The American Media and Killing Babies

The killing of babies is one major area in which I strongly disagree with far too many who are (or claim to be) lovers of liberty, and who subscribe to the “non-aggression principle.”  But most (not all, of course) of those who disagree with me on when a child is a human, and whether abortion is an immoral action which DOES constitute aggression against another and innocent human, DO agree with me that infanticide IS immoral aggression, and that what this murdering thug did was evil.  But the “liberals” and Tranzis of the world, especially the vicious kind in control here in North America, do not see any problem.  So when Mama Liberty brought this to my attention, it is indeed suitable for a rant.

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (Thomas Jefferson)

Culture wars: Killing babies
Philadelphia Abortion Clinic Horror – What Belongs on the Front Page

(USA Today)

Mama’s Note:  Unbelievable: I don’t usually look at USAToday, but I might start doing so.

(Note: On Saturday, apparently the Washington Post had a front-page news story – I’ve not read it, but doubt if it will change my conclusions discussed below.  Still…)

Nathan: This USAToday article is, of course, opinion, but you should read it – if you can stomach the horror of it.  This is no slasher movie – this is a politically powerful and connected mass murderer in the heart of one of America’s formerly-greatest cities.  My first response was like that of MamaLiberty:  why on earth would the Tranzi thugs that own and operate USA Today publish something like this?  Then I realized the term to remember is “scapegoat.”  THIS is the natural progression of abortion-on-demand and the amorality growing today, but unless the pro-abortionists (forGET “pro-choice” – they’ve made it obvious that the ONLY acceptable choice 9 out of 10 times is the kill the baby – inside or out of the womb) can show that somehow this sort of “in your face” murder of CHILDREN is both hidden but  “punished” then the backlash will see the killers of children themselves AND their supporters destroyed politically and probably financially.  And perhaps personally.

By hiding it from the front pages, the truth of this evil Gosnell and his power will be far less likely to come out: that municipal and state – and probably even federal “law enforcement” and other agencies KNEW what was going on – KNEW that thousands of children were killed IN and OUTSIDE the womb, and the killing was both premeditated AND in a way more cruel than is allowed for pets or food animals. By burying it in the opinion section, the USA Today cabal can have its baby and eat it too: claim that “abuses have been punished and prevented.”  Of course, that is bogus – pure lies, even while at state and national level the abortionists and pro-abortionists promote and fund their religion with money stolen from taxpayers by government and speak openly about allowing women and their “caregivers” to quickly decide whether a baby born by accident is to live or be killed.

About TPOL Nathan

Follower of Christ Jesus (christian), Pahasapan, Westerner, Lover of Liberty, Free-Market Anarchist, Engineer, Army Officer, Husband, Father, Historian, Writer.
This entry was posted in Nathan's Rants and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to The American Media and Killing Babies

  1. Paul K. Brubaker, Sr. says:

    Folks who are NOT pregnant do not get abortions. Some who are pregnant do not get abortions. Adoption is a very real, altho’ somewhat legally sticky, alternative. I do understand the concerns about rape, incest, and medical emergencies. I am NOT in favor of anti-abortion laws simply because when they were in effect, women, young women in particular, got them anyhow.
    I do NOT believe that gov’t [we, whe people] should be forced to pay for abortions or for contraceptives. If anyone is willing to have sex, they should be willing to supply contraceptives themselves, BOTH of them.
    If you’re going for a drive, you check the gas guage before you leave, and you do not expect gov’t to either pay for your fuel or to pay for the tow if you run out.


    • MamaLiberty says:

      Women actually make their “choice” when they engage in behavior that may result in conception. If women seriously prepared to defend themselves (not to mention deciding not to get drunk, high and naked with strangers…), the problem of rape would be very small as well. In any case, killing the innocent is not really an acceptable solution for crime, let alone indiscretion.

      But as with all other aggression against others, it isn’t the “law” that solves the problem either. Self defense, defense of the innocent, family and community peer pressure that encourages integrity and non-aggression… these are the only things that are effective in the long run. A long prison sentence cannot restore a single life. Nor can it compensate those who have suffered.


  2. JdL says:

    Of course the killing of a child already born alive is horrifying. So what? Does this mean we should persecute people who abort a blob of protoplasm that could not possibly live on its own? Is this blob a “baby”, a “child”, or a “human being”? Nonsense!

    It strikes me as significant that the majority of outspoken anti-abortion fanatics are men. YOU would never have to carry a child, Nathan, but you apparently want to make rules for women who do. You say you’re a “free-market anarchist”, but apparently you want to use the brutal power of the state to peer into the orifices of every woman in every doctor’s office, to make sure something you don’t like isn’t going on.

    There are huge numbers of problems facing actual living, breathing human beings, yet some people like to focus their energies on what I would consider to be a non-problem. Whatever floats your boat, I suppose, except that there are real-life consequences for actual women when fanatics go on a rampage.


    • MamaLiberty says:

      Can’t recall that Nathan wrote a word about involving the “state” in this problem. Is that the only alternative?

      What would YOU do if someone was about to murder someone standing nearby. Would it matter what age they were?

      What is a human? Who’s life is important? What can we do about that? How is the destruction of ANY innocent life a “non-problem?”


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