Bryan Kemper Follow Bryan

Should pro-lifers compare abortion to things like the Connecticut tragedy?

Bryan Kemper Follow Bryan
By Bryan Kemper
Image

December 17, 2012 (StandTrue.com) - Should pro-lifers compare abortion to things like the Connecticut tragedy? To answer this question one must first answer the question: what is abortion?

Abortion is simply a word used to describe the action of killing a human person in one of the early stages of that human person’s development, just as shooting is simply a word to describe how the human persons in that school in Connecticut or the theatre in Colorado were killed. Both words describe a different method used to end the life of human persons who are all in different stages of their life and development.

In the same way, when I compare the Nazi Holocaust and the Abortion Holocaust, I am showing that they are both horrific events that have claimed the lives of millions of innocent human persons. One took place 70 years ago and one is taking place right now.

I could easily show comparisons to many other events in history such as Columbine, slavery, earthquakes and many more tragic events that have claimed so many innocent lives.

Many people think that I am making these comparisons to show the similarities of the events in question and abortion, but that is not really the case. I am not merely trying to show them as the same thing, I am trying show the horrifying fact that we don’t see them as the same thing.

When I make these comparisons it is because, while I am grieving for the loss of those innocent lives taken in Newtown, Connecticut or in Aurora, Colorado, at that theatre, I am also in pain for the other thousands of innocent human persons killed on the same day that so few people are crying for. I am trying to shake this world and make us realize that there are thousands of innocent human persons being murdered in buildings every day around the nation and the media are not there to tell their story.

The Planned Parenthoods and abortion clinics have successfully lulled America into silence about the bloodshed behind their doors. They have convinced so many that this is nothing more than a choice being carried out to help women. They have declared war on women and innocent children in the womb and have disguised it as liberation and freedom.

In carrying out this war on women, the abortion industry has been able to silence the outrage that should be shown towards this abortion massacre. They have been able to mask a horrific and violent action as a healthcare right that needs to be funded by our government.

Click “like” if you are PRO-LIFE!

I will be totally honest here: I do not simply believe I have the right to make these comparisons; I believe I am compelled to make these comparisons. I believe that the blood of 55,000,000 of my fellow Americans who have been massacred by abortionists must be mourned.

Last summer I created a graphic showing the Colorado theatre where the shooting took place alongside a picture of a Planned Parenthood. I said that when 12 people are killed at this theatre it is called a massacre and when 12 people are killed at the Planned Parenthood it is called Choice.

I was not shocked by the responses I got from non-Christians or from pro-abortion people; I was shocked by some of the comments I got from Christians and people who identify them selves as pro-life.

I was told that calling abortion murder is judgmental and as Christians we are not called to judge. I have to ask these people if we can call what the shooter in the theatre did murder, or is that being judgmental as well?

Yesterday I compared the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut to the abortion holocaust and questioned our President’s reaction to this tragedy. I used the calls for gun control laws to say I wanted laws to control scalpels and suction machines that are used to kill children. I talked about how whenever anyone’s child is being killed either inside or outside the womb the world should be outraged.

I was told that it is just too soon to compare things like these because those people just died and everyone needed time to grieve. While I am so very saddened by their deaths and I too am grieving, I am also saddened that since that attack in Connecticut, more than 7,000 innocent human persons have been killed in abortion clinics. Since January 22 of 1973 over 55,000,000 innocent human beings have been killed by surgical abortion in America alone. It is not too soon; it is actually long overdue.

I am being told that I am just opportunistic. Yes, I am. I am using this opportunity to bring to light the senseless and brutal murder of millions of innocent children who deserve to have their deaths mourned. I am using this opportunity to show the hypocrisy of a nation who defends, protects and funds the murder of her own citizens in the name of choice.

The comparisons were meant to do many things, and one of those things was to create a buzz and get abortion talked about. It worked. When abortion is being talked about and the truth is being exposed, lives are saved. One of my goals as an abortion abolitionist is to never allow abortion to fade away as a non-topic. My goal is to make it so prevalent and so front and center that this nation and the world are forced to open their eyes and see it for what it truly is. Abortion is an act of homicide and I will take every opportunity to expose this until we see the abolition of the abortion massacre.

Twenty innocent children were killed in Newton on Friday while more than 3,500 innocent children were also killed on Friday at abortion clinics. Our President did not shed a tear for the children murdered at abortion clinics, in fact he supported their killing and has helped pay for it. Law enforcement did not rush into the clinics to try and save any of those children and in fact would race to arrest anyone who did. News cameras were not focused on those buildings trying to figure out just how many were killed; they could care less about the blood spilt on the floors of the abortion clinics.

Not only do I believe it is ok to use events like this to make comparisons to abortion, I believe we must make these comparisons. The fact is, abortion is a hidden crime that will not be shown on the evening news; therefore we must use every opportunity to reveal the horror that is the abortion massacre.

