Spare Us The Outrage

Separating families at the border is heartbreaking, but it first takes a heart to break.

If there is one thing that gets me about this whole debate with the children being separated at the border from their parents, it is the crocodile tears, the lack of self-awareness, or a combination of the two that has sprung forth in the process.

A good, over-all representative example is this:

It is quite rich that an organization that, despite its claims, is in the business of putting babies to death, thinks they have any leg to stand on to be outraged in this situation. I could say the same for those who champion the baby killing the rest of the time, decry parenthood in general, look down on children as a cancer to be eradicated, but all of a sudden they have a heart for parents and their children.

Of course it is heartbreaking, and of course it is sad. Even though the situation has been largely misreported - unwittingly or intentionally - it does not change the fact that the spectacle is sad and the practice is nothing to smile about. All that said, I am not going to sit here and nod along with an organization that would gladly bring death to those children if they were in their mothers wombs instead of crying due to their families being detained and separated.

I am neither going to sit here and write a fire breather of a piece about how we must enforce the law and may the emotions be damned, nor will I write that the law and the practices stemming from it need to be completely upended. I am not going to entertain that the crying children are child actors, and I will not suggest that enforcing border laws and practices suggests we do not govern with heart (or at least with some morality). The situation is in some ways very simple, but in other ways complex.

What I will do, however, is suggest that, if you are feeling sad at the spectacle and practices going on at our border, consider also your outlook on family in general. So often we try to hide behind the guise of, "children are not for me," and for some, that may be true. However, our society is becoming increasingly hostile towards fathers, mothers, and their children, decides the nuclear family is an outdated model and tradition to be changed, sees childhood as a disease to be cured, and champions the killing of babies with this quasi-religious fervor masked as the most sacred of "women's rights." Honestly, I call B.S. on your outrage.

This is not a new practice, but people are becoming angry at this because they are only now becoming aware of it. Let's be real though: most of the ones crying Cory Booker-style tears of rage are only doing so because it is politically motivated, and not motivated by actual conviction. The thing is, folks who are arm-chair raging about this will move on in a few days. The ones who suddenly have hearts for families will go back to getting thigh sweats over abortion in quick order. Those who could not care less about faith or the faithful, on either side, who yet again use it as a bullwhip for their own agendas (sometimes satire says it best) will go right back to their God hating, Christian bashing ways as soon as they have made their point and can move on.

So, do me, and many others a huge favor, and spare us the outrage.

No. 1-25

A fetus is a human being. If you want to argue that it is not, please give it a try. Its DNA says it is a human being.

History is full of human beings being enslaved, tortured and killed with the excuse that "well, they're not really PEOPLE..." And the Left is trying to play that game with the unborn.

People like the "vet" simply invent definitions------a tactic essential to the Left, by the way-----and then smugly act as if their inventions carry the weight of fact. But they don't.

People who want to destroy human lives because they are inconvenient-----or, even more despicably, because this is a political issue-----are quite glib with their invented explanations of what is and what isn't, but it is all a game to them, a game of picking an agenda and then trying to form reality around it in a way that they think makes it seem reasonable.

We have seen the constantly shifting sands upon which the Left and its abortion supporters have based their invented criteria. It has been "from being outside the womb and breathing" but after a while we learned that babies intended to be aborted that were born, were outside the womb and breathing, were still being killed in the name of abortion. Hmmm. The criteria have shifted from breathing to being able to feel pain, and when we learn (through "science" , the kind the Left hates) that babies have personalities at very early stages of development, that they have brain function as well as heartbeats, that they feel pain, the Left just keeps moving the bar.

The Left has quite a laundry list of "isms" it finds abhorrent, at least when an "ism" is required for political reasons. Yet the slaughter of human beings excused by their age, by the number of days since they came into being, is the most vile and inexcusable form of ageism imaginable. But it's an "ism" the Left has redefined as acceptable, has promoted and even celebrated.


Infertility rates are not increasing.


I tell people we should abort teenagers, at that point you have a good idea of who they are, and the threat of potential death might help keep some of them in line. I love the look people get on their faces, the look of abhorrence. But killing that "fetus" is the same, you are killing the person they will become, there is no way around that. Abortion, in most cases, is a matter of convenience. One persons "convenience" over the rights of another. There is also the health issues, between abortion and promiscuity no wonder the infertility rates are increasing. The human body was not made for either.

What I'm also saying is that when someone actually WANTS a baby - it doesn't matter what the medical differences between a baby and a fetus are. They are invested. Of course it's a baby to them and if they have a miscarriage it will hurt like hell, it will feel like they lost a child because they had dreams for that child and had already invested a bit of their soul into it, but defining a medical term based on emotion is not how science works.

@SFletcher If I tell my insurance agency that I lost a Porsche in a house fire when I actually owned a VW Bug that's insurance fraud even though I can pretzel my way through arguing that it was designed by Ferdinand Porsche. It felt like a Porsche to me. A fetus is a fetus until it can survive outside the womb. To a parent it's not a matter of losing a child or losing a fetus. It's about losing the potential. The story they had envisioned. That's what hurts. Not some designation of child or fetus.