August 10, 2014

When Did Abortion Become a Popularity Contest?

It seems like every time I pull up Twitter or Facebook the death of innocent children is floating atop my newsfeeds. No, I’m not talking about the horrific acts of mutilation the Islamic terrorist organization ISIS or Hamas are committing right now in the Middle East. These crimes against human rights are unfolding here in the United States. And for what? The sake of blog hits,  fame, and pleasure.

We’ve known for decades now that abortion is a huge money-maker. But now the pre-meditated slaughter of the unborn is being used as leverage to launch writing careers and stardom by documenting abortions in headline articles, you tube videos and Hollywood movies.

Recently,  Jenny Kutner penned, “I’m Having an Abortion this Weekend” for Salon.com. As the title expresses, Kutner planned to have an abortion on Saturday, August 2nd. According to the article, she wrote because, “when I went looking for other women’s stories, they were all about the aftermath. What about the week before?” Contrary to what a quick skimming reader would think, Kutner is not a desperate young woman reaching out for help and support. No, conveniently Kutner is an editorial assistant for Salon.

Then there was the movie “Obvious Child” that attempted to reconcile the killing of the unborn with Hollywood comedy featuring actress Jenny Slate. Courtney Obrien over at Townhall reported that, “Slate told [TV hosts] Hoda and Kathie Lee that the message of the film is, ‘Everyone, male or female, should make choices that are good for them.’ She never mentioned abortion, yet reiterated that the film is a ‘romantic comedy.”

Back in May, 25 year-old Emily Letts filmed her abortion procedure. Posted on YouTube, Letts wanted to show that abortion was a “positive” experience. Thankfully, YouTube has since removed Letts’ video. But according to Slate.com, on film Letts declared, “I don’t feel sad. I feel in awe of the fact that I can make a life.”

That’s right, women are gifted with the tremendous opportunity and responsibility to create and birth life. But instead women are choosing to destroy life without cause or care for the dignity and justice of her unborn baby. Each of these young women’s sad documentaries of death are examples  of continuing efforts in America to destigmatize abortion. But let’s call it what it is: downplaying the loss of life.

Each one of these is a reminder to every follower of Christ-conservative or self-described progressive-that we must keep speaking up for the innocent and the vulnerable. It doesn’t come any more marginalized than 4,000 unborn deaths per day in America.

How far from God  can we be when the life givers of this earth destroy that life for the sake of popularity, money,and privilege? Our society is no more progressive than the ancient Aztecs who murdered children for the sake of ritualistic sacrifice to appease their idols. Our only difference is we are sacrificing children to appease our selves.


 

21 Responses to When Did Abortion Become a Popularity Contest?

  1. MarcoPolo says:

    I really don’t think those individuals are having abortions for “popularity” reasons. They may already be popular, and are acting on their own as they see fit, but FOR popularity? I think not!

    For the record, when is the unborn baby of any woman, the responsibility of anyone other, than that woman?

    I respect your opinion regarding death. There’s enough of that happening in every corner of the world, for a multitude of reasons. But when it comes to the sovereignty of the American female, the ensconced legal right to abort should be solely her decision.

    Parenting is the single most responsible life choice anyone can make.
    If the person, or persons cannot make the necessary commitments to raising their child, wouldn’t you agree that it is better to NOT bring another human being into the world?

    • the_enemy_hates_clarity says:

      MarcoPolo, why chose death?

      • MarcoPolo says:

        Because continuing a pregnancy that is unwanted is tantamount to ensuring that the eventual offspring would possibly face worse conditions than being aborted at the start of it’s journey.
        Not every woman that gets pregnant wants to go full term with a condition that is undesired.

        Why is it so difficult to accept that some babies won’t be brought to fruition?
        The zygote has no concept of itself, and thusly has yet to reach a viable state of existence….just my opinion.

        I know, I’m damned to Hell for even thinking like that, but if I had been aborted, I’d have never known!
        …So no big deal!

        Not to forget that the planet isn’t going to be able to sustain itself with more people on it. Enough already!

        • Girtupyourloins says:

          Marko, please search You Tube for “George Carlins save the planet”
          No one gets to the heart of pagan/enviro propaganda than he does.
          Main jist is IF man evolved from this planet, then like everything else (comets, giant asteroids, plate techtonics/world flood/ world freeze etc) the planet can take care of itself.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            I believe you’re right about our planet’s ability to recover.

            But during [this] period, where Man is proliferating in such large numbers, the Earth will be strained to the breaking point if we continue with our wasteful ways. Especially if the rest of the world desires to emulate the American lifestyle of heavy consumerism.

            George Carlin always seemed to be the latter-day Prophet who spoke the Truth. Of course, he wasn’t the most religious guy either. But that didn’t matter, as the Truth is always the Truth!

            Good point, Girtupyourloins!