Reprinted with permission from StandTrue.com


Advertisement
Featured Image
Hilary White Hilary White Follow Hilary

UK quietly opens the door to genetic engineering, ‘3-parent’ embryos

Hilary White Hilary White Follow Hilary
By Hilary White

Last month the UK’s Department of Health quietly redefined the term “genetic modification” to open the door to allow certain kinds of modification of human embryos – thus potentially making it the first country in the world to allow genetic engineering.

Scottish journalist Lori Anderson recently raised the alarm over the change in a column in the Scotsman, in which she alleged that the change is designed to “dupe” the British public into accepting “full-scale germline genetic engineering,” using human embryos as test subjects.

Anderson said that in July, the Department of Health “effectively re-wrote the definition of ‘genetic modification’ to specifically exclude the alteration of human mitochondrial genes or any other genetic material that exists outside the chromosomes in the nucleus of the cell.”

“The reason for doing this is that it believes it will be easier to sell such an advancement to the public if it can insist that the end result will not be a ‘GM baby’.”

This change follows a statement from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), the government body that regulates experimental research on human embryos, approving the procedure to create an embryo from one couple’s gametes but with genetic material added from a third party donor, a procedure called in the press “three-parent embryos”.

Anderson quoted a statement from the Department of Health comparing this procedure to donating blood. The statement read, “There is no universally agreed definition of ‘genetic modification’ in humans – people who have organ transplants, blood donations, or even gene therapy are not generally regarded as being ‘genetically modified’. The Government has decided to adopt a working definition for the purpose of taking forward these regulations.”

This assertion was challenged by one of the UK’s leading fertility researchers, Lord Robert Winston, who told the Independent, “Of course mitochondrial transfer is genetic modification and this modification is handed down the generations. It is totally wrong to compare it with a blood transfusion.”

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

The HFEA, which throughout its history has been known as one of the world’s most permissive regulatory bodies, has been working steadily towards allowing genetically modified embryos to be implanted in women undergoing artificial procreation treatments. In a document issued to the government last year, they called the insertion of mitochondrial DNA (mDNA) into embryos “mitochondrial donation” or “mitochondrial replacement”. mDNA is the genetic material found in the cytoplasm outside a cell’s nucleus, problems with which can cause a host of currently incurable genetic illnesses.

In the statement issued in June, the HFEA said the technique of inserting “donated” mDNA into already existing in vitro embryos, “should be considered ‘not unsafe’ for the use on a ‘specific and defined group of patients.’”

“Mitochondria replacement (or mitochondrial donation) describes two medical techniques, currently being worked on by UK researchers, which could allow women to avoid passing on genetically inherited mitochondrial diseases to their children,” the statement said.

The HFEA admitted that the techniques are “at the cutting edge of both science and ethics” and said that the results of a “public consultation” in 2012/13 were being examined by the government, which is considering “draft regulations”.

In June, the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children echoed Lori Anderson’s concern, commenting that the HFEA is attempting to deceive the public. Paul Tully, SPUC’s general secretary, said, “Human gene manipulation is being sold to a gullible public on a promise of reducing suffering, the same old con-trick that the test-tube baby lobby has been using for decades.” 

Any manipulation of human genetics, always breaks “several important moral rules,” entailing the creation of “human guinea-pigs,” Tully said. “Human germ-line manipulation and cloning – changing the genetic inheritance of future generations - goes against internationally-agreed norms for ethical science.”

He quoted Professor Andy Greenfield, the chairman of the scientific review panel that approved the techniques, who said that there is no way of knowing what effect this would have on the children created until it is actually done.

“We have to subject children who have not consented and cannot consent to being test subjects,” Tully said.

Altering the mDNA of an embryo is what cloning scientists refer to as “germline” alteration, meaning that the changes will be carried on through the altered embryo’s own offspring, a longstanding goal of eugenicists.

In their 1999 book, “Human Molecular Genetics” Tom Strachan and Andrew Read warned that the use of mitochondrial alteration of embryos would cross serious ethical boundaries.

Having argued that germline therapy would be “pointless” from a therapeutic standpoint, the authors said, “There are serious concerns, therefore, that a hidden motive for germline gene therapy is to enable research to be done on germline manipulation with the ultimate aim of germline-based genetic enhancement.”

“The latter could result in positive eugenics programs, whereby planned genetic modification of the germline could involve artificial selection for genes that are thought to confer advantageous traits.”


Advertisement
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

,

Cable series portrays nun as back-alley abortionist

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson
Image
'To depict a nun who performs an abortion is a new low,' said Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.

The Cinemax TV series The Knick portrayed a Roman Catholic nun as a back alley abortionist who tells a Catholic woman God will forgive her for going through with the procedure.

