Abortion: an “Essential Service” in the Wake of Corona

Roger MitchellLeave a comment

If there still remained any question about the insanity of the Corona Thing, the issue of abortion should resolve that. Our society has gone full-blown mad.

Since the rationale for the heavy-handed lockdown by governments everywhere has been touted and promoted as necessary for our “safety”, a person could be forgiven for thinking that the killing centers known as “abortion facilities” would also be shuttered. After all, how can anyone maintain a “social distance” of at least six feet and still invade the womb of a woman in order to destroy the unborn human being growing with that womb? Or conversely, how can the woman “social distance” if she allows very close, intimate, and physical contact with other persons? The obvious answer is that she can’t. They can’t. And yet, if you were to think that the procedure should be, at the very least, postponed until the virus runs its course, you would be mistaken.

In Texas, a federal judge in Texas with a long history of siding with abortion advocates ruled that Texas abortion centers can defy the governor’s order to stop non-essential medical procedures instead of helping coronavirus patients by conserving medical resources during the pandemic.

Alabama: Alabama stopped abortions under its non-essential order until April 13th but a judge ruled the state can’t infringe on the so-called “right” to abortion. The judge also ruled that killing babies is somehow “essential” if abortion centers think so. Alabama is appealing the decision.

Apparently, even though state governors have shut down virtually all “non-essential” commerce and activity, some judges have decided that abortion centers can be exempt from that. After all, if a woman wants to abort her unborn child, then to postpone that action is to create undue “hardship” on her, since it might cause complications. Complications to the woman, that is, it says nothing at all about the baby.

Let me get this straight. Our economy has been shut down. We have gone into, basically, a system of house arrest for much of the country and the world. All this is done preemptively because some people might die from the corona virus. Supposedly, the focus of the whole exercise is to save lives, regardless as to how much inconvenience it causes to those who have been subjected to it. We’re all in this together, right? Well, not exactly. The killers of unborn children have been given carte blanche to continue as usual.

Work in a restaurant, bar, hair salon, exercise gym, clothing store, gun shop, etc., to support your family? Stop! Right now!! The world needs your sacrifice in order to win this war!!! Work in an abortion facility? Carry on! Abortion is an “essential” part of life and it is necessary that a woman’s “rights” be preserved intact.

Question: If all our other “rights” can be abrogated so easily, then why does the “right” to an abortion have to be maintained? Answer: Because it fits an agenda. It doesn’t have to be logical or correct, but it does have to follow the narrative.

It would seem proper that, since the focus of all the recent events has been to save lives, then the most vulnerable among us would also be included. The fact that they are not simply underscores the depths of our depravity.

2,246 Human Fetal Remains Found Preserved in Home of Deceased Abortionist

Roger MitchellLeave a comment

Ulrich George Klopfer died on September 3 and left his earthly possessions behind for someone else to inherit.

Why is this important? Who is Ulrich Klopfer anyway? See here and here.

If you haven’t yet heard about it, Klopfer performed abortions for years in facilities in South Bend, Fort Wayne, and Gary, Indiana. His medical license had been suspended by the Indiana Medical Licensing Board for numerous violations. He also kept 2, 246 medically preserved (assume formaldehyde or something similar) remains of aborted babies in his home in Will County, Illinois, which were discovered by his family after his death. The family alerted local authorities of the discovery and is cooperating fully with them in the investigation. It is not believed that any abortions were performed at the residence, making it almost certain that most, if not all, of these aborted human remains came from the three clinics Klopfer worked at in Indiana.

The question which is begging to be asked is this. Do these remains belong to the State of Illinois which has a liberal, tolerant, and accommodating attitude towards abortion? Do they belong to the State of Indiana which is far more conservative and disapproving of the practice? In 2016, Indiana passed a law mandating that the bodies of aborted babies either be cremated or buried. If it is determined that Indiana law takes precedence, as I expect will happen, then the remains will have to be returned to the State and disposed of according to its law, meaning a huge amount of publicity will be generated. My gut feeling is that most of it will not be beneficial to the abortion industry.

There is one other thing to consider. If these babies were aborted in Indiana and transported across the state line into Illinois, then this could very well become a federal case. Considering that Vice-President Mike Pence was the governor of Indiana in 2016 and signed HB1337 into law, the odds are quite good that the White House and federal prosecutors will be involved in this.

