To the Undecided in South Dakota

Andrew Longman has a very cogent, logical explanation why the various exceptions "sought after" by pro-abortionists are completely illogical on several levels.

Among the areas it examines are the contention that abortion is a "private matter," that you "can't legislate morality," and so on.

The piece is a little on the longer side, but is full of information for the person who truly wants to look at the issue logically and make the right decision:

Consider murder. It’s a very personally motivated crime. People murder other people most often for intensely private, mostly domestic reasons. Wives who have been beaten silly by husbands for twenty years, husbands cheated on - you know the pantheon of human evil. Most murderers have justifications. But there is a rigid law against murder that prevents the deaths of many millions of people. Is it perfect? Does it remove the moral burden of murder?

Or how about tax evasion, another so-called "victimless crime":

Well then, let’s consider taxes and cheating on them – the victimless crime. People have hard scrabble lives. They have kids in college, kids with disabilities, un-working leech relatives. People have their reasons. Can’t it be viewed as moral that they are cheating on their taxes? Can you imagine how utterly rigid the government law is that tries, and fails, to solve the problem of tax evasion? They have IRS agents that kick in doors with guns in the extreme cases! Because we cannot solve the problem of tax evasion, and because you are “always going to have the problem”, should we then give up the collection of revenue? Quit trying to legislate morality?

And for those who argue that it should be morally acceptable to kill the unborn child of the rapist (who is incidentally the unborn child of the woman, too):

For the killer who commits murder, in order to get back at him for his crime and for the incredible burden he has placed on the family of the victim, we should take the criminal’s youngest child and execute him or her. Violently.

For the rapist – oh, we’ve got that covered. We’re going to kill his youngest child. Ok, right. We’re just going to do all rapists that way.

So how much sense does it make to allow the murder of the unborn child whose only crime was to be conceived by a rapist?

The moral and cognitive disconnect for people who think they want an exception for rape or incest is: the baby is still not a person in your heart even though the baby is a person in fact. Without science changing at all, you think by a change in attitude you can give or take away the worth of the baby. You are dealing with this issue emotionally and not rationally. Rationally, it makes no sense to murder the baby because of the crimes of her father. Emotionally, you reach a wrong conclusion by being filled with angry injustice against the rapist-father and so you overlook the humanity of the child, calling her instead a “pregnancy”.

The piece sums it up well:

The South Dakota law, insofar as it will not allow any exception for rape or incest, is then morally cogent, morally coherent, and praiseworthy in that formulation. The undecided voters should recognize that protecting all human life is the only moral consistency. Anything else is prejudice and irrational contempt for an innocent baby human being who does not know why he should die for the sins of his father.

Go read the whole thing. It's well worth it, whether you're pro-life, pro-abortion, or undecided.

Boy Escapes Death Culture

An 11 year old boy has awakened from a two-year coma. He was said to be in a "persistent vegetative state" such as Terri Schiavo was said to be in last year.

For two years, Devon slept in a bed in a pediatric nursing home, seemingly unaware of his surroundings until one-day in August when Devon woke up.

They murdered her, but this boy got a chance to wake up and begin relearning basic skills.

Terri Schiavo was able (on video) to laugh, show response to negative stimuli, smile, follow a moving object with her eyes, and attempt to talk...but she was legally murdered (what a contradiction in terms!) in Florida last year.

The evidence that we allowed her to be legally murdered was there before her death, has continued to accumulate since her death, and will continue to point the guilty finger at the American society that did nothing or was a cheering-squad to her murder.

Thankfully, this boy escaped the "compassion" of the pro-death Left.

Media Misrepresents Rep. Larry Rhoden

Received an email today from Sandy Rhoden, wife of state House of Representatives Majority Leader Larry Rhoden.

Seems someone in the media is misrepresenting Rep. Rhoden's position on Referred Law 6.

To our surprise, the associate press released a very misleading quote and statement about Larry's position on the exceptions in Ref. Law 6. Once again the press has done a very convincing job of making it sound as though he has regrets, and because of the polls he has somehow changed his position.

I'm here to tell you that nothing could be further from the truth. The New York reporter led him into a statement by asking him if he'd ever had any second thoughts. As with any bill of monumental proportions, one many times wonders, at least momentarily, if they've made the right decision, especially when bombarded with emails, phone calls, and all kinds of press opposing that decision.

Larry spoke to this man for 30 minutes very positively about HB1215, Ref. Law 6, and felt good about the interview. He felt it put a very good light on the bill with NO exceptions. However, the journalist chose to twist the interview to make it sound as though Larry was not totally behind it without exceptions. After the long interview, the reporter used only one of Larry's quotes which was used to convey 'his' twisted message.

