26 February 2019

Do Liberals Love Animals More Than People?

If you read nothing else today, read this! The answer, of course, is a resounding, 'Yes, they do!'

From AKA Catholic

Animal RightsThough they would balk at the suggestion, most of us know at least one person that can reasonably be described as a liberal who loves animals more than people; a neighbor, a coworker, or perhaps even a family member or friend.
Here in the U.S. that person is overwhelmingly a card-carrying Democrat, a steadfast believer in manmade climate change, a Mother Earth-loving supporter of all things “green,” and a proponent of so-called same sex marriage and other LGBT initiatives.
That person is also most likely either an atheist, an agnostic or a worshiper of a “god” made in their own image and likeness; even perhaps while claiming some other religious affiliation.
Simply being exposed to one of those heart-wrenching ASPCA (American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) commercials on television will nearly bring such people to tears; understandably enough.
And yet, these same self-described “good persons” are unmoved by the brutality of abortion – the systematic dismemberment of an unborn human being – regardless of whether or not that defenseless person has developed well past the point of viability and the ability to experience pain. In fact, liberals of this ilk (that is, godless) are pleased to champion the murderous procedure – be it either directly or simply with their votes – under the guise of promoting so-called “reproductive health.”
More indicative of the deplorable state of these empty souls would be if they were to remain devoted to the cause now that it is perfectly plain that the abortion movement supports the coldblooded killing of newborn infants.
Yesterday, Democrats in the U.S. Senate moved to block the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act” – a bill that would have required “any health care practitioner present at the time the child is born alive” to:
Exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.
Consider how far we have fallen: If Democrats in the U.S. Senate – and their supports – were willing only to apply to health care practitioners in this case the same ethical principles that govern the behavior of those charged with caring for animals, they would unanimously approve a bill stating the following:
In emergencies, abortion providers/health care practitioners have an ethical responsibility to provide essential services for infants when necessary to save life or relieve suffering.An abortion provider/health care practitioner shall be influenced only by the welfare of the infant.
An abortion provider/health care practitioner should first consider the needs of the infant to prevent and relieve disease, suffering, or disability while minimizing pain or fear. An abortion provider/health care practitioner shall provide competent medical clinical care with compassion and respect for the infant’s welfare.
If there is an ongoing medical or surgical condition, the infant shall be referred to another health care practitioner for diagnosis, care, and treatment. The former attending abortion provider/health care practitioner shall continue to provide care, as needed, during the transition.
If there is evidence that the actions of the former attending abortion provider/health care practitioner have clearly and significantly endangered the health or safety of the infant, the new attending health care practitioner has a responsibility to report the matter to the appropriate authorities.
The above amounts to nothing more than a reasonable representation of the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act” that the Democrats opposed.
It also happens to be taken directly from the Principles of Veterinary Medical Ethics of the American Veterinary Medical Association; the only changes made to the text being the substitution of “abortion provider/health care practitioner” for veterinarian, and  “infants” for animals.
Is it really too much to ask that our lawmakers grant to defenseless, innocent, newborn infants the same level or care that we demand for our pets?
The liberals in our midst can balk all they want at the suggestion that they love animals more than people, but make no mistake; any who remain attached to the leftwing cause at this point have clearly made their choice.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments are subject to deletion if they are not germane. I have no problem with a bit of colourful language, but blasphemy or depraved profanity will not be allowed. Attacks on the Catholic Faith will not be tolerated. Comments will be deleted that are republican (Yanks! Note the lower case 'r'!), attacks on the legitimacy of Pope Francis as the Vicar of Christ (I know he's a material heretic and a Protector of Perverts, and I definitely want him gone yesterday! However, he is Pope, and I pray for him every day.), the legitimacy of the House of Windsor or of the claims of the Elder Line of the House of France, or attacks on the legitimacy of any of the currently ruling Houses of Europe.