Pro-Life Juxtaposition

Two stories in the news form a curious juxtaposition. There’s the case of a rescued rat, purportedly female. We won’t delve into how one sexes a rat, but perhaps her sex is serendipitous to our juxtaposition–pertinent that she is a she and that she’s probably also pregnant, which may explain her unfortunate encounter with a too-snug sewer grating. [emphasis added to quotes]

Oh, just look at that pitiful face.

In Germany, a fat rat got trapped in a sewer grate. … It took several volunteer firefighters to rescue the animal. Animal rescuers said the rat likely got stuck because of its size. Pictures and video of the rescue mission look intense. The rodent has returned to her glorious sewer home.

Watch the video at the link to see how valiantly the team of firefighters took up the challenge, working hard, preserving the life of that poor creature and perhaps also the lives of her unborn offspring.

Then there’s this story:

A moral catastrophe unfolded on the floor of the U.S. Senate on Monday. Forty-four Democratic senators voted against legislation that would have required doctors to give the same care to infants who survive abortion procedures that they would give to any other infant.

One after another, Democratic senators took to the floor to smear the bill as an attack on women’s health care, a baseless criticism that they failed to substantiate. In the process, they revealed their belief that allowing unwanted infants to perish after birth constitutes a form of women’s health care. …

No part of the born-alive bill limits abortion access or regulates abortion methods in any way. It involves abortions only to the extent that the infants in question survived them. Nor does the bill mandate any particular kind of care for these infants; it merely requires that these nearly aborted newborns be afforded “the same degree” of care that “any other child born alive at the same gestational age” would receive.

Why would anyone vote against providing medical care to a living infant?

Oh, just look at that sweet face:

To gloss over the despicable implications of their vote, Democrats cited the alleged infrequency of live births after an abortion attempt.

Doctors’ and abortion-rights groups say it is extremely unusual for live infants to be born during attempted late-term abortions, which they say usually occur when the baby is extremely deformed or deemed unable to survive after birth.

In such cases, families sometimes decide they want to induce labor so they can spend time with the infant before it dies.

“It only happens in instances in which we know that the baby will not ultimately survive, and a choice has been pre-made to provide just comfort care” to the baby so the parents can be with it, said Dr. Colleen McNicholas, a fellow with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Is late-term abortion rare? Hardly. For example, there were 8000+ deaths from late-term abortion in 2015 alone.

How many infants are born alive after an abortion? Statistics are sketchy, deliberately so, but this story from 2013 gives us an idea:

“We do have some sense in that with perinatal infant mortality data it is recorded,” Rep. [Cary] Pigman [an emergency medicine physician] told legislators … “In 2010, there were 24,586 perinatal deaths in the United States. Perinatal defines as being from the 22nd week of gestation to seven days post delivery.”

“Those are all coded by international classification,” he noted. Regarding babies who die after a botched abortion: “As of 2010, 1,270 infants were reported in that category — and I emphasize reported,” Pigman explained.

In other words, more than 1,200 babies died following a failed abortion and their … deaths were reported as “mortality subsequent to an abortion.” As the representative emphasized, those are only the number of reported deaths following botched abortions, and the actual figures could be higher.

If a single child survives abortion, that child deserves his or her chance at life. That child deserves–is endowed by our Creator with–the same constitutionally protected rights that all human beings enjoy. Life being first among them.

In such cases, the “choice” is obviously not about the mother’s body. The choice these people wish to make is the choice to ensure that the living child dies from lack of health care that would have been provided had the child been wanted by his parent(s).

Anything less for a wanted child would be called child neglect and abuse. Such children would probably be made wards of the state, on an emergency basis, and care would be given, as it should be.

Consider the implications of what that doctor said, above:

Families sometimes decide they want to induce labor so they can spend time with the infant before it dies.

Are families deciding to abort a fetus? No. They’re deciding to “induce labor” to produce a living child. Once the child is born, then, their chance to “choose” abortion is over.

There is no such thing as post-birth abortion!

When labor is induced, a child is born, just as thousands of children are born every day via induced labor.

What these parents and doctors actually want to “choose” is a “right” to ensure that the deformed or unwanted child does indeed die, but after birth, not before.

How early is labor induced? We’re talking about late-term abortions here, but inducing labor to bring forth a living child so the parents can spend time with the child isn’t abortion. Is it?

Or is that the point? Are they trying to preserve a fiction that it’s not an abortion, but at the same time ensuring that the result is the same as an abortion? It’s sick.

Again, we’re talking about late-term abortion here. If the pregnancy ran its full course and if the baby would indeed “ultimately” die, wouldn’t the parents still be able to spend time with the child before that sadly happens?

