Posts Tagged ‘Moral Relativism’
Shocking Undercover Video: Late Term Abortion Describes Gruesome Procedures, Lies About Risks To Patient
Unreal! Late-term abortionist Leroy Carhart was caught on tape describing the grisly abortion procedure and lying to women about the dangers:
View on YouTube
John Hayward gives a chilling overview of the content:
The fourth undercover video in LiveAction’s “Inhuman” expose of late-term abortion brings us renowned abortionist Dr. LeRoy Carhart reassuring a pregnant woman that carrying a dead 26-week baby inside her womb for three days is no big deal. ”It’s like putting meat in a Crock-Pot, OK?” he says.
Carhart also jokes that his tools for dismembering and removing a dead child include “a pickaxe” and “a drill bit.” When advising the woman to allow nothing into her vagina for three weeks after the procedure, he says, “As I tell everyone, that includes fingers, friends, and fruit, OK?”
The famed abortionist begins telling his patient that she’ll be affected emotionally and psychologically by the procedure… but then he tries to portray it as a positive life experience, dismissing the notion of post-abortion depression. [...]
Like other late-term abortion doctors and clinic staffers profiled in the “Inhuman” series, Carhart frantically instructs his prospective patient not to call 911 if she goes into labor during the procedure, because “they’ll take you to the hospital, right? They won’t bring you to the clinic, so…”
Instead, he advises her to get in a car and drive to the clinic, or call him. And this later segment of the video was made 7 weeks after Jennifer Morbelli’s death. Put that in your Crock-Pot and slow-cook it.
Think Kermit Gosnell‘s barbaric practices are rare? Think again.
Live Action goes undercover to expose the barbaric reality of late-term abortions in the United States.
In this first video, a 23-week pregnant woman is told how her baby will be placed in a toxic solution to drown if he/she is born alive, and advised to “flush it” down the toilet if she happens to accidentally deliver at home:
View on YouTube
In the second video, a doctor explains how he tries to sever the umbilical cord to kill the baby in utero, then admits that he is legally obligated to help the baby if it happens to survive the abortion, but would allow him/her to suffocate instead:
View on YouTube
Lila Rose, founder of Live Action, spoke to Bill O’Reilly about the inhumanity that the abortion culture has led us to:
View on YouTube
Yesterday, the judge in the Gosnell trial dropped 3 murder charges against him:
The judge ruled there wasn’t enough evidence to pursue the three first-degree murder charges against 72-year-old Gosnell, ABC reported.
[...] ABC reports the judge didn’t immediately explain why there wasn’t enough evidence to pursue the three murder charges. The case against Gosnell appeared to suffer a setback last week when the chief medical examiner testified he couldn’t say for sure whether any of the fetuses found in Gosnell’s clinic were born alive.
Gosnell is accused of operating a filthy clinic, spreading venereal diseases by using dirty equipment and routinely killing newborns. The crux of his defense is that no babies were ever born alive in his clinic.
The “lack of evidence” they cite has to do with whether or not the babies were alive outside the womb before Gosnell killed them. As if biologically or ethically, the location matters! Inside or outside the womb, it’s STILL killing a live baby! Our legal system is so messed up!
Today, the judge changed his mind about one of the charges:
The judge in the Kermit Gosnell murder trial admitted today he made an error when dropping one of the charges against the abortion practitioner.
Common pleas court Judge Jeffrey Minehart admitted he “erred” when dropping the murder charge for Baby C, who was killed in an abortion-infanticide when he was a victim of an attempted abortion but was born alive and tossed in a shoe box, with Gosnell staffers confirming they saw him breathing for 20 minutes.
Gosnell faces eight total murder counts — one for killing a woman in a botched abortion and seven for killing babies in abortion-infanticides that involved live-birth abortions and snipping their necks after birth. The judge received heavy criticism yesterday for dropping three of the murder charges.
The trial of the century is underway, but the media seating looks like this:
Why? Because the man on trial is an abortionist.
Kermit Gosnell is a monster.
He drugged patients that came to him for late term abortions and would leave them for hours, waiting for their babies to be born so he could kill them by snipping their spinal cords with a pair of scissors.
He killed at least one woman, but did absolutely nothing to try to save her and abandoned her after the paramedics picked her up.
A former worker at the clinic testified that Gosnell’s gruesome practice of snipping babies’ necks “gave me the creeps.” She knew the babies were still alive because she witnessed one baby “jump” when he was stabbed in the neck, and other who’s chest was still moving even after his spine had been severed.
Gosnell told one teenage assistant, “That’s what you call a chicken with its head cut off.”
Another former employee recalled a baby who screamed after surviving an abortion, only to be killed later.
Gosnell kept the remains of at least 47 babies in cat food containers and other receptacles around his office. He kept their severed feet in jars. Some of the babies were disposed of down the toilets, which would frequently back up from body parts.
The Pennsylvania Health Department deliberately ignored complaints and refused to investigate them for years.
His clinic went 17 years without a health inspection, until an FBI raid in 2010 revealed a gruesome sight:
They found moaning women covered in blood-stained blankets and jars with severed fetus feet, according to the 281-page grand jury report.
The grand jury report that lays out allegations against Gosnell has an entire section called “How did this go on so long?” The simple answer is politics.
Pennsylvania’s health department stopped routine inspections of abortion facilities in the state after Tom Ridge, a pro-choice Republican, became governor in 1995.
Health department lawyers “changed their legal opinions and advice to suit the policy preferences of different governors,” health department official Janet Staloski said in grand jury testimony. In this case, she said the state didn’t want to be “putting a barrier up to women” who wanted abortions.
The reason they avoided inspecting abortion clinics is the same reason the media avoids reporting on their atrocities: they want to protect abortion-on-demand, no matter how many people get hurt or killed.
