Cruelty Includes Killing Babies
I was thinking. We castigate Moslems for their murderous animalism in every country a door of welcome is opened to them. And well we should.
Americans condemn and scorn demonic predators who comport themselves in robes of the most expensive silks and cottons even as they engage in sexual abuse on a global scale. And once again, well we should.
We should condemn barbarism wherever it is practiced and that includes right here in the United States of America, the land of the free and the home of the brave. Unless you happen to be a baby, in which case the person is a “choice” or an “unwanted extra burden.”
Every Democrat presidential hopeful including those who have dropped out of the race championed baby-killing. Democrats like Virginia’s Governor Northam proudly support infanticide. They boast of supporting legislation that allows time after a child is fully born, to decide if the woman really wants to keep the baby. If they change their mind and decide not to keep the child, it is simply abandoned to die in a pan or on a tray. Keep in mind these are healthy, full-term children, that are average length and weight for a newborn.
Many American churches and denominations celebrate moral wickedness. An example of same is: “Jes Kast, a pastor in the United Church of Christ, spoke up as someone who does not fit those categories. She supports abortion rights, and is representative of her denomination on this issue: According to the Pew Research Center, 72 percent of people in the UCC, a small, progressive denomination with a little less than 1 million members, think abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Kast also serves on the clergy-advocacy board of Planned Parenthood, which works to “increase public awareness of the theological and moral basis for advocating reproductive health,” according to its website.” (See: A Pastor’s Case for the Morality of Abortion; Emma Green; 5/26/2019)
This so-called minister, church and denomination are by no means the exception. They are representative of the level and depth of godlessness many churches have embraced.
America has provided for the murder of over 55 million children under the pretense that they are a choice. Well, if killing a chid is nothing more than a choice, then so is Moslems burning homosexuals to death, butchering women, along with raping and sodomizing young girls and trafficking others to men who can afford their price. There’s no difference between killing a baby and a Moslem selling a teenage girl into sexual bondage at 14 or 15 years of age, where she will be expected to sleep with dozens of men every day the rest of her marketable life. When such girls are worn out and no longer an income maker they are either killed by an overdose of drugs or disregarded on the streets in slums, where they will die from neglect. Quoting Hillary: “what does it matter?”
I mentioned that America was the land of the free and home of the brave – however that is not true if you are a baby who had the strength to survive abortion but not the ability to escape the pan you are thrown into and left to starve or choke on your own blood until you die.
Born alive aborted children have fewer rights than the children Moslems sell into sexual bondage. So how can America in good consciousness condemn one act without condemning the other? Are not both acts evil? Apparently Obama doesn’t think so. Not only has he repeatedly invoked God’s blessings upon Planned Parenthood for as he puts it, doing good work, but in Chicago he advocated for abortion practices even Planned Parenthood did not advance.
In my nationally syndicated column titled, Darth Democrat, I wrote: “Another trademark of uber-liberal socialists like Lord Obama is complete disregard for human life – especially the lives of the elderly, physically challenged and the unborn. Or in Obama’s case, even the “Live-born abortion victims.” He claimed his reason for not supporting SB1093, the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act,” was the measure didn’t include the “life and health of the mother” provision.
A question that begs an answer is where, exactly, does the threat to the mother lie in said infant protection? Interestingly enough, Obama refused to support two bans which did include exceptions for safety of the mother. So his refusal to support anti-partial-birth abortion bills HB382 and SB230 comes as no surprise.
He also refused to support SB1095, which creates a cause of action for harm or neglect that comes to a child “born-alive” after a labor-induced abortion. Add to that his “no” vote on SB1661, also part of the “Abortion Alive Protection Act,” which created the “Induced Birth Infant Liability Act.”
There was a deafening silence when NARAL said “Legal abortion will result in a reduction in welfare roles.” (Loose-leaf booklet titled “Organizing for Action.” Prepared by Vicki Z. Kaplan for the National Abortion Rights Action League, 250 West 57th Street, New York, N.Y. 10019 – 51 pages, no date. See especially the chapter written by Emily C. Moore, Ph.D., titled “The Major Issues and the Argumentation in the Abortion Debate,” pages 33 to 43.)
Between weeks 20 and 30, an unborn child has more pain receptors per square inch than at any other time, before or after birth, with only a very thin layer of skin for protection. Mechanisms that inhibit or moderate the experience of pain do not begin to develop until weeks 30-32. Any pain the unborn child experiences before these mechanisms form is likely worse than the pain an older child or adult experiences (Expert report of Dr. Kanwaljeet S. Anand, Northern District of the U.S. District Court in California, Jan. 15, 2004. Dr. Anand is a board-certified pediatrician who specializes in the care of critically ill newborns and children, and has conducted over 20 years of intensive research and study on the development of pain and stress in human newborn infants and fetuses).
Planned Parenthood, perhaps the most prolific abortion-genocide machine, would have the public believe that impaling a woman with what amounts to a shop vac that rips apart a tiny unborn child is painless. They want the public to believe that having an unborn baby burned to death from salt solution is painless. Tell that to the woman experiencing cramps as her unborn child kicks and rolls violently as it is slowly burned to death in the solution.
Planned Parenthood, NARAL, Barack Obama, D-Ill., and liberal courts would have us believe there are justifiable circumstances to rip apart an unborn, full-term child part way outside its mother’s womb and then have what amounts to a small pick axe driven through the back of his/her skull killing them. (See: Turkeys Matter, But Children Are A Choice; 11/29/2005)
Liberal satanically-guided groups cannot support the murder of children, but decry cruelty to animals and curse men like Harvey Weinstein. Life is precious and the more vulnerable the person, the more precious their life.
Women who claim they were treated like sexual appetizers for movie moguls and on-air personalities whenever the men wanted to be gratified, had the ability to make a choice unborn children do not have. If a woman values money, acclaim and status more than she does her self-dignity that’s her decision. If they decide to accommodate sexual harassment for years in silence, that is their decision. But an unborn child has no such decision making ability.
About the Author
Mychal S. Massie is an ordained minister who spent 13 years in full-time Christian Ministry. Today he serves as founder and Chairman of the Racial Policy Center (RPC), a think tank he officially founded in September 2015. RPC advocates for a colorblind society. He was founder and president of the non-profit “In His Name Ministries.” He is the former National Chairman of a conservative Capitol Hill think tank; and a former member of the think tank National Center for Public Policy Research. Read entire bio here