Why then induce labor? Why an abortion at this late date? Why not allow nature to take its normal course? Forgive me for wondering whether labor is induced in these cases to ensure that the child dies from prematurity, because the child may not actually “ultimately” die or because a “deformed” child may not necessarily die from the deformity.

What would happen to a doctor who induced labor to prematurely deliver a wanted child, whose life was then put at risk from premature birth?

Is there a difference between feticide within the womb and inducing labor at a point at which a premature child would require medical intervention to preserve its life, but then “choosing” only comfort care to ensure that the living child will die (aka infanticide)?

One has to wonder if children with Down Syndrome are meeting this fate. Read here about a German abortion survivor who had Down Syndrome.

In Germany an estimated nine out of 10 Down syndrome diagnoses lead to an abortion.

Yet there’s a good deal of compassion for rats in Germany.

One also has to wonder what happens in this country if a child stubbornly refuses to succumb. Is the child starved to death? Does it, will it, die of thirst? What exactly constitutes “comfort care?”

For whatever despicable reason, the Supreme Court and state legislatures have invented for women a “right” to abortion. The “right” to choose what to do, as the saying goes, with their own bodies. 

Once born, however, even “extremely deformed” babies or babies expected (by someone) to “not ultimately survive” are without doubt still human beings who deserve their God-given right to life.

By the way, every last one of us will “not ultimately survive.” Does that fact make murder okay?

If all of this makes you queasy, join the club.

Below are two videos featuring Gianna Jessen, another real-life abortion survivor, who was born alive, and thankfully remained alive, after an attempted abortion.

Consider again the juxtaposition:

Our world has room for compassion and mercy for born and unborn rats–plague-carrying vermin, cute though they may be.

And yet the Democrats seem to have no room in their hearts for compassion and mercy for born and unborn human beings.

Preserve the lives of abortion survivors!

And pray that the unborn get back their right to life.

Human lives matter!


74 responses to “Pro-Life Juxtaposition

  1. Very suspicious story coming out of New Zealand.
    Four operatives simultaneously attack two different mosques
    and shoot and kill lots of people. Death toll stands at 40.
    Also car bombs were planted but made safe. Also video of
    the shooting was livestreamed to the web in real time.
    Why suspicious?
    Maybe I am just suspicious, me.
    But it is too organized, too over the top,
    especially livestreaming the event.
    It is as if somebody wanted to stage a multi-day news grabbing event
    to shut down some other news that is emerging somewhere else.

    It reminds me of the Las Vegas event.

    • I agree. Just as Trump vetoes the resolution. And they immediately claim that he was a Trump supporter (go figure. This is half a world away.) Too pat. Too perfect. They’re running out of DemoncRAT places to stage these things and people are getting suspicious, so are they just exporting the false flags? Additionally, is New Zealand part of the “Five Eyes”, potentially putting that country at risk of being outed for their complicity and collusion with the “dossier” and the attempted coup against POTUS? Yes, indeed. They are. Don’t they have country-wide strict gun control? What was the status of the alleged shooter or shooters? Legal gun owners? It certainly is “too over the top,” just like LV. Did it truly happen? I didn’t hear about car devices. Made safe by whom?

  2. As I wrote the above, that was just breaking news. Not all straight news outlets had the story and certainly none of the alt-news sites will have anything yet.
    The straight news sites are reporting that the attack was carried out by a group of white supremacists. Yup them guys again. When I saw this story first on a TV station, the confused reporting said that four people are in custody and a police spokesperson said that the suspects were not on the radar of any security services in that country.
    Gee, you would think that white supremacists in a group would be known to the spooks, wouldn’t ya?
    From helpful wikipedia:
    The Five Eyes, often abbreviated as FVEY, is an anglophone intelligence alliance comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. These countries are parties to the multilateral UKUSA Agreement, a treaty for joint cooperation in signals intelligence

    Yet none of those spooks picked them up. Amazing!
    Whenever an outrage occurs SOMEBODY has to commit it but I think that there are pre-prepared assets in various places waiting to be “triggered”. At least that’s what I heard online so it might be true.
    For now I won’t just believe everything I hear.

    In other curiously timed stories:it is being reported that there could be a big
    solar storm any day now and it might put the lights out or take the internet down for a while. Or make facebook go offline. That too!
    REALLY? ya don’t say!

    • Oh, ha ha. I see we were thinking along the same lines. I answered your previous comment before reading this one. Yes. Five Eyes. And according to Hannity, the sh** is about to hit the fan. The reason, imho, the four guys weren’t on the spook radar is that they’re spooks themselves.

