Nathan Sheets

The Right of Return and the Forgotten Refugees by Peggy Shapiro

Enter "Right of Return" on any search engine and you will get some variation of the Palestinian claim that Palestinian Arabs who left Israel in 1948 and all of their descendants have the an "inalienable right" to return to Israel. The estimate of the number of Arab refugees (when five Arab nations attacked the new government of Israel in May, 1948) varies, but according to thIe U.N.'s report in 1949, there were approximately 700,000 refugees. United Nations Conciliation Commission, October 23, 1950 Today, Palestinians assert the "Right of Return" for aroun 4.5 million people, most of whom have never set foot in Israel. UNRWA rolls An influx of over four million Muslims into Israel would, of course, destroy Israel as Jewish state.

Read the rest here.

From the Telegraph:

Jin Yani's waters had already broken when China's abortion police came for her. They took her to a nearby abortion centre, injected her unborn baby girl and removed the body two days later.

Mrs Jin's crime was to have become pregnant by her fiance [sic] five months before she married him at the age of 20, the legal minimum.

Pregnancy outside marriage is illegal. But forced abortions are now supposed to be illegal in China.

This is horrifying on a few levels. I can't imagine how a woman would feel, after carrying her child for 9 months, to have him or her killed during birth. We in America are so far from these situations that it's hard for us to even care to relate, but we really should. Please pray for her.

I wonder what will happen with this case. Hopefully it will get some attention.

Jessica over at Bush v Choice is snippy over Missouri governor Matt Blunt's remarks in his recent attempt to block prison inmates from getting abortions. Now, I must say, myself, that I don't see why prison inmates should be the exception in the mad dash to abort children. (Does anyone see any reasoning for this?) Thankfully, to Jessica, pro-choice liberals generally get what they want by using the courts, as they did in this case: the Federal Appeals Court said, yes, women in jail have the right to dismember their children too, thus preventing any glass wall that the jailed women who have spent their entire lives contributing to society have been striving to surpass. Ah, how glorious the victory must be.

Jessica indignitaly quotes Blunt, who said, "Over the last three years, we have … enacted laws that reflect our profound respect for the inherent dignity of each and every life...I am hopeful and prayerful that we can further protect life by enhancing our laws to defend the dignity of human life."

Responding with her usual thought-provoking commentary, Jessica states: "Unless that life is an incarcerated woman, then her dignity doesn't really mean [obligatory curse word] to Blunt." (And the blog entry dramatically ends!)

What kind of a world do pro-choicers live in? It must be nice that any kind of argument, no matter how elementary or advanced, can be ended with, "PRO-LIFERS HATE WOMEN!!!!!11!!!" and a threat to go stick a coat hanger in themselves.

Queen of Child-Killing Advocacy herself, Kate Michaelman, graced us with her presence on the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade with a rather intriguing column in the Los Angeles Times. She frankly states, "Twenty years ago, being pro-life was déclassé. Now it is a respectable point of view. "

In the 1970s, the arguments were simple and polarized: Abortion was either murder or a woman's right to control her body. The fetus, however, stayed largely invisible. The pro-choice movement stayed on the message offensive, tactically shifting in 1989 from women's bodies to the "who decides" [Hahahahaha!] question posed by NARAL Pro-Choice America. But this was rapidly parried by the anti-choice demand that we look at what was being decided, not just who was deciding.

Um, wow. I totally agree with what she just said.

She declares, "It's not 1973. Pro-choice forces must adjust to regain the moral high ground."

This article was actually enjoyable to read, because it reaffirms what I've been saying from the start: pro-choice advocates know the fetus is a human, they just don't care. To have Michaelman of all people admit this is wonderful.

Perhaps some of you have already clued into this "moral highground" of screaming "women, women, body, women!" when discussing abortion pointlessly with some NARAL supporter type on a college campus or, worse, abortiondebate. (Not dissing the community, mind you.) You have the smart ones and the clueless ones: the smart ones are the ones who don't care about the development of the fetus despite any information that comes out (the fetus could literally be saying, "Um, please don't kill me!" and they would tell it to shush, their mother is getting ready to practice her right of bodily integrity, and it would be ever-so-much easier if the fetus would keep it down) and the clueless ones are the ones who don't know about Doe vs. Bolton and think that abortion is illegal after the first trimester. Needless to say, these types don't lead the movement.

