The Humanity and Inhumanity of Abortion

The Humanity and Inhumanity of Abortion

The inhumanity of abortion, which has claimed in excess of 50,000,000 innocent, pre-born lives in America since Roe v. Wade, far more lives than our nation has lost in all of our wars combined, is apparent to all but the most ardent proponents of the “procedure” and to those who realize the barbarity is inhumane but who defend it on tenuous bases of privacy and personal rights of women and young girls.

Tremendous scientific and technological advances in knowledge concerning fetal surgery, embryology, (pre-natal life), have taken place in recent years. Ultrasound and other techniques now prove what pro-lifers have long claimed, that fetal viability and capacity to experience intense pain occur long before feminists, the abortion lobby, and those all-too-eager to experiment on fetuses contend.

What follows is excerpted from a story and commentary reprinted by permission from the July edition of “Life News,” P.O. Box 223, Ronkonkoma, N.Y. 11779. Both powerfully serve to illustrate the fundamental humanity of pre-born life and the inherent inhumanity of destroying it.

“Given the Chance” by Caitlin Kennedy

On October 24th 2006, a little bundle of life was brought into the world. And when I say little, I mean little.

Amillia Taylor was born at Baptist Children’s Hospital in Miami, Florida, weighing in at a mere 10 ounces. She had spent only 21 weeks in her mother’s womb and was 9 inches in length -- approximately the size of a ballpoint pen . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=4849)

The New Reality of Rape--and Porn

The New Reality of Rape--and Porn

Every grade schooler knows, or should know, that under the Western world’s systems of justice, everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

It matters not whether the court of public opinion has already condemned an accused as, for example, in the instance of Jared Loughner who was seen by dozens to have unleashed a mad, homicidal barrage of gunfire in Tucson 10 days ago. He is still an alleged assailant until and unless he is convicted.

So, too, is Julian Assange, the infamous and admitted WikiLeak leaker of hundreds of thousands of classified American government documents, still an alleged terrorist and will be “alleged” to have committed crimes until he has his day in court and is convicted.

Assange has also been accused of other crimes, vicious crimes of raping and sexually assaulting two women in Sweden.

Regardless of the merits of the case against him, and the details are in dispute, the reactions and lack of reactions of America’s Left, and especially of liberal women, to the charges have been very telling and indicative of their brazen hypocrisy. To many such women, if the accused is a fellow liberal, particularly an America-hater like Assange, any sexual offenses can readily be forgiven as peccadillos, if that.

Assange was arrested in Britain and is currently free on bail. His attorney and the liberal Brit press have taken to referring to the victims by the quaint and derogatory British term, “moneytrappers,” what we would “golddiggers,” and his supporters are dismissing the allegations as nothing more than that and as a politically-motivated conspiracy by grasping females to smear Assange. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=3439)

Of Uteri and Privacy

Of Uteri and Privacy

Leftist pro-abortionists, an admitted redundancy, are all verklempt over last Tuesday’s election results.

It seems that along with the coming influx of fiscal conservatives in the new Republican House of Representatives in January, America will be blessed with far too many of that “ilk” who are social conservatives as well, meaning that most take deep personal, moral, and national offense at the liberal sacrament of abortion, the all-too-popular practice of murdering the pre-born.

Lori Ziganto addresses that issue in her article, “Pro-Aborts Screech Stay Out Of My Uterus! Unless They Want To Brag About Abortions On Twitter” which appears on Monday’s pages of IOwntheWorld.com.

Ms. Ziganto focuses on the Constitution’s alleged provision for a woman’s “right to privacy,” a right non-existent in our Constitution which was discovered and incorporated into that document by the United States Supreme Court in 1973 with its decision on Roe v. Wade.

There was, of course, precedent for that incorporation, that re-writing of the Constitution, in another SCOTUS decision in 1857 when Chief Justice Roger B. Taney’s court determined that Dred Scott and all African Americans “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it.”

In brief, SCOTUS had made grievous errors in the past and therefore was entitled to make another one in 1973 and so-called feminists rejoiced in their new-found right to privacy.

Apparently, 37 years later, they feel so strongly in their right to privacy that many of them are now proudly advertising their abortions by twittering on Twitter.com. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=2570)

Are You Kidding Me?

Are You Kidding Me?

I can appreciate a joke but some news stories feature such outlandish ideas that should be funny and instead fall into the realm of the simply pathetic. A few examples culled from a plethora available:

. Most rational people, a description which excludes virtually all feminists, acknowledge the existence of “post abortion syndrome” which pro-life writer Lori Ziganto refers to in her article, “Women Can Have It All? Only If You Abort, Claim Pro-abortion Feminists:” http://bit.ly/d5CvaO

First of all, “pro-abortion feminists” is a redundancy easily verified by conversations with feministas who regard abortion as a virtual sacrament in their distorted religion. They worship at the perverted altar of dead babies.