      As for the solar storm: I say, look for the northern lights, then! They’re spectacular, when we get to see them.

  3. OK Miri,
    I skimmed that whole justice dept download and it is completely unredacted
    however it only covers the Clinton email problem, the huma abedin laptops, the lynch tarmac meetings and all sorts of strange and probably illegal intercommunications amongs fbi staff.
    It does not mention anything about FISA warrants and illegal surveillance of the President, the Steele dossier etc.
    So I conclude that isn’t the document that “Q” is making all the noise about.

    • I probably bookmarked it back then, intending to read it, but my eyes start to glaze over. Know what I mean? I haven’t read all the Strzok or Page testimony yet. I wonder WHAT document Q is making noise about then? I once had a link to read Q but no longer have it.

  4. John Podesta was in NZ a couple of days before the shooting?
    Was he involved with this crime?

    20 minutes in

    • THAT IS very curious, indeed, if the visits truly took place. As with other “false flags,” you have to ask if this really happened or was a scripted “reality” program designed as propaganda for the global progressive agenda.


        He was there on March 10, in New Zealand. Do note how the story mentions Five Eyes.

        Now this is in the news a lot lately, when formerly it was discussed mostly on the blogosphere with regard to the coup attempt against POTUS and how the UK and its former colonies helped conspire against our president and interfere in our elections. Now this may be ready to come out, if there’s any justice in the world. POTUS, iirc, considered the effect on our so-called “allies” if the TRUTH came out about WHO was spying on whom in 2016 and why, which is why he didn’t declassify.

        In any case, today in the mainstream news they were talking Five Eyes and how, sadly, the U.S. intelligence community doesn’t do, in their opinion, enough against the so-called white supremacy/white nationalist “movement” that they claim is a threat to all because it’s going “global.”

        So what is the progressive/Deep State agenda here? To OPENLY use the Five Eyes to spy on people here in the U.S., as they already do in their quid pro quo system where we spy on their people and vice versa and then share data because, at least here in the U.S., they’re NOT SUPPOSED TO SPY ON US WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE AND WARRANTS. At least the CIA isn’t supposed to.

        So this could very well be a dual-purpose false flag: Attempt to inoculate the Five Eyes bad actors from fallout from the investigations in to what REALLY happened in 2016 AND prepare the people to realize the “good purpose” behind these people SPYING ON US AND VIOLATING OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. I haven’t read that one yet, but it seems interesting. Okay. I just read it and see the person thinks along the same lines we do. Mentions another potential reason: Excuses to censor the Internet, which IS happening.

        I saw somewhere that the NZ authorities actually contacted websites whose owners are here, in the USA, asking for the names and IP#s of people who simply TALKED ABOUT the manifesto and the video the alleged murderer posted! (If there were any murders in the first place.)

        I can’t help but ALWAYS think Brennan. Muslim targets. His fellow travelers.

        Still reading this one, , but the person has a point about how the social media giants could be sued by the victims (if any. I don’t expect to see any suits and you can imagine why. I’m eagerly awaiting discovery in the Sandy Hook suit against gun companies.)

        What’s interesting is the person’s allegation that the social media corps. are COMPLICIT in the terrorist event. Now THAT’S more likely, a closer connection, than trying to blame POTUS or Chelsea Clinton for their vague words and opinions that have nothing whatsoever to do with this murderous event.

        Everything is or seems totally scripted. Right out of Hollywood. Hit on all the cylinders. Memes. Narratives. I do believe it’s a trollish false flag.

        I read today that Ocasio-Cortez alleged that “thoughts and prayers” is an NRA phrase intended to deflect from the (in her mind) logical need for gun control after such events. Now this is a new one. If you say “thoughts and prayers” after a tragedy, that means you’re in collusion with the NRA and are a right-wing extremist.

        Which is something else I noticed today. Despite the FACT that the man’s manifesto says China (as left-wing as you can get) is his ideal system of government and that he’s a self-described “eco-fascist” who admires socialism and communism and NOT the policies of POTUS, the media continue to describe him as a “right wing” terrorist.

        In any case, another TELL in this whole thing that shows it’s a hoax and a joke to the alleged murderer: He flashed the “OK” sign at his arraignment. Now everybody with an OUNCE OF SENSE knows that that is NOT a sign of “white supremacy” or “white nationalism.” Only idiots like Ocasio-Cortez would think so.

  5. podesta alsovisited parkland a few days before that shooting?

    also 28 parkland students went to Cristchurch just before the shooting?
    visited the mosque?

    what are the odd?
    There should be an investigation

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s