Does it depend on who is being killed?

I drove by a church the other day with a huge sign over the front of it that says “Thou Shalt Not Kill, Stop the death penalty.”

I called to see if they had a position on the abortion issue and they said they don’t take political positions. Hmmm. Ok, that must be their definition of consistency. Or they must think that God feels it is better to kill an innocent baby BEFORE he MIGHT commit a crime, than killing a killer who HAS committed a crime.

What then should we do about the perpetrators of war crimes who are rounded up in UN detention centers? Should they be executed or not? In Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi faces the death penalty for trying to liberate her people. So those who commit war crimes face the death penalty, and those who oppose those who commit war crimes face the death penalty.

But who decides who should die and who shouldn’t? Even Al Gore is conflicted. He suggested that Milosovich and Saddam Hussain should both be assassinated, yet he is against the death penalty in America.

It seems as though pro-choice women are the only group who have the unfettered right to decide who lives and who dies.

Over 40 million babies have been aborted in America since the Supreme Court decided a woman has that right. But a right that wasn’t attached to the ruling, was the right to grieve.

No one wants to hear a woman go on and on about how old the baby would be today, or listen to her wonder about what he or she would look like. But it is acceptable, even embraced when a child whose name was given, picture was taken and body was cuddled, to be grieved in death.

Many will argue that the woman has no right to grieve since she was the one who aborted the baby. Well, actually a doctor aborted the baby and in the vast majority of circumstances it was under pressure by a third party. But that aside, why is she not allowed to accept the fact that her baby was killed in utero, and it is a great loss to her now?

Grieving is a natural process of loss, and the loss of a child through abortion is just as real as losing one in life… even though the grieving is alone and without support from others.

I challenge these grieving mothers to let their baby’s death count for something, and warn other women considering abortion, of the pain they will bear for a life-time. It’s a cinch the abortion industry won’t.

Recently while in Korea we were asking someone the ages of a group of kids. The response was very unusual.

They gave their ages based on their birthday in Korea, and based on a birthday in America.

The dates were always a year apart. We thought it was because they were referring to the Chinese calendar. But they told us that in their country a child is a year old the day they are born because they consider them to be a viable human being the minute they are conceived.

So they count the time in the womb as though it was time outside the womb. With just this little distinction, they are speaking volumes about the worth and value of each of these children.

It’s as though kids in the West are irrelevant, ignored, and expendable before they take that first breath. Maybe if we looked at an unborn child, no matter what age in the womb, as a fully developed, viable fellow human being, then the abortion problem would solve itself.

It was humbling to know that each one of those Korean children was loved and appreciated from the moment their parents knew they had been conceived. How fortunate for them.

The Attorney General’s office of Colorado, has bought into the sexist, discriminating, homosexual agenda.. They say that a man … who dresses as a woman, has a right to use the ladies’ room.

Does that include a peeping Tom, rapist, or any man who decides to put on a dress and invade the privacy of women in her private space?

The homosexual movement has become a very clever excuse to destroy women’s rights and the gains they have made.

But the real inconsistency is that this office will stand firmly behind the Supreme Court decision to allow a woman to have an abortion . . . based on a penumbra . . .or shadow of the law …. that says her right to privacy supercedes the right for that child to be born.

Shouldn’t that same right to privacy supercede the right of some guy in a dress, pretending to be a woman, to invade that privacy?

Why is the right to murder an unborn child in the woman’s best interest but her interests are ignored in other areas of privacy?

Women have become the expendable pawns of the abortion industry and the homosexual community, who are determined to destroy everything sacred to them, from their marriage, to their family, to their unborn children. If you agree .. .or not… let us know at ninamay.com.

Choose Life are Offensive … So Choose Death Wouldn’t Be?

There was a controversy in Florida over allowing a license plate that said, “Choose Life.” Apparently it was considered offensive by people who tried to get it censored.

You know, the same people who drive around in designer cars with those little bumper stickers that say, “don’t censure the arts”, “Buchanan is a Fascist” and “no Internet blocking in libraries”. But what is offensive about Choosing life?

Would they be happier if it read, choose a gun? Choose a cigarette? Choose a knife, drugs, death or mayhem?

This really is not a controversial word … this word “life.” We all tend to cling to it rather tenaciously. But when you pair it up with the politically exploited word “choose”… it becomes lethal.

But it’s all relative.

If you ask someone from FSU, which they would rather have on their car. .. a “Choose Life” license plate or a “Go Gators” license plate, they would choose “life” every time. But I think what is really at the heart of this controversy is just plain old fashioned jealousy.

The pro-abortion people are upset that no one wants to drive around with a license plate that says… choose abortion, death, murder or infanticide.

Recently on 20/20, journalist John Stossel listed a series of intrusive laws into peoples lives — everything from how eggs are prepared to what music should be played to infants.

It was decided that the justification for intruding on private behavior is to protect us from making unwise choices. But of all the unwise choices that were not mentioned… from choosing not to fasten a seat belt to choosing to eat fatty foods… was the unwise choice of abortion.

This somehow has slipped under the radar of the thought and action police. Suddenly, they think that women of all ages, should be spared from any government intrusion when making this devastating life-changing decision.

But these same girls would be given a ticket for not wearing a seat belt or disconnecting an air bag. The government looks the other way when it comes to abortion.

There is a huge inconsistency here that needs to be reconciled… otherwise we should base all government rules intruding in the privacy of individuals on Roe vs. Wade and tell the government it has no right passing any laws that deal with what we do, or don’t do, with our own bodies.

It was interesting to see in the Washington Times, on October 18, two articles juxtaposed to each other.

Actually one was an ad informing people that partial birth abortion is not a partisan issue… that democrats are just as concerned about protecting the life of the unborn as republicans. And the other was an article about the incredible outrage, by animal rights activists, that the hair of a Chiru is being woven into shawls for the rich and beautiful.

The hair… mind you, not the hide.

The protestors estimate that 4,000 are killed per year. But it is counter-intuitive to believe that this number of slaughters really occur… it’s like killing the goose that laid the golden egg. They are only after the hair… or wool equivalent if it was a sheep.

How many shepherds kill their sheep after sheering them? But even if it is 4,000, how does that compare to 1.5 million human babies killed each year, just in America.

Oh, I know… we have 6 billion people… we can afford to slaughter a few million . . . we aren’t endangered after all.

Well, yes we are. When we put more value on animals than on human life… we have become the endangered species.

In National Geographic’s kids magazine, there is an article about the plight of many baby sea turtles.

They say that law enforcement officials have seized enough illegal sea turtle items from international travelers to fill the shelves of a government crime lab in Ashland, Oregon. They also say, “Some people pay a lot of money for sea turtle parts and products such as stuffed turtles, turtle eggs, turtle-shell jewelry, turtle steaks .. . and turtle shell guitars. The high demand [of turtle parts] could easily result in the extinction of sea turtles.”

It’s too bad there aren’t articles in children’s magazine’s about people paying a lot of money for human baby parts in abortion clinics. One brochure advertising body parts boasts that, “We have over ten years experience in tissue harvesting and preservation.”

And although it is a federal crime to sell human flesh, they get around it by saying it is donated. Couldn’t we conclude that the turtles then, “donated” their shells, and body parts? Are butchered and dissected turtles really of more concern to our government than butchered and dissected human beings? And is this what we are teaching the children who survive this holocaust?