      • Girtupyourloins says:

        Why? Read his post that follows. Marco is a Marxist/Enviro Pagan. gaia is his true goddess. He knows there are couples that would adopt the babies that are sacrificed. But that puts value on Gods greatest creation. The part of His creation He can attain intimacy with. The Marxist/Enviro Pagan knows “better” than the masses…and God. They tout science, but know nothing of it. If they did they would be searching for truth. Just as with the pre-christian earth, life will be cheapened to less than an animal. And slaughter we be condoned. Hey it worked for Mao and Stalin.

        • MarcoPolo says:

          I’m never surprised by the emotional reaction that comes from those who are staunch in their religion.

          So, gir-D-upyourloins (notice the correct spelling?)…
          You’re expecting every woman that becomes pregnant, (but who doesn’t want to be pregnant), to endure nine months of physiological and psychological demands, just for someone else? That’s crazy!!
          Not every woman wants to be, or needs to be a mother!

          If you don’t agree with the freedom of choice that American women possess, then what freedoms DO you allow women to have?

          And the Gaia theory isn’t a religion with a Goddess, but a sound science for understanding that EVERYTHING is dependent upon everything else, when it comes to Biomes and global ecosystems.

          If it makes you feel better to label me, you are “getting warmer”. But you forgot, Hippie!
          After all, “What’s wrong with Peace, Love and Understanding?”

          • Girtupyourloins says:

            “Staunch religion” like say “97% of “scientist” believes in global
            warming” Oh that kind of religion?

            Sorry Sammy-spell check; “Girt” from middle anglish “to wrap
            around”.

            Marky to hear once again the bilge your type fostered on the American female reminds me of the cartoon in a men’s magazine which showed a “hippie” taking off his tied dyed jeans and the cute young girl with the Indian bandana unbuttoning her blouse and saying “Tell me again how this will end the war?”

            Your sexual revolution was supposed to be about sexual freedom. But the only party that got the freedom was the men. The girls and women were stuck with a higher percentage of VD and the heart breaking decision of being with child. Your flippant approach to a woman’s pregnancy shows you do not give a hoot about their condition. “Needs” to be a mother” Who in the heck made this jack*ss
            assessment? YOU!
            You cannot begin to understand how a woman suffers whether giving up her baby, killing it, or
            keeping it in less that optimum circumstances. There are places in this country you know, church programs that are ready and able to adopt and really care for these women. And never forget my friend there is a Third Party in this mix;
            Read Psalm 139:13

            Your goal my misguided flower child is earth worship, global warming hysteria, and rejection of modern farming techniques all to reduce the human population. Somehow your ilk thinks the world is overpopulated. When you could give every man woman and child on this planet an acre of land and STILL not cover the land area of North America.

            F= ma, PV = nRT, F = n*m2-m2/r2-r1 THAT is science, the Christian version of curse. Provable. Verifiable. Repeatable. In short Truth. Not some trumped up regurgitated old world
            paganism, like Gaia. Which you need of course, in order to fill the emptiness of an exhausted hedonist life. Getting closer now Marko?

          • MarcoPolo says:

            I’m glad I can offer some entertainment for you, Girdyourloin.

            The STD issue you mentioned didn’t just affect the women, but also the men…so your point is moot.

            I make no apologies for my respect and yes, worship of our home planet. It needs our support and defense, so don’t think that you can disrespect it, or anyone else who adores it.
            All living things depend upon it, so try and allow for some reverence, regardless of whether you worship it or not.

            You sound like an angry person, so I will do my best to quell any anxiety that might come to you regarding anything I write. That’s the least I can do for my brother who’s in distress over what seems to be a WOMEN’s issue, and NOT a man’s issue.

            I’ve known numerous women who have had to make the decision to either abort, or carry to term, and yes, the decision is not an easy one, but it is THEIR decision, and not yours!

          • Thomas says:

            No, its not their decision. No one has the right to take another persons life, born or unborn, specially a mother. Male parents have no role or any right to say about abortion! It seems that babies are concieved by women themselfs. You`re a troll genius! An award and a ban for this imbecile.

          • Thomas says:

            What about “freedom of choice” for the women who are forced to abort by her parents, husbands, partners? You don`t care about it, because you just want abortion to happen all the time. Its a very profitable business, it earns millions of dollars every year but fortunately we are winning the war against abortion and in defense of human life and human dignity.

        • Thomas says:

          He`s more a moron than anything else.

          • Girtupyourloins says:

            He has alot of company Tom. And St Paul kinda coined it:

            “Professing themselves
            to be wise they became fools…and worshiped the creature rather than the Creator.”
            I am really stunned at how quickly our culture is decaying into a pagan worship.

