 |
| Cecile Richards, CEO Planned Parenthood |
"It could be one of the most perplexing awards ever given. Big Abortion ambassador and former Planned Parenthood CEO, Cecile Richards recently received a HUMAN RIGHTS award.
That’s right – the woman who we told you presided over the murders of over 3.5 million innocent babies in her 12 year tenure was named the most recent recipient of the Hubert H. Humphrey Civil and Human Rights Award by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.
Apparently the rights of those millions of lives she helped take away – some whose body parts Planned Parenthood then reportedly sold for profit under her leadership – didn’t count.
This award would be laughable, except there’s nothing funny about it."
-- American Center for Law & Justice
Note to the reader: This is an emotional subject and, as hard as I might try, my mind continues to move faster than good sense. I was reminded of this shortcoming and have added a couple of "addendums" at the end of this post (in italics) to try and clarify what I think, everyone will agree, was rightly pointed out.
Cecile Richards; have you heard about this piece of work? Well, look upon the face of evil! Ask yourself why a segment of civilized society looks favorably on the treacherous murder of the innocent; the wholesale slaughter of our future. There is money to be made in murdering the unborn and selling their flesh. Why are you silent? Why aren't you raging against the dying of their light, their beautiful, unborn, innocence? What really chaps my heinie about the CEO of this particular "final solution" is how much she looks like Julie Andrews.
Personally, I've learned to get over people who chap my heinie, I desperately try not to judge, but there is a special place in hell for people who murder children and, thank God, Julie Andrews isn't one of them. Cecile Richards, on the other hand, is more than halfway to the 6 million Jewish deaths of men, women, and children, overseen by the Nazi regime. I'm certain she is proud, and has a multitude of baseless reasons (re: excuses), as did the Nazis. At the risk of painting everyone with the same broad brush, I feel that anyone excusing genocide, neonaticide, and inexcusable abortions, are co-conspirators to approving mass murder. Making as mistake is not a valid reason. Sorry, no "Get out of Hell Free" card for you, Cecile. Enjoy the weenie roast!
Cecile Richards; have you heard about this piece of work? Well, look upon the face of evil! Ask yourself why a segment of civilized society looks favorably on the treacherous murder of the innocent; the wholesale slaughter of our future. There is money to be made in murdering the unborn and selling their flesh. Why are you silent? Why aren't you raging against the dying of their light, their beautiful, unborn, innocence? What really chaps my heinie about the CEO of this particular "final solution" is how much she looks like Julie Andrews.
Personally, I've learned to get over people who chap my heinie, I desperately try not to judge, but there is a special place in hell for people who murder children and, thank God, Julie Andrews isn't one of them. Cecile Richards, on the other hand, is more than halfway to the 6 million Jewish deaths of men, women, and children, overseen by the Nazi regime. I'm certain she is proud, and has a multitude of baseless reasons (re: excuses), as did the Nazis. At the risk of painting everyone with the same broad brush, I feel that anyone excusing genocide, neonaticide, and inexcusable abortions, are co-conspirators to approving mass murder. Making as mistake is not a valid reason. Sorry, no "Get out of Hell Free" card for you, Cecile. Enjoy the weenie roast!
"Your eyes are too pure to approve evil, And You cannot look favorably on wickedness. Why then do You look favorably On those who act treacherously? Why are you silent when the wicked (Chaldean oppressors) destroy Those more righteous than they?"
-- Habakkuk 1:13
Giving this waste of humanity the Hubert H. Humphrey Civil and Human Rights Award is worse than giving Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize for doing - nothing! How much did it cost him? Did she buy her award, as well? Good moral sense would dictate that either someone paid for it, or the members of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights equally sociopathic or really clueless? Where are the civil rights for these children? Where are the human rights for those who cannot, yet, speak for themselves? A special place in hell? I say, yes!
Karma: An eternity of being murdered minutes before you're reborn, or the constant whispers of 3 million unborn voices haunting your mind until you break. Cecile Richards is not for me to judge, however, even though it seems I have done just that. I am only human, after all. No, I must cede that task of judgement to the deity she seems to deny by her very heresy.