Secondly, from a male perspective, if post-abortion syndrome did not exist . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1643)

The Juno Effect and Abortion

The Juno Effect and Abortion

Anyone who has seen the Oscar-winning film, Juno, couldn’t help but wonder if it could be a vehicle that encourages teen pregnancy. After all, the title character who is all of 16 does accidentally get pregnant and doesn’t seem to be very disturbed by her condition and it all ends relatively happily.

Thus was born the much-dreaded “Juno Effect,” the conclusion of impressionable teens that, “That woman is in the movies (or on TV, or in a magazine)! That makes her glamorous! Maybe if I get knocked up, I’ll be glamorous, too!”

Said effect never really occurred since data shows that teen pregnancy, despite the efforts of Planned Parenthood, actually showed a downtick of 2% between 2007, the Juno year, and 2008, what could be termed the Bristol Palin year.

Liberal recorders of pop culture, such as Mona Ackerman, Time magazine, and Linda Hirshman, jumped all over the idea that a movie could or would inspire teen pregnancies, an inspiration that never existed, and predicted catastrophic rates of impregnated teenagers: http://bit.ly/8XUQaA

There’s something about liberals which makes them always think . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1623)

Sarah Palin, the Dirty Old Man, and Ugly Feminists

I’ll confess. I think Sarah Louise Heath Palin, who happens to be the first female governor of the great state of Alaska, is the foxiest politician I’ve seen in my lifetime. My wife of 41 years doesn’t even blink anymore when I mention that fact.

Would I vote for her as president of the United States because she’s attractive? Not bloody likely, even if she were a replication of Britney Spears or Carrie Prejean. If she resembled Judge Sonia Sotomayor, it would be even more bloody unlikely.

Palin’s looks are not the issue, or shouldn’t be. What is an issue in 2009–and which will be an issue in 2012– is not the reincarnation of J.D. Salinger’s dirty old man, in the person of dirty old Dave Letterman, or Palin’s looks but whether Dyke-World can overcome its revulsion over attractive women who aren’t lesbians.

It will be a challenge; most who flock to Dyke World more closely resemble Betty Friedan than Mrs. Palin. Brains and success, and Palin has both in spades, appeal to the lez set, but attractiveness seems to be a contraindicator for acceptance for most feminazis.

Make no mistake, the libs, the gays, the lesbians, and the Democrats, which is a redundancy, are terrified of Governor Sarah Palin and Letterman is nothing but a water carrier for that whole crew. Letterman’s crudities are almost irrelevant. What is worth emphasis is the atmosphere in which Dirty Dave and his writers feel free to dump on Palin.

It’s the same prevailing atmosphere which allows attacks on a beauty queen for being honest about gay marriage, which mandates the persecution of a radio shock jock for letting slip a dumb racial slur, and which hounded a sports commentator twenty or so years ago who was fired by CBS for praising Black athletes’ slave-derived athleticism.

To liberals today there are various levels of discriminatory language, acceptable, marginal, and totally objectionable, and they determine the parameters of each category. The Left, for example, has twisted words and language to such an extent that the term “reproductive rights” now has no relation to reproduction but rather to aborting life.

Letterman’s inane “jokes,” referring to the governor of Alaska as a slut and to her daughter being knocked-up way out in right field at Yankee Stadium are in a class with Wanda Sykes’ “humorous” wish that Rush Limbaugh die of kidney failure. That brand of ”humor” so tickled Obama’s funny bone that he all but peed his pants when he heard it. The rest of the lib establishment either condoned or ignored it.

Incredibly, Letterman’s entire defense of his knocked-up crack was that he was referring to Bristol Palin who, since she was 18 and, to feminist dismay, had chosen to bear her child out of wedlock instead of aborting the baby. She thereby violated the First Commandment of liberal theology, Thou shalt abort inconvenient babies. Their Second Commandment is, Thou shalt abort any baby if you don’t want it, inconvenient or no.

Never would Dirty Dave refer to 14 year old Willow Palin in such a way. Not Dave! That would be statutory rape! It was just hunky dorey, however, to make light of Bristol being raped by Alex Rodriquez. I assume, Dirty Dave considered her a fallen woman already and so, who knows, maybe it was consensual.

It was Willow Palin and not Bristol Palin who accompanied her mother and Rudy Giuliani to the Yankee game but, hey, ya seen one Palin girl, ya seen ‘em all. They all look alike, right, Mr. Letterman?

As for his “slutty flight attendant” witticism about Governor Palin, he did sort of apologize for that and will probably not joke about Michelle Obama or Hillary Clinton being sluts, unless one of their daughters gets knocked-up out in left field in the Stadium.

No doubt Dirty Dave, who didn’t marry his son Harry’s mother until the boy was five, . . .
(Read the rest at http://genelalor.com)