    • Thomas says:

      You`re obviously a troll, repeating always the same rubbish. Science already proved without margin for any doubt that life begins at conception. The real right to choose is to choose to have a pregnancy or not. Babies aren`t born by a woman`s own intention. There are so many people involved that its absurd to say that it only “concerns the woman”. But people like you simply follow your pal Goebbels and Obama that if you repeat the same lies over and over again there will be more people that would believe in it. There is no possible “choice” between abortion or life, the only morally acceptable choice is life. Of course for people like you a rat has more right to live than a unborn human being.

      • MarcoPolo says:

        I’m not repeating LIES, I’m repeating my opinion…which is still allowed if I’m not mistaken?

        From the articles that you’ve shared, and your personal thoughts regarding the moment Life begins, I respect your position. It’s just not the way I see it. And that’s my prerogative in spite of the points you’ve made. Personal freedom! An important thing for a free society!

        After birth, we all hope to live full and healthy lives, but getting born is entirely a gamble in many countries, and many women whose lives are further burdened by not being able to control their family size because of religious demands, or lack of contraception, these factors weigh heavily on the whole world.

        I’m not expecting you to agree with me. I just want you to know that I, (and millions of people), deserve the right to make these decisions for ourselves, without interference from those who believe differently.

        So, should I be so lucky as to be cognizant at the time of my eminent death, I would certainly want the power and Right to end my life when I choose.
        And of course, there is no guarantee that I’ll have any control over that, given the inherent risks that face us everyday.

        This should address your point about WHEN life begins and ends… at least for many of us.

        Life is certainly a Marvelous thing, (if it’s done right), but let’s not think that it’s a Miraculous event!

    • John S. says:

      If the responsibility of the unborn child rests solely with the woman then might I suggest a removal of others funds for abortion via public assistance or health insurance.

      Further, if the responsibility rests solely with the woman then a rewrite of support laws might be in order. If the health of the child is damaged in utero because of the actions of the mother can the state and community again be releived of any financial or other obligations to care for or treat the results of the mother’s actions? The short answer is no.

      In truth it is not the sole responsibility of the mother but rather impacts all and is aided directly or indirectly by all.

      • MarcoPolo says:

        Dear John S.

        Regarding the responsibilities and costs associated with an elective abortion, and your desire to cease any kind of financial support to the woman seeking said abortion… Is it any different than withholding funds for the children who are already born?

        The popular notion that we as a society should feel compelled to assist the poor and needy, aligns quite well with the Christian, (and most all religious) ethics.

        Our tax dollars are spent in ways that aren’t always agreeable with each tax payer’s religious beliefs, and thusly, we must come to an agreement for the “Greater Good”.

        Just as I’ve made it quite clear, that I prefer my tax dollars not go toward the proliferation of War, I’m not given THAT option, either!

        Furthering my point about over-population, the planet doesn’t need MORE people. Especially a population born by “parents” who didn’t want the baby from the moment of conception!

        A lot of Conservatives feel burdened by the millions of individuals that burden our social support system, yet with elective abortions, that problem is lessened before that “social burden” is even born.

        • John S. says:

          My point is not the cutting of funding but rather the error of “sole” responsibility. If you claim it, own it.

  2. Lephteez Arfoneez says:

    Feminism is anti-life, which would horrify the founding mothers like Susan B. Anthony, who were strongly pro-life and saw abortion for what it was – a benefit to no-commitment men, an encouragement for them to use and abuse women.

    Abortion really is “trendy” in a certain segment of the population. It does traumatize many women (the ones with a conscience), but the feminism ideology has stifled a lot of women’s consciences, and some talk about abortions as if they were not more significant than getting a mole removed. The obsession of being equal with men leads them to overlook the obvious: a man can go to prison for killing his unborn child, but a woman can do it with impunity – then get taken out to lunch by her friends who support “being in control of her own body,” which is ironic, since a woman in control of her own body would probably have mind enough to use birth control responsibly.

    Our pastor was quite correct: the deadliest ideology of the past century was not nazism or even communism, but feminism. It has poisoned everything.

  3. Michele Shoun says:

    One thing that Emily Letts and Jenny Kutner had in common was a desire to establish abortion “cred.” If I recall correctly, both women work in abortion clinics and up to the point of their writing, they had not had abortions. Both seemed to feel that having one would validate their work and “authenticity” as abortion counselors — which is extremely sad.

  4. Thomas says:

    “Science teaches that life begins at conception. If this truth is also affirmed by religions it does not therefore cease to be a strictly scientific truth to only become a debatable religious opinion. Whoever denies that life begins at conception doesn’t have an issue with religion but rather with science. To deny this certainty of biology is not an expression of a lack of faith, but rather a lack of an elementary knowledge of human genetics, or even worse, of simple general culture,” the doctors said.
    “No matter what name is given to this new human person,” they continued, “zygote, morula, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, newborn, infant, teenage, young person, adult, elderly, terminally ill…They are all denominations of the one and same human person in the different stages of development through which he or she passes.”
    Ecuadorian Federation of Societies of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 28 May 2008

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *