exception avid Eugenicists.

The Birth Control Review — Sanger’s magazine and the immediate predecessor to the Planned Parenthood Review regularly and openly published the racist articles of Malthusian Eugenicists. In 1920 — for instance, it published a favorable review of Lothrop Stoddard’s fright­ening book of Fascist diatribe, The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy.” In 1923, the Review editorialized in favor of restrict­ing immigration on a racial basis.” In 1932, it outlined Sanger’s own “Plan for Peace,” which called for coercive sterilization, mandatory seg­regation, and at rehabilitative concentration camps for all “dysgenic stocks.” In 1933, the Review published a shocking article entitled “Eugenic Sterilization: An Urgent Need.” It was written by Sanger’s close friend and advisor, Ernst Rudin, who was then serving as Hitler’s director of genetic sterilization and had earlier taken a prominent role in the establishment of the Nazi Society for Racial Hygiene. Later that same year, it published an article by Leon Whitney entitled, “Selective Sterilization,” which adamantly praised and defended the Third Reich’s pre-holocaust “race purification” programs.”

The bottom line is that Sanger self-consciously organized the Birth Control League—and its progeny, Planned Parenthood—in part, to promote and enforce the scientifically elitist notions of racial purification and perfection. Thus, like the Ku Klux Klan, the Nazi Party, and the Mensheviks, Sanger’s enterprise was from its inception implicitly and explicitly racist. And this racist orientation was all too evident in its various programs and initiatives: govern­ment control over family decisions, nonmedicinal health-care exper­imentations, the rabid abortion crusade, and the coercive sterilization initiatives.

Sad On So Many Levels | 19-Year Old Throws Out Her Baby

Published by Papa Giorgio

Woman charged with 1st degree murder after throwing her newborn baby into a hospital’s trash bag. If Democrats get their way, this will be legal.

NEW YORK POST:

A New Mexico teenager admitted to giving birth in a hospital bathroom and hiding the baby inside a trash can, where it was later found dead, recently released police body camera footage shows.

Alexee Trevizo, 19, was charged last week with first-degree murder, or alternatively abusing a child resulting in death, and tampering with evidence after secretly delivering her baby boy at Artesia General Hospital on Jan. 27, Artesia Police Department said.

“I’m sorry. It came out of me and I didn’t know what to do,” Trevizo said immediately after a doctor told her and her mother that they found the dead newborn inside the bathroom.

[….]

Trevizo arrived at the hospital, located roughly 80 miles from the New Mexico-Texas border, earlier that day with back pain.

Though tests revealed she was pregnant, Trevizo denied ever having sex, a doctor can be heard telling officers in the footage.

She then allegedly locked herself in a hospital bathroom for “quite a while” and when doctors were finally able to get her to open the door they found her cleaning a heavy amount of blood from the floor.

Doctors were initially concerned she had “done something to herself” in an effort to terminate her pregnancy until one of the nurses discovered the dead full-term baby inside the garbage.

“She put the baby in the trash can and then another clean liner over the top of it,” the doctor said.

“The baby is dead … She killed the kid.”

“She had it in the bathroom is what happened and then whatever she did, I don’t know — she’s going to lie.

“She wouldn’t tell us she’s pregnant, she’s been lying the whole time.”….

The U.N. and Planned Parenthood’s Legalizing Abuse of Minors

Published by Papa Giorgio

VIDEO DESCRIPTION:

The United Nations says that we should decriminalize all sex and drug-related activity in the name of human rights, including sex with minors. Oh and they want you to be able to poop on the street. Is this progress?

This comes from a United Nations organization called UNAIDS in [a report] released on March 8 to honor Women’s Day. It is sort of a best practice suggestion for international communities on how to police “”conduct associated with sex, reproduction, HIV, drug use, homelessness and poverty.”” The basic suggestion is: you don’t.

This is a strange document but the strangest is Principle 16 which suggests no age limit for consensual sex. It also suggests no criminal penalties for sex work, buying or selling, and no criminal consequences for people who make money by other people’s sex work. We used to call these pimps. Do we still?

The report further suggests decriminalizing all drug use and drug possession as well as leaving homeless people where they are to poop in the street.

And your right to live in places where people do not do drugs, poop on sidewalks, sell other people for sex, and have sex with minors? You don’t have that right apparently. It sure does seem like the UN is in favor of social collapse, doesn’t it?

LIVE ACTION has this note on the U.N. report calling for the legalization of sex-abuse of children:

  • A new report from agencies affiliated with the United Nations has called for all forms of drug use and sexual activity to be decriminalized globally.

CONTINUING:

…While on the surface, it may seem relatively uncontroversial, the report implies that sex regardless of age be decriminalized, so long as the minors “consent” (emphasis added):

With respect to the enforcement of criminal law, any prescribed minimum age of consent to sex must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner. Enforcement may not be linked to the sex/gender of participants or age of consent to marriage. Moreover, sexual conduct involving persons below the domestically prescribed minimum age of consent to sex may be consensual, in fact, if not in law. In this context, the enforcement of criminal law should reflect the rights and capacity of persons under 18 years of age to make decisions about engaging in consensual sexual conduct and their right to be heard in matters concerning them.

Pursuant to their evolving capacities and progressive autonomy, persons under 18 years of age should participate in decisions affecting them, with due regard to their age, maturity and best interests, and with specific attention to non-discrimination guarantees.

Minors, of course, cannot truly consent to sex with an adult — something these so-called experts should know. The report also calls for all criminal laws relating to sex work to be abolished, which could easily serve to aid traffickers, pimps, and abusers. In turn, this serves the abortion industry as well, which has aided traffickers and abusers by failing to report suspected abuse and returning victims to their abusers after their abortions. Decriminalizing sex work, sex crimes against minors, and abortion would only serve to doubly suit traffickers and abusers, who are known to use abortion as a means to cover up their crimes…..

(There was a “Fact-Check” to this story, which LIVE ACTION fact-checked back.) Why do Planned Parenthood “international” love this idea?

Here Is Why:

Through the Time’s Up and Me Too movements, America is calling for an end to sexual abuse in every institution. But few are calling out one of America’s biggest accomplices to sexual abuse, even though there is widespread documentation of decades-long systemic sexual abuse cover up behind its doors. The group is Planned Parenthood and they are tax funded. Planned Parenthood claims that sexual assault victims come to their facilities on a daily basis. What we will show you in Live Action’s seven part video series is how Planned Parenthood treats these victims, consistently and deliberately failing to report their abuse and even making a profit doing so.

The Other 6-Parts:

RECORDED CASES

 FORMER WORKERS
STATUTORY RAPE

 SEX TRAFFICKING

LIES ABOUT RETRAINING

 PROSECUTION

Abortion Is a Religious Act (Michael Knowles)

Published by Papa Giorgio

The entire Michael Knowles Show this excerpt is from FBI Targets Several Pro-Life Advocates | Ep. 1148.

  • (2) the use of physical force, threat of physical force, or physical obstruction to intentionally injure, intimidate, interfere with or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person who is exercising or trying to exercise their First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship