After the Forty Years of Death
Kevin M. Nelson 11/10/2011
Three hundred sixty-five days in a year. Currently, three thousand seven hundred deaths by abortion each day. A deadly era spanning forty years that will claim the lives of more than fifty-four million (54,000,000) babies just in the United States of America.
Someone somewhere is doing the math frantically, growing increasingly arrogant and formulating a literary crucifixion in the name of "choice", because it has been thirty-eight years since Roe V. Wade, not the "forty years" indicated in the title. I assure you this discrepancy is not an oversight....
After watching what occurred in Mississippi regarding personhood, it is becoming more than blatantly obvious that the bloodshed will not simply cease across this country overnight. As our commander-in-chief once supported live birth abortion (live babies being left in a room to die), to think he will start upholding the Constitution by protecting all innocent life is as unrealistic as thinking he will wake up tomorrow as a conservative.
The members of Congress continue to cower to the Unconstitutional court opinion of 1973 and put forth legislation that, by definition, is not truly Pro-Life, legislation that almost all of the other presidential candidates support.
For these reasons, and with a mustard seed sized amount of faith that I will have the opportunity to uphold the Constitution and protect ALL innocent life in 2013, I am boldly declaring that the bloodshed will finally end after forty years. I remain prayerful that it will not actually be forty-four or forty-eight years, as other candidates have already made it clear they would leave these life and death decisions to the States. As no innocent person can justly be denied their unalienable right to life, making this a "State's Rights" issue is in direct conflict with our founding documents, and ignores a very basic truth: a Human Life in Kentucky does not become a disposable organism in Tennessee, just because of public opinion on the issue.
How did we become a society willing to allow more than 54,000,000 babies to be murdered?
First, the scientific term for a developing human baby, a "fetus" became synonymous with something incomplete and strange-looking, and therefore somehow disposable, as many lost sight of what a "person" truly is. The "person" label was given to birthed humans, other living things, and even corporate entities, and eventually altered to no longer include any human who was dependent on another to sustain life. According to this new definition of convenience, we could also assume that infants, the eldest elderly among us, and thousands of hospitalized humans are not persons due to their state of dependency. No longer were pregnant women described as being "with child" or "expecting" in certain circles. Instead, these women were simply just called "pregnant", and left to make a "choice" about what to do next.
Even among those willing to admit that the unborn child is a Live Human Being, convenience and circumstance, both of the conception itself and the economic circumstance of the mother, became the "justifiable" terms by which these lives could be ended. Economic circumstance? Do they know that the highest percentage of abortions are performed for women in the $30,000-$59,999 annual income category? Circumstance of conception? Yes, no longer was it sufficient to punish the perpetrator of a rape. The unborn child could now be sentenced to death for their father's crime. The issue of rape became the ultimate smoke-screen and distraction by pro-aborts to attempt justifying abortion's legality, despite the fact that abortions after rape account for about one percent (1%) of the three thousand seven hundred (3,700) abortions in the United States every day, and the child who is killed took no part in the criminal act. People attempting to justify abortion sometimes go to even more extreme lengths to further their cause by creating strange hypothetical scenarios, like "what if it was your fifteen year-old daughter and she was raped by six dirty low-life scumbags" (as if the fact that the young girl was actually raped by one, clean-cut pervert would make the situation better?)
Strangely, in many states, the murder or manslaughter of a pregnant woman can carry a penalty for Two deaths (taking Two Lives), yet if that Same woman chose to go to a clinic and have the unborn child violently and fatally removed from her womb, she can do so under protection of the law.
Men are often told to "shut-up" on the issue because, after all, a man doesn't have a womb so that somehow equates to being unable to understand why "sometimes it's OK" to kill a baby.
"People are going to do it anyway" is yet another flawed attempt at justifying this legalized murder, when in fact abortion rates drastically soared after the Roe V. Wade opinion. People still do heroin, despite laws, should we make it legal? Maybe throw some clean needles into the mix? No. (Ron Paul and I disagree on this one) People still speed to work despite speed limits. Should we do away with speed limits and let people do 120MPH in a school zone? Of course not.
