Nathan Sheets

For the first time in a long time: Republicans win.

Mwahahahaha!

If a woman is attacked, and her unborn baby (or twins) is killed, should the gunman be charged with murder?

Many pro-choicers have no problem saying, "Yes," because the babies were wanted by the mother and even if they weren't, it wasn't an abortion. Sorry guys, but this is another example of your movement being extreme while you are not.

Case in point, brought to my attention by Jill Stanek, Katherin Shuffield of Indiana was shot and wounded while on the job at a bank by a bank robber. Her unborn babies are dead.

The Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled that a wrongful death suit cannot be brought for killing an unborn child, regardless of whether the baby is viable. This was in the wake of a drunk driving accident a few years back when a nearly full-term baby died.

Indiana law also does not define "viability" in reference to its fetal homicide or manslaughter laws. We believe we have identified a murder case in which the courts accepted viability as being 24 weeks.

It appears that fetal battery charges may be the only charges that can be brought.

Several legislators have worked throughout the last two years to correct these problems, but the core issue in Indiana is that our Democrat-controlled House kills every pro-life bill that it gets.

So because the babies were not "viable" (meaning they cannot survive outside of the womb) they are considered unworthy of justice. Sounds like a pro-choice world to me. Jill makes a good point though: "I questioned this, since the doctors decided to deliver the babies, meaning they thought the babies stood a better chance of surviving outside their mother's uterus than inside... meaning they were potentially viable."

Not that it matters whether or not they were viable: they were killed by a non-abortionist, and the mother was not planning on aborting them. Can you imagine what this mother is going through, wounded from being shot and not being able to have justice for her children? The robber remains to be caught. The babies were five months-old, no where near the pro-choice scientific definition of "blob of tissue". (See picture.)

The only reason this is an issue is because of abortion.

Pro-choice advocates, from the feminists and organizations like NARAL and Planned Parenthood, are very, very glad that the robber cannot be charged with murder, as they have openly stated time and time again that such laws would "endanger" a "woman's right to choose".

These people are insane. Even though the babies were wanted and the mother had no intention of aborting. "Sorry, babe. Take a back seat for our agenda next to the blacks. We wouldn't want you and your children being brought to justice to endanger promiscuous teenagers in any way." Women who get knocked up and "exercise their right to choose" are considered heroines and yet a woman who survives getting shot and the loss of her children is potentially a menace to the right to choose. It's nice they care about women, isn't it?

I've written on this before. It's the question of common ground. That is, can we who are pro-life "work together" with those who are pro-choice? I think the answer to that question ultimately is a "Yes", but my follow-up question would be "And what would that accomplish?"

I was thrown back into this train-of-thought from a post that JivinJ linked to, which involved Steve Wagner and Jill Stanek's seemingly opposing view on the subject. (I've met both in person.)

Steve Wagner made the following comment:


Jill responded in her recent World Net Daily column:


Now, I don't think that Jill was making an emphatic statement here; only really expressing a concern that I share with her. There are a lot of pro-lifers who think that we actually have something in common with pro-choicers. Perhaps we do, but this is no time to discuss our common love of banana bread—this is baby-killing we are talking about.

While Steve is right in finding common ground in reaching out to your everyday pro-choicer (on a college campus, for example), I don't think that we will reach the Nancy Keenans of the world with this approach, as he seems to promote by his comments. Whenever I work on a college campus, I almost always find common ground, because these are normal people, not people on the NARAL payroll. They are pro-choice, as opposed to Pro-Choice. The NARAL ladies can't bring themselves to stop calling us "anti-choice" for 5 seconds and think that we are a bunch of white men, even though they've been snarking the movement for 35 years now which is mostly women: believe me, they don't have the slightest bit of interest in what we have to say.

One of the lessons I've learned from a political standpoint is that it's never good to compromise with your enemy. Steve apparently grasps this point, and has no intention of compromising. But you have to say, "What's the point then?" The pro-choicers won't even give us their consideration for something as pathetic as parental notification without making us sign papers allowing free contraception for all females, no matter their age/background. And that's usually a turn-off for most pro-lifers because of our fundamental differences in our views of sex and procreation.

The movements will never be able to work together. Even if abortion were to be made illegal, and the Pro-Choice Prophesy of billions of women sticking coat hangers into their bodies mindlessly actually becomes true, our approaches to stop them from doing so would be different: pro-lifers would love the women, pro-choicers would get them their blessed abortions. 

