Abortion Propaganda

I have been following recent developments in the Kermit Gosnell trial as much as possible, considering the complete lack of coverage by the so-called mainstream media, and thought it would be a good time to address this issue myself.

Before I continue, I should explain my use of non-standard sociological and scientific language. I am aware of terms like 'pro-choice', 'blastocyst' and 'fetus'. I choose not to use this language because it is an attempt at making things seem more socially and morally acceptable. The term 'pro-choice' is simply an attempt at making abortion politically correct and putting a positive spin on what is in truth killing of helpless babies. Scientific terminology for unborn babies in early development is used similarly. It's easier to kill a blastocyst or foetus than it is to kill a baby. I refuse to play these lingual games and will use whatever language best describes the truth.

I'd like to address the silence in the media. Some excuse themselves, claiming the right to cover, or not to cover any particular story. Granted, the right not to speak is as integral to freedom of speech as is the right to speak. However, true journalism has no place for censorship. The sole concern of any journalist or news agency should be to accurately provide all the facts of the world around them, without editing and without agenda. Most media sources refuse to cover the Gosnell trial, and in this have told a lie of omission, showing their pro-abortion agenda, and proving themselves unreliable and untrustworthy as news sources.

I believe what is essentially a media blackout of the Gosnell trial is because the details do not agree with pro-abortion propaganda. The news website wnd.com reported on witness testimony, which exposes the idea of humane abortion clinics as a massive lie. Babies were killed after birth using barbaric methods, including beheading, severing the spinal column, and breaking necks. The 'clinic' was also strewn with blood and baby body parts. Perhaps most chilling are the sentiments of the abortionist who joked about the babies being big enough to walk to the bus stop or home. If we lived in a society that really respected life, this story would be a huge conversation starter. It would be seen as the tragedy it is, and become a catalyst for change. Instead, it is being swept under the carpet in an attempt to keep the lie of humane abortion intact.

Many people claim to have scientific backing for their pro-abortion beliefs. Most supposed scientific arguments are based on placing an arbitrary date on when life begins, allowing the creation of laws which are then seen as 'humane' because they don't push this arbitrary date. The problem here is, such arguments completely ignore basic cell theory which state the following:

1. All living organisms are composed of one or more cells.
2. The cell is the basic unit of structure, function, and organisation in all organisms.
3. All cells come from preexisting, living cells.

Nobody denies that we all start out as cells, but when it comes to the argument on when life begins, abortion supporters ignore basic biology. We know that during conception, a unique genetic sequence sourced from mother and father is formed, resulting in a new cell with human DNA distinct from its mother. The unborn baby grows from this initial cell, through cell division. Cell theory states that all cells come from preexisting, living cells, so if that initial cell was capable of cell division, it must be alive. If that initial cell is alive, the baby's life began at conception, not at some arbitrary stage.

If we accept that life begins at conception, in accordance with basic cellular biology, the atmosphere of moral ambiguity perpetrated by the pro-abortion movement evaporates. Remove the blindfold, and the lie of humane abortion becomes apparent. The unborn child is a human life. This baby is a person, with promise and potential, a life snuffed out in the most horrific way imaginable because it proved to be too inconvenient for somebody. They might cover it up as the right to choice or in the generality of women's rights, but if you dig down to the foundation, the only justification for abortion supporters is self. After all, how can you claim the morality of fighting for the rights of one person, all the while denying the smallest and most vulnerable people their right to life?

Is Free Speech Dead In Canada?

In the recent case against William Whatcott of Saskatchewan, the Canadian Supreme Court has ruled hate speech laws are a constitutionally valid limit to freedom of expression.

According to the National Post, the judges decided that 

Framing speech as arising in a moral context or within a public policy debate does not cleanse it of its harmful effect.

The judges gave the following advice in applying hate speech laws 'objectively':

• The focus is on the effects of the hate speech rather than the intent of the speaker.
• Hate must be understood to be extreme manifestations of emotion described by the words “detestation” and “vilification” but nothing less.
• The focus must be on the effects of the expression at issue, namely whether it is likely to expose the targeted person or group to hatred by others.
• The repugnancy of the ideas being expressed is not sufficient to justify restricting the expression, and whether or not the author of the expression intended to incite hatred or discriminatory treatment is irrelevant. The key is to determine the likely effect of the expression on its audience, keeping in mind the legislative objectives to reduce or eliminate discrimination.
• The difficulty of establishing causality and the seriousness of the harm to vulnerable groups justifies the imposition of preventive measures that do not require proof of actual harm.

Anyone who has any moral standard that compels them to speak should be concerned over this ruling since it essentially eliminates freedom of speech for anything but the most benign of subject matter. Firstly, there seems to be no justification, whether it be moral or political, for speaking your mind. In other words, any form of true political activism for a cause, for example the criminalisation of abortion, could be considered a hate crime if the judge should deem that it causes “extreme manifestations of emotion” and has the potential to vilify a person or group.

If the audience, in the mind of the judge, has reason to think the message is advocating sufficient harm to an individual or group, you could be charged with a hate crime. Since the law apparently does not require proof of either intent or of actual harm, one could be charged with a crime, having innocent intentions and no victims.

How many criminals will use this as a way to avoid responsibility for their crimes? After all, if a non-violent protest can move a person to “extreme manifestations of emotion” and cause mindless “vilification” of a person or group, it is but a step away from blaming your criminal actions, as an audience member, on the protester. Are we as a society really so deluded that we think someone's speech, hateful or otherwise, has got to be the cause? Do we not have the intellectual capacity and judgement to determine for ourselves the truth and an appropriate reaction? If that is no longer the case, I would say government needs to start banning television and movies because those things are full of lies and hypothetical stories that could very easily stir a person into action.

I find it ironic that the government is attempting to protect us from discrimination while perpetrating a discrimination of its own. Some groups of people, for example uncompromising Bible believing Christians such as myself, are being discriminated against by limiting our right to practice our religious beliefs. We do not believe in hiding or compromising the truth in favor of political correctness or unity, any more than Jesus would compromise His teachings to satisfy the religious and political leaders of His day.

Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. (Luke 12:51)

This is not to say our goal should be to cause divison (some translations say controversy), but this is the most likely result of standing fast in our belief as Christians. We will be controversial and divisive simply because we stand against those things our society loves. We are called to publicly preach the truth of the Gospel, including sin. To ignore certain sins is an attempt at hiding truth and reducing our need for Jesus Christ as our Savior. In essence, the government is trying to change how we practice our religious beliefs.

source

These are troubling times for those who feel a moral obligation to stand up for our beliefs. It used to be that standing up for my beliefs earned me a “judgemental” label, which is fine. After all, if I want the right to free speech, I must also respect the other person's right to speak. Not to belittle the suffering of Christians in other countries like Iran and North Korean, but it seems Canada now has a developing system of Christian persecution. We're ok if we leave Jesus in the church, but once we hit the street, we might end up with a nasty fine, or worse, if we don't either shut up, or agree that every lifestyle gets His personal thumbs up. Can I as a Christian really claim to live in a free country when my choices regarding free speech are either compromise my faith or expect my government to punish me?