Confusing for me, however, is the current outrage, especially by supporters of this affront to human rights and moral decency, over children being separated from parents who cross into our country illegally. Really? This is what outrages them? They feel nothing for the 3 million murdered babies and the selling of their flesh, but this border bullshit is what they find upsetting? I find their soul seriously wanting, on several levels.
The following (in italics) are addendums to the original post which left out several salient points which it was felt, and rightly so, I should clarify:
Addendum 1: Having said all of this, I am being reminded of "special circumstances" which are out of a woman's control. Reminders from readers are probably a good thing, as I tend to overlook what I consider obvious to everyone else, especially when a subject is emotional for me. The safety of the mother and the health of the child are good considerations when weighing an abortion. Rape is a situation where there is no reason to wait on a decision any longer than the next day to take a "morning after" pill, and certainly no reason to wait until the definition of life has been reached.
Personally I have no issue with abortion for a morally acceptable cause, if any cause which approves the death of a child can be morally acceptable to people of good conscience. Women who have multiple abortions, well, my opinion as to what should be done for their lack of responsibility would seem as horrific as their decision to continue murdering children at will. The minute you excuse the sale of tissue from these children does it become easier to find cause for more sacrifice? How broad is the definition of unhealthy and unwanted? Is the fox guarding the hen house? Considering the issues we see Planned Parenthood constantly grappling with, I'd say yes. It is certainly presents enough evidence that, perhaps, the award was ill-advised.
Addendum 2: I'd also like to add that, from my earliest "opinions" on abortion, I have felt the subject of was the purview of women. Men have no point of reference. We are great at being fathers, but can we really have a concept of what goes through a woman's mind when it comes to childbirth? As for me, I have never felt comfortable trespassing on property which I have always considered private to others, and this subject, this decision, for me, has always belonged to women. It was when late term abortion became a topic of concern that I finally woke up to some moral meat that I, as a man, could sink my teeth into. This was soon followed by the harvesting of stem cells and the money to be made "farming" fetal tissue.
People say that absolute power corrupts absolutely. It was not a long stretch for me to see that when you have the power of life over death, and the real money was found in choosing death, it would be easy for this power to corrupt even the most righteous, to some extent, especially when an immoral segment of our society ensured the legality of it was maintained.
Addendum 3: I hope this softens my condemnation, to some extent. I understand what I wrote seemed to condemn all women with the same broad brush, which was not my intent, and I am aware my emotions often times are reflected in my writings even when I try to temper said emotions with good sense. When it comes to murdering innocence for no good, righteous reason, my good sense is replaced with a mouth which my mother said would always get me into trouble. She rarely is wrong. I do try to recognize when I have erred, and my apologies to any of you I may have offended. I do ask, however, that you revisit your reasoning and ensure it is, in fact, reasoning with which you can look yourself in the eye and say you have no moral issues in claiming ownership.
Karma: An eternity of being murdered minutes before you're reborn, or the constant whispers of 3 million unborn voices haunting your mind until you break. Cecile Richards is not for me to judge, however, even though it seems I have done just that. I am only human, after all. No, I must cede that task of judgement to the deity she seems to deny by her very heresy.
Confusing for me, however, is the current outrage, especially by supporters of this affront to human rights and moral decency, over children being separated from parents who cross into our country illegally. Really? This is what outrages them? They feel nothing for the 3 million murdered babies and the selling of their flesh, but this border bullshit is what they find upsetting? I find their soul seriously wanting, on several levels.
The following (in italics) are addendums to the original post which left out several salient points which it was felt, and rightly so, I should clarify:
Addendum 1: Having said all of this, I am being reminded of "special circumstances" which are out of a woman's control. Reminders from readers are probably a good thing, as I tend to overlook what I consider obvious to everyone else, especially when a subject is emotional for me. The safety of the mother and the health of the child are good considerations when weighing an abortion. Rape is a situation where there is no reason to wait on a decision any longer than the next day to take a "morning after" pill, and certainly no reason to wait until the definition of life has been reached.
