Saturday, July 31, 2010

The Courage of Abraham Lincoln and Barack Obama

He was a little-known Senator of slight experience from Illinois. He won the trust of the American people with his articulate sincerity and his open hand always ready for a firm shake and a direct look in the eye. He came to Washington, D.C. by train. He was a rallying point and a lightning rod, and his name was Abraham Lincoln.

Faced with the terrible prospect of a nation divided against itself, a nation founded on the premise that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, a nation which categorically denied these rights to a substantial class of society, choosing instead to subjugate them to the yoke of labor and menial and sexual indignity, to parse families in sale down the river, to use their women for their own bestial purposes, their men as if beasts, faced, I say, with this reality, which was combined with a sympathetic but largely apathetic counterpart in the other half of the nation, this courageous President had the vision to see the forces of economy, necessity and humanity in such conflict as would only allow two alternatives, which alternatives were the "yes" or the "no" to this question which had been suppressed but could no longer be suppressed: slavery. Would he have the courage to extend the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to all of the citizens over whom he presided? Would he have the wisdom to perceive the infection which was consuming the humanity of the body politic, and the painful but necessary--indeed the only--procedure which could lance the wound?

To the great benefit and relief of those American people living in the land which called itself the land of freedom but themselves denied the exercise of that freedom--indeed even the exercise of life itself--he did. He was willing to risk all because he perceived that his nation's Constitution was insufficient to protect the freedoms it had been designed to protect. He perceived that to amend that Constitution was an impossibility as long as the United States were divided along the lines of slavery, and that the proponents of slavery--men who claimed that those they enslaved were not "persons"--were willing to fight and die for their peculiar institution, choosing instead to call what they would defend with blood, the sword, and their lives and those of their families, their "way of life". This President of courage perceived that the history of man moves like the history of the rest of the earth: just as the face of the earth changes by massive, slow, imperceptible processes affecting millions of parts at once, and so also the single bolt of lightning can change a mountain to a valley in the moment of a single drop of rain as well as the same is done by countless years and drops of rain.

This man of courage was able to perceive that just as the United States were divided, some day we would be able to say that the United States is whole.

This man of courage was able to perceive that while untold thousands groaned under the yoke of indignity while their wives were raped or sold or murdered before their eyes, their children forcibly exposed to the elements or made sport of by the twisted imagination of the young slaver, the dignity of the human person could be restored by the stroke of the Presidential pen. So the United States was blessed to receive the Emancipation Proclamation, followed by the Thirteenth Amendment.

Friday our little-known Senator, our President with the earnest face, clarity of speech and open palm, the man who traveled by train through Baltimore on his way to Washington stopped with his pen the use of federal funds for the categorical denial in the state of Pennsylvania of the three fundamental rights of the human person which sparked the fuse of 1776 and ended with bombs bursting in air. It was those bombs which illuminated the night sky and told the young patriot who pined in his cell to know that equal rights would be guaranteed to all people.

And today, tomorrow, or some day while we look towards Washington, eager for the news of freedom, our young President may yet sign another Emancipation Proclamation. Barack Obama may yet earn a place alongside Abraham Lincoln, if he has the courage to extend the rights of the Declaration of Independence to all persons in this nation.

If he has the courage, our President can provide the stimulus for a new Constitutional Amendment, one that will guarantee the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all persons of this nation from the beginning of life.

Will he have the courage to protect the largest class of our society, which is at once the meekest and most in need of our protection, as his chosen hero and role-model once did?

Will Barack Obama have the courage to issue a new Emancipation, really to be the next Abraham Lincoln?

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

What Is An Organism? Or, Why The Abortionist Must Be Fundamentalist When It Comes to Biological Science

At the 4:30 mark of this video appears a person protected from summary execution by private individuals without trial, by the United States Constitution. This person is distinguishable from biological and non-biological matter which is not a part of him by the conventions of modern biological science concerning the definition of an organism.

