What am I referring to?  The issue of abortion.  I know that is a hot-button topic for many and far too many take umbrage with my stance on abortion and the use of the Bible as well as medical science and common sense.  If abortion is an issue that causes you to become so infuriated you cannot civilly have a discourse, then please stop reading and move away.  My opinion is, at the time of this writing, protected by the 1^st Amendment.  That may change, but at this juncture, I have the right to my opinion, even if Facebook thinks differently.

I have listened as patiently as I can muster the strength to the rhetoric, diatribe, spin, and arguments of the pro-abortion crowd and find it maddening and completely baffling at times.  They engage in non-sequiturs with their ad hominem arguments. Their logic follows no discernable path, and their arguments lack foundation and fact.  Someone said, their arguments would make a sophist blush.  (A sophist according to Webster is an imposer in argument, a captious or fallacious reasoner. WordNet 3.0 defines it, as someone whose reasoning is subtle and often specious or plausible but false.).  Yet, continue they do with their incessant assertions.

Someone said that the pro-abortion leftists use arguments that are rhetorical variants of Three-Card Monte.  The objective is an attempt to divert attention from the real issue.  They argue on the shaky ground that abortion is a woman’s ‘right’ to choose.  Let us consider that briefly.  That is an assertion of a right that ignores another’s right which is equal if not higher.  In our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights we have a clear definition and recognition of rights based on Natural Law (God’s Law).

Those documents recognized that rights are endowed to each person by virtue of their existence and all rights precede the existence of the state (governments of man).  They are God-given not government-given, and no government has the right to rescind them.  Of course, they argue that that entity (baby) in the womb is not a human being and therefore has no rights.  Unfortunately for them the Bible and science disagree with their postulation.  Therefore, a woman’s right to ‘choose’ cannot be superimposed over the baby’s right to ‘life.’ Abortion would insist that a woman has the right to choose to kill another human based on choice.  If we extrapolated that to its full extent, we would have more murders in society than we could contend with.

The ludicrous argument that children should be wanted and have a comfortable life and when that is in question it is a reason to abort is insane!  The answer to that problem, for them, is to simply eliminate the child before it can be birthed.  Yet, they argue for gun control.  If that is a solution, why not solve all our problems with a weapon of destruction?  Yes, that would be inhumane, and utterly ridiculous.  So, is that argument supporting abortion.

They also argue that the child, if allowed to be birthed would place an undue burden on the mother who is unwilling to care for it.  What?  So, a burden or an undue burden is a justification to kill?  I shudder to think what is coming for mental institutions, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, orphanages, and other like facilities.  Is their solution to break out the gun and eliminate the undue burden? That would be inhumane and ridiculous.  Of course, undue burden is defined by the person promoting the elimination of the so-called burden.  Is that who we are as a society?

But the most selfish of all might be the argument that having a child would negatively impact a woman’s prospects of career advancement.  It would limit her options so how dare anyone could suggest that the life of that baby is outweighed by the pursuit of a career.  That is the zenith of selfishness.

The Bible and science are linked to the issue of the question of the humanity of that entity in the womb.  Is it a developing human being?  Is it a human being in the early stages of development?  When I contend that it is I hear things like “Keep your rosaries (I’m not Catholic) off my ovaries.”  I sometimes counter with, “Are you a primitive science-denier?”  The science regarding the stages of development of that entity in the womb destroys their contention that it is not a developing human being.

Is it not a moral issue when we fail to defend the most defenseless of our society?  How can we claim to be moral beings when we allow the infanticide and genocide of those who cannot defend themselves?   A person’s preference or the inconvenience of an unwanted pregnancy is not a justification to end the life in the womb.  If we become that society what is to prevent the push from becoming, eliminate the elderly, infirmed, or people of a particular ethnicity or hair color?  Evil knows no bounds and once it has gained an inch it will take ten thousand miles.

I was not surprised but deeply disappointed when I heard and read Vice President Kamala Harris insists, “For those of us of faith, I think that we agree…there’s nothing about this issue [of abortion] that will require anyone to abandon their faith.”  Vice President Harris, that statement screams that you either have no faith or have no concept of adherence to biblical directives and precepts.  It also suggests that you do not know the science of life with regard to that entity in the womb, the baby.

I am surprised that any leftist would refer to faith since in 2012 the Democratic Party officially abandoned God.  When a person has an abortion, they are not killing their own body they are killing another human being.  I do believe there is a word for that.  There are two entirely different sets of DNAs in the body when a woman becomes pregnant, that is science!  So, Vice President, as one who insisted that we follow the science, what happened?  Oh, I get it, this is a different science.  You promoted, “Get a vaccine or lose your job because of science.”  Science?  I guess that is whatever you deem science or applicable, right?

In the modern era of activism, the tactic of resorting to violence or threatening it is proving to be an effective tactic.  It sends politicians into panic mode and the cowardly into hiding.  I have not been surprised at the rendering of the Supreme Court’s final ruling on abortion that there has been violence and the call for more violence. This is not new and dates back to the Vietnam era and beyond where protests turned into riots and violence ensued.  Groups like the SLA, Weather Underground, and now BLM and Antifa used and use violence as their negotiating tool.

The fearmongers continue to fan the flames of paranoia and hate to the boiling point and blood will flow.  I suspected that this would be brought to the forefront in the late summer to impact the November elections.  The protests thus are designed to intimidate and influence. The Justices were not intimidated into changing their votes and did what was Constitutionally mandated regarding the issue of abortion. They sent it back to the states.

With the silence of the current occupant of the White House on the violence and threatened violence, we can expect it to escalate.  Those in that crowd understand that the silence and lack of involvement to suppress the violence is a green light to go full speed ahead. 

Spoiled children are inclined to throw temper tantrums to coerce their parents to cave to their demands.  Once they succeed, they continue with no thought of change or ceasing.  I am concerned that those who do not think twice about ending the life of a baby in the womb would have no qualms about taking the life of anyone opposing them.  This is one of several issues that are pushing us to the brink of a full-blown shooting civil war.  America is hanging in the balance more today than at any time in our history. 

We either return to God and moral sanity or we go to war and likely lose the Republic.

God bless you and God bless America!