What about all those "unwanted babies that are beaten and neglected"? With the thousands of infertile couples wanting to adopt babies, there is NO excuse for a child to be born and beaten because it is allegedly "unwanted". That is a cop-out and a sad attempt at a criminal defense.
What about "the health of the mother"? or "What if the baby has a disability"? No one goes to an abortion clinic because they have a "feeling" they cannot bring the baby to a viable point of the gestation without dying in the process. Only a Doctor can determine if an Ectopic pregnancy can be brought to a viable point without intervention. I don't know of any credible people that say "let both die", and this type of emergency intervention would NOT be outlawed as the result of a nationwide ban on abortion. Even my friends at : http://www.abolishhumanabortion.com/ make that distinction. You might be surprised however at how many of these high-risk pregnancies can be brought to a viable point. Now if you ask about a eugenic abortion, where there is a disability, That would not be allowed under a nationwide ban. If there is any question why, one need only go tell a person with Downs Syndrome, or a person born with no legs- "Hey, sorry your Mom didn't abort you" and see how kindly they respond.
You see, there really is no credible explanation for why we are allowing more babies to die each day than the total number of human beings killed in the 9/11 attack on America.
We can address the economy, and energy, and tax reform, and border security, and immigration enforcement, AND stop the slaughter of ALL babies by ending abortion completely, nationwide (it's called Multi-tasking, something we all do every day). The Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, Science, Medicine, Common Sense, and Natural Law will be our justification. You just need to be willing to support a candidate who will reject judicial supremacy and justly use the authority of the office of President to take this bold step.
As a Christian, I believe that our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, is returning soon. Five years? Ten Years? Scripture makes it clear "No man knows the day or the hour of His return", not even Jesus Himself, who will be sent by the Father. One need only look at the fall of the global economy, the rise of radical Islam, and the immoral/amoral culture that continues to thrive to know that it is "sooner than later". Will we have blood on our hands when He does?
Will we stand before the Father and justify ourselves by saying the other guy was a more seasoned politician, or sounded really articulate at the latest presidential debate?
Kevin M. Nelson 11/10/2011
Three hundred sixty-five days in a year. Currently, three thousand seven hundred deaths by abortion each day. A deadly era spanning forty years that will claim the lives of more than fifty-four million (54,000,000) babies just in the United States of America.
Someone somewhere is doing the math frantically, growing increasingly arrogant and formulating a literary crucifixion in the name of "choice", because it has been thirty-eight years since Roe V. Wade, not the "forty years" indicated in the title. I assure you this discrepancy is not an oversight....
After watching what occurred in Mississippi regarding personhood, it is becoming more than blatantly obvious that the bloodshed will not simply cease across this country overnight. As our commander-in-chief once supported live birth abortion (live babies being left in a room to die), to think he will start upholding the Constitution by protecting all innocent life is as unrealistic as thinking he will wake up tomorrow as a conservative.
The members of Congress continue to cower to the Unconstitutional court opinion of 1973 and put forth legislation that, by definition, is not truly Pro-Life, legislation that almost all of the other presidential candidates support.
For these reasons, and with a mustard seed sized amount of faith that I will have the opportunity to uphold the Constitution and protect ALL innocent life in 2013, I am boldly declaring that the bloodshed will finally end after forty years. I remain prayerful that it will not actually be forty-four or forty-eight years, as other candidates have already made it clear they would leave these life and death decisions to the States. As no innocent person can justly be denied their unalienable right to life, making this a "State's Rights" issue is in direct conflict with our founding documents, and ignores a very basic truth: a Human Life in Kentucky does not become a disposable organism in Tennessee, just because of public opinion on the issue.
How did we become a society willing to allow more than 54,000,000 babies to be murdered?
First, the scientific term for a developing human baby, a "fetus" became synonymous with something incomplete and strange-looking, and therefore somehow disposable, as many lost sight of what a "person" truly is. The "person" label was given to birthed humans, other living things, and even corporate entities, and eventually altered to no longer include any human who was dependent on another to sustain life. According to this new definition of convenience, we could also assume that infants, the eldest elderly among us, and thousands of hospitalized humans are not persons due to their state of dependency. No longer were pregnant women described as being "with child" or "expecting" in certain circles. Instead, these women were simply just called "pregnant", and left to make a "choice" about what to do next.