Note also that HB1337 expressly “…Prohibits an individual from acquiring, receiving, selling, or transferring fetal tissue. Makes it a Level 5 felony to unlawfully: (1) transfer; and (2) collect fetal tissue…”. Since Ulrich Klopfer was an individual, irrespective of his profession, he could have been convicted of a Level 5 felony, which carries a penalty of one to six years in prison and up to $10,000.00 in fines.

Multiplied by 2,246 would have put Klopfer out of the killing business forever. As it is, he has only been transferred into a higher court, one from which there is no appeal.

A Small Victory in the War.

Roger MitchellLeave a comment

Planned Parenthood has recently refused any Title X federal funds for family planning rather than be constrained from advising its clients about abortions or referrals to clinics who perform them. See here, here, and here. The sub-heading of the New York Times article linked to above said that, “Facing a Trump administration rule that forbids referrals for abortion, the organization decided to reject federal funds for family planning for low-income women.”

Well, all right, then. Planned Parenthood is standing on principle, rather than dollars. I can appreciate that. I have done the same. This raises some questions, though.

1. If Planned Parenthood (PP) can state that they would rather do without Federal dollars because that would restrict their ability to counsel for abortions, then what does that say about their core mission? Is it really about women’s health or more about referring women to abortion facilities? Is PP more concerned about women’s health in general or promoting a political viewpoint?

2. If PP can simply cut off that funding and state that they will do without it, then isn’t it apparent that they were overpaid to begin with?

3. What about the women who will suffer cutbacks and deprivations to their health as a result of this decision? Does PP care about them? Or is it more wedded to its primary objective—abortion on demand?

4. Why is PP using this issue as leverage to coerce taxpayers to subsidize something which they might find objectionable—if they had the choice? This is nothing more than guilt manipulation and it can be summed up as the selfish, childish demand–”If you don’t play the game my way, I’ll take my ball and go home.”

To be fair to Planned Parenthood, I am sympathetic to their stand on principle. If I were in their shoes, I would do the same thing. I have taken a stand on issues, right or wrong, in the past which cost me dearly. However, to be entirely consistent, they should simply stop taking any governmental funds and rely entirely on voluntary donations to support what they promote. If they can survive in the marketplace of ideas, then more power to them. My thought is, though, that they cannot and will not prosper unless the law supports and backs them up. Planned Parenthood needs to be very careful, because public opinion and the subsequent legal structure can change dramatically in a very short time, virtually overnight, if you will. What may be legal and prosperous today can be extremely problematic tomorrow.

Nevertheless, let’s take our victories where and when we can. This is one we can celebrate. Cheers!

Killing and the Question, Part 2

Roger MitchellLeave a comment

(Editor’s Note: This article is not typical of the ones I usually post here, but it is extremely relevant to the abortion debate as it addresses the same issue–a callous disregard for human life.)

To add to the article I posted yesterday, if you are interested in researching the issue of mass shootings, why they happen, what we can learn from them, and what we can do in the future to prevent them, then check out the following links. Zero Hedge, Lew Rockwell, James Howard Kunstler, Michael Rozeff, Warren Farrel, WND.

Each one of these authors is level-headed and reasonable. You will not find any hysterics here nor any sense of trying to whip the public up into a froth emotionally. Some arguments I agree with wholeheartedly, about some I have my doubts, but I will consider all of them. As should you.

Feminists For Life have a saying that “Abortion is a reflection that we have not met the needs of women.” If this is true in the case of abortion on demand, then a paraphrased version of it would also be true. Mass shootings are a reflection that we have not met the needs of young men. As a society and a culture, we should consider that both these are linked in one inextricable way—both situations exhibit a callous disregard for innocent human life.

We have to figure out a way to meet the needs of both pregnant women and young men. Our world’s survival depends on it.

Child Abuse Starts in the Womb

Roger Mitchell1 Comment

The arrest of Jeffrey Epstein on charges of sexual abuse of young women and girls has been all over the news lately. If you are watching any media at all, you can’t miss it. This is big stuff.

Epstein, however, is not the only fish in the pond. Take a look at this article in Zero Hedge and you will see that there is a vast number of cases of child abuse around the world, some of which the legal authorities know about and are moving forward on. Unfortunately, the ones that are not known are probably orders of magnitude higher. What is certain is that the Roman Catholic Church and its priests are not the only known offenders anymore. They are legion.