In its latest episode, which aired Friday night, the series showed Sister Harriet (an Irish nun played by Cara Seymour) telling a Catholic woman named Nora, “Your husband will know nothing of it. I promise.”

“Will God forgive me?” Nora asked, adding, “I don't want to go to Hell for killing a baby.”

“He knows that you suffered,” the sister replied, before performing the illegal abortion off-screen. “I believe the Lord's compassion will be yours.” 

The period medical drama is set at the Knickerbocker Hospital (“The Knick”) in New York City around the turn of the 20th century, when abortion was against both civil and ecclesiastical law.

“It is no secret that Hollywood is a big pro-abortion town, but to depict a nun who performs an abortion is a new low,” Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, said. “The only saving grace in this episode is the real-life recognition of the woman who is about to have the abortion: she admits that her baby is going to be killed.”

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

The series is directed by Steven Soderbergh, known for such films as Erin Brockovich, the Oceans Eleven franchise, and Sex, Lies, and Videotape. More recently he directed The Girlfriend Experience, a film about prostitution starring pornographic actress Sasha Grey.

Critics have hailed his decision to include a black surgeon in circa 1900 America. But after last week's episode, the New York Times stated that The Knick has chosen to “demonstrate concern for other kinds of progress,” citing the depiction of the abortion. 


Advertisement
Balcony of the Grandmaster Palace - Valletta
Balcony of the Grandmaster Palace in Valletta, which houses the Maltese Parliament. Shutterstock
Hilary White Hilary White Follow Hilary

,

Catholic Malta enacts ‘transgender’ employment discrimination law

Hilary White Hilary White Follow Hilary
By Hilary White

An amendment to Malta’s Employment and Industrial Relations Act means that employment “discrimination” against “transsexuals” is now officially prohibited in the Catholic country. The provision, which was quietly passed in May, came into effect on August 12th.

The law allows those who believe they have a complaint to make a case with the National Commission for the Promotion of Equality, with an industrial tribunal or the courts. A government spokesman told local  media, “Employees do not need to prove that their employer has discriminated against them.”

“They only need to provide enough evidence pointing to a likely case of discrimination. The employer will then need to prove that discrimination has not taken place.”

The amendment defines illegal discrimination against “transgendered” people as, “in so far as the ground of sex is concerned, any less favourable treatment of a person who underwent or is undergoing gender reassignment, which, for the purpose of those regulations shall mean, where a person is considering or intends to undergo, or is undergoing, a process, or part of a process, for the purposes of reassigning the person’s sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.” 

Silvan Agius, Human Rights policy coordinator with the Ministry for Social Dialogue, Consumer Affairs and Civil Liberties, told Malta Today newspaper that the new amendment brings Maltese law into harmony with EU law.

“This amendment is continuing the government’s equality mainstreaming exercise. The inclusion of gender reassignment in the Act also brings it in line with the anti-discrimination articles found in both Malta’s Constitution and the Equality for Men and Woman Act,” Agius said.

Click "like" if you support TRADITIONAL marriage.

Agius is a key member of the homosexual activist apparatus in Malta’s government working to entrench the ideology of gender in law in Malta and elsewhere. In June, he was a featured speaker, with the notorious British anti-Catholic campaigner Peter Tatchell, at a Glasgow conference organised by the Edinburgh-based Equality Network, a group that helps organise and train homosexualist campaign groups.

The amendment to the law follows promises made recently by the country’s equalities minister, Helena Dalli, to a “transgender” congress in Hungary in May. Dalli, who brought forward Malta’s recently passed same-sex civil unions bill, told a meeting of gender activists in Budapest that while her government’s focus had been mainly on homosexuals, that she would shortly be turning her attention to “trans” people.

“The next step now is a Bill towards the enactment of a Gender Identity law. A draft bill has been prepared and it has now been passed to the LGBTI Consultative Council for its vetting and amendment as necessary,” Dalli said.

“Some of you may be thinking that we are moving forward quickly. I have a different perspective though. We are doing what is right, what should have been done a long time ago,” she added.

Since the legalisation of divorce in 2011, Malta has been remarkable for its rapid adoption of the gender ideology’s agenda. In 2013, Malta was named the “fastest climber” on the Rainbow Europe Index, a survey organised annually by ILGA Europe, the leading homosexualist lobby group funded directly by the European Union.

The ILGA Europe report notes (p. 114) that Helena Dalli Helena “was one of 11 EU Member States’ equality ministers to co-sign a call for the European Commission to work on a comprehensive EU policy for LGBT equality.” The report also noted that although the new Labour government has proved cooperative, the Christian Democrat Nationalist Party has “progressively proved more receptive to LGBTI issues, including same-sex unions.”


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook