Toe the Line or Get Out
Elites of the medical profession are making a push to eliminate health care professionals who wish to perform their duties with a conscience. They declare conscientious objection unethical. If you want to be a doctor and operate in accordance with the Hippocratic Oath ("I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm"), you'll not be allowed to do it here. If you want to be in the health care profession, you'll have to submit your personal conscience to the consensus of the majority. You're opposed to killing? The majority thinks it's okay? Kill or get out. (Note: The paper was coauthored by bioethicist Ezekiel Emanuel, one of Obamacare’s principal architects. Are you sure there were no "death panels" in that plan?)
"It's just one paper," you say. In Canada, Ontario mandates that physicians participate in assisted suicide. In the state of Washington a small, family-owned pharmacy store was ordered to carry "morning after" pills and other abortifacients against their beliefs or get out of the business. In Vermont it is required of physicians to counsel patients on ending their lives. The ACLU is making a point of going to court on this principle, suing one Catholic hospital in California for refusing to perform a sex-reassignment surgery and another for refusing to provide sterilization to a woman. Don't expect this to be a "one off" or to decline in the future.
Military Intelligence ... an Oxymoron
Bradley Manning (you'll see him referred to as "Chelsea" because he has delusions of gender) has been released in accordance with a commuted sentence from President Obama. Bradley, convicted for leaking a massive number of classified documents (called "treason" in normal vernacular), will remain on active duty after release because, he is appealing his conviction. What does that mean? He'll continue to get health coverage ... so he can continue his government-paid sex change ... which makes sense to someone somewhere.
To be fair, it is military law to cover someone during an appeal, so I could cast no aspersions on the military. It's the courts that have done this, requiring the army to stop calling him a man and to pay for his sex change. On the other hand, they were military courts that ruled this way, so ...
Crossing the Line
This sad story is one of those "lines", a definitive moment when which side you take has major ramifications. A court in India has granted the right to an abortion to a 10-year-old girl. Why? She was raped by her stepfather. Horrible story. The stepfather was arrested. Good. The little girl was impregnated. Bad. And this one is one that so many anti-abortion folk would give a pass. The standard exception is "in the case of rape or incest". (Frankly, I've never figured out the "incest" one. If it was rape, it wouldn't matter if it was a relative or not. If it was not rape, why does "incest" excuse the abortion?)
The question you have to ask yourself is this: Will your emotions determine what is right? All the factors -- the girl's age, the rape, the incest -- all cry out for making an exception in this case to go ahead and kill this baby. If this is your position, then you may, perhaps, be classified as "anti-abortion", but you cannot be classified as "pro-life". This is where you get to see where you stand. Is it about choice, or is it about life?
More from the Religion of Peace
Last week I brought you the story of Indonesia's conviction of a Christian "blasphemer" (where "blasphemy" was demonstrated by quoting a verse from the Quran). This week another story comes out of Indonesia. Two gay men were sentenced to 85 whacks with a cane for ... you know ... doing what defines "gay men". Neighbors suspected them, so they broke down their door and arrested them, complete with video. The ABC News story says this is "further undermining the country's moderate image." Ya think? Christians believe the behavior is sinful, but I don't know a single Bible-believing Christian who is calling for public caning of sinners. (Bible-believing Christians call for them to trust Christ.) Not true in the places ruled by the "religion of peace".
What kind of campaign??
Apparently CBS has a "hit show" called "Mom" about a dysfunctional mother/daughter duo ... the kind of show that convinced me to disconnect the antenna/cable. Well, this week they decided to donate $250,000 to Planned Parenthood instead of using the money for their Emmy campaign. Now, wait ... Emmy campaign? They do campaigns to get the awards? Large campaigns? Big bucks? Apparently. And, according to the story, the team met and asked, "What might our Emmy campaign be?" and star Allison Janney said, "Let's give the money to Planned Parenthood!" So that is their Emmy campaign. Follow that through. "We want to win an Emmy. We'll need to pay to do it. What is the best way to spend our money to win an Emmy? Give the money to kill babies!! Yeah!" "It makes sense," Janney said. "Our show is all about women and we don't shy away from dealing with all issues that affect women and families." Affects families by killing them? Nice.
3 comments:
The forcing of medical people to go against ethical practices is what the LEFT wants all the way. Really, that is what Obamacare is also all about.
As for Manning, Obama pardoned him and the LEFT is praising his pardoning. He's a traitor who at other times in history would have been summarily shot. And only the Obama administration would force tax dollars to pay for a delusional man to have his body mutilated so he can pretend to be a woman. Our military took a real downhill slide into perversion under Clinton, but under Obama it has gone the way of the rest of culture, promoting every perversion possible while losing fighting abilities. Our military in the worst shape it's been since before WWII, thanks to the Obamanites.
Oh, and Manning's sharing of secrets caused all sorts of harm and the LEFT is okay with than, while hypocritically they are on a witch hunt to destroy Trump for something that might have been shared.
Crossing the Line
Without a doubt, I would do all to encourage the saving of both the unborn and the child who will bear it. But I do admit in debates about abortion, I have often offered to allow the lame "rape or incest" possibility in order to cease all other abortions not related to preventing the death of the mother by giving birth. Of course, I do this to force their admission (implied by their objection to the offer) that they are totally supporting total access to abortion on demand for any reason whatever. They aren't really concerned about rape and incest victims when abortion on demand is their true cause. Which leads to...
What kind of campaign??
I just read of a state out west (I think) where several PP locations closed. While an Iowa branch whined closings there was due to lack of funding (yeah...right), the western branch admitted the reason was lack of clientele. Women were going to other health care providers for their issues. In the lion's share of cases, the other provider was within just a few miles of the PP location the women could have chosen. The "women's health care needs" argument is nonsense. They can get all their non-baby murder needs met elsewhere quite easily.
From a purely political position, I would wholeheartedly support a law banning abortion in all cases other than rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother. I would gladly support a ban on 98% of abortions. However, that does not mean that I think those abortions moral or appropriate.
Post a Comment