Dr. Bernard Nathanson, known as a “King of abortion”, would later be an active member of a pro-life organization. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
This goes out in reaction to Tibor Machan‘s opinions as expressed in the following link:
I think humans should respect the rights of girls inside the womb, not just the one with the body outside the womb.
How many more women to die? Never mind that Bernard Nathanson (“The Silent Scream“) video, who testified in Roe v Wade, has repented after watching ultrasound later on, and in answer to a question about the 10,000 women who died in “back-alley” abortions, he said they just “made it up” (his words) because it sounded like a really big number.
So who knows, really. But meantime there is a killing field of little girls (let’s remember the boys, too okay?)
CIA World Fact Book says China has a population from 0 to 14 years old of 124,773,577 male and 107,286,198 female. This means a ratio of 1.163:1 of boys to girls. The natural ratio is something like 1.05 to 1.00. God arranged it that way because males die at a higher rate of death during the earliest years, and normally it balances out. This pattern is seen in statistics I’ve looked at for the U.S.A., too…
That means for a population of that many young males, calculating from the ratio, a “normal” number of females would be 124,773,577. Subtracting the number of girls in their actual census, that means that 11,545,780 girls are missing. They are victims of abortion, a side effect of the one-child policy. And that’s not even counting the number you get if you calculate out the number corresponding to the boys that are also killed in the womb.
Those are real girls who are killed then too, in scalding, burning salt solutions, or their little limbs torn apart inside, or in partial-birth abortion their brains are sucked out from their head through a tube after the rest of the body is kicking outside the womb already.
The militant anti-Christian opinion-setters and propagandists want you to think this is just a Christian cause. Do a Web search on the words “pro life atheists” and there are a bunch of links to “godless prolifers” (as in www.godlessprolifers.com). The fact is, it is a human life.
An important libertarian principle is that individuals are morally and objectively responsible for the consequences of their own actions. Once you have been confronted with the obvious fact that the baby inside the womb is a human being, you have a responsibility to avoid murdering it. This is a fact of innate knowledge in “expectant” mothers, in fact, as so many women in the Silent No More movement have said. They are only “expectant” in the sense they are “expecting” the birth of the baby, in which the baby emerges from inside.
The BIG LIE is to try to talk about abortion (ending the life of the baby inside) as “reproductive rights”. This is Orwellian newspeak, and it is amazing to watch minds adapt this terminology –like Tibor Machan– who in other contexts see through them. After all, he is more intellectually honest than most libertarians in some of his writings that make clear that the fall of socialists –sometimes “with a vengeance”– is all the fault of the CIA.
We all know now that when you have sex, often a conception occurs of a new human being. We all know as well that there is no 100% sure contraception. Babies often happen in spite of these measures. If you engage in the sex, and a baby grows within, then the obligation to respect the non-aggression principle applies. This is not just a “duty” to save a life, something Walter Block has argued against quite effectively.
In fact, due to the dependency that a baby has, I’ve read libertarians argue that the woman has a duty to find an adoptive couple (or even person) if at all possible before killing it. I argue from the principle of consquences that becoming a parent involves positive duty.
This might be seen as requiring a positive right of the baby as individual. That may be, but this is one area were the individual responsibility for the consequences is a special case, since the parent bore that new life and that new human life requires some amount of care in order to merely survive to an age where he can make decisions for himself. The parent is responsible for the baby’s existence, the parent made it happen.
You broke it you bought it, says a sign in big letters easily visible as you enter the china shop. You’re on the shop owner’s property, you follow the rules. It’s a comparable idea. You conceived it (talking about the father too) you “own” it but anything you do that purposefully endangers that baby’s life is an aggression, and therefore is not acceptable.
So now let’s address the REAL issue in these discussions about abortion.
Abortion apologists all KNOW that the debate from the pro-life side is about the BABY. That’s why it’s always “reproductive rights”, as if killing the baby had anything to do with reproduction anyway. The Germans had no “reproductive right” to kill even one Jew for being a Jew, or a Gypsy, or the millions of Christians he did in.
But to women who have done this, there are lots of women who have found their way back to peace and now warn other women, younger women (This is relevant to the debate because women have a natural compulsion within themselves to protect their babies, and it is indoctrinated out of them by depopulation engineers. Or sometimes other factors drive them.)
Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.