Because Gosnell was an abortionist whose victims were premature babies, the media covers up his atrocities as if they never happened. His crimes don’t serve their political agenda. His tortured victims are brushed under the rug.
Even Connor Friedersdorf from The Atlantic argues that this story should be front-page news:
The grand jury report in the case of Kermit Gosnell, 72, is among the most horrifying I’ve read. “This case is about a doctor who killed babies and endangered women. What we mean is that he regularly and illegally delivered live, viable babies in the third trimester of pregnancy – and then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal cords with scissors,” it states. “The medical practice by which he carried out this business was a filthy fraud in which he overdosed his patients with dangerous drugs, spread venereal disease among them with infected instruments, perforated their wombs and bowels – and, on at least two occasions, caused their deaths.”
Charged with seven counts of first-degree murder, Gosnell is now standing trial in a Philadelphia courtroom. An NBC affiliate’s coverage includes testimony as grisly as you’d expect. “An unlicensed medical school graduate delivered graphic testimony about the chaos at a Philadelphia clinic where he helped perform late-term abortions,” the channel reports. “Stephen Massof described how he snipped the spinal cords of babies, calling it, ‘literally a beheading. It is separating the brain from the body.’ He testified that at times, when women were given medicine to speed up their deliveries, ‘it would rain fetuses. Fetuses and blood all over the place.’”
[...] One woman “was left lying in place for hours after Gosnell tore her cervix and colon while trying, unsuccessfully, to extract the fetus,” the report states. Another patient, 19, “was held for several hours after Gosnell punctured her uterus. As a result of the delay, she fell into shock from blood loss, and had to undergo a hysterectomy.” A third patient “went into convulsions during an abortion, fell off the procedure table, and hit her head on the floor. Gosnell wouldn’t call an ambulance, and wouldn’t let the woman’s companion leave the building so that he could call an ambulance.”
[...] Inducing live births and subsequently severing the heads of the babies is indeed a horrific story that merits significant attention. Strange as it seems to say it, however, that understates the case.
For this isn’t solely a story about babies having their heads severed, though it is that. It is also a story about a place where, according to the grand jury, women were sent to give birth into toilets; where a doctor casually spread gonorrhea and chlamydiae to unsuspecting women through the reuse of cheap, disposable instruments; an office where a 15-year-old administered anesthesia; an office where former workers admit to playing games when giving patients powerful narcotics; an office where white women were attended to by a doctor and black women were pawned off on clueless untrained staffers. Any single one of those things would itself make for a blockbuster news story. Is it even conceivable that an optometrist who attended to his white patients in a clean office while an intern took care of the black patients in a filthy room wouldn’t make national headlines?
But it isn’t even solely a story of a rogue clinic that’s awful in all sorts of sensational ways either. Multiple local and state agencies are implicated in an oversight failure that is epic in proportions! If I were a city editor for any Philadelphia newspaper the grand jury report would suggest a dozen major investigative projects I could undertake if I had the staff to support them. And I probably wouldn’t have the staff. But there is so much fodder for additional reporting.
One pro-abortion blogger was unusually candid about why she and her fellow leftists wouldn’t cover the story:
[T]hose of us who are pro-choice must worry that this will restrict access to abortion: that a crackdown on abortion clinics will follow, with onerous white-glove inspections; that a revolted public will demand more restrictions on late-term abortions; or that women will be too afraid of Gosnell-style crimes to seek a medically necessary abortion.
What if Dr. Kermit Gosnell had snipped the spinal cords of puppies whose owners and brought them to him to be put down? What if he had murdered teenage girls whose parents didn’t want them anymore, and stored their severed feet as trophies in jars? What if he had used a gun as a murder weapon? Would the media have ignored him then?
Consider how the media praised Dr. Tiller, a late-term abortionist who was murdered. The only difference between Dr. Tiller and Dr. Gosnell was the location of the baby and the method of execution. Dr. Tiller made sure the babies’ head stayed inside the birth canal as he punctured their skulls and vacuumed out their brain matter. Dr. Gosnell delivered them live, and then severed their spinal cords with a pair of scissors. What difference does it make? Both inflicted excruciating pain and death on innocent, helpless infants.
Planned Parenthood, which pretends to condemn Gosnells’ actions, has already admitted that they support killing infants who survive abortion. President Obama voted multiple times as a senator to deny medical care to babies who were born alive after a botched abortion attempt.
All of them deny a baby’s humanity and unalienable right to life. The only difference is that Dr. Gosnell found an especially gruesome way to speed up the process.
The Left and the media (but I repeat myself) support infanticide both inside and outside the womb, at any and every stage of pregnancy and immediately after birth. That is why they are trying to ignore the Gosnell story. They secretly support him. They consider him a warrior for the sacred cause of a “woman’s choice” to kill her own child.
They’ll throw him under the bus when it becomes politically necessary to do so, but make no mistake: they honestly see nothing wrong with what he’s done. Their view of human life is no different than his…and that’s a very scary thought.
Public School Indoctrination: Teaching Kids To Give Up Constitutional Rights, Hate Conservatives and Jews
Earlier this week, an irate mom tweeted a photo her child had taken in class, in which the teacher openly mocked Fox News as an example of “media bias”:
The teacher was trying to explain what media bias looks like. Fox News was the only media example she used (because no other media outlets are biased, dontcha know?). FYI, snarky Wonka memes are an example of TEACHER bias, not media bias.
This is so typical. I remember from my “Critical Thinking” class in college, I could tell you exactly how the textbook authors and teachers voted by the end of the class. Their bias was that obvious. Of course, you expect that now in universities, but it’s already seeped down to grades K-12.