Consensus in modern biological thought concerning the definition of an organism includes especially contiguity (i.e., the systematic relationship of the interior cells of a multi-cellular organism, or the similar relationship of sub-cellular bodies within the wall of a monocellular organism) and homeostasis. These two characteristics imply the other functions we usually associate with the living organism: response to stimuli, inevitable growth (environmental conditions notwithstanding), reproduction (mating conditions notwithstanding, in the case of sexual reproduction), &c.

The human being has these characteristics at the moment of conception. Once the two parent sex cells, the sperm and the egg, are joined, the inevitable process of development begins, whereby the new organism will eventually develop all of the typical characteristics of adults of its species (the earliest ones being, e.g., a beating heart, hiccups, startle responses (all at 7 weeks)), as well as those which individuate it as a unique member of the species (e.g. red hair (determined at once with DNA), weak lungs, or green eyes).

This process is the result of, and testament to, homeostasis and contiguity in the organism from the moment of conception.

Back to the video: at the 4:30 mark we already observed a person that you or I would not presume to kill.

Why, then, are we permitted to kill the one at the 0:50 mark? Why is this organism at one point in its development certainly considered one of the "men" who "are endowed by their creator with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," while at another point in its development it is not considered one?

At what point does he become a person?

When he is born?

What about when his toes is still in his mother? Can I kill the baby then? (Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) asked Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Ca.) eleven years ago on the Senate floor)

While we're at it, let's review a little bit of that heated conversation on the Senate floor that October 20:

Mrs. BOXER. I don’t believe in kill- ing any human being. That is abso- lutely correct. Nor do you, I am sure.

Mr. SANTORUM. So you would ac- cept the fact that once the baby is sep- arated from the mother, that baby can- not be killed?

Mrs. BOXER. I support the right— and I will repeat this, again, because I saw you ask the same question to an- other Senator.

Mr. SANTORUM. All the Senator has to do is give me a straight answer.

Mrs. BOXER. Define ‘‘separation.’’ You answer that question.

Mr. SANTORUM. Let’s define that. Let’s say the baby is completely sepa- rated; in other words, no part of the baby is inside the mother.

Mrs. BOXER. You mean the baby has been birthed and is now in the mother’s arms? It is a human being? It takes a second, it takes a minute——

Mr. SANTORUM. Say it is in the ob- stetrician’s hands.

Mrs. BOXER. I had two babies, and within seconds of them being born——

Mr. SANTORUM. We had six. Mrs. BOXER. You didn’t have any. Mr. SANTORUM. My wife and I did.

We do things together in my family. Mrs. BOXER. Your wife gave birth. I gave birth. I can tell you, I know when

the baby was born. Mr. SANTORUM. Good. All I am ask-

ing you is, once the baby leaves the mother’s birth canal and is through the vaginal orifice and is in the hands of the obstetrician, you would agree you cannot then abort the baby?

Mrs. BOXER. I would say when the baby is born, the baby is born and would then have every right of every other human being living in this coun- try, and I don’t know why this would even be a question.

Mr. SANTORUM. Because we are talking about a situation here where the baby is almost born. So I ask the question of the Senator from Cali- fornia, if the baby was born except for the baby’s foot, if the baby’s foot was inside the mother but the rest of the baby was outside, could that baby be killed? (-ibid.)


What about when only his head is out? (Disclaimer: this link NOT rated R)

What about before labor begins?

How long before labor begins?

When does this biological organism, homo sapiens or commonly "a human being", receive from the American People the rights attributed to him by their founding documents?

Monday, July 19, 2010

New York Times Obfuscates Findings of Modern Science, Technology, for Pro-Abortion Agenda

Apropos of the New York Times' recent article, the following videos speak for themselves.



These videos feature the people who are being denied the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

These people have committed no crime, and under current American law may be executed without trial by the decisions and actions of private individuals.

Although, as the NYT article quotes one abortionist saying, at this stage it is easier on the nurses' psyches because they are not dealing with discernible body parts, these videos make it clear that one can only hold this position after resolutely turning her back on the clear and present scientific data presented by state-of-the-art fetal monitoring technology.