From
Life Site:
In presenting the annual U.S. report on global human rights, Ambassador Michael Kozak told reporters that abortion is not a human right and therefore "reproductive rights" was no longer included in the report.
"Reproductive rights" was a rather recent addition to the report,
included by the Obama administration that, Kozak claims, never intended
the term to include abortion. He said it only acquired that meaning in
recent years through its use by partisans on both sides of the abortion
debate. If this were true, the question arises as to why the term
abortion is used under the "reproductive rights" section in the 2013
report on Ireland.
Pro-lifers would point out that at least in general usage, the term has
always included abortion. Kozak did correctly describe abortion as a
largely unsettled question of national policy around the world.
Kozak said that forced abortions and involuntary sterilization would
be considered violations of human rights. He said, "it is
internationally recognized that somebody should force you to have an
abortion or coerce you to be sterilized."
Kozak said, "We’ve really gotten at it by flipping back to the
original U.S. statutory language. It’s in places like China where in
order to enforce their – now – two-child policy that there are reports
of coerced abortion and involuntary sterilization [or] in North Korea,
where the government also coerces [or] forces abortion – although
sometimes that’s for political punishment rather than family planning."
The U.S. report and Kozak’s statements on abortion certainly run
afoul of the political left. The report has already been blasted by
Amnesty International which says this is further proof the United States
under President Trump is moving farther away from human rights
globally. The pro-abortion Center for Human Rights maintains that
abortion is a human right through customary international law. (Read more.)
Why Tucker Carlson hates abortion. From Live Action:
As it turns out, the abortion issue is deeply personal one for
Carlson. His father Richard was born in Boston in 1941 – to a
fifteen-year-old girl – before being sent to an orphanage. If abortion
had been legal at the time, Carlson believes, his father probably would
never have been born. “If it had been 1973,” he told a pro-life audience, “I wouldn’t be here.”
The story of his father’s growing-up years is “a really messy story,”
Carlson related. “Just because you make the right decision doesn’t mean
it’s easy. That’s one of the reasons people make the wrong decisions –
because they fear that messiness.” For Carlson, though, that story had a
happy ending. “In the end it worked out great, and I’m here because of
that decision,” he said. “I have lunch with my dad every Friday, and
talk to him every single day.”
Carlson’s pro-life convictions have been strengthened by his own
experiences as well. When he and his wife discovered they were expecting
their second child – they now have four children, three girls and a boy
– their physician informed them that testing showed that their pre-born
son had Spina Bifida. As doctors so often do, he recommended that the
Carlsons procure an abortion. “My wife responded with a very bad word,”
Carlson recalled. “THE very bad word, to indicate that no way this was
happening.” Susan Carlson informed the doctor in no uncertain terms that
“you’re not allowed to kill that child. You know why? Because you’re
not God.”
That son, incidentally, is a tall, strapping young man with no health
issues whatsoever. The doctor who had advised the Carlsons to abort him
had gotten in all wrong – and only the pro-life convictions of Tucker
and Susan gave him the chance to grow up and embark on his own career.
Sadly, many stories do not end the same way. His father and his son are
two reasons why Tucker Carlson is so passionate about the pro-life
issue. (Read more.)
And there is nothing funny about abortion. From
The Stream:
There is nothing the least bit funny about abortion. Not for the
baby’s mother. Not for the baby’s father. Not for the abortion workers.
And, above all, not for the baby, who is brutally terminated in the
womb. There is nothing funny about the remains of abortion (clinically
called the “products of conception”). Nothing funny about the severed
parts of tiny humans — little hands and little legs and little eyes.
Nothing funny about Planned Parenthood making money off these
dismembered babies. There is nothing funny about the after-effects of abortion. Nothing
funny about the grief and guilt experienced by many a mother (and
father). Nothing funny about the women who are unable to conceive after
an abortion. Nothing to laugh about at all. Yet in the midst of a vulgar, over the top “comedy” routine at the
annual White House correspondents’ dinner, Michelle Wolf decided to joke about abortion. (Read more.)
A bishop speaks. From
Word on Fire:
It might be helpful to remind ourselves what Ms. Wolf is referencing
when she speaks of “knocking that baby out of there.” She means the
evisceration, dismemberment, and vivisection of a child. And lest one
think that we are just talking about “bundles of cells,” it is strict
liberal orthodoxy that a baby can be aborted at any stage of its
prenatal development, even while it rests in the birth canal moments
before birth. Indeed, a child, who somehow miraculously survives the
butchery of an abortion, should, according to that same orthodoxy, be
left to die or actively killed. Sure sounds like fun to me; hey, don’t
knock it until you’ve tried it.
I realize that these attitudes have been enshrined in American law for some time, but what particularly struck me about the Correspondents’ Dinner
was how they were being bandied about so shamelessly for the
entertainment of the cultural elite. Let’s face it, the people in that
room—politicians, judges, writers, broadcasters, government
officials—are the top of the food chain, among the most influential and
powerful people in our society. And while the killing of children was
being joked about—especially, mind you, the children of the poor, who
are disproportionately represented among the victims of abortion—most in
this wealthy, overwhelmingly white, elite audience guffawed and
applauded. (Read more.)
Share
No comments:
Post a Comment