It's funny, because pro-choice advocates are so desperate to kill children. They have ignored any new information about the fetus that has come out in the past 35 years that points to "personhood" or claim that, why no, just because a fetus is fully developed doesn't make it a "person", oh wow look at how deep we are talking about "personhood"! ("Personhood" is a term so vaugue that it has come to mean "whatever pro-choicers want it to mean at the time".) They simply are now the most honest they've ever been about their position, which has been the same ever since Roe: they think women have the right to kill their children.

This is from Dawn Eden's blog post called "Supreme Irony". I am quoting it at length because it is wonderful:

At the March for Life conference at the Capitol Hill Hyatt today, I stopped by a display table filled with books and devotional items from Marytown, the National Shrine of St. Maximilian Kolbe.

A soft-spoken, gray-haired woman with kind blue eyes at the table explained to me that she and the other volunteers there were members of the Militia Immaculata, the group started by St. Maximilian to spread devotion to Jesus through Mary.

The woman introduced herself as Margaret Mary and said she was a convert to the Catholic faith, received into the Church on September 8, 1966. We spoke for a few minutes about St. Maximilian, who is a patron saint of the pro-life movement.

As I walked away from the table, one of Margaret Mary's fellow volunteers told me something quite beautiful and poignant about her. He said she was the daughter of the late Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger — who presided over the Roe v. Wade decision, which made abortion legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy.

She is now doing her part to bring healing and justice in the wake of her father's actions, which have resulted in the legal murder of more than 48 million children since 1973. God bless her, as well as her fellow convert to Catholicism and the pro-life cause — Norma McCorvey, aka "Jane Roe."

From Kyle-Anne Shiver at American Thinker:

Susan Smalley of The Huffington Post has one of the most bizarre articles I have ever read. In it, she tells of her son:

"My son asked me the other day if I eat eggs and I said no because an egg has the potential to become an embryo. He then asked me if I believe in abortion rights and I said yes, an apparent hypocrisy to him. That made me pause to think further about the issues and how to address this apparent inconsistency."

After getting to this point of the article I closed it out. I couldn't read the rest for a few hours. I wanted to play a little game and see if I could guess what her deluded reasoning would be in order to show us this "apparent inconsistency" is totally consistent!

And I wasn't disappointed, or that far off from my prediction.

It comes down to the belief in freedom of choice, that we each have the capacity to make decisions to enhance wellbeing and reduce suffering of ourselves, others and the planet, and that we each must be given that right to choose. A country with fewer rules and regulations is one that places a greater emphasis on the individual's right to choose. I choose to be a vegetarian but I would never want rules or regulations enforcing my choice on others. While I choose not to eat meat, I still choose to wear leather (shoes, handbag, etc.), again, an inconsistency to many but in my view a middle ground in the current circumstances in which we live.

This is literally the most confusing thing I have ever read in my entire life. So you don't eat eggs... because they are "potential" embryos, but you have no problem killing actual humans embryos and fetuses because...of choice. And while it's apparently not OK to "force your opinion" on other people by screaming at them not to eat the precious chicken egg, it's totally OK to force your opinion on an actual living fetus. Ladies and gentlemen: we have a pro-choicer who cares more about eggs on the shelf at Safeway than a child in the womb. This is pro-choice logic, my friends.

Smalley then goes into an inane, laborious exegisis about chess and being a pawn in the game of life and blah blah blah. I have no clue how old her son is, but I hope his mom can't con him into thinking that her pro-baby-killing position (oops, I mean "pro-choice" position) is at all consistent, or at least consistent in it's lack of human compassion or logic. He won't if she shows him this article, that's for sure. One has the feeling that this was written late at night at the very last minute. It just doesn't make sense. Smalley needs to go back to the default pro-choice arguement that all women who are getting abortions were raped by their fathers or abusive boyfriends and that all pro-lifers are men.

If pro-choicers were ever consistent in their reasoning—which they aren't unless you count chanting "my body, my choice" in large groups of college women as "consistency"—then they would be making fun of Ms. Smalley right now. We pro-lifers are constantly attacked and ridiculed by pro-aborts because we're against killing "potential life". Firstly, a fetus is most obviously not a "potential life" (they just say that to be cute) and secondly an egg from a chicken most obviously is a potential life. It's not even a potential human life and Smalley "personally believes" that it is worthy of protection: at least any that she would otherwise eat.

Somehow I have a feeling the pro-choicers won't turn on their own.