Even among those willing to admit that the unborn child is a Live Human Being, convenience and circumstance, both of the conception itself and the economic circumstance of the mother, became the "justifiable" terms by which these lives could be ended. Economic circumstance? Do they know that the highest percentage of abortions are performed for women in the $30,000-$59,999 annual income category? Circumstance of conception? Yes, no longer was it sufficient to punish the perpetrator of a rape. The unborn child could now be sentenced to death for their father's crime. The issue of rape became the ultimate smoke-screen and distraction by pro-aborts to attempt justifying abortion's legality, despite the fact that abortions after rape account for about one percent (1%) of the three thousand seven hundred (3,700) abortions in the United States every day, and the child who is killed took no part in the criminal act. People attempting to justify abortion sometimes go to even more extreme lengths to further their cause by creating strange hypothetical scenarios, like "what if it was your fifteen year-old daughter and she was raped by six dirty low-life scumbags" (as if the fact that the young girl was actually raped by one, clean-cut pervert would make the situation better?)
Strangely, in many states, the murder or manslaughter of a pregnant woman can carry a penalty for Two deaths (taking Two Lives), yet if that Same woman chose to go to a clinic and have the unborn child violently and fatally removed from her womb, she can do so under protection of the law.
Men are often told to "shut-up" on the issue because, after all, a man doesn't have a womb so that somehow equates to being unable to understand why "sometimes it's OK" to kill a baby.
"People are going to do it anyway" is yet another flawed attempt at justifying this legalized murder, when in fact abortion rates drastically soared after the Roe V. Wade opinion. People still do heroin, despite laws, should we make it legal? Maybe throw some clean needles into the mix? No. (Ron Paul and I disagree on this one) People still speed to work despite speed limits. Should we do away with speed limits and let people do 120MPH in a school zone? Of course not.
What about all those "unwanted babies that are beaten and neglected"? With the thousands of infertile couples wanting to adopt babies, there is NO excuse for a child to be born and beaten because it is allegedly "unwanted". That is a cop-out and a sad attempt at a criminal defense.
What about "the health of the mother"? or "What if the baby has a disability"? No one goes to an abortion clinic because they have a "feeling" they cannot bring the baby to a viable point of the gestation without dying in the process. Only a Doctor can determine if an Ectopic pregnancy can be brought to a viable point without intervention. I don't know of any credible people that say "let both die", and this type of emergency intervention would NOT be outlawed as the result of a nationwide ban on abortion. Even my friends at : http://www.abolishhumanabortion.com/ make that distinction. You might be surprised however at how many of these high-risk pregnancies can be brought to a viable point. Now if you ask about a eugenic abortion, where there is a disability, That would not be allowed under a nationwide ban. If there is any question why, one need only go tell a person with Downs Syndrome, or a person born with no legs- "Hey, sorry your Mom didn't abort you" and see how kindly they respond.
You see, there really is no credible explanation for why we are allowing more babies to die each day than the total number of human beings killed in the 9/11 attack on America.
We can address the economy, and energy, and tax reform, and border security, and immigration enforcement, AND stop the slaughter of ALL babies by ending abortion completely, nationwide (it's called Multi-tasking, something we all do every day). The Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, Science, Medicine, Common Sense, and Natural Law will be our justification. You just need to be willing to support a candidate who will reject judicial supremacy and justly use the authority of the office of President to take this bold step.
As a Christian, I believe that our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, is returning soon. Five years? Ten Years? Scripture makes it clear "No man knows the day or the hour of His return", not even Jesus Himself, who will be sent by the Father. One need only look at the fall of the global economy, the rise of radical Islam, and the immoral/amoral culture that continues to thrive to know that it is "sooner than later". Will we have blood on our hands when He does?
Will we stand before the Father and justify ourselves by saying the other guy was a more seasoned politician, or sounded really articulate at the latest presidential debate?