Responder
¡Bienvenido a los Foros de Univision! Participa, intercambia mensajes privados, sube tus fotos y forma parte de nuestra Comunidad. | Ingresa | Regístrate Gratis
Banned
sirjohn
Mensajes: 137,146
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005
0 Kudos

OBAMA'S VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND BABIES

Abortion's Slippery Slope: When  People  aren't "Persons"

By Rebecca Hagelin

3/14/2012

Culture Challenge of the  Week:   The Temptation to Say Nothing

Decades ago, when Roe v. Wade was  decided,  conservatives and many religious folks predicted that the country  had begun an  inevitable slide towards a murderous future: a time when  certain people-in  addition to unprotected pre-born children-- would be  declared less valuable than  others, their killing justified.

Back then, liberal voices jeered at warnings of the  slippery  slope ahead. But those fears have become real. Medically  sanctioned starvation  and death-inducing dehydration are passed off as a  "peaceful death" for the  terminally ill or elderly. Our own President could  not bring himself to vote,  as an Illinois State Senator, to protect infants born  alive after an  abortion (they were simply left to die-which was what their  mothers  wanted, after all).

obama cartoon life birth abortion by refreshed

And now, the advocates of  death  have stepped up the tempo. A new generation of ethicists has begun  making the  case in favor of so-called "after birth abortion." Like  Princeton's Peter  Singer, they believe that infants are not "persons"  entitled to the right to  life. Why? Because infants, while human, are not  "self-aware." And these  ethicists assert that human beings who lack  self-awareness are not "persons"  and, if they are not persons, then they  have no independent moral status, no  automatic right to life, and no claim  to the protections of  law.

The question of whether a newborn child would be   allowed to live or die, the "ethicists" argue, would depend solely on the  wishes  of their parents. The same reasons that might 'justify' an abortion  at three  months gestation would justify an "after-birth abortion"---i.e.,  the parents can  kill a child who is inconvenient, disabled, the "wrong"  gender, or simply  unwanted.

This new thinking shreds  the  quality-of-life façade that's often used to justify the abortion of  a  handicapped child: the only "quality of life" that matters here is that  of the  parents. If a child's life portends financial burden or stress for  the  parents---or cost to the state-that would be reason enough for parents  to snuff  the life out of their own offspring.

 

Banned
sirjohn
Mensajes: 137,146
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

Re: OBAMA'S VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND BABIES

PART 2

 



This is our future: an infant's claim on life will  be  no greater than that of a pre-born  child-non-existent.

More precisely, this is our  future  unless we fight back-loudly.

How to Save Your Family: Speak   Out

I wrote recently about the importance of electing  a  candidate who understands that cultural issues-the plight of our  fractured  families-underlie much of our nation's problems. And that's  true. Electing a  President who will value the lives of all Americans-born,  pre-born, disabled,  elderly, or marginalized-is hugely  important.

At the same time, however,  our  personal responsibility runs deeper than casting a vote: no matter  which  candidate we support, each one of us must act within our own spheres  of  influence to affirm the value of all life. And we must speak up bluntly  to  unmask this "ethical" proposal for what it is: pure   evil.



This evil of "after-birth abortion" serves up  the  opportunity to open conversations with your friends and family who are  advocates  of a woman's 'right to choose.' Where does that 'right'  logically end? Only at  arbitrary junctures. What's the difference between  a baby one hour before birth  and one hour after?

Challenge others to recognize abortion's   slippery slope. Raise the issue with those who think 'divisive issues'  like  abortion are best unmentioned. Who can remain silent in the face of  such  outrageous views, peddled as ethical decision-making? But make  no  mistake-remaining silent will bring defeat, because our silence in the  face of  such an abominable proposal cloaks it with  respectability.

Have a conversation with your children over  dinner  tonight about the right to life. Do they understand that all  life-simply because  it is human life---deserves to be protected? Have they  absorbed the utilitarian  messages of our culture that measures the value  of human life by what it  produces, experiences, or even by the burdens it  creates for others? Do they  recognize the evil advances when we, as a  people, shrink from uncomfortable  discussions?

Rebecca   Hagelin is a public speaker on the family and culture  and  the author of the new best seller, 30 Ways in 30 Days to  Save  Your Family.

 

Banned
sirjohn
Mensajes: 137,146
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

Re: OBAMA'S VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND BABIES

War On Women: Feds Cut Off Women's  Health Funding to Texas

By Guy Benson 3/16/2012

That headline may seem unusual (since when does the Obama  administration cut funding for anything other than military healthcare and successful school choice programs?), but once you see  who this move is intended to protect, all shall be  revealed:

The federal  government on Thursday began making good on its promise to cut off all  funding for the Texas Medicaid Women's Health Program amid an escalating  fight over the state's ban on funding for clinics affiliated with abortion  providers. In a letter to state officials, Cindy Mann, director  of the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said her agency  regretted the move. "We had hoped not to be at this point. But, unfortunately,  as we've made clear to the state at all points in this process, we don't have a  choice," Mann said on a conference call with reporters after sending the  letter...

The standoff stems from a law passed by the Legislature last  summer and took effect Wednesday. It bars state funding for clinics affiliated  with abortion providers. The Obama administration had pledged to stop  funding the Women's Health Program because federal law requires women to be able to  choose any qualified clinic. Gov. Rick Perry counters that states have the  right, under federal law, to determine qualified providers in the  program. The program provides care to about 130,000 women between the  ages of 18 and 44 earning less than $20,000 a year or less than $41,000 for a  family of four — with federal funds  paying 90 percent of its cost and Texas covering the rest. Mann said that last  year it cost about $41 million, and about $34 million of that came from  Washington...Planned  Parenthood issued a statement criticizing the actions taken by Perry and  the Texas  Legislature.

So I guess indigent Texas women will simply have to go without  because Obama's government prioritizes protecting a political ally and Democrat cash cow over the "women's health"  they claim to hold dear.  Wait, what's that?  They won't?  Hey, look who's standing up for women's  healthcare:

Perry, who slammed the federal government constantly during  his short-lived bid for the Republican presidential nomination, has directed state health officials to find the funding to keep the program  going from other parts of the budget, but he has promised not to raise  revenues to cover the costs.

Remind me: Who, exactly, is waging this alleged "war on  women," again?