In Wisconsin, a crossword puzzle assigned to 8th graders told students that “conservative” meant “restricting personal freedoms“:
A mother at a Wisconsin public school said her daughter’s eighth grade class was assigned a worksheet with some eyebrow-raising definitions for “conservatism” and “liberalism.”
Conservatism, it stated in part, believes in “preserving traditional moral values by restricting personal freedoms” while liberalism is for “equality and personal freedom for everyone.”
“This is indoctrination,” Tamra Varebrook, a Republican activist in Racine, Wis., told TheBlaze on Thursday after her 13-year-old daughter showed her the crossword-style vocabulary sheet from Union Grove Elementary School earlier this week.
In New York, students were asked to write an essay from the Nazi perspective of “Why Jews Are Evil”:
An unnamed English teacher at Albany High School who wanted to “challenge” his/her students to “formulate a persuasive argument” tasked them with writing an essay about why “Jews are evil,” as if they were trying to convince a Nazi official of their loyalty. One third of the class refused, and the principal has apologized while insisting that there wasn’t any “malice or intent to cause any insensitivities to our families of Jewish faith.”
Only one-third of the class refused. That means, even with the example of principled resistance before them, two-thirds of the class went along with it!
In Florida, a father was stunned to discover this note written in crayon in his son’s handwriting:
The words are written in crayon, in the haphazard bumpiness of a child’s scrawl.
“I am willing to give up some of my constitutional rights in order to be safer or more secure.”
They’re the words that Florida father Aaron Harvey was stunned to find his fourth-grade son had written, after a lesson in school about the Constitution.
Harvey’s son attends Cedar Hills Elementary in Jacksonville, Fla. Back in January, a local attorney came in to teach the students about the Bill of Rights. But after the attorney left, fourth-grade teacher Cheryl Sabb dictated the sentence to part of the class and had them copy it down, he said.
If you think these are isolated incidents that would never happen at your child’s school, think again. These are just the more blatantly obvious ones that happened to get caught. The real indoctrination happens far more subtly, through half-truths and omissions, false assumptions, stories that manipulate the emotions and pressure to agree with the teacher and follow the crowd. Day after day, year after year, they slowly break down the child’s resistance to their view of the world.
British Academics Claim It’s ‘Discrimination’ To Ban Pedophiles From Adopting, Working With Children
What the hell is wrong with these people???
Helen Reece, a reader in law at the London School of Economics, called on Theresa May, the Home Secretary, to relax rules which automatically ban sex offenders from caring for children, saying that this could breach their human rights.
In an article in the respected Child and Family Law Quarterly, Miss Reece suggested that reoffending rates were not high among sex criminals, adding: “despite growing public concern over paedophilia, the numbers of child sex murders are very low.”
[...] In her article, Miss Reece suggested that the review should also introduce an assumption that sex offenders including child abusers posed no threat once they had served their sentence.
She said: “There is no reason why all sex offenders should not be considered as potentially suitable to adopt or foster children, or work with them.
“The Vetting and Barring Scheme and other legislative measures single out sex offenders for unfair special treatment and they destroy the principle that a prisoner pays his or her debt by serving their sentence before re-entering society on equal terms.”
The idea that a pedophile has paid his “debt to society” in a short prison term is ridiculous. A predator’s debt isn’t to “society,” it’s to the victim, and the victim serves a life sentence of emotional scarring. In a more civilized age, pedophiles were executed along with rapists. A life sentence was considered merciful.
The idea that a person predisposed to find children sexually attractive, who has already crossed that line once, will pose no threat to children after release from prison is willful ignorance. Allowing that individual to face continual sexual temptation in the form of children he is permitted contact with is playing with fire – and the lives of children.
It is common knowledge that pedophiles usually have victimized several children by the time they get caught. A sex offender with a record is more likely to kill and hide his victim in an attempt to cover his tracks.
Child rape is a crime deserving of nothing less than life in prison without the possibility of parole. Predators should NEVER be allowed to re-enter society, much less be permitted to have contact with – or adopt – more potential victims.
The Moral Relativist Left in Canada isn’t outraged by the practices of murdering women and sexually mutilating children. But they are outraged if someone dares to call these abuses “barbaric”:
Cultural relativism has reached a new point of absurdity in Canada when the “barbarity” of female genital mutilation and honor killings is questioned and becomes a controversy.
A recently introduced manual by the Government of Canada intended to teach newcomers about Canadian values and Canadian society has been met with ongoing hostility from left-wing Canadians and politicians over the choice of words in describing female genital mutilation and honor killings. Jinny Sims, the immigration critic of the opposition New Democratic Party of Canada, suggested the word “barbaric” might “stigmatize some cultures.”
[...] Taking up the relativist banner was also none other than Justin Trudeau, front-runner for leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada, and son of the infamous Canadian Prime Minister who brought multiculturalist policy to Canada. He attacked the Conservatives for using the term “barbaric,” and suggested that the term was a “pejorative” and that “there needs to be a little bit of an attempt at responsible neutrality.”
“Neutrality” on murder and sexual mutilation? Are you kidding me???
Recently, I penned an article about an Amnesty International initiative: an art project for which the organization had commissioned artists and designers to address the devastating problem of female genital mutilation, or FGM – using 8,000 paper rose petals. The petals had been gathered as part of a petition action to bring attention to – and to end – the practice of FGM, and were each signed by a member of the public who participated in the petition. It was a laudable project, and I said so.
Amnesty responded with great appreciation for my story – but took exception to one detail. I had called FGM “barbaric,” and, said an Amnesty official, “we try not to use this word.” In an e-mail, she explained, “The use of the word ‘barbaric’ suggests that the people who do this are less than human, which isn’t so because they are being led by social pressure which is what needs to be fought. So we avoid using this word to not judge the people.”
Overlooking the fact that “barbaric,” which means simply “uncultured,” “uncivilized,” or “uneducated,” does not quite suggest “less than human,” I could not help but wonder about the “not to judge them” part. After all, if you set out to change a thing – a behavior, a place, a custom (and especially if you set out to end it) – haven’t you already implicitly expressed a judgment? And how is calling a custom, a practice, “barbaric,” conferring a judgment on the people who perform it?
[...] If, say, a Park Avenue Protestant family carried out FGM on their daughter, that, too, after all, would be barbaric. And anyone would be right to say so. But barring the use of that word, should we use another one, like “different?” But wait – isn’t “different” somewhat alienating, as well? Does it not imply a judgment?
And so on. At this rate, the only workably acceptable term would seem to be “normal” or “okay.”
And it is not.
These are the times I worry that we stand upon a precipice, and fear for the ideas and the ideals that form the fundament of civilization and democracy. We censor words and language, as Howard says, bending our knee to the tyranny of political correctness, concerning ourselves more with the sensitivities of the perpetrators than the lives and safety of the victims.
Some things are just EVIL, and SHOULD be called “barbaric!” There’s no other way to describe them! But according to the Left, the only thing that’s “barbaric” is criticizing the EVIL practices of an EVIL “religion” that glorifies misogyny and child abuse!
A young girl taking this pill without medical supervision could bleed to death or cause irreparable damage to her reproductive system. This has NOTHING to do with protecting women and children. It has everything to do with defending abortion in every circumstance, no matter how unreasonable, dangerous and destructive to the young mother (much less her child).
A federal judge has ordered the federal government to make the morning after pill available for sale to teenagers nationwide.
Judge Edward Korman, a federal judge based in New York City, heard arguments in a case filed by the pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Rights over whether the FDA should have ultimately allowed teens to buy the Plan B drug without a doctor’s order. The pro-abortion group says such drugs are being held to a different standard than other drugs and that decisions are not based on science, but on politics.
The lawsuit was filed prior to the decision by the Obama administration in December 2011 to not allow sale of the morning after pill to teens.
Parents, doctors, and pro-life citizens are outraged, warning that this will put young girls at risk:
“There is a real danger that Plan B may be given to young girls, under coercion or without their consent. The involvement of parents and medical professionals act as a safeguard for these young girls. However, today’s ruling removes these commonsense protections,” concluded Higgins.
Americans United for Life president Charmaine Yoest noted that the business interests of Big Abortion were again at play as news broke of a federal judge allowing the so-called “morning after” pill to be sold to girls 16 and younger over the counter.
“This decision allows the abortion industry to gamble with young girls’ health in distributing a life-ending drug, with no real understanding of the long-term implications on their bodies,” said Dr. Yoest. “Equally troubling, this allows young girls pressured into sex or even abused by adults to be manipulated into taking pills that cover up what is a criminal act.”
“Young girls need medical supervision in taking such a potent and potentially life-ending drug,” said Dr. Yoest. “The implications for informed consent — and the long-term health impact on women of all ages — are deeply troubling.”
I pray that no young girls end up dying from this drug before this ruling is overturned.
Planned Parenthood endorses post-birth abortion
View on YouTube
You won’t believe your ears. The casual way in which this woman dehumanizes infants into mere property that can be disposed of at will is vomit-inducing.
Florida legislators considering a bill to require abortionists to provide medical care to an infant who survives an abortion were shocked during a committee hearing this week when a Planned Parenthood official endorsed a right to post-birth abortion.
Alisa LaPolt Snow, the lobbyist representing the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, testified that her organization believes the decision to kill an infant who survives a failed abortion should be left up to the woman seeking an abortion and her abortion doctor.
“So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief,” said Rep. Jim Boyd. “If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”
“We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician,” said Planned Parenthood lobbyist Snow.
Rep. Daniel Davis then asked Snow, “What happens in a situation where a baby is alive, breathing on a table, moving. What do your physicians do at that point?”
“I do not have that information,” Snow replied. “I am not a physician, I am not an abortion provider. So I do not have that information.”
Rep. Jose Oliva followed up, asking the Planned Parenthood official, “You stated that a baby born alive on a table as a result of a botched abortion that that decision should be left to the doctor and the family. Is that what you’re saying?”
Again, Snow replied, “That decision should be between the patient and the health care provider.”
“I think that at that point the patient would be the child struggling on the table, wouldn’t you agree?” asked Oliva.
“That’s a very good question. I really don’t know how to answer that,” Snow said. “I would be glad to have some more conversations with you about this.”
Advocates for infanticide correctly understand that the only difference between a baby inside and outside the womb is age and location. Both are living, biological human beings. So if “convenience” is the only standard for deciding who is “fit” to live, individuals outside the womb become equally disposable. Once you establish the precedent that government can deny one group of human beings the right to life, taking life from another group is relatively easy.
This is why the media is ignoring the trial of Kermit Gosnell, a late-term abortionist who would gruesomely snip the spinal cords of surviving babies with a pair of scissors. They can’t allow people to realize where their agenda really leads. They are willing to defend and justify the cruelest forms of murdering helpless infants in order to protect their false “choice” narrative.
Don’t forget that as an Illinois State Senator, Obama voted FOUR TIMES against legislation that would have provided medical care for exactly these babies, who survived a botched abortion only to be left to suffocate or dehydrate.
Planned Parenthood’s primary source of income is abortion. The purpose of their “sex ed” agenda is to encourage kids to experiment sexually and create as many new potential customers as possible. They will bulldoze anybody who dares to get in the way.
Last week, a Portland, Oregon math teacher was led out of his classroom by police and is expected to be fired for his opposition to Planned Parenthood. For years, Benson High School teacher Bill Diss has protested Planned Parenthood of Columbia Willamette (PPCW) building an abortion facility as well as their infiltration into the city’s schools.