"I've spent a great deal of time and thought wondering if it would have been wiser to write in the exceptions. We have a long row to hoe based on the numbers I've seen". This was Larry's quote. The 'journalist's words' were: "He was swayed by women's testimony that their abortions left emotional scars, but now--aware of polls showing his side behind--he has second thoughts. " In Larry's quote there is no 'second thoughts' comment at all. The polls have played 'no' role in his position and he takes little stock in them.

Larry had no second thoughts when he first signed the bill, HB1191 two years ago, nor does he now. He has spoken at a dozen events and still plans to speak at several more "Proclaiming Life and Liberty" programs that we have left. Just as he spoke on the House floor about how "a life is a life and all life is precious" he has been echoing those words from June 4 until today. Larry has sacrificed 9 Sundays to travel and speak about this and much more.

Just wanted to set the record straight...which is something the liberal media has a wee bit of a problem with (but it's only us Right-wingers who are biased, right?).

Liberal denial threatens civilization

That title isn't mine, but the title of a piece written by a liberal about liberals.

While I obviously don't agree with this liberal on much, he does point out an important truth--one that I and many, many other people have been trying to point out since 911 and before.

...my correspondence with liberals has convinced me that liberalism has grown dangerously out of touch with the realities of our world - specifically with what devout Muslims actually believe about the West, about paradise and about the ultimate ascendance of their faith...despite abundant evidence to the contrary, liberals continue to imagine that Muslim terrorism springs from economic despair, lack of education and American militarism

The writer, Sam Harris, points out that the evidence is overwhelming that many in Islamic culture are bent on the destruction of those in the West, those who are not Muslims (and almost all of the remaining Muslims are silent before the barbarism of some in their number).

Harris also points out that the wacko conspiracy theories provide a window of insight into what is wrong with the Left, giving us a

view of the debilitating dogma that lurks at the heart of liberalism: Western power is utterly malevolent, while the powerless people of the earth can be counted on to embrace reason and tolerance, if only given sufficient economic opportunities.

He concludes:

While liberals should be the ones pointing the way beyond this Iron Age madness, they are rendering themselves increasingly irrelevant. Being generally reasonable and tolerant of diversity, liberals should be especially sensitive to the dangers of religious literalism. But they aren't.

To say that this does not bode well for liberalism is an understatement. It does not bode well for the future of civilization.

I agree--totally. Liberals need to pull their heads out of the sand long enough to get a good dose of reality. It's one thing to spend all day fantasizing about some Marxist utopia...it's quite another to play in a fantasy world of peace and love while the enemy is at the gate.

Ideology-Driven OB-GYN Group Blasts Abortion Ban

From the Rapid City Journal today:

The organization is particularly critical of the lack of exceptions for victims of rape and incest

So why is a medical group upset over the "lack of exceptions" for rape/incest victims? Their purview should be the medical. Perhaps they're letting a little ideology slip through, hm?

The article does quote one of their ideologically-driven doctors on the subject of medicine itself, their area of purview:

"This bill permits abortions only when intended to prevent the death of a pregnant woman. The problem is, medicine is never black and white."

So is that a black and white statement that nothing is black and white, or is it only sometimes that everything is black and white, or is nothing ever sometimes black and white (?) ?

Dr. Don Oliver, a Rapid City pediatrician, has no trouble seeing through the haze of liberal ideology to understand the sacred duty of doctors to preserve life, not end it:

Dr. Don Oliver, a Rapid City pediatrician and board member of the VoteYesForLife.com coalition, said his concern on this issue is that ACOG has "lost its moral compass and succumbed to the pressures of society" rather than trying to protect the lives of both patients involved in a pregnancy.

"Obstetricians have always taken responsibility for two patients: mother and unborn child," Oliver said. "And their duty was to protect the lives of both. This is a sacred duty that they ought to adhere to."

Abortion is rarely performed for medical reasons or because of a lethal birth defect, Oliver said. Even when a seriously impaired child is born dead or dies shortly after birth, most parents find something in the experience to cherish, he said.

And other children with birth defects may go on to live meaningful lives, he said.

"I've spent a lifetime caring for infants with some of these types of defects and other less severe ones," Oliver said. "In none of these cases have I ever come across a mother who didn't treasure something in their child's life."

Regarding rape and incest, Oliver said Plan B emergency contraception is more readily available than opponents of the ban will admit, even in Catholic hospitals throughout the state. About one in 300 rapes results in pregnancy, and studies show that most rape victims don't have an abortion and are happy with their decision, Oliver said.

"Many of those who have one regret it later," he said.