Personally I have no issue with abortion for a morally acceptable cause, if any cause which approves the death of a child can be morally acceptable to people of good conscience. Women who have multiple abortions, well, my opinion as to what should be done for their lack of responsibility would seem as horrific as their decision to continue murdering children at will. The minute you excuse the sale of tissue from these children does it become easier to find cause for more sacrifice? How broad is the definition of unhealthy and unwanted? Is the fox guarding the hen house? Considering the issues we see Planned Parenthood constantly grappling with, I'd say yes. It is certainly presents enough evidence that, perhaps, the award was ill-advised.
Addendum 2: I'd also like to add that, from my earliest "opinions" on abortion, I have felt the subject of was the purview of women. Men have no point of reference. We are great at being fathers, but can we really have a concept of what goes through a woman's mind when it comes to childbirth? As for me, I have never felt comfortable trespassing on property which I have always considered private to others, and this subject, this decision, for me, has always belonged to women. It was when late term abortion became a topic of concern that I finally woke up to some moral meat that I, as a man, could sink my teeth into. This was soon followed by the harvesting of stem cells and the money to be made "farming" fetal tissue.
People say that absolute power corrupts absolutely. It was not a long stretch for me to see that when you have the power of life over death, and the real money was found in choosing death, it would be easy for this power to corrupt even the most righteous, to some extent, especially when an immoral segment of our society ensured the legality of it was maintained.
Addendum 3: I hope this softens my condemnation, to some extent. I understand what I wrote seemed to condemn all women with the same broad brush, which was not my intent, and I am aware my emotions often times are reflected in my writings even when I try to temper said emotions with good sense. When it comes to murdering innocence for no good, righteous reason, my good sense is replaced with a mouth which my mother said would always get me into trouble. She rarely is wrong. I do try to recognize when I have erred, and my apologies to any of you I may have offended. I do ask, however, that you revisit your reasoning and ensure it is, in fact, reasoning with which you can look yourself in the eye and say you have no moral issues in claiming ownership.
Editor's Note
(Re: disclaimer cum "get out of jail free" card)
Before you go getting your panties in a bunch, it is essential to understand that this is just an opinion site and, as such, can be subjected to scrutiny by anyone with a differing opinion. It doesn't make either opinion any more right or wrong than the other. An opinion, presented in this context, is a way of inciting others to think and, hopefully, to form opinions of their own, if they haven't already done so. This is also why, occasionally, I will present an "opinion" just to stir an emotional pot. Where it may sound like I agree with the statements made, I'm more interested in getting others to consider an alternate viewpoint.
It is my fervent hope that we keep open and active minds when reading opinions and while engaging in peaceful and constructive discussion, in an arena of mutual respect, concerning those opinions put forth. After over twenty years with military intelligence, I have come to believe engaging each other in this manner and in this arena is the way we will learn tolerance and respect for differing beliefs, cultures, and viewpoints.
We all fall from grace, some more often than others; it is part of being human. God's test for us is what we learn from the experience, and what we do afterward.
Pastor Tony spent 22 years with United States Air Force Intelligence as a planner, analyst, briefer, instructor, and senior manager. He spent 17 years, following his service career, working with the premier, world renowned, Institutional Review Board helping to protect the rights of human subjects involved in pharmaceutical research. Ordained 1n 2013 as an "interfaith" minister, he founded the Congregation for Religious Tolerance in response to intolerance shown by Christians toward peaceful Islam. As the weapon for his war on intolerance he chose the pen, and wages his "battle" in the guise of the Congregation's official online blog, The Path, of which he is both author and editor. "The Path" offers a vehicle for commentary and guidance concerning one's own personal, spiritual, path toward peace and the final destination for us all. He currently resides in Pass Christian, Mississippi, where he volunteers as lead Chaplain and Chaplain Program Liaison, at the regional medical center.
No comments:
Post a Comment
You may find it easier to choose "anonymous" when leaving a comment, then adding your contact info or name to the end of the comment.
Thank you for visiting "The Path" and I hope you will consider following the Congregation for Religious Tolerance while on your own path.