NOTE
Every year, around
January 22nd, I pen a piece about abortion; the slavery of today and
the latest testament to the Democrat Party’s long history of legislated
discrimination. To me, the abortion issue is THE MOST IMPORTANT Human Rights
issue today. It is, therefore, the most important political and legal issue of
our time.
To date (since January 22nd,
1973) America has murdered 61 million unborn children, all in the name of
“women’s reproductive rights”. If legalized abortion should last as long as
slavery, that number will rise to over 265 million.
I have to wonder whether,
in the 61 million so far, whether the scientist who would have put an end to
cancer was laid on that Socialist altar. Or perhaps a future President (indeed,
given the circumstances, it is VERY likely that, had Barack Obama been born
post-1973, HE would have been aborted). Perhaps Alzheimer’s or Huntington’s
would have been cured by now? How many Nobel laureates? How many Marie Curies
or Thomas Edisons? How many Harriet Tubmans, Abraham Lincolns or Frederick
Douglas’? How many Dr. Martin Luther Kings?
So, each year I pen a
piece in defense of life. But this year, instead of merely citing Human Rights
(a concept foreign to Democrats), I would like to offer a different perspective
on this horrific, inhuman, inhumane, issue…in terms that even a Democrat SHOULD
understand.
…but, deliberately, willfully, won’t.
To the
“pro-science”, Darwin types,
Perhaps
you can help me out with a dilemma. In Iceland, Down’s Syndrome (a genetic
anomaly characterized by an addition 23rd Chromosome) has been
nearly eliminated. How? Through selective abortion, of course ( https://www.cbsnews.com/news/down-syndrome-iceland/ ). In America, bills at
the state and federal level are continually introduced to allow for similar
legislation (along with other, selective, abortions); with the same “goal” in
mind. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2018/03/05/down-syndrome-babies-are-taking-center-stage-in-the-u-s-abortion-fight/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d196e6b13ced).
In fact,
Liberals in elected office, Planned Parenthood and in the “scientific
community” frequently discuss to use of selective, targeted abortion in order
to eliminate all manner of genetic anomalies.
…which
brings us to Darwin.
Assuming
you ACTUALLY know anything about Darwin’s work…
Can you
please explain to me how you know….KNOW…..that Down’s Syndrome (or ANY other
genetic anomaly) ISN’T a necessary genetic mutation; necessary, when acting in
conjunction with future genetic mutations, to the evolution of mankind? Or, in
keeping with Darwin’s theory of speciation, the evolution of mankind into a
more benevolent, non-Earth-destroying animal?
The development
of the eye still represents one of the great arguments against Darwin’s theory
of speciation (a theory which, BTW, Darwin, himself, believed would…and
COULD….never be proven). In order to possess a functioning eye, the following two
possibilities must have existed:
1. ALL parts of the eye
would have to have mutated simultaneously. At the very least:
a. The Cornea
b. The Aqueous Humor
c. The Schlera
d. The Iris
e. The Pupil
f. The Lens
g. The Pupillary Musculature
h. The Ciliary Body
i. The Chloroid
j. The Vitreous
k. The Retinal Pigmented
Epithelium
l. Trabecular Network
m. The Retina
n. The Optic Nerve
o. Bruch’s Membrane
p. Associated changes in the
skeletal structure, necessary to house the eye, the optic nerve, etc.
q. Photoreceptors (Rod and
Cone cells)
r. Associated areas of the
brain necessary to perceive and interpret signals sent by the Optic Nerve
2. OR….. Any one of these,
which would have to endure (genetically pass on) for countless generations
while other mutations occur. Meanwhile, these singularities would be useless.
Though this
is an example of another of Darwin’s theories, suppose, for a moment, that the
finches of Galapagos Island had been targeted by Liberals. Would there be the
diversity of beak shapes and sizes (diversity that, BTW, allows them to better
exist within their environment)? The rather obvious answer is: no. Any finch
with the genetic possibility of having a beak unlike the original finches would
be eliminated. Aborted. So, by using the Liberal mentality, natural selection
would be halted and finches would only have a single type of beak. Those
finches, because of Liberals, would fail to adapt; fail to evolve. I guess it’s
a good thing that those finches weren’t Iceland finches….
So, “pro-science”
Darwin worshipers: Can you explain how you know, for sure, that you are not
stopping the evolution of the human species? I would like to see your proof.
Sincerely,
Tim Hirota
Timothyhirota1@gmail.com
Post Script:
Once again, Liberals, in
Iceland and right here in America, are proving that the Parties HAVEN’T
“switched sides”. Liberals (Democrats) are, once again, suggesting that one (or
more) humans (this time, based on their genetics) are not fully human and are,
therefore, NOT entitled to the same protections under the law. This is EXACTLY
the argument that drove the continued legalization of slavery. With slavery,
race was the target. With abortion, stage of life is the target.
Democrats, through the
years, have targeted race MANY times (slavery, anti-Civil Rights, Affirmative
Action, etc). Democrats have targeted gender (anti-Suffrage), etc. If there is
a vulnerable segment of humanity, Democrats WILL target it at some point. One
day, age and infirmity will be their target (as we are seeing in, for example,
Oregon, with healthcare).