This Fall, he refused to allow Planned Parenthood staffers to come into his class to push their agenda, under the auspices of the Teen Outreach Program – why was this interrupting a math class, of all things? – and ever since, the school’s administration (not to mention PPCW) has had it out for him.
Now that PPCW has completed the heroic task of stopping Mr. Diss, they can go back to their very important, regularly scheduled programing – promoting sex toys!
Tonight, as part of “Sexy Tuesdays,” PPCW is offering a “Sex Toy Workshop & Soiree.”
Ladies and gentlemen, THIS is the organization that Benson High School allows access to their students to, even to the point of interrupting class time against the wishes of teachers, and firing educators like Mr. Diss.
Sex toy seminars are just the tip of the iceberg. Planned Parenthood is determined to indoctrinate children as young as 5 with their sexual anarchist ideology:
While the White House says sequestration has eliminated funds for children touring the White House, President Obama has no problem spending $350 million federal tax dollars for sexual indoctrination programs starting in kindergarten for those same children.
This is not your grandmother’s sex education about how things work and what can go “wrong.” In fact, the exact opposite is the essence of the Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP): Obamacare funnels $75 million annually into PREP, which must be used exclusively for Planned Parenthood-style “comprehensive” sex ed programs where no type of sex is wrong and the only sexual behavior PP considers “unsafe” is becoming pregnant.
More than one-fourth of the funds ‒ $20 million ‒ has been awarded to a coalition of six Planned Parenthood affiliates, operating under the name Northwest Coalition for Adolescent Health, to implement HHS’s TOP program across Montana, Oregon, Idaho, Washington, and Alaska at over 50 sites. In Oregon schools, Planned Parenthood is paying children cash incentives to participate.
PP is funded with our tax dollars to market sex to our children in our schools under the guise of sex education, anti-bullying, diversity, and tolerance. Once sexualized, those children then become PP sex customers for contraceptives, STD testing, and abortion.
In the twisted mind of the Left (the ideology of which the United Nations is the primary propagandist), telling a woman that she can’t murder her child is the same as genitally mutilating her.
Offering a person the counseling and therapy needed to address the deep wounds at the root of same-sex attraction is equal to torturing and beating them.
You can’t even reason with someone that detached from reality and logic. Black is white, up is down, wrong is right, love is hate, night is day…and nothing you say will convince them otherwise.
A recent United Nations report on torture and mistreatment in health care systems around the world singled out lack of access to abortion as a form of “torture,” classifying it as a human rights violation on par with female genital mutilation, forced sterilizations and state-sanctioned beatings.
The report also says governments should recognize the preferred sex of ‘transgender’ individuals without regard to biology, arguing that forcing such people to undergo sex-reassignment surgery in order to prove their case is equivalent to torture.
[...] The report calls for the “elimination of homophobia” in health care settings, calling on “all States to repeal any law allowing intrusive and irreversible treatments, including forced genital-normalizing surgery … ‘reparative therapies’ or ‘conversion therapies,’ when enforced or administered without the free and informed consent of the person concerned.”
[...] One of the main ‘protection gaps’ identified was a lack of easy access to abortion in some countries.
“The Committee against Torture has repeatedly expressed concerns about restrictions on access to abortion and about absolute bans on abortion as violating the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment,” Mendez wrote.
In the densely-worded 23-page report, Mendez devotes an entire section to “Reproductive Rights Violations.” While a list of violations towards the beginning of the section includes female genital mutilation, forced abortion, and forced sterilizations, much of the text that follows is focused on abortion access.
Back in the 1920′s, women began fighting against a clear double standard when it came to sexuality. Promiscuous men were given a wink and a “boys will be boys” excuse, while promiscuous women were frowned upon. Women were right to fight against this double standard, but they chose the wrong solution.
Instead of working to ensure that sexual purity was expected from BOTH sexes, they fought for the “right” to violate God’s design with equal impunity, believe that would be “freedom.” It wasn’t freedom – it was slavery. It led to rampant STD’s, broken families, and illegitimate and aborted children. It paved the way for the sexual revolution of the ’60′s and the total breakdown of the family.
40 years ago, with ”no fault” divorce, we redefined marriage as a relationship based solely on the romantic feelings of the participants. We allow the contract to be dissolved for no other reason than diminished feelings, completely ignoring the fact that children’s rights are thrown aside and their lives destroyed at the mere whim of their parents.
Ronald Reagan is one of my heroes. But I’ll be the first to say that on this one, he blew it BIG TIME. I can understand his reasoning. A victim of divorce himself, he wanted to prevent abandoned spouses from being trashed with false accusations by the spouse who was looking for any excuse to leave.
Instead of protecting abandoned spouses, “no-fault” divorce actually made them powerless to protect their family. Reagan later regretted signing the law and called it one of his biggest mistakes. That mistake is what laid the foundation for the battle we are now facing over marriage, 40 years later.
Whenever you are tempted to think that compromising “just this little bit” won’t hurt or change anything, think again. The Left are experts at using incrementalism to push their agenda, one inch at a time.
Damon Linker argues that the foundation was first laid with the introduction of birth control, which removed procreation as the primary purpose for getting (and staying) married:
Permitting gay marriage will not lead Americans to stop thinking of marriage as a conjugal union. Quite the reverse: Gay marriage has come to be widely accepted because our society stopped thinking of marriage as a conjugal union decades ago.
Between five and six decades ago, to be precise. That’s when the birth control pill — first made available to consumers for the treatment of menstrual disorders in 1957 and approved by the FDA for contraceptive use three years later — began to transform sexual relationships, and hence marriage, in the United States. Once pregnancy was decoupled from intercourse, pre-marital sex became far more common, which removed one powerful incentive to marry young (or marry at all). It likewise became far more common for newlyweds to give themselves an extended childless honeymoon (with some couples choosing never to have kids).