The next few days will be very tiring and busy. Tonight I will work my night shift, followed by a day of work, followed by another night shift, followed by another day at work:) I took Friday night off, however, so that I will be rested up for the Life is Sacred event on Saturday. That's when I will be meeting Jill Stanek, pro-life blogger extraordinaire! That will be fun. I am taking her out to dinner that night with a few friends if everything works out.

After that I will hopefully have a restful weekend. The Lord knows I need one.

***imtakingjillstanektodinner!****

EDIT: Um, I told her that Portland has lots of cool places to go, and I was thinking, you know, Indian, Italian, Thai, BBQ, etc. She said, "What about organic?"

I must admit that I have no idea where such a restaurant exists in Portland, if at all. *researches*

Jill Stanek posts a great story that almost made me cry. Worth the short read!

From Jill Stanek:

Politically correct personhood

This spectacular Time magazine photo, posted November 21, is of a human embryo implanted in the wall of the uterus.

Except Time called it "[a]n implanted fertilized egg." Judging by the number of cells and placement, this human embryo was about 1 week old, far older than what Time called an "embryo" a day earlier in another article on embryonic stem cell research.

To MSM, agenda drives terminology. And when speaking of human personhood amendments, which Time was in the first article, "fertilized egg" suited the agenda.

Read the rest of her thoughts here.

First of all, this picture is amazing. The idea that we are so helpless early in life—so dependent on a being much greater than we—puts the fear of God in me. The idea that we so easily destroy these tiny lives for our own selfishness also causes me to fear for those who would do it.

The reason Time wrote about this is because there is an initiative in Colorado that will declare that a "fertilized egg" is, in fact, a person. In other words, it will declare what should be obvious. I'll write more about what I think of the initive later, but I wanted to make a prediction that the biggest argument against this initiative will be that birth-control will be made illegal. (It won't, of course.)

As most of you know, hormonal birth control sometimes works by blocking a "fertilized egg" (zygote) from the uterine wall. This means that the tiny life will die right within the mother. Most women are under the impression that the pill (and every other hormonal birth control out there) only works by preventing conception. Interestingly, even Christians don't seem to care when you tell them that they could be killing life within them. Their deluded idea of "waiting" to have kids while they are in a marriage relationship is much more important to them than actually carrying through the purpose of sex.

But the resistance against the truth about birth control pills has been so strong in the past, it will be interesting to watch it come right out now that the agenda is different. As Jill quoted Keith Mason of the CO Personhood Initiative: "Pro-aborts have either been lying for 40 years that the birth control pill doesn't kill a baby or lying now that it does. Does it or doesn't it?"

My thought exactly.

I probably should write something that's relevant to the theme of this blog. That is, that child-killing is wrong. One thing I noted in an article this morning is that Alan Keyes, who is victoriously listed on the American Right to Life website that I blogged about two days ago as being against the "ineffective" Partial-Birth Abortion Ban is actually against a Human Life Amendment, which is pretty much the sole goal of ARTL, other than blasting the National Right to Life, that is.

I wonder if this will irritate the ARTL people. Having a quick conversation with one of them on friend Jill Stanek's blog (which I quickly ditched in favor of not going insane) I get the feeling that making basic, logical connections is not their m'etier. Attacking other pro-lifers is.

Question: Do parental consent laws directly kill babies?
My answer: No. In fact they will save a handful of babies now that parents are clued in. Without the law the baby will be killed a lot easier.
ATL Supporter's Answer: Actually, it's the law that kills the child.

This is literally what I've been told by an ATL supporter. This is not a joke. I'm beginning to think that the pro-choicers are right about pro-lifers' intelligences. (Italics designate sarcasm, S4C ladies!)

Another quote from a supporter of ATL:  "Incrementalism has never, and will never, save a single baby." That's quite a statement to make. NRLC has never (and will never!) save a single baby?

Perhaps I'm being a bit brazen in attributing this perplexing and dim stance on parental consent laws to the entire American Right to Life organization, but I doubt it. I've come across groups like this before, where their sole purpose is to attack Right to Life. Then when you start talking to them—and I'm not even a member of Right to Life, by the way—they attack you and say that your support for parental consent is what sticks the curette into the womb for dismemberment, not an ignorant teenaged mother and murderous abortionist. That's really going to endear me to your cause, guys!

I'm hoping that I can lay off the American Right to Life posts, because I do want to be able to support them if they can actually come up with legislation that won't bring us into another thirty years of Roe vs. Wade. I just wish they would stop insinuating that the rest of us aren't true pro-lifers. Heck, I'm apparently the only pro-lifer in the world that actually thinks mothers should be punished for getting abortions! It doesn't get much more die-hard than that!