SAN FRANCISCO WOMAN FREED AFTER KILLING TODDLERIn a decision from the 9th Circuit Court, a woman guilty of killing her one-year old male offspring has been released in a victory for Human Rights. Following the precedents of major Women's Rights cases such as Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) and Roe vs Wade (1973), the court found no valid argument for imprisoning a woman who decided to free herself from the slavery of a white-male parasite.
Nancy Smith, age 27, stabbed her one-year old toddler in the heart when he wouldn't stop crying. "I just could not take it anymore," she said with no regret. As a single mother after divorcing her ex-husband, George Smith, she was deep in debt from student loans and found the burden of a toddler unbearable. Her attorney, Hilary Sanger, successfully argued that "that toddler threatened her Constitutional Rights... It sucked the life out of Ms. Smith by its excessive crying, keeping up from sleep which has been clinically proven to be necessary. It also produced an undue burden financially that would only grow the longer she kept it." She provided studies that showed the estimated cost of raising a toddler to age 18 would be at least $1,000,000. "Since Ms. Smith was already deep in debt, it would escalate to the point beyond repayment. No only that, but the mere existence of the toddler limited her career options, proving to be an undue burden that threatened her Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness."
The DA, a white male from Silicon Valley, argued that the toddler should have been given to the father, who previously fought for custody after the divorce. However, precedents paved the way that the woman, who held the burden of carrying the fetus to term, should have the say in how its life is lived. This Right to Choose meant that even after the fetus was born, if she no longer wanted it, she could dispose of it. Ms. Sanger pointed out that if a woman could terminate a pregnancy by the 9th month, why should she be constrained because of going through the most painful experience? She continued to argue that a woman could complete an abortion even after it "fails" and the fetus emerges alive. This was supported by President Obama, who as a state senator, voted against a bill that would have prevented such an action because it would undermine Roe vs Wade. President Obama is currently being appointed to the Supreme Court by President Hilary Clinton.
The DA tried to argue that the toddler was a person and had a right to live. The defense scored another victory by proving that even in conservative philosophy, a child is not able to reason until age 5. Also, by reminding the court that the toddler could not vote or serve on a jury, it could not be considered a citizen. It was only a burden to the client and society, taking tax dollars which could be better spent on college scholarships and nature preservation projects. The closest the toddler could be considered being a person is 1/18th of one as it would take another 17 years before it could perform any services. Since 1/18th is not even close to 1, then the toddler was not a person...
End of Fictional Story
Start of Opinion Piece
Start of Opinion Piece
Now this is prediction and such a case may not go entirely like that. However, I do beg the question, "How do you fight against this?" When a child can be killed even after being born alive, which the issue has been brought up many times but shot down, how can we prevent murder of toddlers when they are considered "inconvenient"? There are still some barriers as some members of Congress and some State Legislatures fight for the protection of those still in the womb. Unfortunately, the U.S. Democratic party is strictly in favor for abortion, as stated by the party platform and one thing it appears very united on.
So what arguments do I have for against abortion? First, something you must know is that women do require love and support, especially when caring for a child. Therefore, the debate actually stems to the current culture attacking true love. Husbands should be caring for their wives and be fully loving at all times. Children create a very strong bond for married couples to stay together and exercise their love. Those who father children should not be freed of their responsibilities. Yes, abortion and contraception was actually a trick in order that men could free themselves from having to love a woman. After all, by having abortions and contraception, they think they can hide their adulterous acts. Abortion doesn't free women from men, it enables males to avoid being men.
You may have noticed many of the tactics I placed in that article. The biggest thing was the personhood of a child. In order for this to be considered a "Human Rights" victory, the child would have to be declared "Not Human". Hence, the pronoun used was "It" which describes objects. This is appropriate because children have become considered objects rather than living things. This mentality exists in Human Trafficking, the artificial creation of children, and even in adoption in some cases (which is why adoption agencies can be strict about who can adopt).
A question we must ask ourselves is "At what point did we become human?" Is it when we are born? Then how about those babies who were born alive as part of the abortion procedure? What about those after 6 months of being in the womb? A baby born after 6 months can survive and grow up if taken care of. I actually know someone with that situation.
Another heavy question is "What gives us the right to say who can live?" We were all embryos and fetuses, and we were all given the opportunity to live. How can we deny that? We were in that situation and were given the right to live.
There is a joke where someone asks God, "If you are so great, why haven't you sent us someone to cure cancer?" and God replies, "I did. You killed her in an abortion." When you consider how many great figures in history were unwanted or unexpected children (including Jesus for Christians), you can't help but wonder how many more great people were killed through an abortion.
In terms of politicians and their stances, if they support abortion, which would mean the death of the defenseless and those who need support the most, why should they care to defend you? The inconvenient truth here is that they just want your votes for power.
The current situation is that the courts continually recently strike down laws that attempt to restrict abortions. Things will only get worse as the next president can possibly appoint 4 Supreme Court justices. Hilary has already stated that she thinks it would be a great idea to appoint Obama, and we know his position on babies born alive being killed (as well as how big of a liar he is when he's campaigning thanks to information revealed by his Campaign Manager). Now do I approve of any of the Republicans? Not really but I am curious about Carly Fiorina, but she also needs to clean up her campaign a bit if she want to win. On the other hand, at least I can have more faith that she won't appoint people who will legalize murder of children. If a woman president, I would definitely prefer her over Hilary. We cannot trust Hilary who wants all restrictions on abortions removed and also expressed dissatisfaction with a Supreme Court ruling that upheld the ban of partial-birth abortion in 2007.
N. D. Moharo
P.S. I did not write this piece with the intent of condemning just Hilary Clinton, but all presidential candidates who support abortion. I just know more about Hilary than the others.