Save the 1 Speaker Websites
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 26, 2015
Intellectual Dishonesty ~ by Darlene Pawlik
The Editors at National Review, not their real names, have decided that the pro-life candidates for president should back off from a 100% pro-life, no exceptions stand on abortion.
I do wonder if we were
talking about their demographic, if they would have the same opinion. For
example, if there were open season on reporters and someone wanted to outlaw
the brutal way they were killed, would they suggest exceptions?
Let’s just say that it would
be legal to take reporters into an abortion center and cut their arms and legs
off and crush their sculls. Let’s also imagine that this is government-funded
activity. Perhaps, we could imagine that the main company doing these horrific
murders was allowed to promote their activity in schools and public advertising.
Which reporters would they
decide were inferior? Which ones are not worthy of protection from such a law?
Perhaps, they would choose the writers of gossip pages. After all, they are
gaining from the bad news about other people. Or maybe it would be the ones who
report on the police logs. They are connected with criminal activity, right?
Of course, this is ludicrous.
They wouldn’t be of lesser value because they had some connection to negative
events. The reporters that report on crimes are not the perpetrators of those
crimes.
So, neither is a child
conceived by rape or incest in any way complicit with the crimes of his or her
father. Yet, these reporters think that those children should not be protected
from this brutal form of death.
There is an ignorant,
confused compassion that happens in the minds of people who have not had the
experience of becoming pregnant by rape. They impose their own beliefs on women
to society’s detriment.
Contrary to popular opinion,
women who conceive by rape don’t always want to kill their children. Many know
that their son or daughter is not the perpetrator. They know the child is not
an aggressor, but a second victim of the crime. They know that pregnancy is
temporary, but abortion is forever.
It is intellectual dishonesty
to decide some babies are worth protecting and others are not. I thank the few
candidates that hold the logical conclusion that if only some are protected,
than none are safe. This is what has lead to our current state of abortion on
demand.
To the Editors, I say, “You are practicing
intellectual dishonesty.” That tiny percentage of abortions that take place
because of rape you mentioned is partially because women who are pregnant by
assault are 50% less likely to choose abortion than women in other crisis
situations.
I strongly believe that it is
because they have been violated and they have an intuitive sense that they
would be further violated in their conscience, by violating the right to life
of another.
Society tells them that
killing their child will somehow remove the stigma of rape. This is asinine.
The Editors also mention that
abortion is enshrined in the law. This is a travesty. Instead of promoting this
unjust law, a few candidates are taking a stand against it. These Editors are on
the wrong side. Reinforcing injustice will never make it right.
In
a grievous act of judicial supremacy, five unelected men told the country that
our country’s preborn children would not be protected in the same way as born
children. Thus, a distinction of class was enacted across the nation.
We
have seen unjust laws that singled out a class of people to be held in low
regard. The Native American genocide and the horrible treatment of foreign
slaves were unjust. They had difficulty speaking up for themselves because of a
language barrier.
The
preborn class of people cannot speak up for themselves. It is only a level of
development that separates us. The circumstances of conception should have no
bearing.
They
need society to change the unjust law. They need us to stand up for them.
Darlene Pawlik, VP of Savethe1 and Chair of NHRTL Educational Trust, was conceived by rape and now works every day to stand up and speak up for those who are not able to speak up for themselves.
Sunday, January 18, 2015
Let's Have a Conversation ~By Darlene Pawlik
I really hate politics. The whole idea of manipulating people to achieve a goal is nauseating to me. Playing people like chess, politicians use misinformation and disinformation far too often.
Lest you think Pro-Life advocates are pure and undiluted, let’s look at HR36.
Congress put forth a bill in 2013 called the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (PCUCPA). The Act proposed to ban abortion after 20 weeks gestation because a substantial body of scientific evidence found children of this age have increased sensitivity to pain. At the 11th hour, Eric Cantor put in an exception for rape and incest. He spoke on center stage at the March For Life in Washington DC, shortly thereafter. Is this an example of the kind of politics of access we find among those calling themselves ProLife?
The bill had no chance of passing and even if by some circumstance it did, the President promised to veto it. So, what was the message? The message is that the major Pro-Life groups are in favor of abortion for rape or incest conceived babies. Is there a question here?
In 2015, the PCUCPA was reintroduced with the exceptions intact. Instead of using it as a conversation starter, major Pro-Life groups immediately sent out emails to their constituents, with not a word of the flaws, that this is a chance to save babies from abortion. The flaws: rape conceived babies feel pain too, it sets guidelines for approved killing of children in the womb prior to 20 weeks, it has provisions for the dismemberment and disposal of children, if carrying them to term might cause the mother harm.
Any real doctor could deliver a baby in the latter circumstance and if the baby were too young and died as a result, there has been no intentional murder. This is not the language of the bill in question. These major groups surely have lawyers. Even if we were to believe that no legal person read the bill for them, I cannot get past the clear ethical violations to our Pro-Life Principles.
I am of average intelligence. The glaring flaws of this piece of eckhumm, legislation were immediately apparent to me. And what of those emails sent by the major Pro-Life groups? What was their purpose? In every case, there was an appeal to help fund the fight to get more legislation like this passed. I really find it astonishing that this is the kind of legislation we would want passed, if we are working day after day to stop the horror of abortion in our country.
Disillusioned? Me too. This bill will not save one baby. However, when I sent a note to request that ProLife organizations demand the exceptions be removed, I got a mindless response stating and I quote, “This will save 18,000 babies.” Really? That’s quite a claim. Was this misinformation or disinformation and if we believe that it could possibly be true, on what basis?
This is purely political manipulation. The hundreds of thousands of people who will be in DC for the March for Life believe in their leaders. They flock to initiatives and conferences and send their hard-earned money to work toward an America that doesn’t promote government-sanctioned and government-funded genocide. The Pro-Life organizations do a lot of good work toward building a culture that respects life, unless like me, that little person was conceived by rape.
Let’s think about that for a moment. Biologically speaking, if we simply ignore the mode of conception, prenatal development doesn’t differ depending on how that baby was initially formed. My biological father is a monster, but should I deserve the death penalty for his crime?
We are talking about 20 weeks in this discussion. There have been many stories of babies not much older, being born and going home to a happy life. Are we really suggesting that at the point of development when science has determined a child can feel the most excruciating pain it should be ok to kill them at all? This is the discussion we should be having. This is what the major Pro-Life groups should keep in front of the American people.
What if the abortion vendors promised to anesthetize the babies before hacking their arms and legs off and crushing their sculls? That would solve the dilemma of aborting pain capable children. No. We are not Pro-Life because we don’t want people to experience pain. We are Pro-Life because we believe people are of inestimable value; created in the image of God.
This discussion could be just as powerful to raise funds and way more powerful to influence the culture to respect life, if it were consistent. How logical is it to say that some crisis pregnancies involve a baby worth saving and some do not? It completely undermines the whole point. If we believe that children are created in the image of God, then how can we postulate the concept that there would be exceptions?
Let’s continue the conversation. Some may say I have no right to say a woman who has conceived a child by rape should carry to term. I have been a nurse for more than 25 years. So, I understand that the complications of abortion vs term pregnancy are grave. I have five children. I had no easy pregnancies. My first child was conceived as a result of human sex trafficking in my teens. I know how horrible rape is. I know what it is like to be in a crisis pregnancy and I know that you can go through to the other side with honor and dignity.
Differences of opinion abound on innumerable subjects, but when it comes to life and death, shouldn’t all ProLife advocates be trying to protect all lives? There are so many ways to advance the cause of life. How would you do it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