I have these questions. When are we (collectively, as a society, culture, and world) going to come to the realization that abortion which kills unborn babies is the earliest form of child abuse? Why do we allow, tolerate, encourage, and subsidize one method of child abuse, but become outraged, horrified, and aghast at another? If it is perfectly fine to kill one’s child before she is born, then why isn’t it just as acceptable to kill her after she has reached the age of eleven years and you have just raped her? Why don’t we just look the other way and pretend that this sort of behavior isn’t really happening, or if it is, just make the excuse that it’s not really any of my business?

We have been taught for decades that the human species (mankind—and, no, I’m not afraid to say it) is just another variant of the animal kingdom. We have also been taught that there is no objective morality and that the ‘rightness’ of any situation is a subjective decision of the individual involved. Considering these two statements together, is it any wonder that grown men (and women) are acting like animals, brute beasts who are only concerned with what they desire and makes them feel good? This is the end result of a system which has lost its anchor in ethical and moral objectivity.

Human trafficking is evil. Sexual abuse of children is evil. The deliberate killing of children in the womb is evil. It is not hard to imagine that all of these are connected in at least one other evil way—the callous, selfish disregard and contempt for human dignity, value, and life. Nothing will change for the better until we regain that concept.

The Suicidal Nature of Abortion

Roger MitchellLeave a comment

Abortion, as it is practiced today, is a suicide machine.i No apologies to Bruce Springsteen. His politics speak for him.

We are told from the very beginning that humans are part of the animal kingdom, that there’s really no difference at all between humans and chimpanzees or cockroaches, for that matter. We are all a product of evolution, a result of nature constantly weeding out the weak, inefficient, and hapless. Oh, and there is one other matter which distinguishes us—humans know the difference between right and wrong, that is, we understand a moral code, while all the other animals operate from a position of instinct.

What’s really interesting about this is that other animals, operating instinctively, do not deliberately kill their unborn children. Women, on the other hand, who are supposed to have risen to the very top of the pyramid of knowledge and understanding, will and do. Animal mothers will do anything and everything they instinctively know how to do to perpetuate their lineage, yet human mothers will do anything and everything they can, legally or otherwise, to destroy their offspring.

If there is one difference between animals and humans, it is this. Animals struggle to continue their lineage, humans act to destroy theirs.

Evolution, it is said, is a process by which the best of the best pass on their genes and characteristics to ensuing generations, thereby ensuring that the strongest and the most fit of the species survives and prospers. The weaker, less fit ones die out. As a whole, the entire species becomes better and more adapted to its environment. Well, then, consider this.

If the above statement is true, then women who abort their unborn children are not passing on their characteristics to the future generations, instead they’re removing them from the gene pool. This is in contrast to those women who deliver children and raise them up to become productive members of the human race, including the reproduction of children of their own through untold generations.

From an evolutionary viewpoint, over the long run, it is evident that women who abort their children will eventually die out, while those who don’t will continue the species. This leads to the conclusion that women who abort are the weaker members of the species and, since we are only animals anyway, they should and will be weeded out. For the benefit of humanity as a whole, you understand. And you should also understand that this is a tongue-in-cheek comment and is not meant to degrade any woman at all.

Coupled with this is the moral understanding that human beings should not kill each other, that there are negative consequences of these acts, and that humanity suffers when lethal violence is perpetrated against one member of society by another. Any society which practices or condones the widespread killing of its citizens, born or unborn, is participating in the demise of its future, dooming it to extinction.

It appears then, that abortion proponents and women who practice abortions are actually committing suicide, genetically speaking. As time goes on, the proportion of women who choose to give life to their unborn children will grow in relation to those who choose to kill theirs. Eventually, the numbers will become so lopsided that even the politicians will take note of it. Whether the suicidal members of society do or not is a different story. If they are consistent in their evolution and their beliefs, they will remain so to the very end, until they are all gone, when there are no more members of the human race who are willing to destroy their own children for their own selfish ends and survival of the fittest will be proven correct once again.

On this issue, evolution and morals appear to have collaborated. Abortion is not only morally wrong and detrimental to human relations, but also immensely destructive to the survival of the human species. Those who practice it will be eliminated—one way or another. As an evolutionary practice, abortion leads to death (extinction). As a moral practice, abortion leads to death (extinction). Abortion is not only morally wrong and detrimental to human relations, but also immensely destructive to the survival of the human species. Those who practice it will be eliminated—one way or another. As an evolutionary practice, abortion leads to death (extinction). As a moral practice, abortion leads to death (extinction). Abortion, quite simply, is suicidal. It is not beneficial nor wise.

