I began turning against the Democratic Party when it supported harvesting body parts from fetuses still attached to the mother via the umbilical cord, absent any anesthesia, sort of like what they do to animals who are enslaved, tortured and raised for slaughter or scientific experimentation or product testing experimentation.
All they cared about was that the government not be involved, in other words, that tax payers weren’t paying for it. It was okay if anybody else wanted to dismember an infant still attached to the umbilical cord, just not them.
Any abortion clinic not receiving public funds could do what they wanted. Well, if it’s too gruesome and painful when the government helps pay for it, then it’s too gruesome and painful when the private sector pays for it.
The abortion issue would never have been as polarizing if the liberals had just pulled the cord on harvesting infant tissues. If there is a black market for said tissues, then it needs to be busted before it gets too big to bust.
In actuality if they had separated the infant from the cord, they’d be committing crimes against humanity of the most horrendous type, dismembering a person absent anesthesia, leaving the brain until last, fully functioning, meaning fully cognizant.
But it doesn’t really matter conscious or not, what right does a laboratory or clinic have to come in and force mothers to deliver healthy babies for the purpose of dismembering them as they’re being birthed? That needs to be dealt a hard blow, now.
The baby belongs to the mother before it’s birthed; upon cutting the cord the baby owns itself. No judge would put a helpless defenseless birthed infant in the hands of a serial killer whose intent it was to dismember that new born infant for the purpose of selling that baby’s body parts to the highest bidder. But what difference should the money make? It’s the deed under scrutiny, not who pays or gets paid.
Anti-abortionists want it all; they want no abortions except in stances of rape or ill health of the mother. How logical is that, to dismember the fetus under certain conditions?
It’s not the same as the mother owning herself and anything that grows in or on herself, until which time she separates that which her body grew from her own body.
At that separation point is where the world needs to focus.
Mothers are in a vulnerable state when they enter a clinic and both sides try to persuade with their view – from outside and inside the clinic.
The liberal view is to save the mother the burden of raising a child and losing a career.
The conservative view is to save the government money by outlawing abortions.
The result will be the rich get their abortions because they can pay, and the poor get creative.
The religious view should not even be considered, since there are so many religions in the world, mostly conflicting in the minutia of their copious human-made rules. And most if not all religions align closely with the government view. These same religions who adhere to the ‘be fruitful and multiply’ in the bible, discard ‘thou shalt not kill’ as a commandment when meting out capital punishment in the name of that same God.
Abortionists want it all; they want to use every last cell of that fetus as if they’re conservationists. But with fetal body parts??
The mother makes all the decisions as long as that baby is connected to her by the cord. After that, the baby belongs to itself. To criminalize abortions while the fetus is still attached to the mother, which the mother initiates is overstepping the boundaries of any courts jurisdiction.
But the courts say no. If the government is going to pay, then the government sets the rules. No they don’t. They have no constitutional right or God-given right or any other right to govern a woman’s or a man’s or a child’s body.
Kill the mother or kill the baby? When that question arises in a real life situation, the baby is usually the one saved. The mother is usually ill or injured, whereby the treatment needed to save the mother would kill the unborn child.
Most abortions are performed in a healthy mother, healthy fetus situation. On the surface as written it looks innocuous until one sees what really happens in those clinics, before during and after, as well as the emotional and financial condition of the woman who doesn’t want that baby.
If you’re going to say not abortions, then you need a plan for pregnancies.
How many women\girls used coat hangers to perform an abortion on themselves? Any real figures?
Wouldn’t it be so much easier to make the morning after pill available over the counter?
Or easier than that, shift the responsibility for birth control to the male?
It’s as if once the door was open for publicly funded abortions, those who opened it wanted so much more; they wanted to exploit the fetal tissues thus the mother, thus voters and why should voters even be involved, and then hung science in the balance as if without these fetal tissues/organs countless people would die, which is off the charts alarming that the entire world bought it, hook, line and sinker.
Whatever happened to using a person’s own stem cells? Where did that research end up? Why are labs so fixated on needing fetal tissues to conduct research? What kind of research? Again, what happened to stem cell research whereby no one is tortured and killed for their flesh?
We the adults of the world, keep aborted fetuses alive to torture them like we do other animals in the kingdom – with impunity.
Why? Because they have no voice.
Until next time, keep asking questions.
Later gators.
HAPPY WHITE HORSE™ 