In all of these ways, and many more, the widespread availability of contraception transformed marriage from a conjugal union into a relationship based to a considerable degree on the emotional and sexual fulfillment of its members — with childrearing often, though not always, a part of the equation. And it is because same-sex couples are obviously just as capable as heterosexual couples of forming relationships based on emotional and sexual fulfillment that gay marriage has come to be accepted so widely and so quickly in our culture. (If marriage were still considered a conjugal union, the idea of gay marriage could never have gained the support it currently enjoys. On the contrary, it would be considered ridiculous — as it remains today among members of religious groups that continue to affirm more traditional, conjugal views of marriage.)
Once marriage was reduced to a mere partnership of convenience, destroying what was supposed to be a life-long commitment became much easier, and the results were devastating:
In the inaugural edition of National Affairs, W. Bradford Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, pointed out: “In [September] 1969, Governor Ronald Reagan of California made what he later admitted was one of the biggest mistakes of his political life. Seeking to eliminate the strife and deception often associated with the legal regime of fault-based divorce, Reagan signed the nation’s first no-fault divorce bill.”
After California, every state followed suit.
No-fault divorce answers the Pharisee’s question to Jesus, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” with a resounding, “Yes!” Then it adds that it is also lawful for a woman to divorce her husband for any and every reason. In the U.S., wives initiate approximately two thirds of divorces.
It permits unilateral divorce, that is, one spouse can decide “for any and every reason” that the marriage is over giving the other spouse no recourse.
Children of divorce are “two to three times more likely to suffer from serious social or psychological pathologies.”
The result, says Wilcox, was that, when added to the sexual and psychological revolutions of the ‘60s and ‘70s, the number of divorces doubled between 1960 and 1980.
Divorce became acceptable even among Christians, easier to rationalize, and far easier to obtain. People who were unhappy and found their marriages unfulfilling, says Wilcox, “felt obligated to divorce in order to honor the newly widespread ethic of expressive individualism.” Children, everyone felt certain, were resilient and would do just fine.
But children of divorce, says Wilcox, are “two to three times more likely than their peers in intact marriages to suffer from serious social or psychological pathologies.”
Beyond children, divorce often has devastating social, psychological, spiritual, and financial consequences for at least one spouse. And others’ divorces effect all of us by calling every marriage into question. “[W]idespread divorce,” writes Wilcox, “undermined ordinary couples’ faith in marital permanency and their ability to invest financially and emotionally in their marriages—ultimately casting clouds of doubt over their relationship.”
Children of divorce lose their faith in marriage and are less likely to marry themselves. As a result, cohabitation rates have skyrocketed, which is bad news for adults, children, and marriage since, as Michael and Harriett McManus report in Living Together, cohabitation carries a whopping 80 percent failure rate.
In the beginning, the argument was made that divorce wasn’t really harmful to children, and that it would be more harmful if their unhappy parents stayed together. That has since been entirely debunked. The damage to multiple generations of divorce-scarred children is incalculable.
Sadly, proponents of gay marriage assure us that there is no harm in denying children either a mother or a father, but that social experiment, like so many others that try to substitute the nuclear family, will fail. And innocent children will be hurt in the process.
“What good excuse would keep a person in an unhappy, unrewarding relationship?” asked one respondent, a woman who left a twenty-five-year marriage because she was “tired of trying to please, gain love, do the ‘right thing.’“ “Would it be denial of a problem?” she asked. “Would it be financial gain, would it be ‘for the children,’ would it be for all the wrong reasons? My question—why would an unwanted spouse wish to stay in a marriage? What is, therefore, wrong with no-fault divorce?”
This is a common sentiment among Americans, one strategy we employ to resolve the moral conflict between two spouses, one of whom wants a divorce and the other does not: You want to hold onto someone who doesn’t want you any more? What kind of loser are you?
On the other side, another woman wrote to tell me of her husband’s decision to divorce her: “At age fifty-seven, he announced he would seek a divorce. All my dreams, hopes, and looking forward to some well-earned ‘golden time’ were dashed and smashed to smithereens. Our thirty-seven-year marriage was to be erased. My former standard of living was obliterated and can never be reached again.” “Our laws,” she complained, “do not differentiate between four months or forty years.”
Nor do they differentiate between a woman who wants to leave an abusive husband and a man who wants to trade in an aging wife. Our laws make no distinctions at all, because no-fault’s primary purpose is to empower whichever party wants out, with the least possible fuss and the greatest possible speed, no questions asked.
The right to leave ASAP is judged so compelling that it overwhelms the right to make (and be held responsible for) our commitments. For twenty-five years we have talked and written and legislated about no-fault divorce as if it represented an increase in personal choice. As the letters I received from divorcees suggest, this is a simplification and a falsification of our experience with no-fault divorce. For in most cases, divorce is not a mutual act, but the choice of one partner alone. “We might expect that both partners would be ready to end the relationship by the time one leaves,” note family scholars Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr. and Andrew J. Cherlin in their book Divided Family. “But the data suggest otherwise. Four out of five marriages ended unilaterally.”
No-fault divorce does not expand everyone’s personal choice. It empowers the spouse who wishes to leave, and leaves the spouse who is being left helpless, overwhelmed, and weak. The spouse who chooses divorce has a liberating sense of mastery, which psychologists have identified as one of the key components of personal happiness. He or she is breaking free, embracing change, which, with its psychic echoes of the exhilarating original adolescent break from the family, can dramatically boost self-esteem.
Being divorced, however (as the popularity of the movie The First Wives’ Clubattests) reinforces exactly the opposite sense of life. Being divorced does not feel like an act of personal courage, or transform you into the hero of your own life story, because being divorced is not an act. It is something that happens to you, over which, thanks to no-fault divorce legislation, you have no say at all.
The spouse who leaves learns that love dies. The spouse who is left learns that love betrays and that the courts and society side with the betrayers. In court, your marriage commitment means nothing. The only rule is: Whoever wants out, wins. By gutting the marital contract, no-fault divorce has transformed what it means to get married. The state will no longer enforce permanent legal commitments to a spouse. Formally, at least, no-fault divorce thus demotes marriage from a binding relation into something best described as cohabitation with insurance benefits.
Is it any wonder, with the decades of damage that has been done to the definition and purpose of marriage in our society, that people begin to assume that redefining it further is no big deal?
[H]omosexuals did not destroy marriage, heterosexuals did. The demand for same-sex marriage is a symptom, not a cause, of the deterioration of marriage. By far the most direct threat to the family is heterosexual divorce. “Commentators miss the point when they oppose homosexual marriage on the grounds that it would undermine traditional understandings of marriage,” writes family scholar Bryce Christensen. “It is only because traditional understandings of marriage have already been severely undermined that homosexuals are now laying claim to it.”
Though gay activists cite their desire to marry as evidence that their lifestyle is not inherently promiscuous, they readily admit that marriage is no longer the barrier against promiscuity that it once was. If the standards of marriage have already been lowered, they ask, why shouldn’t homosexuals be admitted to the institution?
“The world of no-strings heterosexual hookups and 50% divorce rates preceded gay marriage,” Andrew Sullivan points out. “All homosexuals are saying C9 is that, under the current definition, there’s no reason to exclude us. If you want to return straight marriage to the 1950s, go ahead. But until you do, the exclusion of gays is simply an anomaly—and a denial of basic civil equality.”
[...] Conservatives have completely misunderstood the significance of the divorce revolution. While they lament mass divorce, they refuse to confront its politics. Maggie Gallagher attributes this silence to “political cowardice”: “Opposing gay marriage or gays in the military is for Republicans an easy, juicy, risk-free issue,” she wrote in 1996. “The message [is] that at all costs we should keep divorce off the political agenda.”
No American politician of national stature has seriously challenged unilateral divorce. “Democrats did not want to anger their large constituency among women who saw easy divorce as a hard-won freedom and prerogative,” writes Barbara Dafoe Whitehead. “Republicans did not want to alienate their upscale constituents or their libertarian wing, both of whom tended to favor easy divorce, nor did they want to call attention to the divorces among their own leadership.”
In his famous denunciation of single parenthood, Vice President Dan Quayle was careful to make clear, “I am not talking about a situation where there is a divorce.” A lengthy article in the current Political Science Quarterly is devoted to the fact—at which the author expresses astonishment—that self-described “pro-family” Christian groups devote almost no effort to reforming divorce laws.
This failure has seriously undermined the moral credibility of the campaign against same-sex marriage. “People who won’t censure divorce carry no special weight as defenders of marriage,” writes columnist Froma Harrop. “Moral authority doesn’t come cheap.”
A blogger named Cindy made these interesting observations about the hypocrisy of Christians who supported “Amendment 1″ in North Carolina:
As long as we’ve still got easy, no-fault divorce, and a culture that excuses and applauds all sorts of “straight” perversion, I’m afraid I just can’t get myself all worked up about a mere one or two percent of the population wishing to do what the rest of us have been doing for a couple of generations now—have a temporarily monogamous life with the person of their choosing, along with all the privileges that the State has chosen to attach to that temporarily monogamous lifestyle.
Let’s face it, Christians, we’re not having this conversation because homosexuals pose some kind of threat to our way of life. (They don’t.) We’re having this conversation because we’re finally at the bottom of a slippery slope that we polished to a glossy finish for ourselves when we separated marriage, sex, and procreation from each other, making the union of matrimony about our own happiness rather than about familial and social stability. Now we’re just trying to stop the slide before we fall off the cliff entirely. But we’re not much interested in doing the hard work of climbing back up to marital sanctity ourselves!
[...] This amendment seems to me to be nothing more than a far-too-late moral panic, with very little thinking behind it at all. Our culture is in a state of sexual anarchy, and most of us—I’ll wager even most of those who voted yes on Amendment One—kinda like it that way! But gay marriage is where we draw our arbitrary line, because the majority of people don’t like that sin the way we like our own.
We seem to hold the superstitious belief that stopping gay marriage at the ballot box will appease the wrath of the God whose opinion we stopped consulting on these matters generations ago.
Wake me up when we’re interested in using marriage for its intended purpose. Until then, I don’t think this amendment is going to amount to a hill of beans, and I’m not going to waste a lot of breath trying to defend it.
I disagree with her belief that gay marriage poses no threat to religious liberty (the multiple incidents of discrimination lawsuits against Christians who decline to provide services for same-sex weddings is just one example). But her assessment of the hypocritical double standard is spot-on.
The solution is not to degenerate marriage even further, but to admit our own culpability in the destruction of marriage, and to fight for its total restoration as it was 50 years ago – not the “status quo.”
I don’t blame gays for hating the current double standard in the churches, where homosexuality is condemned and those who struggle with it are often ostracized, while straight sexual sin is often justified, and straight sinners are treated with grace and understanding. In God’s eyes, gay sexual sin is no different than straight sexual sin - both need God’s grace and forgiveness, and neither can be overcome in our own strength, without the power of the Holy Spirit.
In all honesty, I believe the church is going to lose the gay marriage battle, because we deserve to (just as God allowed Israel to be carried off into Babylon, because they had become no different than their pagan conquerors). We have failed to keep our own house in order. The church has not been salt and light with our righteous behavior – we have become hypocritical finger-pointers.
Of course, going back to seeking sexual purity as a nation can’t be achieved by laws – it has to happen through revival and repentance, beginning with the church.
As a mother of daughters – the oldest only 7 – I have found that it is ALREADY difficult to find modest clothing. It’s up to parents to make some noise with retailers and let them know that there IS demand for fashions that are flattering and age-appropriate, rather than slutty.
As of this spring, the risqué brand will launch an undergarment line aimed specifically at pre-teens and young teen age girls. And lest you think that Victoria’s Secret has toned down their recognizably racy style to appeal to this younger demographic, think again.
The new brand called, “Bright Young Things,” includes lace black cheeksters with the word “Wild” emblazoned on it, green and white polka-dot hipsters screen printed with “Feeling Lucky?” and a lace trim thong with the words, “Call me” on the front.
Chief Financial Officer Stuart Burgdoerfer of Limited Brands, of which Victoria’s Secret is a subsidiary, announced the company’s new marketing demographic at a recent conference, claiming about younger girls:
“They want to be older, and they want to be cool like the girl in college, and that’s part of the magic.”
So based on Burgdoerfer’s logic, would it also be “magical” to make alcohol available to our preteens so that they can be “cool like the girl in college?” What about condoms, co-ed showers, and marijuana? While it’s true our young girls do observe older teens for social cues and trends, does that obligate us to gratify their curiosity with content that’s mature beyond their years?
While Burgdoerfer may try to sell the notion that Victoria’s Secret is only responding to market demands for middle school lingerie, it was just a few years ago, that Victoria’s Secret claimed they would never try to appeal to a pre-adolescent market. “We don’t market to that age group,” said Anthony Hebron, a Victoria’s Secret spokesman. David A Morrision, who at the time was President of Twentysomething, a company focused on marketing to young people, and had studied the Victoria’s Secret product line reassured concerned parents, “If Victoria’s Secret is blatantly catering to 7th and 8th graders, that might be considered exploitative.”
But that was then and this is now. With young teens representing about $335 billion worth of spending power, according to Retail Analyst Hitha Prabhakar, there is money to be made, loyalty to be won, and an entire consumer group to milk and manipulate. Apparently, exploiting young girls with beginner-level lingerie in hopes that they will deliver a lifetime of loyalty to Victoria’s Secret was too big a temptation for Burdfoerfer to refuse – dollar signs overrode decency.
He releases a video which shows this map just before flying over to Israel. So “diplomatic” of him.
The map of the Middle East displayed in an Obama administration video released days before President Barack Obama’s visit to Israel shows the Jewish state dispossessed of substantial parts of its current territory, including its capital.
The map of Israel, displayed repeatedly during the video, shows the Golan Heights, Jerusalem, northern Israel, and areas surrounding what is currently the West Bank as non-Israeli territory. The Golan Heights is shown as part of Syria; Jerusalem is shown as part of the West Bank; and northern Israel is shown as part of Lebanon.
The itinerary on the White House website also implies that Jerusalem is neither Israel’s capital nor even part of Israel.
Rest assured, the eyes of radical Muslims around the world are watching. They know this shift means they have Obama’s blessing to steal this land from Israel.
Pope Francis: Lack Of ‘Religious Values,’ Government Control Of Education Are Traits Of ‘Totalitarianism’
From our nation’s founding until the Supreme Court ruling on Engel vs. Vitale in 1962, school children across the country began their day with a prayer like this:
“Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.”
How shockingly “offensive” to ask God to bless us, huh?
Until 1963, students could voluntarily choose an elective such as “New Testament Survey,” which studied the most influential book in history (especially Western Civilization). Teachers could read from the Bible in a historical context, and teach children to recite “The Lord’s Prayer” (seeing as it’s the most well-known poem in the world).
But now, no more. American school children have no idea of where common cultural references such as “David vs. Goliath,” “The Golden Rule” or “going the extra mile” come from. The have no frame of reference for understanding why the Reformation was such a pivotal point in European history, how Henry VIII’s break away from Rome was so significant, and the reason why the Puritans and Separatists were so intent on escaping to the New World. Children today aren’t taught where Thomas Jefferson got the phrase “Nature’s God” for the Declaration of Independence, or why our founders built our nation on the idea that unalienable rights come from our Creator.
They have no idea of an absolute moral standard – a Natural Law – which no man, woman, king or president is above.
And that’s exactly how tyrants want it. If there is no recognized authority above the state, the state reigns supreme in people’s lives, and can do as it pleases with no accountability.
Pope Francis witnessed this first-hand in Argentina, and he offered this warning:
In a 2011 book, Cardinal Jorge Maria Bergoglio, the new Pope Francis, stated that parents have a right to raise their children in accordance with their religious beliefs and that sometimes when the government intervenes to deprive young people of that religious element, it can produce terrible consequences, including “cases like Nazism” whereby many students were indoctrinated with views alien to those espoused their parents.
The book, in Spanish, is entitled Sobre El Cielo Y La Tierra (On Heaven and Earth), by Jorge Bergoglio and Abraham Skorka, the latter an Argentinan rabbi. The book is in interview-style and Skorka asks the cardinal a variety of questions throughout 29 chapters.
In Chapter 18, “Sobre la educacion” (On Education), the future Pope Francis says, “In the Bible, God presents himself as a teacher. ‘Yet it was I who taught Ephraim to walk, who took them in my arms,’ it says. A believer is obliged to raise his children. Every man and every woman has a right to educate their children in their religious values.”
“When a government deprives children of this formation, it can lead to cases like Nazism, whereby children were indoctrinated with values opposite to those of their parents. Totalitarianism tends to take over education so it can use the water for its own mill,” said then-Cardinal Bergogolio.