“All those who hate me [wisdom], love death.” (Proverbs 8:36)

i A term used in Bruce Springsteen’s 1975 hit song, “Born to Run”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3t9SfrfDZM

Absolute Truth, Property Rights, and Abortion: A Collision

Roger Mitchell3 Comments

I need to give you some background for this article. Don’t worry if it looks like I’m wandering, I’m only setting the stage. I’ll be getting to the point in a minute or two.

I follow a blog—Bionic Mosquito. You can see it here. It’s a mix of hard-core philosophy, libertarianism, Christianity, and the never-ending quest for truth. Sometimes the author, Bionic Mosquito (or BM, as he is known), gets into subject matter which I am not interested in and I skim through it and move on. Other times, he presents a topic to which I go back, over and over, until I have it thoroughly understood. Occasionally I comment.

Recently, a post on ethical absolutism appeared which drew my attention. In this, Bionic Mosquito posted some comments by Murray Rothbard, the demi-god[i] of libertarianism. Rothbard was apparently in disagreement with Ludwig von Mises, who was instrumental in the creation of Austrian economics, about the question of ethics. Is ethics absolute or relative? Is there an objective truth or is all truth subjective?

Rothbard had this to say.

“The absolutist believes that man’s mind, employing reason (which according to some absolutists is divinely inspired, according to others is given by nature), is capable of discovering and knowing truth: including the truth about reality, and the truth about what is best for man and best for himself as an individual.”

I have included here a quote from Bionic Mosquito’s post. He makes an argument that I cannot improve on.

“I could probably stop here; from this statement, two points are clear: first, that there is an objective truth regarding humans and for humans, and second, that it is to be discovered by humans, not created by humans.  But I won’t stop here; his statements grow ever stronger and more relevant.”

Back to Rothbard.

“Philosophically, I believe that libertarianism — and the wider creed of sound individualism of which libertarianism is a part — must rest on absolutism and deny relativism.”

All right, then, so far, so good. Rothbard (and Bionic Mosquito) states that there is an objective truth that man can find if he searches for it. That truth is best for man as an individual and as a society. Furthermore, it does not come from man, but it is available to man. He (Rothbard) then states without any doubt or equivocation that libertarianism “must rest on absolutism and deny relativism.”

OK, let’s get to my argument.

If Rothbard could be so certain that there was absolute truth, an absolute ethic, an absolute moral code that he would bank his life’s work on it, then why in the world would he spend so much time and effort trying to justify abortion as a woman’s right? Why would he pursue the idea of ‘property rights’ so vigorously that he arrived at the conclusion that a woman’s subjective decision could override the objective truth about the unborn child in her womb?

“The proper groundwork for analysis of abortion is in every man’s absolute right of self-ownership. This implies immediately that every woman has the absolute right to her own body, that she has absolute dominion over her body and everything within it. This includes the fetus. Most fetuses are in the mother’s womb because the mother consents to this situation, but the fetus is there by the mother’s freely-granted consent. But should the mother decide that she does not want the fetus there any longer, then the fetus becomes a parasitic “invader” of her person, and the mother has the perfect right to expel this invader from her domain. Abortion should be looked upon, not as “murder” of a living person, but as the expulsion of an unwanted invader from the mother’s body.2 Any laws restricting or pro- hibiting abortion are therefore invasions of the rights of mothers.”[i]

Rothbard says that there is an absolute ethic, an objective moral code which all men and women would be better off following, but spends a large part of his life on the issue of property rights—compelling him to declare that women have absolute ownership of their bodies and the concomitant right to destroy their unborn children.

If there is an absolute, objective moral code which declares that all human beings have value and that to kill one is to commit murder, then it is certain that killing an unborn child is murder, because it is without doubt a human being. If this is true, then Rothbard is wrong. It is my opinion that he became so caught up in the theory of property rights that it simply transcended his viewpoint about absolute ethics. In other words, he lost sight of the forest looking at the trees.

The question to ask then is this. Is there an absolute code which declares that unborn children are human beings, that they have value in the sight of that code, and that it is wrong to treat them as so many are today—torn apart and thrown away? I have no better answer than this quote from the Ultimate Definer of absolute morality, ethics, and truth.

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; …”—Jeremiah 1:5

[i] Within the circles of libertarian thought, Rothbard is viewed with the same type of reverence and awe that Hercules was in ancient Greek Mythology.

[i] Murray Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty, New York University Press, 1998 [1982], pg. 98. See this review.